The next time your local school district makes YET MORE EXCUSES for poor student scores--some are truly scandalous in Christian County--ask them to ponder this:
Link HERE.
By Gretchen Garrity
One of the arguments the American Library Association (ALA) and its proponents use to push vulgar, sexually explicit and age-inappropriate books and materials in public libraries is their concocted “Right to Read.” It’s a twisted interpretation of the First Amendment, which allows the ALA to suggest that minor children have a First Amendment right to read anything, regardless of content.
The first thing to note is that this interpretation strips parents’ rights away. Parents have not only the duty, but the right to protect their minor children from books that seek to politically indoctrinate or sexualize them in ways that are contrary to their values and are harmful to the normal development of children. There are many studies that show the harm sexually explicit materials can have on young minds. It’s common sense to protect children emotionally as well as physically, and most parents and citizens have a natural understanding of this concept.
Minor children also have limited rights, and are properly governed by their parents until they reach the age of majority. Most parents believe that children should not be exposed to books and materials that sexualize and/or indoctrinate them in far left agendas.
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom to Read, which is why the ALA is working furiously to codify the Freedom to Read in law. Here is the gist of what the ALA believes about the “freedom” to read. There is enough poop in the statement to make it wholly unacceptable.
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. [Note: they use the word ‘policies’ because none of the following is law]
I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.
II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. [Bolding added]
VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.
VII. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. [Bolding added] Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.
Adopted June 19, 1939, by the ALA Council; amended October 14, 1944; June 18, 1948; February 2, 1961; June 27, 1967; January 23, 1980; January 29, 2019.
Inclusion of “age” reaffirmed January 23, 1996. [Bolding added]
USURPATION
Note the ALA is mimicing language from our Constitution. “Library Bill of Rights” is stolen from the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. This is the purposeful usurpation of language and the twisting of it to mean something else. Here is the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Where in the First Amendment does it say that children or even adults have the right to read? If that was so, then every parent whose child graduates from a public high school as a functional illiterate should be able to sue the government schools. The ALA is making up “rights” out of whole cloth in order to carry out a far left agenda.
One of the goals and objectives of the agenda is to control the hearts and minds of your children; hence the ALA’s desperate bid to codify a right to read without regard to age. Every three-year-old to which they can normalize transgender ideology, every ten-year-old that can be sexualized, every fourteen-year-old radicalized to support their agenda is another soldier in their war against our culture.
The ALA’s June 2024 annual meeting resulted in a statement that once again “strongly reaffirms freedom for all to read freely.” It claims our republic is a democracy. It condemns efforts to identify and/or relocate books and decries “efforts to prevent minors from accessing developmentally relevant library materials.”
That seems to be code for books with sexual themes and far left agendas.
The highfalutin’ and elitist language is embarrassing at this point. We all know what they’re up to.
School board member reveals @NJEA uses Marxist fist as its symbol for “RISE; Radical Imagination Summit for Education.”
— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) July 1, 2024
This is teachers “radical” training for kids from a teachers union. This is Marxism right in our faces.#parenting #moms #dads #edchat @BillSpadea @wakeupnj https://t.co/3wNTURsSoo pic.twitter.com/AagVykIb8G
(Cross-posted from Hick Christian's Substack)
By David Rice
Missouri's open primary system presents a complex web of political implications that extend far beyond simple voter accessibility. Recent evidence from Missouri's 1st Legislative District race between Jeff Farnan and Michelle Horner illuminates concerning patterns that raise questions about the actual beneficiaries of open primaries.
The
core vulnerability of open primaries lies in their susceptibility to
strategic voting manipulation. With no party registration requirements,
voters can freely participate in any party's primary, potentially
diluting the voice of committed party members. In Missouri's 6th
Congressional District, unusually high primary turnout patterns suggest
organized voting behavior that violates traditional party lines.
County Registered Voters /Votes Cast /Vote Percentage
Atchison: 3,783 1,326 35.1%
Gentry: 4,670 1,808 38.7%
Holt: 3,207 962 30.0%
Nodaway: 13,252 4,014 30.3%
This phenomenon becomes particularly visible in rural districts, where relatively small voter populations make strategic voting more impactful. The Farnan-Horner race provides a compelling example, with turnout numbers significantly higher than typical primary participation rates.
Farnan vs. Horner County Results:
Atchison: 1,012 vs 314
Gentry: 1,327 vs 471
Holt: 713 vs 249
Nodaway: 3,234 vs 790
Democrats in predominantly Republican districts can effectively influence Republican primary outcomes by voting for candidates they perceive as more moderate or amenable to their interests. This creates a scenario where the eventual Republican nominee may not truly represent core Republican voter interests.
