Saturday, May 28, 2022

Drag Queen Story Hour Harms Children Says Senator Rubio; Cancel All DQSH From All American Libraries

Drag Queen Story Hour harms children, says US Senator Marco Rubio.  The issue arose when Ramstein Air Base library advertised for "Drag Queen Story Hour" for children.  

The point here is that if children are harmed, then the activity is blocked by law from public libraries that requires library activities be for the use and benefit of the public (as I've previously reported), and the statements by a US Senator make clear Drag Queen Story Hour is harmful.  As such it violates library laws, so it is time to dismantle and preclude all such shows throughout American public libraries.  

Here are specific statements made by Senator Rubio showing Drag Queen Story Hour is harmful to children:
  1. "politically divisive event"
  2. "gross abuse of taxpayer funding to place children in a sexualized environment"
  3. "It is completely insane for Ramstein AFB to use on-installation resources for rituals like 'Drag Queen Story Time.'  These inappropriate events are extremely divisive at home for good reason; in all cases, they place young children in close proximity with adults who are intentionally and explicitly sexualized."
  4. "decisions over children and their bodies should be left to moms and dads serving our nation, not mediated through publicly funded propaganda on U.S. Air Force bases"
  5. "children are being exposed to sexually charged content"
  6. "extraordinarily divisive events involving the children of U.S. servicemembers"
So a US Senator now says Drag Queen Story Hour harms children.

The only obstacle to stopping DQSH grooming in public libraries is groomer librarians standing in the way claiming FReadom and inclusion.  Don't let them.  Treat them as one treats groomers giving out candy in a playground then providing smut.

Just to be very clear, there is no way librarians are not specifically targeting children for sexualization:
  1. Mainwaring, Doug. “Top US Library Group Colludes With Local Librarians to ‘Sneak’ LGBT Content to Kids.” LifeSite (blog), June 18, 2019.
  2. Pullmann, Joy. “21,460 Attend Library Conference Featuring Workshops On Drag Queens And Queering Elementary Schools.” The Federalist, July 10, 2019.
  3. Kraft, John, and Kirk Allen. “Dunlap Library District Punished Employees Who Reported Suspected Child Porn Viewing.” Illinois Leaks (blog), May 27, 2022.
  4. Rosiak, Luke. “Cops Probe After Middle School Librarian Allegedly Says Students Are ‘Sex Workers’ To Justify Pro-Prostitution Book.” The Daily Wire, May 28, 2022.
  5. Rosiak, Luke. “Texas Library Association Conference Features a Drag Queen and Ibram Kendi.” The Daily Wire, April 26, 2022 [NOTE: I am cited in this report].
  6.    Kleinman, Dan. “Brave Librarian Speaks Out as ALA Facilitates CHILD Porn.” SafeLibraries® (blog), January 21, 2017.
Back to Ramstein AFB, don't worry about the librarians there complaining they cannot sexualize children with Drag Queen Story Hour.  They will find other ways to target children, like with the "Gender Queer" book prominently displayed at the top of all others in the base library as shown in the graphic below, a book that is being removed from public schools due to the graphic displays including of a boy giving a Lewinsky to a man—and there's a direct reference to kink dot com, a BDSM site.  Indeed, a judge has ruled as obscene the very book most prominently displayed in the military base's library:

So while our military men and women are defending freedom, military base librarians are defiling their children.  Good thing the harmful DQSH indoctrination was stopped but it looks like the librarian groomers themselves need to be removed.  Don't feel guilty about stopping groomer librarians.  Just do it.

And expect librarians to play the guilt game, the inclusion game.  They are already doing it.  

As Libby Emmons reported, Melissa Kay @mellyliveshere from Ramstein Air Base said, "We're being forced to cancel all drag events on Ramstein due to a minority of people that have nothing to do with our base or community.  Inclusive my ass Air Force."  It's a minority of people who push sexualization of children in public libraries in the first place, not a minority who force cancellation of drag events—that's what most would do if they could.  Nice attempt at framing.  Setting that aside, notice she makes a plea for inclusiveness then uses it to hammer the US Air Force.  "Trans" inclusion has or should have nothing to do with the sexualization of children; only groomers argue otherwise.

In reality, librarians are anything but inclusive.  The call for inclusiveness is just another crow bar to slip in more sexualization of more children.  To demonstrate how librarians are anything but inclusive, see how black librarians where forced out of their jobs in libraries due to the racism that has been inherent in public libraries and the American Library Association from the beginning and that continues to this day. 

Notice even in that Library Journal article the emphasis was on mentoring, not deep-seated racism.  The real story was the inherent racism in librarianship driving black librarians out of the "profession," but Library Journal buried that lede because true inclusion is of no use to librarians, except to the extent it could be used as a cudgel.

No, librarians are not inclusive.  It's just more virtue signaling and more excuses to inure people to allowing librarians to sexualize children in libraries, or as Senator Marco Rubio put it, "intentionally and explicitly sexualized."

In summary, Drag Queen Storytime is harmful to children, even Senator Marco Rubio says so, and as such it is illegal in public libraries.  Librarians saying otherwise are groomers, the very people who should not only be ignored but actively removed from any position dealing with children. 


Emmons, Libby. “US Air Force Base Holds Drag Queen Story Hour For Kids.” The Post Millennial, May 24, 2022.
Howley, Patrick. “EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Air Force Base Hosts Drag Queen Story Time; What Is Going On?” National File (blog), May 24, 2022.
Johnston, Elizabeth. “Air Force Cancels ‘Drag Queen Story Time’ for Airmen’s Children At Germany Base.” Elizabeth Johnston (blog), May 27, 2022.
Lamb, Matt. “US Air Force Base Cancels Drag Queen Story Time After Public Outrage.” LifeSite (blog), May 27, 2022.
Levesque, Brody. “‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ Axed by USAF Base- Sen. Rubio Takes Credit.” Los Angeles Blade: LGBTQ News, Rights, Politics, Entertainment (blog), May 27, 2022.
RT World News. “US Base to Host ‘Drag Queens’ For Children; The Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany Has Announced a ‘Drag Queen Story Time’ Event.” RT International, May 24, 2022.
Rubio, Marco. “Air Force Cancels ‘Drag Queen Story Time’ for Kids After Rubio Demands.” U.S. Senator for Florida, Marco Rubio, May 27, 2022.
Vandiver, John. “Air Force Wing Nixes Drag Queen Reading Event for Children at Ramstein Library, Drawing LGBTQ Supporters’ Ire.” Stars and Stripes. Accessed May 27, 2022.

