BANNING BOOKS

They're  at it again. Suddenly there's no such thing as pornography. Public schools have a right to expose our children from kindergarten to twelfth grade to material that is so offensive that school board officials refuse to listen to it when parents read it to them in protest at board meetings. In the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave parents are being arrested for protesting against pornography in public schools. Democrats are appalled. Not about parents who oppose pornography in public schools being arrested, but that anyone would want to stop children from reading pornographic literature. It's like some parents think they should be able to tell educators what to teach in our schools! To democrats that's an outrage. 

The largest fascist organization in America is accusing people who oppose having pornographic materials in public schools fascists. If you oppose having books in the library of your public schools that contain scenes of boys anally gang raping a fellow female student you are guilty of 'banning books'.  If you oppose allowing boys to use the girl's bathroom you are a transphobe and a bigot. And if you think girls shouldn't be forced to undress and shower with boys you are just a horrible, close minded, and intolerant human being. As a bigot you really shouldn't even be allowed to attend school board meetings and you certainly shouldn't be making any statements about the education of your children. 

Democrats really want to know why conservatives are so full of hate and intolerance. They want to change everyone's attitude toward pornography and transgender children. They're doing that by saying in America we don't exclude anyone from enjoying all of the privileges that everyone else enjoys. If girls can use the girls bathroom then the boys should be allowed in there too. If girls change their clothes and shower in the girls locker room then boys should be allowed the same privilege since good people never discriminate against anyone else for any reason. If anyone objects and tries to pull that religion stuff they need to stop forcing their judgmental nonsense onto everyone else. There is no room for morality in public schools. People who claim to be transgender are sacred cows in America and transgender students have the right to do whatever they want. They are a special, even superior form of American. They are free thinkers who aren't weighed down by judgmental and out dated codes of morality. A devout democrat influencer living in Eastern Europe in the mid 19th century named Karl Marx claimed among other things that capitalism exploits people in a capitalist society who then lean on religion as a cushion against the misery caused by capitalists; he famously stated that "Religion is the opiate of the people." Obviously we don't approve of opium use so religion must be a bad thing and there is no room for religious attitudes in public schools. 

The hypocrisy in the democrat party is painfully visible in everything they do but somehow so many good people can't see it. Claiming you care about poor people isn't the same thing as actually doing something to help poor people. The people who follow the democrat dogma love the message. Equality is something we all strive for, but it can never be achieved. Someone will always have more that someone else. And the leaders of the democrat party, most of them, have amassed fortunes ranging from hundreds of millions of dollars to hundreds of billions all under a capitalist system. In a socialist or communist state it is the same; only party leaders can build such personal empires. I still haven't found anyone who can explain to me why democrats think it would be different in this country. The point is that hypocrisy is the defining characteristic of the democrat philosophy. And the bait they use is the promise of equality. Equal access sounds fine until my daughter is standing face to face with a naked male in the girl's locker room and shower. It takes a very twisted mind to even attempt to make sense of that picture, yet that is what they are trying to do with transgenderism and pornography. Transgenderism is supposedly about equality and pornography is about education. Same people quickly become dizzy just trying to absorb all of the absurdities. 

Just about every democrat I know, and yes I associate with too many democrats, believes that religion is ok as long as it doesn't cause people to lose sight of the realities of the world in which we live. Obviously for them it is important that we don't force any religious views on children because children lack the maturity to separate fantasy from reality. I guess that's why they teach children beginning in kindergarten that there is no such thing as 'boys' and 'girls'. They don't want to cram those beautiful little minds with scientific and medically proven facts. They also have to drive a wedge between children and their parents since a child's parents might try to convince them that they are in fact either female or male. It takes guts for a child to claim that medical professionals and parents don't know what they are talking about so educators (propagandists) convince them that it is not necessary for them to share the things they learn at school with their parents when they go home. They can and should share all of their thoughts with their teacher. So how is a teacher supposed to respond when approached by an attractive sixteen year old girl wearing a crop top and a mini skirt and asks him what cornholling is. I'd never heard the term until another parent pointed it out from a book she found in the elementary school library so I looked it up. The same question can be posed to the female teacher who is asked the same question by a muscular sixteen year old boy. And as we are seeing, too many of them are saying, "Meet me at the motel at the edge of town and I'll show you!" We actually, and insanely in my judgmental opinion, allow teachers and students to use internet portals to communicate with each other using private passwords that parents don't have access to. Do we really wonder why there are more frequent inappropriate teacher-student relationships? Aren't we actually encouraging it? 