[FIGURE 4: Insert flowchart showing how cross-party voting influences primary outcomes]
Perhaps more concerning is how open primaries benefit political power brokers like Steven Tilley, Rex Sinquefield, Axiom Strategies, or Americans for Prosperity. The system allows influential lobbyists and financiers to exert control through multiple channels.
Just one man, like Steven Tilley, influences every organization. Add the effects of the other financiers, and you create an exponential impact on our political system.
They touch everything:
- Lobbying relationships with every powerful politician
- PAC connections
- Legislative influence
- Ethics Commission relationships
Given these findings, several critical questions emerge:
1. Why does Missouri maintain an open primary system despite clear evidence of potential manipulation?
2. How do these dynamics affect true representative democracy in rural districts?
3. Who truly benefits from maintaining the current system?
4. What role do financial interests play in preserving open primaries?
5. Why is Jeff Farnan able to co-sponsor an anti-gun bill (HB 32) with a Democrat, and the party scrubs it from his House Website?
Think about how powerful Farnan’s protectors are in this regard. Think about how important it is for them to continue to have Farnan elected.
Think how Orwellian this is. Think how despicable this thought control—from the Super Majority Republican Party.
Yet, he’s only one person. They are more than willing to do this for every Knock-Off Chinese Republican that will vote with Kehoe. Your Republican party isn’t Republican, nor is it Conservative or Constitutional.
The evidence suggests that Missouri's open primary system may function less as a tool for voter empowerment and more as a mechanism for external influence in local politics.
The unusual voting patterns in District 1 and the complex political relationships revealed through the Tilley/Sinquefield investigation web of finances indicate a state-wide system that undermines rather than enhances Representative Representation.
Democrats openly vote in your primaries. They openly influence your selections of candidates. And they openly finance your candidates through lobbyists and financiers. When you go vote on November 5th, you aren’t voting for Republicans. You’re voting for people with an R next to their name.
I know you are going to the poll on November 5th to vote for Kehoe over Quade, thinking you are saving the State. The thing is, you’ve already lost.
The state was rigged against you in the Primary. They chose your Democrat candidate for you when you were trying to swear up and down Ashcr@ft was a “good Christian man.”
Why doesn’t Jess Piper run in District 1? Because it would be running against another Democrat.
Why don’t they put up a better Democrat against Kehoe than Quade? Because they know it would be a waste of a good Democrat.
Library replaces Columbus Day with Staff Training Day.
— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) October 15, 2024
I’m surprised they didn’t call it Indigenous Librarians Day.
They hate us and they’re using public funding to do it.#parenting #moms #dads #tlchat https://t.co/S1DCz9HcvS
The Christian County Library is closed because it's a "Staff Training Day." Don't the employees get the federal holiday off? A keyword search of "Christopher Columbus" in the Coolcat Catalog is interesting. Here is a decent book for kids: Columbus Day. Another one HERE. It describes Columbus as "neither as hero nor heel but as
a flawed and complex man whose significance is undeniably monumental." Here's a lovely entry: Kill Columbus, in which time travelers seek to go back in time and kill the explorer before he can discover the new world. Sigh. Slim pickings for children.
According to National Days Blog: "Columbus Day, observed on the second Monday of October, is a federal holiday in the United States commemorating Christopher Columbus’s arrival in the Americas on October 1292. In 2024, Columbus Day falls on October 14th. It is a reminder of the spirit of exploration, the quest for new horizons, and the courage to venture into the unknown. This day not only honours Columbus’s achievements but also invites us to reflect on the historical implications of his voyages."
Public #libraries nationwide are wiping out Columbus Day. Here’s something that can be done to wrest control from the @ALALibrary #librarians using public money to attack America. 🇺🇸
— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) October 14, 2024
School board restores #ColumbusDay!#parenting #moms #dads #tlchat #IndigenousPeoplesDay https://t.co/WIJQXAfiV2
This is how the Christian County Library cancels the federal holiday of Columbus Day. The new holiday is "Staff Training Day." From the handbook:
If you send your child to a US high school today, he has a 1-in-30 chance of identifying as "trans" and a 1-in-18 chance of questioning his gender, making him 4-10x more likely to attempt suicide. Seek alternatives as though your kid's life depends on it.https://t.co/kputZBaRk1
— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) October 13, 2024
See the film 22 Words HERE.
Incredible clip from the new documentary called ‘22 Words’ which talks about the rampant s*xu*Iization of children in schools.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 11, 2024
Watch @REVWUTRUTH get removed by security from a school board meeting by police after exposing p**nogr*hpic books available to children.
It is a… pic.twitter.com/cmiRgDRdZd
Imagine your beloved child running across this book right when he or she is at their most vulnerable point.