URL of this page:  
@marcorubio @RamsteinAirBase @usairforce

Sunday, May 22, 2022

Court Rules Gender Queer Obscene; Parents Forced By Schools to Seek Judicial Relief

"Gender Queer, A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe has been ruled "obscene for unrestricted viewing by minors" by Circuit Court Judge Pamela S. Baskervill, with the Order to Show Cause pictured at right.  (Natanson, "Va. Republicans Seek to Limit Sale of 2 Books in Barnes & Noble for 'Obscenity.'")  

School boards refusing to remove from schools books depicting or describing graphic child sex abuse material (CSAM) or the like has forced parents to seek judicial relief: "Parents have exercised their protest at the school boards and they are not being heard."  (Willis, "'Doesn’t Mean the Books Are Banned': Va. Judge Rules Pair of Books Obscene for Kids")

It is time to remove "Gender Queer" from public schools.  As Timothy Anderson put it, "There is no First Amendment right to distribute sexually explicit materials to minors."  (Natanson, "Va. Republicans Seek to Limit Sale of 2 Books in Barnes & Noble for 'Obscenity.'")

Here are a number of reliable sources on the topic:

Matter, Jacqueline. “Virginia Parents Who Want ‘Obscene’ Books Banned Plan to File Restraining Order Against Barnes & Noble.” FOX 5 DC, May 20, 2022.

Morris, Andrea. “‘Major Legal Victory’: VA Judge Rules Gender Identity Books Too Obscene for Minors.” CBN News, May 21, 2022.

Natanson, Hannah. “Va. Republicans Seek to Limit Sale of 2 Books in Barnes & Noble for ‘Obscenity.’” The Washington Post, May 20, 2022, sec. Local Education.

Nester, Alex. “Parental Advisory: Court Rules ‘Gender Queer’ Novel Too Sexually Explicit for Schools.” The Washington Free Beacon (blog), May 20, 2022.

Nightingale, Hannah. “Court Rules ‘Gender Queer’ Too ‘Obscene’ for Viewing by Minors.” The Post Millennial, May 20, 2022.

Notheis, Asher. “Virginia Beach Judge Rules Two Books in Public Schools Obscene for Children.” Washington Examiner, May 20, 2022.

Willis, Carl. “‘Doesn’t Mean the Books Are Banned’: Va. Judge Rules Pair of Books Obscene for Kids.” WJLA-ABC7, May 19, 2022.

Thursday, May 19, 2022

Opinion: Eating Poop and Golden Showers Now Taught to Minors by ALA Librarians

Campbell County, Wyoming. OPINION: Eating Poop and Golden Showers Now Being Taught to Minors by ALA Librarians and Their Sympathizers

One of the first books challenged in Campbell County was This Book Is Gay, by [Juno] Dawson. It educates kids on the use of sex toys, portrays illicit sex between an older married man and a teenage boy, gives advice on how to give hand jobs and blow jobs to others, and contains reference material on where to go to participate in these activities.

Terri Lesley, Sue Knesel, Darcy Acord, Charlie Anderson, Nancy Stovall, and Miranda Finn all went publicly on record that this is appropriate reading for minors, and denied the removal of the book when it was challenged. They now believe that kids should be schooled in rimming, eating poop, golden showers, and group sex, and therefore multiple copies of the updated version containing those topics are now available in Wyoming, being trafficked between libraries, compliments of Campbell County.

The American Library Association believes there should be no age limit for any material, so according to current library policy, it is acceptable for any age person to review that book, although the updated version is recommended for ages 14-17.

Even if you believe kids ages 8+ are ready for detailed instruction on how to engage in sex practices, do any of you actually believe that teaching eating poop and golden showers is legitimate sex education?

I totally understand that sex offenders get off on exposing kids to pornography and to taboo materials. What I don't understand is why those illegal activities are being condoned by current Wyoming elected officials and Law Enforcement. 

Above publication and below message is ©Painter Enterprises 2003-2022 reprinted with permission from its author:

Painter, Sara. “Eating Poop and Golden Showers Now Being Taught to Minors by ALA Librarians and Their Sympathizers.” Wyoming Issues, American Issues. Accessed May 18, 2022.

Thank you for reading. The purpose of my campaigns is to highlight corruption and to get assistance from anyone who is able and willing to help return Gillette and Campbell County and Wyoming to American Ideals, and hopefully a culture that applies the law equally to all citizens regardless of position or social class. Thank you so much for the efforts you are making and have already made. Please forward to everyone that you know who might be interested in the information I share. God Bless You, and God Bless America. 

See also:

MassResistance. “Excerpts from ‘This Book Is Gay’ - Available in Teen Section of Campbell County Public Library, Gillette WY.” MassResistance, September 13, 2021.
URL of this page: 

Sunday, May 15, 2022

FOIA to Utah Attorney General Regarding School Libraries

Dear Utah Office of the Attorney General,

Attached please find a completed (as best as possible given the online form) public records request wherein I ask for public records involving the Utah Office of the Attorney General itself.  I could not get the form to allow me to add that I would pay up to $100, but I am a media source.  Further, the form did not allow me to add that I request an expedited response because I am a member of the media and am writing a story on this:

FROM: Ashley Biehl, Assistant Attorney General, Education Division
RE: Laws surrounding school libraries  
DATE: 05/04/2022

There is a possibility that information provided to the Utah AG from American Library Association, Utah Library Association, or EveryLibrary Institute may have been substantially misleading to the point where the Utah AG may have used such misinformation to draft a memorandum that substantially harms Utah children being served by school librarians in Utah's school libraries by unknowingly echoing the library organizations' misinformation instead of protecting them from inappropriate material for school libraries. 

For example, EveryLibrary Institute, an organization that advises librarians how to stymie parental requests for materials reconsideration (see, has published that the Memorandum to LEAs shows that the Miller test applies so works must be considered "as a whole" so books containing graphic CSAM like "Gender Queer" may not be removed from schools.  That means a graphic of a boy giving oral s3x to a man is considered a First Amendment right in Utah's public schools so Utah children will continue to have their school librarians provide them and their teachers with that book.

Based on my experience and recent statements by the American Library Association saying the Miller test applies in public schools so no book should ever be removed (Miller does not apply in a school setting but more recent US Supreme Court cases do and they 1) allow pervasively vulgar books to be removed where pervasively vulgar is not the same as the Miller "as a whole" test, and 2) removals of such materials may be made immediately--prior restraint is not an issue), I am investigating what communications were had between the Utah Office of the Attorney General and the named library associations. 

Depending on the results, I might be able to report information so useful that it might even result in an updated memorandum being published.  If nothing is provided I may have to file a second request seeking browser histories to determine what web sites were consulted to form the opinion given in the memorandum.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services

[Attachment not included in this publication.]


TO:        LEAs
FROM:     Ashley Biehl, Assistant Attorney General, Education Division
RE:         Laws surrounding school libraries  
DATE:         05/04/2022

    The document outlines the law as it pertains to school library books in Utah. The intent is to provide LEAs with legal guidance. The Utah State Board of Education (USBE) will be releasing a model library policy before the 2022-2023 school year that LEAs may utilize in addition to these principles.