Admittedly parents can be pretty possessive of their children and want to know what is being taught in the classroom. Speaking of parents too many educators are telling children how dare they assign a gender to you when you have just barely been brought into the world? They don't know you, they have no idea what gender you are because there is no way to tell. Right? And somehow we're supposed to take these complete nincompoops seriously and just trust them with our children's mental well being? There are only two genders baby! That's not just my closed minded, bigoted opinion, it's a proven scientific, medical, and whatever else you want to describe it, truth. And by using that vile five letter word I've exposed the soft vulnerable underbelly of the democrat party; the truth is not their friend. They are actually scared of the truth. I was recently involved in a critical debate with a couple of 'educators' in another state over the philosophy of teaching children. The issue was pornography in public schools and tolerance for transgender kids. I admit to being surprised to witness the arrogance of public school teachers in that area. I hope it is confined to that particular region of the country. I would actually love to see someone conduct a deep study into the social fabric of that area because the people defending pornography in their public schools also claim to be very religious. 

One of these 'teachers' contacted me on the internet to let me know that since I didn't have a degree in education I had no business telling her what to do in the classroom. Another informed me that I might live in a loving and peaceful home, but not all children have that opportunity. Somehow that means that some children need to have access to violent pornography? Not in my mind. If parents think their children need to read about raping fellow students after luring them into the woods they have every right and opportunity to purchase those reading materials and reading them as bedtime stories to their little darlings. I do not support banning books. Teachers in that area are quite inconsistent when choosing which Constitutional rights to enforce. The same group of educators was appalled that I objected to allowing transgender girls (boys pretending to be girls) into the girls locker rooms and showers. They accused me of being insensitive and transphobic. Transgender victims are allowed to pretty much say and do whatever they want. In many states transgenders can dictate to the rest of the people in the cities where they live what they can say and do. Yes, they actually can. For example if I refer to a man as 'him' or a woman as 'her' and they tell me to refer to them by their opposite gender I'm expected to comply. It's a lie, but that doesn't matter, if a person wants to keep her or his job they will go along with the fantasy created in a confused mind. According to these 'educators' If some knucklehead first grader says he's a girl or the same age girl says she's a boy I'm just supposed to be sensitive and honor that feeling which is never going to happen. I am never going to allow a kid in the first grade to teach me what I got wrong about basic biology. And the same goes for the person with a wall full of diplomas and certificates and claims that gives them the authority to tell me to either participate in their fantasy or keep my mouth shut. Somehow excluding parents from their children's education doesn't sound very inclusive to me. And I'm not the only one. You can trust me when I predict that things are about to get ugly if these arrogant teachers and administrators don't become a little more tolerant of parents who want to assist in the education of their kids. Democrats love to preach to everyone about tolerance. They love tolerance and to them tolerance means, "You do what I say and everyone will get along just fine..." They can tolerate us just fine as long as we understand our place in their world. 

There have been times when parents have been forced to leave school board meetings for objecting to to such things as pornography in the school library or boys being allowed to change their clothes and take showers in the girls locker rooms. They are very tolerant people, but they won't tolerate it when people become disruptive by objecting to their stupid and destructive ideas. The claim is that people have a First Amendment right to express themselves and that is why we have to allow third graders to undergo gender reassignment procedures and expose the same students to pornography. That is a very stupid interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Even if they do have the right to abuse the First Amendment that way, I have the same right guaranteed to me and I'll use it to tell the truth about whatever subject is being discussed, including the fungibility of a person's gender. We are very close to a situation where the two camps can't agree on what used to be considered by all people as basic humanity. We used to respect privacy, now in open minded San Francisco, the great fortress of equality, you can watch people defecating on the sidewalk in broad daylight. That beautiful gem has become a cesspool of crime and depravity and the people who created it are moving to other states in numbers so large that housing is finally becoming affordable there. They are about to learn what the word affordable means when they are forced to give houses away because thieves, drug addicts and homeless people don't pay for anything. 

It has long been a doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, which basically means that while our rights cannot be violated we need to be careful about things like pornography and its effects on children, and transgender rights. We do put some constraints on free speech when we stop people from trying to incite a riot, or conspire to overthrow our government. We don't allow people to threaten to kill people either. The phrase was supposedly stated by Abraham Lincoln when he was accused of usurping the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus by essentially placing all Confederates under arrest during the civil war. And it has been used by multiple Supreme Court justices since then. It is interesting to me to note that democrats opposed the Constitution in the 1860's and nothing has changed. Limits on freedom of speech are sometimes necessary to protect children from the damaging effects of pornography or at so called gay pride events where men wear clothing that exposes their butts so other men can whip them in public. The only major political party that thinks that type of activity should be protected is the democrat party; the party of 'sex, drugs, and rock n' roll.' What about standards regarding basic decency? Why do democrats seem to believe that if something is not specifically covered by a government statute it is automatically acceptable speech or behavior? 

