They Just Keep Showing Up In our Library

It's gaslighting to tell you that books and films like the ones below are appropriate for minors and even very young children, that some children "need to see themselves" in the library, or that children have a right to read these books. Each of these materials are in our library system in Christian County.

It's gaslighting to tell citizens that First Amendment rights extend to minors. No, children do not have a right to view books that their parents deem inappropriate or harmful.

These books are widely available elsewhere and may even be checked out via the inter-library loan system if a parent so desires. They can be shelved in areas that allow parents to check them out, but are not waiting on a shelf for children whose parents do not want them exposed to such materials.

Parents have a right to curate what their children are exposed to in publicly-funded libraries. And it is not feasible to expect parents to hover over their children and pre-read every book that is picked up. It is common sense to abide by community standards that allow every child to feel welcome and safe in a library. A public library's children's section should be a place that parents can trust, and not a minefield of materials that can harm their kids.

The persistent agenda to expose children to sexually inappropriate materials has its roots in overturning our political system. Revolutionary organizations like the Marxist ALA seek to de-moralize the populace to make it easier to destroy families, cultures, and nations. Do not let them get away with it.

Believe it or not, by fighting back against this pernicious agenda, Americans are engaging in a key battle to restore our communities. Our children, our families and our libraries are worth fighting for.

"A Court of Frost and Starlight" is straight-up p0rn0graphy available to children in @ncpublicschools 💀#EnoughIsEnough #nced #ncpol #WCPSS@NCGOP @Moms4Liberty @M4LWakeNC @Mashburn4NC @REVWUTRUTH @MargoinWNC @NCHouseGOP @ncspeakerhall @DanielforSenate @DanBlueNC… pic.twitter.com/TGZDXmTQau

— Pavement Education Project (@PavementEducat1) July 21, 2025

 

 A Court of Frost and Starlight is in the Nixa and Ozark "Fantasy Sections" of the library. Hmmm....is that adult or teen or what?

"Call Me By Your Name" is more p0rn0graphy available to children, including middle school children, in @ncpublicschools Getting tired yet?

You won't believe it unless you read it. Anyone want to #ProtectTheChildren? #nced #ncpol #ncga #ProtectDontPervert @ncspeakerhall… pic.twitter.com/VXz5DZnUok

— Pavement Education Project (@PavementEducat1) July 28, 2025

 

The film version of Call Me By Your Name is in the Nixa branch. 

"Fred Gets Dressed" is about a very young who boy runs around nude until he decides to dress-up like a girl. This propaganda is available in @ncpublicschools

Protect your child today by downloading our lawyer-approved letter so they don't have to be subjected to this… pic.twitter.com/uvVWQoQzlY

— Pavement Education Project (@PavementEducat1) August 1, 2025

 

Fred Gets Dressed is a book geared toward 3-6 year olds. It is in the Ozark branch of our library.

Dismissal With Prejudice

By Gretchen Garrity

The case against three Christian County Library Board of Trustees has been dismissed with prejudice.

This was always going to happen. The case never had legs. It was always about trying to force the Christian County Library Board of Trustees members -- Diana Brazeale, John Garrity, and Echo Schneider -- to change their officer election vote.

Every cloud has a silver lining. The lawsuit exposed a great deal about how past library boards gave away their governing power through the ALA playbook. Bylaws and policies were implemented that gave library administrative staff governing power they were never meant to have.

It allowed the administrative staff to operate largely independent of the taxpayers and their duly elected and appointed representatives. It made library boards mere "rubber-stampers" to the agenda of the Marxist ALA. It is why the battle to make the library safe for children is still going on regardless of community input and standards.

The lawsuit, which was "authorized" by the two minority board members, freed up groups like U-turn in Education, the specious blogger(s) We Are Concerned and their various comrades to dox and defame board members with false accusations of "criminal intent," "embezzlement," "Weaponized Incompetence," and so on.

It allowed legacy media reporters to indulge in misleading articles, to champion an opposing group with which they were likely ideologically aligned.