    •    Do students have legal rights regarding access to school library materials?
Yes. The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) has an extremely long history of recognizing that students have their own First Amendment rights in school. The removal of books from a school library can constitute an official suppression of ideas, in violation of the First Amendment. In Tinker v. Des Moines, SCOTUS held that “School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are ‘persons' under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect.” “The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.”

In Island Trees v. Pico, SCOTUS noted that “[l]ocal school boards have broad discretion in the management of school affairs, but such discretion must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment. … [T]he special characteristics of the school library make that environment especially appropriate for the recognition of such rights.”

Finally, SCOTUS has stated that “students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” “The school library is the principal locus of such freedom.”

    •    What is the legal standard for assessing what is harmful to minors?
Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 76-10-1201 defines materials that are harmful to minors. It is important to note that to be defined as harmful to minors, a book must meet all three factors outlined below.  
(5)(a) “Harmful to minors” means that quality of any description or representation, in whatsoever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse when it:
(i) taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex of minors;
(ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(iii) taken as a whole, does not have serious value for minors.
(b) Serious value includes only serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

This means that a work that contains nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse is not harmful to minors on its face. If a work contains one of those things (as defined below), it MUST then be considered under this three-factor test. In order to be harmful to minors, the work must contain nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse AND appeal to the prurient interest in sex of minors, be patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors, AND lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

EXAMPLE: A book on anatomy contains depiction of nudity. This book is not harmful to minors because it does not appeal to the prurient interest in sex of minors, and has serious scientific value for minors.

EXAMPLE: Bram Stoker’s Dracula contains a scene of sexual conduct. This book is not harmful to minors because it does not appeal to the prurient interest of minors, is not patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community when taken as a whole with respect to what is suitable to minors, and it has serious literary value.  

EXAMPLE: Penthouse Magazine is likely to be considered harmful to minors as it appeals to the prurient interests in sex, would likely be deemed to be patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors, and arguably lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value.

    •    How is nudity defined?
UCA 76-10-1201

(10) “Nudity” means:
(a) the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks, with less than an opaque covering;
(b) the showing of a female breast with less than an opaque covering, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; or
(c) the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

    •    How is sexual conduct defined?

UCA 76-10-1201

(14) “Sexual conduct” means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or any touching of a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if the person is a female, breast, whether alone or between members of the same or opposite sex or between humans and animals in an act of apparent or actual sexual stimulation or gratification.

    iii.     How is sexual excitement defined?
UCA 76-10-1201
(15) “Sexual excitement” means a condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, or the sensual experiences of humans engaging in or witnessing sexual conduct or nudity.

    iv.     How is sadomasochistic abuse defined?
UCA 76-10-1201
(13) “Sadomasochistic abuse” means:
(a) flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, a mask, or in a revealing or bizarre costume; or
(b) the condition of being fettered, bound, or otherwise physically restrained on the part of a person clothed as described in Subsection (13)(a).

    v.     What does “prurient interest” mean?

SCOTUS has defined prurient interest as: “Material appeals to the prurient interest, for instance, only if it is in some sense erotic.”

The Utah Supreme Court has also clarified that “Material does not evoke a prurient interest unless it has the capacity to provoke ‘sexual responses over and beyond those that would be characterized as normal.’” “An expression or depiction must at least be erotic in some significant way to the average person”.

    vi.     What standards must be used to determine if an item has scientific, literary, political or artistic value?

    To determine whether a book has scientific, literary, political or artistic value, the determining factor is whether a reasonable person would find value in the material when taken as a whole. This factor utilizes a national floor for what constitutes value. Thus, the work must be considered as a whole, and must be looked at through the lens of whether a reasonable person in America would think it has redeeming value.

In Ashcroft v. ACLU, SCOTUS laid out this standard as follows: “[T]he value of [a] work [does not] vary from community to community based on the degree of local acceptance it has won.” Rather, the relevant question is “whether a reasonable person would find ... value in the material, taken as a whole.”  Thus, the serious value requirement “allows appellate courts to impose some limitations and regularity on the definition by setting, as a matter of law, a national floor for socially redeeming value.”

UCA 76-10-1227 (c) provides that “(c) A description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality as defined in Subsection (1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) has no serious value for minors.” Subsection (1)(a)(i-iii) reads: “) "Description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality" means: (i) human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; (ii) acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, or sodomy; (iii) fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals or pubic region”. However, it is important to remember that 76-10-1201 requires all three prongs of the test to be met. Therefore, even if a book does not have literary, scientific, political or artistic value for the above reasons, it must also patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors, and appeal to the prurient interests in sex of minors, in order to be harmful to minors.

vii.     Does this require a book to be considered as a whole when assessing suitability?

Yes. The third prong of “harmful to minors” requires a book to lack serious artistic, scientific, political, or literary value. SCOTUS has defined this criteria as “whether a reasonable person would find ... value in the material, taken as a whole.” Therefore, the book must be considered in its entirety when determining whether it has scientific, literary, artistic, or political value.

Additionally, UCA 76-10-1227(2)(a) provides that: “Subject to Subsection (2)(c), this section and Section 76-10-1228 do not apply to any material which, when taken as a whole, has serious value for minors.”

Finally, the Utah Supreme Court has held that “under Supreme Court caselaw, an obscenity analysis must focus on the work ‘taken as a whole’”.

viii.     Can books be banned if, taken as a whole, they are vulgar or educationally unsuitable?

Yes. SCOTUS has held that “an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar. …[I]f it were demonstrated that the removal decision was based solely upon the “educational suitability” of the books in question, then their removal would be “perfectly permissible.” 

    •    Are library books and books assigned as apart [sic] of classroom curricula subject to the same constitutional standard?
No. Library Books are given significantly wider protection under the First Amendment than books that are assigned as a part of school curriculum. 

“Petitioners might well defend their claim of absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values. But we think that petitioners' reliance upon that duty is misplaced where, as here, they attempt to extend their claim of absolute discretion beyond the compulsory environment of the classroom, into the school library and the regime of voluntary inquiry that there holds sway.”

    •    What factors may NOT go into a book removal?
    Books may not be removed because they contain ideas that local school boards disagree with based upon: politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.
“In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”  Such purposes stand inescapably condemned by our precedents.”

“Petitioners rightly possess discretion to determine the content of their school libraries. But that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.”