There will be a time in their lives when children will learn about the difference between the sexes. Boys are boys and girls are girls. They will be taught about procreation when the time is appropriate, which has traditionally been just before the age when they begin to experience inevitable changes that come with adolescence. There is no way a first grader can understand certain biological changes the same way a sixth grader does and it won't do any good to try to explain it to them. It will confuse most of them and could very well scare the snot out of some of them. There is wisdom in waiting for the right time. The same group that has no qualms about allowing kids to spew whatever filth that enters their mind hates the word 'wisdom' but wisdom is a good thing. Wisdom comes with education and experience and I don't know any first graders that are brimming with either. 

I'm not judging anyone. I am offering a way to allow children to grow up at a rate that is commensurate with their ability. If some idiot parent (alright that's a judgment) wants to read their first grade children bedtime stories about rape and incest, they have that right. They can order those stories on the internet and enjoy quality time with their kids. Once again the party of sex, drugs, and rock n' roll, wants to start indoctrinating our children early. Seriously, only a pedophile wants that kind of material on the shelves of public school libraries. Fools claim that removing pornographic literature from the shelves of public school libraries are guilty of banning books. I haven't had the chance to ask them, but I'd like to know if they feel the same way about books that provide instructions on how to make methamphetamine, a dangerous drug that can be made using common household items. Maybe there should be books in the school library that provide directions on how to make zip guns or explosives. Are there books in public school libraries that extol the virtues of Nazi Germany? Was it really a bad idea to exterminate all Jews? How long would they tolerate a book that glorified the history of the Ku Klux Klan? Is it really wrong to hate people because they were born into an inferior race? I could go on for hours. How come women are allowed to take men's jobs? Why should women get the same pay as a man? How long would books on those topics be allowed to remain in the school library? 

Once again democrats have interjected a ridiculous argument into the public discourse and insecure people, even some so-called conservatives, are too afraid of being labelled a bigot to stand up and protect our children, who are attending public schools, from the harm caused by pornographic literature. If anyone is wondering why there seem to be so many teachers getting sexually involved with their students all they have to do is peruse the library books in the school where the offense is occurring to find the answer. If I were a teacher who turned pedophile predator and found myself in court after being caught with one of my victims I might use the books I found in the school library and then read to my students as justification for my actions. If school administrators think that type of material is appropriate then it is only natural (in a perverts eyes) to act out some of the scenes in the book. 

School plays do it all the time. How many Shakespeare plays have dealt with murder, lust, suicide and betrayal and are then acted out on the stages in public schools? How is this any different? To a normal person the difference is obvious, but to a democrat pervert it is quite confusing. Allowing smut in public schools proves a person is open minded and able to understand that not everyone views the world the same way. They are more secure than the "Uptight" book banner. Democrats point the finger of scorn at parents who want their children to have a quality experience in public schools. They hide behind phrases like, "Not everyone comes from a great home you know!" As if that justifies destroying everyone's home life. That is why parents need to be more involved in the education of their children, not less. And no one who cares about our kids should be worried about being accused by a pervert of banning books. No educator should be concerned about a parent who wants to know everything there is to know about the school curriculum. If an educator is worried that parents might object to parts of the curriculum 

Keeping pornographic books out of the libraries of public schools, and therefore out of the hands of kids who lack the maturity to know how to process what they are seeing and reading does not qualify as banning books. It is simply protecting children. It is perverse and wrong to accuse people who are generally opposed to pornography anywhere of being intolerant and ignorant. And any parent who falls for those types of insults, gives in, and accepts as a matter of public agreement that schools must ensure that kids get their fill of disgusting stories and images before they graduate high school need to re-examine themselves, grow a little courage and boldly stand up for what they believe. Pornography is bad for everybody. It is addictive and destructive and no decent person would become involved in reading or watching pornographic material (that's a judgment too) I guess I am a pretty intolerant person after all. I believe in human decency and protecting kids from predators, especially when those predators are teaching those kids. 

If I ever get arrested for reading a paragraph from a book I find in an elementary or secondary public school library to a bunch of fools on the local school board, I will proudly display my fingerprint card and my mugshot in a beautiful frame in the entrance to my home. You're wrong again democrats, we don't want to ban books. You can get all the smut you want in the local book store and via the internet, it's a stupid thing to do (another judgment) but I won't stop you. I won't stop people from selling it either, but I will do everything I can to legally stop it from being part of the public school student's experience.