Dear NewsTip@KSL.com

There's been a lot of things in the news about bullying, school shootings, and the Violence Against Women Act.
I think that the VAWA should be extended to protect women's sons as well. There is a fair amount of research out there regarding the psychological effects of childhood trauma and neglect. It's not difficult for anyone interested in reading up on the subject to find academic research and professional research articles on the subject. For instance, you could start at http://violence.de, http://cirp.org, or Wikipedia. It's clear that the painful trauma and lifetime of deprivation of normal sexual sensitivity and physical pleasure have a devastating impact upon the mental health of the victims of sexual mutilations.

What's worse is that many judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials do not recognize infant genital mutilation as a sexual crime. If you think about it the right way, perhaps it appears that the bullies are pretending it's not criminal to torture other men's sons... They are still operating under the mistaken belief that they still have control over the availability of true and complete factual information concerning the anatomy and function of the male prepuce. They believe they can continue to manage people's perceptions of it, and continue to cause people to believe that "circumcision" is in some way beneficial. In reality, the word "circumcision" is a deprecated euphemism for the atrocity that is more accurately referred to as "genital mutilation."

Under the Utah Statutes, it is best described as "aggravated object rape of an infant that culminates in mayhem," Because it is perpetrated by a person in a special position of trust or authority, it becomes "aggravated." Because it involves penetration of a sexual opening (the opening at the end of the prepuce, which is the most sensitive part of the male sexual anatomy, the part they've been amputating and lying to us about), it is "object rape of a child." The child abuse statutes define "serious physical harm" in terms of permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal use of a body part. Thereby, the "circumcision" results in serious physical harm, and therefore the most severe penalty applies to those convicted of this despicable atrocity. It is often perpetrated under false pretenses, in that they are not truly providing complete and accurate information to those whom they solicit for the conspiracy to commit this crime; thus there is fraud involved as well.

I've written a number of articles concerning this subject, which yous will find on my blog. There are several letters there written to congress, and to the "Aids Coordinator", who reports to the US Secretary of State. In one article, I discuss how infant genital mutilations perpetrated in the United States are, in fact, crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I dare you to put an article about this on your front page.


Also note the recent decisions in Germany and Australia concerning the criminality of genital mutilation of infant males. There comes a time when we must look around us, observe the societal norms, and learn to conform with them. The Europeans don't "circumcise." The Swedes don't, the Germans don't, the French don't, the Finns don't, the Dutch don't... Russian's don't, the Chinese don't, and the Indian's don't. The majority of the world population views it as an abomination.

If it was justified to attack Iraq based upon the allegations that Saddam Hussein's regime gassed the Kurdish people, etc., and attacking Nazi Germany was justified based on the extermination of Jews there... Then certainly it would be easily possible to justify an invasion of the United States by citing the widespread and systematic practice of infant male genital mutilation. Therefore, it becomes a national security concern. The solution is simple. Stop torturing infants. Put the sex perverts that do that to them behind bars.

We do not need to pass any new laws. It's already illegal under existing laws. To pass a new law that explicitly legalizes that one specific form of mayhem, congress would be admitting that it's already illegal to do so. They can not, in good faith, pass a law that is so clearly in conflict with the primary body of laws concerning malum in se crimes against the person. Our State Constitution contains a clause that says "All laws of a general nature are to have uniform operation." There are no laws against stealing Buick's, Chevrolet's, Ford's, or Porche's, yet it's illegal to steal any one of those specific brands of automobile because of the general purpose laws that prohibit grand larceny. Clearly, the laws that prohibit object rape, child abuse, and mayhem must be applied uniformly. To not do so is unconstitutional.

I will be publishing this email as a blog entry. I'm looking forward to hearing from yous.

Karl Hegbloom