    •    Does HB 374 change the standard for school library books?
No. HB 374 prohibits sensitive materials in the school setting. HB 374 defines sensitive material as “an instructional material that is pornographic or indecent material as that term is defined in Section 76-10-1235.” Section 76-10-1235 defines pornographic or indecent material as: “i) defined as harmful to minors in Section 76-10-1201; ii) described as pornographic in Section 76-10-1203; or (iii) described in Section 76-10-1217.”
This section references back to 76-10-1201, which, as noted above in question 2, requires the three prong test under 76-10-1201(5)(a) to be utilized in determining whether a material is harmful to minors. Therefore, this three-prong test under 76-10-1201(5)(a) must always be utilized when assessing whether a library book is ‘sensitive material’. It also references UCA 76-10-1203, which provides the same test as 76-10-1201(5), with the difference that the first two prongs assess what appeals to the prurient interests in sex or is patently offensive to adults, rather than minors. UCA 76-10-1203 essentially repeats the same three-prong test, but focuses on adults, rather than minors.

    •    Are library books included in HB 374?
Yes, though HB 374 does not change the standard that is used to assess school library books, which is noted above in question 2, and can be found under UCA 76-10-1201.
HB 374 defines instructional materials as:
(i) "Instructional material" means a material, regardless of format, used:
(A) as or in place of textbooks to deliver curriculum within the state curriculum framework for courses of study by students; or
(B) to support a student's learning in the school setting.
(ii) "Instructional material" includes reading materials, handouts, videos, digital materials, websites, online applications, and live presentations.

53G-10-103(f) (i) "School setting" means, for a public school:
(A) in a classroom;
(B) in a school library; or  
(C) on school property
(i) "Sensitive material" means an instructional material that is pornographic or indecent material as that term is defined in Section 76-10-1235.
(ii) "Sensitive material" does not include an instructional material:
(A) that an LEA selects under Section 53G-10-402;  
(B) for medical courses;
(C) for family and consumer science courses; or
(D) for another course the state board exempts in state board rule.

As noted in question 5, HB 374 defines sensitive material as “an instructional material that is pornographic or indecent material as that term is defined in Section 76-10-1235.” Section 76-10-1235 defines pornographic or indecent material as: “i) defined as harmful to minors in Section 76-10-1201; ii) described as pornographic in Section 76-10-1203; or (iii) described in Section 76-10-1217.” 

Section 76-10-1201, requires the three prong test under 76-10-1201(5)(a) to be utilized in determining whether a material is harmful to children, and section 76-10-1203 essentially provides the same test. Therefore, this three-prong test under 76-10-1201(5)(a) must be utilized when assessing whether a library book is ‘sensitive material’.

    •    What should be done with a book while it is pending review?
There is no specific law stating whether books must be left in the library when facing a challenge. However, leaving books on the shelves while pending review helps to ensure that schools are not engaging in prior restraint. As noted in question 1, students have extensive first amendment rights in school, and the removal of a book from a school library can constitute a suppression of ideas, in violation of their first amendment rights. Prior restraint is a legal doctrine in first amendment law that is violated when the government prevents speech before it occurs. In this case, removing books before a determination is made as to whether they meet the definition of “harmful to children” runs the risk of violating students’ first amendment rights to study and inquire, via prior restraint.  

SCOTUS has a long history of disfavoring prior restraints.  “Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” wrote then-Chief Justice Warren Burger. SCOTUS has held that “[a]ny system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”  They further noted that “[t]he special vice of a prior restraint is that communication will be suppressed, either directly or by inducing excessive caution in the speaker, before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment.” Nothing in this section prohibits a book’s immediate removal from circulation if the book meets all three prongs of the ‘harmful to minors’ test under 76-10-1201.

URL of this page:  

Friday, April 29, 2022

School Librarian Job ‘Truly the Best’ Because Sexualizing Kids is So Easy

Here’s a school librarian:

“truly the best” 

Another librarian job space is about to open up as soon as parents see this.  Anyone know who this is and where?

Hat tip to Libs of TikTok for reporting this—and notice the responses to her tweet show the exact opposite of the claim that school librarians are so well loved:

URL of this page:  


Tuesday, April 26, 2022

Huge F U to Parents: Texas Library Association #TXLA22

Texas Library Association (TxLA) is holding an annual meeting having a drag queen as the keynote speaker.  Houston Public Library had two drag queens who were convicted pedophiles reading to kids at drag queen story hours that are illegal in public libraries.  So TxLA having a drag queen as a keynote speaker is a huge F U to parents.  And I told reporter Luke Rosiak of Daily Wire as much, as seen in this story (graphic at right):

Rosiak, Luke. “Texas Library Association Conference Features a Drag Queen and Ibram Kendi.” The Daily Wire, April 26, 2022:

“What they rely on is the fact that librarians have one of the highest goodwill ratings of any profession, so they use it to get away with a lot, because no one suspects that a librarian would groom their children,” Dan Kleinman, a parent advocate who runs the group SafeLibraries, told The Daily Wire. “This is a direct screw-you to all the legislators down there,” he said. “This is a huge F-you to parents.”

And it's a "huge F-you to parents" and legislators because one moment Texas libraries allow criminal drag queens to "read" to kids then the next moment TxLA makes drag queens the leading topic.  

And graphic CSAM for kids in schools is explained away as First Amendment "FReadom."  The leading groomer imho Carolyn Foote @FReadomFighters even won an award for her grooming training for librarians. 

By the way, TxLA blocked me for reporting accurately on what is occurring at the annual conference where they use the hashtag #txla22.  Well, it turns out the most popular tweet of #txla22 is the guy they blocked, so into free speech they are:

URL of this page:  
@FReadomFighters @HoustonLibrary @LukeRosiak @realDailyWire @TXLA

Thursday, April 21, 2022

Marxist Elected American Library Association President; Vows to Wield Power

A Marxist has been elected President of the American Library Association.  She vows to "wield" "collective power" to accomplish Marxist goals she calls "a better world."

A better world to Marxists means more graphic child p r n in schools, more Drag Queen Story Hour in public libraries despite it being illegal in such venues, more Critical Race Theory training for more school librarians, more open racism with the whites-not-allowed ALA "Spectrum Scholarship," more pronoun buttons in elementary schools, more pushing of an anti American agenda from the Marxist President of the "American" Library Association.  

"But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." Karl Marx, The Paris Commune (1871).

But Emily Drabinski is ready to simply lay hold of the ready-made ALA machinery already embedded throughout America and American schools and "wield" it.  This is not a exaggeration.  Think how ALA is currently calling it "FReadom" for school children to access graphic CSAM—it even set up a brand new site called "Unite Against Book Bans" to crowdsource the wielding of power to bully parents and legislators to keep CSAM in schools.

Do not fund libraries.  The money will only enable "collective power" to be "wielded" on American citizens—especially children.  ALA's newly elected President says as much herself.  And definitely run for and obtain library board and school board positions to slow or stop what's likely to happen.