Will we have long to wait to hear about the dismissal of this lawsuit from the News-Leader, the Springfield Daily Citizen, KSMU, and those who campaign against parental rights and child safety?

Public service, true public service, is not for the faint of heart.

Dan Kleinman of Safe Libraries explains it all

 If you know someone who needs to get up to speed quickly on why our library battle is so important, send them this video. He explains it all. A great primer.

Episode 5: Unmasking Marxism in Our Public Libraries

On this episode of Our Country Our Voice, Dan Kleinman discuss the alarming infiltration of Marxist ideology in the American education system, particularly through public libraries.

Chapters

00:00 The Threat of Marxism in… pic.twitter.com/m9vsxVZFaE

— Shoe (@samosaur) June 18, 2025

Why we keep fighting for Christian County's children and parents

 

And the incoming president of American Library Association is “nonbinary.” https://t.co/O4RBMu0hFz pic.twitter.com/bYPp0XKcTk

— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) June 17, 2025

The "right to receive information"

From: ALA

 

By Gretchen Garrity

The American Library Association and their comrades in the education, publishing and political institutions have suffered a setback in the Library Wars. 

The United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has decided the case of Little v. Llano County.

In its introduction, the court laid out the case:

"Patrons of a county library in Texas sued the librarian and other officials, alleging they removed 17 books because of their treatment of racial and sexual themes. The district court ruled that defendants abridged plaintiffs’ “right to receive information” under the Free Speech Clause and ordered the books returned to the shelves. On appeal, a divided panel of our court affirmed in part. We granted en banc rehearing."

En banc means the whole court, rather than a smaller panel, heard the case. In their decision, the Court held:

"We now reverse the preliminary injunction and render judgment dismissing the Free Speech claims. We do so for two separate reasons.

First, plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books. Yes, Supreme Court precedent sometimes protects one's right to receive someone else's speech. But plaintiffs would transform that precedent into a brave new right to receive information from the government in the form of taxpayer-funded library books. The First Amendment acknowledges no such right."

Further, the Court stated:

"The only sensible course—and, happily, the one supported by reams of precedent—is to hold that the right to receive information does not apply here. A plaintiff may not invoke that right to challenge a library's decisions about which books to buy, which books to keep, or which books to remove."

And then there is this:

"Finally, we note with amusement (and some dismay) the unusually over-caffeinated arguments made in this case. Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library. Plaintiffs and amici warn of “book bans,” “pyres of burned books,” “totalitarian regimes,” and the “ Index librorum prohibitorum.” One amicus intones: “Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people.”

"Over-caffeinated arguments." LOL. Thank goodness the court took notice of the nutty rhetoric that has been floated for ever so long now. The revolutionary stridency, the bosom-heaving self-righteousness of the activists, was disposed of in the Court's decision.

Reason has an article about the decision HERE. They have a followup HERE. And Bloomberg Law covers the decision HERE.

The decision is not without controversy, and some of the judges issued a dissent. However, it seems we are seeing a return to a more traditional interpretation of the First Amendment, rather than the "brave new right" that the ALA has been pushing for years. Most likely, this or another such case will find its way to the Supreme Court.

It was noted that if individuals or groups have a First Amendment right to "receive information," aka force public libraries to keep certain books, then there is a similar First Amendment "right" to compel public libraries to add certain books, as well. One can see the tension.

And, it must be said, a public library is only as good as those who are curating the collection--which makes it very important for citizens to know who is adding which books to its collection, and how those books are being classified and shelved.

And, just for nice, more common sense:

• To Ban Or Not To Ban Is Not Even The Question...

Finishing up with WLA's Dan Kleinman who tweets about how Book Riot (comrades of ALA) is promoting Pride Month in June. There's a plethora of information in the thread, and Dan pulls no punches. He has been at this fight for over two decades. He knows the stakes:

If they aren’t trying to indoctrinate and gr[][]m school children, why are librarians broadcasting this:

"How to Prepare for Pride Month in Libraries 2025"

Written by Kelly Jensen who hates parents, children, and Trump.

parenting moms dads

Link follows in thread. pic.twitter.com/XTE6o5K0cS

— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) May 25, 2025