See also:

Nightingale, Hannah. “Marxist Elected to Head American Library Association.” The Post Millennial, April 20, 2022.
Shure, Natalie. “Meet the Socialist Librarian Running for President of the American Library Association.” Jacobin Magazine, April 5, 2022.
Rudolph, Dana. “New President-Elect of American Library Association Is Also a Lesbian Mom.” Mombian (blog), April 14, 2022.

URL of this page:  
@ALALibrary, @cunyGClibrary, @jacobin, @mombian, @MrAndyNgo, @tpostmillenial, @UABookBans

Monday, April 18, 2022

Comment on Charter Schools Program

The following was submitted by me to the United States Department of Education courtesy of Public Charter Schools.

I oppose the Department of Education’s proposed new rules for the Charter Schools Program (CSP).

Charter schools provide competition, as it were, to non-charter public schools that are one size fits all, with all being the lowest common denominator.

In a one size fits all world, one gets poor and unfortunately standardized results like school librarians who make graphic child pornography available to school children.  They scream “#FReadom,” shout down any opposition with full media support, and their American Library Association grants such books like “Gender Queer” multiple awards so school librarians in non-charter public schools can claim the graphic child pornography is award winning so parents would harm their own children if they did not let their children explore graphic child pornography from a “safe space.”  It is literal sexual grooming of school children by people trained by American Library Association to ignore child pornography because, they and we are told, only lawyers can determine what that is.  

Judith Krug, an ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) board member who joined American Library Association and single-handedly changed it from within so children would be exposed to harm including child pornography, said this twenty years ago that remains in effect today: “‘A librarian is not a legal process,’ Krug said. ‘There is not librarian in the country—unless she or he is a lawyer—who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography.’”  Source: “Librarians vs. Police In a Suit Sparked by Porn,” by Jeffrey M. Barker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12 August 2002, accessed at

School librarians are the groomers, trained to groom.  If a man in a van gave children the same material, including the graphic showing the boy giving oral sex to a man or directions to, he would be treated as a groomer and handled accordingly by the police and the legal system, or perhaps directly by the community.

But school librarians are assumed to be harmless and trade off that public perception and good will, even brag about it as they did during this past National Library Week as a way to “#UniteAgainstBookBans” due to parental and legislative opposition to graphic child pornography in public schools.  And people believe they are harmless.  So nothing ever happens and the graphic child pornography spreads to more schools and more children via more school librarians.  And if parents do speak out, they are frequently silenced by school boards violating open meeting laws, let alone bullies and bribes organized by American Library Association, ACLU and the like.  Parents need a way out.

One way out is charter schools.  Charter schools give parents an option for schooling so they need not send their children to be sexually groomed.

I realize this sounds like I’m exaggerating.  I am not.  

The problem is about to get worse as American Library Association has just elected Emily Drabinski as its president, an avowed Marxist who stated explicitly, “I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of @ALALibrary.  I am so excited for what we will do together.  Solidarity!  And my mom is SO PROUD I love you mom.”  Source:

I oppose the Department of Education’s proposed new rules for the CSP because parents must have alternatives for the education of their children.  The CSP is the only source of dedicated federal funding to support the growth of charter schools to meet community need.  It is more important than ever to work together to ensure the CSP can meet its intended purpose of expanding the number of high-quality public schools available to students across the nation.

Thank you for your consideration.

[NOTE: graphics were not included in letter to US Department of Education.]
@ACLU @ALALibrary @charteralliance @edrabinski @usedgov 

Monday, April 4, 2022

ABC News Propagandizes For Child Grooming Librarians; ALA Propaganda Exposed

Graphic child p r n in public schools is rampant. American Library Association (ALA) is the prominent groomer (people who give graphic child p r n to children) ensuring school children get and retain access via a number of means, such as giving awards, training school librarians to spread it, etc.  “It has become the leading advocate for sexualizing children and politically indoctrinating them.”  Source: “What To Do About Your Local Library Putting Porn On Kids’ Shelves,” by Jonathan G. Lange, The Federalist, 26 October 2021, accessed at

One prominent means to ensure kids retain access to graphic child p r n is to get mainstream media to parrot what ALA groomers say without any fact checking whatsoever and without any balance.  ABC News is an example of a media source parroting the groomers.

In “The Librarians Uniting to Battle School Book Ban Laws; Many of the Banned Books Focus on LGBTQ and Racial Issues,” by Adisa Hargett-Robinson and Keira Shannon, ABC News, 26 March 2022, accessed at, we see ALA propaganda parroted so much that it changes the entire story.  The story points out “71% of Americans” don’t want censorship of books and “ideas,” while those who do are a “very vocal minority” who hate gays and black people.

The truth is the exact opposite.  But ABC News did not do any significant fact checking.  It merely parroted exactly what the ALA groomer and the school librarian groomer said, leaving people with the impression groomers were right to protect the “freadom” of kids to read anything and, “Mama GrizzlyStacy Langton was just another “conservative” targeting books by gay and black people.  

ABC News didn’t even report that Stacy Langton was herself censored (in violation of open meetings law) at a school board meeting for reading aloud and displaying the contents of pedophilic books children get in Fairfax schools.  That gets you silenced at school board meetings but school librarians get to give that same material to school children.  See, “Virginia Mother Who Exposed Pornographic Books Barred From High School Library,” by Jeremiah Poff, Washington Examiner, 8 November 2021, accessed at 

And Stacy Langton doesn’t oppose books by gay and black people.  ALA twists that on purpose and ABC News broadcasts ALA’s fake spin.  In reality, something ALA doesn’t reveal and ABC News doesn’t fact check:

Langton said the characterization that she’s unhappy because there is gay pornography in our children’s schools is not factually correct. “This is pornography full stop. Straight up,” she said. “It doesn’t matter at all to me what the gender is of the people depicted engaging in the pornography. It doesn’t matter to me at all what the sexual orientation is of the people engaging in the pornography. If this pornography had been a normal heterosexual situation – a man and a woman engaging in it or whatever, I would have said exactly every single word the same way I said it at that meeting. This is about the decency of the school environment that our children go to school in.”

Source: “Mother Exposes Sexually Graphic Books Available in FCPS Libraries,” by Heather Zwicker, Fairfax County Times, 1 October 2021, accessed at

Here we see again Langton opposes the material for its sexual content, not because supposedly conservatives hate gays and blacks as ALA implies and ABC News parrots: 

Stacy Langton believes parents should control when and how their children learn about sex, and she is adamant that “Gender Queer” and “Lawn Boy” should not be on the shelves in the Fairfax County Public Schools, where two of her six children are enrolled.  She has spent the past six months trying to remove the texts, which she believes threaten children’s morals because they describe sex scenes in graphic detail—including, in “Gender Queer,” an encounter between an apparent teenager and an older, bearded man.

“There’s an age-appropriateness to all things, and that includes sex education—you’re inherently going to be destroying a child’s innocence and their purity until they’re old enough to be able to understand,” said Langton, 52.

Librarians Fighting Bans and Scrambling to Preserve Children’s Freedom to Read,” by Hannah Natanson, Washington Post, 22 March 2022, accessed at, hyperlink in original.

Somehow ABC News could not find either report while fact checking.  So it could not report accurately and without the political spin that conservatives hate gays and blacks, a spin ALA wields decade after decade to spread more inappropriate material to more community schools.

For more on what Stacy Langton experienced for speaking up at her school board meeting, see “Watch: School Board Squirms as Mom Reads Them the Gay Porn in Books Available to Students; ‘Go to Jail. Go to Jail!’ Crowd Chants,” by Luke Rosiak, The Daily Wire, 23 September 2021, accessed at

Further, ABC News completely omitted the whole reason for the story, namely, school children are getting access to graphic pedophilic material in schools and it’s so bad that parents and legislators are finally acting to oppose the groomers, as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently did, pictured top right, and moms are even running for political office on this issue, like Noelle Kahaian in Georgia—see  It’s child p r n, it’s graphic, kids are getting it, in schools, from their school librarians directly or via teachers, organized and trained by ALA—and ABC News is completely silent on that.

As to the complete opposite, the truth is that 62% of people oppose school children having access to explicit material in schools.  The ALA groomer said, and ABC News blindly reported, that 71% oppose book censorship.  That’s true, but the 71% poll was about public libraries generally, while the 62% poll was about school libraries specifically.  So the reality is most people oppose inappropriate material in public schools.  That’s nowhere in the ABC News story.  Instead it reports the exact opposite.  

And the 62% number comes from a Harris poll.  See, “Most Oppose Explicit Books in Public Schools Says Harris Poll,” by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 April 2011, accessed at  

And that poll was about explicit text, not the graphic pedophilia the groomers are promoting nowadays.  Were the poll to be rerun today regarding the graphic child p r n kids are getting from ALA and school librarian groomers quoted by ABC News like Carolyn Foote crying “FReadom,” the value would likely jump up to 99% opposed, 1% librarians, and the groomers would be the “very vocal minority.”

Another ALA lie ABC News parroted is that conservatives target gays and blacks.  Had ABC News done the slightest fact checking, they might have learned ALA itself has a deep history of racism, right from its creation, that it hides to fool people.  “Librarianship has a propensity to sanitize its history.  ….  By such means, … librarianship has manifested a consistent desire to control the narrative surrounding libraries and their defense of intellectual freedom and opposition to censorship.”  Did you know Melvil Dewey who founded ALA “was a racist and anti-Semite because of membership rules at his private New York Lake Placid Club and that he was also a sexual harasser driven out of the American Library Association (ALA) by a group of ALA women in 1905 who refused to condone his behavior any longer”?  See, “Sanitizing American Library History: Reflections of a Library Historian,” by Wayne A. Wiegand, The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, Vol. 90:2: 108-120, 2020, accessed at

ABC News somehow completely missed that and instead decided to help ALA “to control the narrative surrounding libraries and their defense of intellectual freedom and opposition to censorship.”  This time ABC News is defending graphic child p r n for school children that everyone else in the world knows is wrong and should be removed immediately.

ALA also has a history of homophobia, having hired then rehired a homophobic trainer even after she first trained librarians to oppose child p r n whistleblowers, who happened to be a gay man and a married woman with children, by asking the librarian trainees why would a woman let her small children around a gay man.  See: “Brave Librarian Speaks Out as ALA Facilitates CHILD Porn,” by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 21 January 2017, accessed at  Read what a scared librarian whistleblowing on ALA itself said, where “the ALA woman” is Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., so you can see the true character or lack thereof of the woman telling all librarians that “Gender Queer” isn’t child p r n and school children must keep reading it—but who media like ABC News love to cite without fact checking:

To: Megan Fox 

Ms. Fox,

Our [library] received your recent FOIA request related to the crisis workshop held December 17, 2013. I attended this event but have been told not to respond to you so I am doing this [after work] from a new email account. My job would be threatened if it were known I was telling you this so please do not try to ID me.

My notes from the workshop were taken from me [in the past] when a big brouhaha happened about this. Not sure what it was all about but my boss said [he/she] got a call that you were looking for things related to the workshop and depending on FOIA and so my notes from the workshop were taken at that time and I was told not to ask for them back. They are gone now.

I was told recently that you had used FOIA to ask for them again and that you will be told that no notes exist but that is not true. They were taken but they did exist.

What I can remember about the workshop is this. There were five speakers. Two from Orland Park. Two others were women from the ALA and there was a man from the ILA. Not sure on their names. The two Orland employees were one older with brown hair and glasses and one blonde younger woman. Not sure on their names. But the Director was the older woman and I think the younger woman was the Asst. Director. Not sure. The older woman was more measured and careful when she spoke but the younger one got emotional at times.

You and a friend of yours whose name I don't recall were featured as examples of two people from the tea party who are attacking libraries around the country as part of some plot. The ALA woman said that this is like what happened to Acorn but now the tea party is going after libraries. They really seemed to believe this but [where] I was at few people bought into that.

The Director said that you and your friend were paid operatives of the tea party and that you came to Orland Park in October looking for something to invent a complaint about. They said you made up a story and lied about seeing someone doing inappropriate things. Then you started filing FOIA requests about the library after that excuse. Blondie said that you were paid by the tea party to do this.

Then the Director and Blondie went into a big production about what they had been doing to stop you. The Director said that any library encountering the tea party should involve the police because there are good relationships with the police in towns and villages. The Director said that she has a personal friendship with the Orland police chief and that this was "instrumental" in handling you. I remember how she said the word "instrumental" and she said that the police and the village officials were working with the library on preventing you and your friend from getting any traction. The Director also said that the police should scare you away and have you move on with your lives soon. Blondie said that the police are good tools to use against attackers like you because no one wants the police visiting them and the police will side with the library against patrons especially when they are not even from town.

A big deal was made about how you and your friend do not live in Orland and you are outsiders and paid operatives.

Then it got more personal and they showed slides from your website and I guess your friend's website. I remember a picture of a big shark and also a picture of bees. There was a picture of your friend with Sarah Palin and another picture of him with Hillary Clinton shown. And there were pictures of you that looked like they were head shots taken for promotional purposes. The Director and Blondie said that the two of you were setting up a scheme for money and that this was all a stunt to either get attention for you or to write a book.

Blondie said that Orland was focusing only on you and ignoring your friend because he is gay and it gets messy to attack a gay guy. But they have plenty of examples of how to combat a mom who complains. Treat her like Sarah Palin and tell everyone she is dumb and just makes babies was the gist of that. This is when that photo of Sarah Palin and your friend was shown I think. This was a big section of their talk and it went on for a while about how you were painted as a liar and how Blondie looked at everything you said or wrote to find any inconsistencies. The Director said that as soon as an inconsistency was found that the media were alerted to it as proof that you could not be trusted.

Blondie also said it was necessary to say that you did not have children with you in the library because that further made you a liar. She said that since you had no videos or photos of your kids in the library that it was their word against yours and people automatically believe the library over regular people.

The ALA later picked up that thread and said it was a useful tool to use because people just believe what a library says and we need to take advantage of that. Who would believe that the library was doing anything wrong?

The Director and Blondie then talked about how they were documenting everything that you and your friend did and taking it to the police until a charge could be filed at some point. Once you crossed a line they would be able to neutralize you and get an order from a judge keeping you away from the meetings.

The plan was to ignore anything you wrote in social media as much as possible but counter it using the local media which promised they would put forward the library's defense against your claims.

The strategy was to use the police to get you to stop coming to meetings and to make the community members not believe you by making you look like a liar.

[I or someone] asked in the question answer period if what you were saying is true and if there were reports of things happening in the library and the Director said that unfortunately you had gotten ahold of old reports and were lifting them out of context.

The Director said that no more incident reports would be written on matters in the library and that instead communication would be verbal to avoid FOIA.

The ALA picked this up too and advised everyone to stop writing incident reports and to instead do them as voicemail round robins to be deleted every day. This way staff stays informed but there is no paper trail later.

The takeaways and learning experiences from this matter involved how to neutralize attackers like you and your friend and how to make people not believe them and how to use allies in the community such as the police to make people like you go away.

This was not the kind of workshop a lot of us thought we were signing up for and it [was a waste of everyone’s time]. I was upset that I had to listen to all this. Most of it seemed crazy to me because no one would answer the question on whether or not what you had said happened had happened and if the incident reports were true. It was all just a meeting about how to chase you and your friend away.

There was also a big thing where Blondie got upset and had to justify why she decided to go on some radio show. I forget which one but the ALA woman said that you should never go on a live show unless you are well acquainted with the host and know the questions in advance. She said that Blondie made the mistake of allowing the hosts of the show to put words in her mouth and that damaged the library from a PR perspective. Blondie said she would never do a live interview again and would instead stick to putting out the press releases that the ALA would proof for her.

The ALA and ILA said to never send emails but to call on the phone and the Office for Intellectual Freedom would help. They gave us the number and I remember writing it down. I remember writing down the phone numbers for the Director and Blondie too and the number for Bob from the ILA. No one wanted anything in writing just phone calls. Nothing important on voicemail either just say to call back. It was a big deal to keep saying to keep everything verbal and off email and not in writing.

I am trying to think if there is anything else.

You asked about a presentation that was given and we never received a copy of it but the Director and Blondie had pictures of you in a presentation. It had about 30 slides. They had pictures of you from online and pictures of your friend.

Blondie kept pointing out that he is gay and also that he attacks the President and that he also told everyone years ago that Michelle Obama made a "whitey tape". I didn't know what she was talking about but she really seemed to have a personal hatred of your friend because Blondie got most upset when talking about him.

The Director got most upset when talking about you however. She called you "Ms Fox" and never said the name Megan. Blondie said Megan and also said your friend's first name, I remember. But the Director kept saying "Ms, Fox" and her tea party colleague. She said that you live in Mokena and your friend lives in Chicago and you both have no business being in their library.

I also remember that a jab was made at you for being a homeschooler and for being tea party members and that you should not be hanging out all day with a gay guy with your kids anyway.

Why aren't you and him at work? Blondie asked that. Why don't you have jobs? And Blondie made a crack about maybe you should be at home taking care of your kids and not harassing the library.

It was a very strange workshop. No one I know who went had a positive response to it.

Then afterwards it was pretty much forgotten until March when the brouhaha happened and my boss came racing around telling me that I had to get rid of everything from the workshop. That's when my notes were taken.

And now we are back at this again for some reason and I'm being asked if I got rid of all my notes because you are emailing about this again and everyone wants to make sure. My boss said [he/she] got a call about this to make sure. I don't know who the call was from. But I thought you should know because I've never been to a workshop like this where afterwards it was a big thing to collect all the notes and pretend like it never happened.

And I never was at a conference where people talked so personally about patrons like you and your friend. That has never happened before and I thought you should know.

I do not want any trouble so do not try to contact me or find me. This is the only contact I am going to have with you and I hope you understand and it is the only help I can give you.

And who is the “ALA woman” person who hired and rehired the homophobic trainer named “Blondie”?  None other than ABC News’s own source, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., Director of ALA’s so-called Office for Intellectual Freedom who instead orders librarians to destroy public records and evidence of its homophobia and how it trains librarians how to attack parents and how to get others like the police to attack them as well.  Somehow ABC News didn’t report on her homophobia and her attempt to get the following deleted: “Gay Hate @ Your Library,” by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 27 July 2014, accessed at

Here, watch the homophobes who covered up child p r n in action being homophobic against the gay child p r n whistleblower.  The principal harasser is the person “Blondie” who sued me and who the ALA Director Caldwell-Stone rehired even after knowing of her homophobia: "Bridget Bittman Commits Disorderly Conduct/Breach of Peace on 7/8/14 According to Officer Schmidt," by Megan Fox, YouTube, 8 July 2014, accessed at as shown here:

There was even a book written about this child p r n coverup and ALA’s associated homophobia, but somehow ABC News’ fact checker missed it: “Shut Up!: The Bizarre War that One Public Library Waged Against the First Amendment,” by Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan, 2016, accessed at

It’s also noteworthy that ALA ordered librarians or destroy the public records made of its homophobic teaching, as my “Gay Hate @ Your Library” publication explained.  For a homophobe to attempt to hide her homophobia—by ordering librarians to defy records retention laws, no less—is evidence that she’s fully aware of her homophobia and is trying to cover it up.  Did ABC News report this?  Of course not.  And because librarians support ALA efforts to sexualize children, not a single negative consequence has occurred for Caldwell-Stone, instead, she has been promoted.  If your company promoted homophobes, that would make your company homophobic.  ALA is homophobic.  And ABC News cites this homophobe without a peep.

So ABC News is publishing false statements that parents oppose gays and blacks while not reporting ALA itself is homophobic and has a long history of racism.  ABC News is publishing fake news that most people oppose censorship of library books, which is true standing alone, but in the context of this story about school books, leaves out that most people oppose explicit books in public schools.  It’s media malpractice.  All to facilitate efforts to keep graphic child p r n books in the hands of children in public schools.

And exactly why is ABC News seeking out ALA for opinions on what is child p r n in school books when—another fact check ABC News missed—ALA trains its librarians they cannot determine what is child pornography since only lawyers can do that.  Sort of like you don’t know what is a woman if you’re not a biologist.  

Judith Krug, an ACLU board member who joined ALA and single-handedly changed it from within so children would be exposed to harm including child p r n, said this 20 years ago but somehow ABC News missed it: “‘A librarian is not a legal process,’ Krug said. ‘There is not librarian in the country—unless she or he is a lawyer—who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography.’”  Source: “Librarians vs. Police In a Suit Sparked by Porn,” by Jeffrey M. Barker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12 August 2002, accessed at

And this is why librarians claim “Gender Queer” and “Lawn Boy” and books like that contain no child p r n—because they were trained by an ACLU board member then at ALA’s “Office for Intellectual Freedom” that they do not know what is child p r n.  And ABC News is right there to be the groomers’ megaphone.  In reality, a graphic depiction of a boy giving a man oral sex is child p r n, and everyone knows it, but people let groomers groom because everyone assumes school librarians are there to help children, instead of trained by ALA to harm them.

Of course, ABC News is not the only media source hiding the truth.  NBC News is along for the ride, calling the pedophilia in “Gender Queer,” vital, needed, and life-saving (source: “Author of ‘Gender Queer,’ One of Most-Banned Books in U.S., Addresses Controversy,” by Matt Lavietes, NBC News, 19 December 2021, accessed at  And, homophobe Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., is interviewed there too, again with not a peep about ALA’s own racism and homophobia:

Here are other facts ALA and media are not revealing about graphic child p r n in schools but that you can use to counter the false statements and the media megaphone:
  • Even ACLU/ALA leader Judith Krug said regarding inappropriate material, and I quote, “get it out of there.”  It’s not censorship to immediately remove graphic child p r n from public schools—without any need to follow ALA-recommended materials reconsideration processes that ALA designed to make it less likely inappropriate material would be removed.  Here’s what she said in context: “On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library.  In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials.  If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there.”  See: “Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week: An Interview with Judith Krug,” 46 Curriculum Review 1, September 2006, p.12, accessed at
  • Everyone knows inappropriate material should be removed from schools, but the US Supreme Court encapsulated it best in the case ALA lost on library p r n filters where the Court said, “The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree”—but ALA doesn’t agree so it doesn’t tell anyone about this.  Again, as Wayne A. Weigand said, it’s ALA burying its bad history (and $1.5M loss) so it can harm school children’s futures with false claims of intellectual freedom and censorship.  See US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003).
  • Specifically regarding public schools, the US Supreme Court ruled that while books may not be removed from schools for the ideas they contain, they may be removed forthwith for being “pervasively vulgar”—and a graphic of a boy giving a man oral sex pervades the whole book, does it not?  Indeed that’s what all the news is about.  So removing books like “Gender Queer” is fast and easy under the case if one is not intimidated by school librarian groomers and their groomer library associations who inevitably bully people.  The case has been used in a number of jurisdictions to successfully remove such books from schools—despite what ALA claims.  See Board of Education v. Pico, 457 US 853 (1982).
  • That groomer homophobe Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Esq., says “Gender Queer” and the like cannot be removed because another US Supreme Court case ruled that for something to be considered obscenity a three prong test applies and the work must be considered as a whole.  So “Gender Queer” having only some graphic child p r n means it does not meet the obscenity test “as a whole.”  “‘So clearly, Gender Queer would not meet that standard,’ says Caldwell-Stone. ‘It is a literary graphic novel memoir, a coming-of-age [story], that happens to, at parts, deal with sexual topics.’”  What she doesn’t tell you is this case does not apply to a school setting that was addressed almost a decade later.  See, “Wake County Library Makes It Harder to Ban Books; Following Administrators’ Decisions to Remove and Reshelve Books, Wake’s Library System is Updating its Book Challenge Policies,” by Jasmine Gallup, Indy Week, 16 March 2022, accessed at
  • Further, why does anyone take her legal pronouncements seriously when at the same time librarians are told only lawyers can determine what is child p r n.  Librarians may not decide what is child p r n but they somehow all know “Gender Queer” is not child p r n because it does not meet the Supreme Court’s three prong obscenity test.  “Clearly,” ALA’s top lawyer says, “Gender Queer” is not obscene.  It’s a double standard ALA uses to spread more harm to more children.  They don’t know what child p r n is but they definitely know what child p r n isn’t.  Do not be fooled.  Remove “Gender Queer” from schools and anything like it—it’s your legal right, just get over the shouting of the groomer librarians.  See Miller v. California, 413 US 15 (1973).
  • Lastly, even school students know they should not be reading inappropriate material in public schools.  Look at what they say (source:

So ALA is flat out misleading people with inapposite poll results, leaving out applicable poll results showing the exact opposite, and calling out parents for being conservatives who discriminate against gays and blacks, all to ensure school children continue reading graphic child p r n pushed into schools by ALA in the first place.  And media parrots and trumpets this false view while casting parents as racist, homophobic censors for daring to oppose school librarians who are protecting First Amendment rights affording the freedom to read for marginalized children.

Any parents or legislators working to stop grooming in public schools need to be aware ALA will flat out lie and make like librarians are innocent as shown above and media will act as ALA’s megaphone without a shred of fact checking or balance—all to keep groomers grooming students in schools.  

Librarians act like they know what they are doing and everyone thinks they do.  It’s time to turn that around.  Parents know what they are doing and school librarian groomers need to be brought up on grooming charges with litigation holds placed on schools so they don’t destroy incriminating public records, no matter how many times they claim the “destruction of our democracy” or how loudly they shout, “FReadom.”  

Sonia Poulton gets it spot on:

The morning after I published this, ALA published it’s annual “State of America’s Libraries.”  Exactly as I wrote above, ALA defended giving kids graphic child p r n in schools by leaving out the graphic nature of the material and instead blaming conservatives and claiming they were hating on gays and blacks.  It’s the same old same old, whatever it takes to intimidate/scare off parents and legislators with the “R” or “H” word to keep the child p r n flowing.

“[C]onservative groups … sought to pull … stories of people who are gay, trans, Black….”  “[A]ttacks orchestrated by conservative parent groups and right-wing media that targeted books about race, gender, and LGBTQIA+ issues….”  “[C]learly targeted LGBTQ students; it was so clearly targeting race.”  “[A] rising tide of xenophobia and homophobia….”

These are groomers using intimidation/bullying to keep children exposed to graphic child p r n.  They shouldn’t be given any credence.  They should be brought up on grooming changes, and laws should be amended to preclude graphic child p r n from public schools and include school librarian groomers.

See my tweet about it here: