When being responsible is called "banning books"

 Removing a pornographic title from the school library isn't banning a book, any more than removing a book on torture or how to build a machine gun is banning a book. It is not appropriate behavior to provide guides on gay sex techniques and positions for 11 year olds--it's grooming to desensitize them.  If the taxpayers are expected to pay for them and the staff who selected them, they have a right to say what are the community standards. Librarians, even school librarians, have selection standards that are probably left of the ACLU. The hysteria about "banning" is whipped up by the ALA so they can whine about a parent who expects professional, rational thinking. In fact, what the staff are doing is guaranteeing a fail for the next bond issue.

Have You Looked Inside Any of These Books? | City Journal (city-journal.org)

Balenciaga's bad decision and poor apology

Balenciaga promoting the sexual abuse of children in its ads is bad, bad, bad. That said, how low does the New York Times have to be to blow it off as just another conspiracy by prudes and right wingers? Lower than a snake's belly? Lower than all the perps in the Metoo movement? Lower than all the cancel culture idiots? You may read that NYT fish wrapper; perhaps you buy products it advertises; maybe you know someone who works there. Give it up. If this is the best the old grey lady can do, she needs to be put out for pasture. So of course it didn't report on the Hunter Biden laptop and lied about Trump for 4 years + and went along with all the crazy conspiracies cooked up by the left during the pandemic.
Here's the first line, the lead. "Two new Balenciaga campaigns ignited a firestorm that traveled from the internet to Fox News, fueled by allegations that the brand condoned child exploitation." Notice, they got Fox News in the first sentence, and used the Inflammatory line "fueled by allegations." If you even saw the photos, that's no allegation. That's a slam dunk indictment. So much so, Balenciaga is suing the production company for $25 million in the NY supreme court!

 
The production company isn't to blame, the cameramen weren't to blame, the designers weren't to blame, not the costumers, not the light crew, the child models weren't to blame . . .( but their parents should start parenting classes). Who are to blame--first the people at the top, and not their sub-contractors. Also that ever present, group on the left that has been ripping apart any last shred of decency and history where sex, sexuality, biology, tradition, family, and human relationships are involved. That group is right up there advising your president and his administration about locker rooms, pronouns, athletic events, and court cases involving male/female in America.

And look at the take of CNN. The focus is on the image in the ad of the Supreme Court 2008 case on child porn, not on the disgusting images of the children! I guess because the owners are French they just didn't know what they were looking at? Hello! what about the kids! That might have been a clue. This wasn't "bad judgement" is the culture that is being promoted and pushed every day from the drag queen story hours to the hairy muscular athletes chasing ribbons on the girls' teams.

Balenciaga ads are a symptom of a deadly disease attacking our kids | Fox News

Balenciaga apologises for ads featuring bondage bears and child abuse papers | Balenciaga | The Guardian

https://whdh.com/news/balenciaga-suing-production-company-for-25-million-over-controversial-campaign/

Can she define the word woman? No.

Ketanji Brown Jackson can't define the word "woman" although she was nominated for a place on the highest court in the land for that reason, and she's very soft on the crime of possession of child porn. What's wrong with this? Nothing, according to Joe Biden. Considering his crimes, I suppose that makes some sense to them, because the excuse is other judges are lenient too. What about the children? I didn't go to Harvard or Yale (8 of the 9 judges are from 2 law schools), but I can define woman and I know when children are used to satisfy the lust of adults in mailed publications or internet sites, the adults whether perps or consumers need to be in jail for the maximum allowed, not a slap on the wrist.

When Annaliese Dodds (British government position for women's rights) was asked to define woman, she also, like Judge Brown-Jackson, wouldn't do it. Carl Trueman in First Things writes, "To be qualified for a job, one must have a basic understanding of the specific task at hand. The car mechanic needs to know what a car is; the brain surgeon needs to be able to recognize the brain. A politician tasked with safeguarding women’s rights should therefore know what a woman is and be able to articulate that understanding in public statements. “What is a woman?” hardly seems an unexpected or unfair question to ask the shadow secretary for women. And yet she fluffed it." . . .

"Trans ideology robs women of their history and takes male privilege to a whole new level—all in the name of women’s rights. Like the idea that pornography liberates women, transgender theory is arguably one of the most effective male confidence tricks in recent history: Nothing that women can lay claim to as women is now off-limits for men. Hugh Hefner once declared that Playboy was good for women, to which Fr. Richard John Neuhaus responded, “As long as women know what they are good for.” Today, the progressive lobby presents trans rights as good for women, to which I might respond, “As long as women have no idea what a woman is.” " https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2022/03/liturgy-of-the-powers

Money from child porn making its way to politicians

The uproar over sexual harassment that began with the Harvey Weinstein scandal has intensified the scrutiny of political contributions linked to Backpage, which law enforcement officials say is the chief platform for activities far worse than harassment, including sexual slavery and child prostitution.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/17/nancy-pelosis-super-pac-keeps-donations-from-backp/

Former Arizona congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick says she will donate money linked to Backpage.com that was given to her campaign, months after other Arizona Democrats unloaded campaign contributions linked to the embattled website. Democrat U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema donated $53,400 to the charity earlier this year for similar Backpage contributions.
Now why do you suppose an organization that promotes sex slavery and child pornography would be donating to the campaign of someone in Congress?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2017-09-26/arizona-politician-to-donate-backpage-related-campaign-funds

On another front, when the Office of Compliance pays money to women and men who are charging sexual harassment, do the recipients have to pay taxes on it, and if so, what is it called? Bonus? Service? Pay? Why is this so hard to nail down? One source lists 62 politicians so far, almost all Democrats, but some appear to have been paid off out of the Congressman's office budget.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/congress-sexual-harassment-slush-fund-255547

Child porn in Niles, Illinois libraries

From the Chicago Tribune: Anti-pornography activist Megan Fox created a 2:30 video urging Niles IL residents to vote against incumbent trustee Linda Ryan.

In the video, which was posted on Fox's YouTube channel on March 11, she accuses Ryan of voting to allow child pornography on library computers. On Nov. 19, the library board voted to add content filters on adult computers that would block all nudity and pornography. At the time, viewing pornography was already against library policy.

During the meeting, Ryan was one of the trustees who voted against the filtering policy, arguing that it went too far, getting in the way of patrons' ability to access information. Fox used the clips from the meeting to suggest that Ryan would be fine with child pornography. In the video, she also insisted that American Library Association's policy were putting children in danger. 

That was reported at the LIS web site (discussion site for librarians).  Then a comment from “SafeLibraries” on March 25:

Chicago Tribune got the story wrong. That paper has for over a year of reporting on Megan Fox consistently and obviously intentionally left out that the issue is child porn. Leaving out that the issue is child porn puts a spin on every story Chicago Tribune writes. The spin is that Megan Fox is a prude and libraries are perfectly fine when they make porn available. The reality is that Megan Fox is exposing child porn, and besides, libraries are breaking the law when they make porn available, depending on the state law applicable. In Illinois, they are breaking the law.

"In the video, she also insisted that American Library Association's policy were putting children in danger." You do understand that ALA policy is that librarians are not judges so they may not determine what is child pornography, right? Chicago Tribune never reports that even though it is written in ALA's guidelines for how libraries should write policy.

If a library trustee supports ALA diktat on allowing child porn over her own state's law that precludes all porn in public libraries, then that is someone who is violating the public trust, correct? Megan Fox is allowed to speak out on that, correct? It's wrong for Chicago Tribune to spin stories to hide the child porn issue, correct?

50 shades of grey--if you’re naked it’s sadomasochism, if you’re not naked, it’s just violence

Judith Reisman has written a number of studies and books on the damage that Alfred Kinsey’s sex research did to society. The  wide acceptance of Kinsey’s claims, she contends, has contributed to a degradation in morality, teaching sex in schools and the expansion of pornography. She traces the mommy porn of 50 shades back to him.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/kinsey-blamed-for-50-shades-mommy-porn/

She accuses Kinsey of child sexual assaults in his “research.”

“One of the main things would be for us have a congressional investigation of Kinsey, to see where people were so completely lied to, how this began,” she said.

There have been previous, unsuccessful attempts at such investigations, she said.

The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University is getting millions of tax dollars, she said, at minimum $21 million in recent years.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/30/entertainment/la-et-kinsey-films-20101230

Gershon Legman, the original compiler for Kinsey's pornography collection, revealed that

Kinsey's not-very-secret intention was to "respectabilize" homosexuality and certain sexual perversions ... He did not hesitate to extrapolate his utterly inadequate and inconclusive samplings to the whole population of the United States, not to say the world ... This is pure propaganda, and is ridiculously far from the mathematical or statistical science pretended.[5]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC116.HTM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/776356/posts

http://www.whale.to/b/reisman3.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/nih-funds-study-men-dont-like-use-condoms/

Censorship or common sense?

As a librarian I think I've seen or read just about everything that's out there (that's stupid) about digital porn, filters, libraries and access. It's always about freedom and never about protecting children or library patrons who have to sit next to the perverts. "Well, what if they are doing a school report about AIDS in Africa, and you've got a filter on the computer?" Yeah, sure. I know people who will not take their children to public libraries unattended--and that's just fine, indeed recommended, by some library directors. God forbid some slimeball should be prevented masterbating at the terminal or stacks while he views naked girls and women. Now it's Wikipedia. What? Librarians on their board/staff? Here's the story in E-Commerce News.

A decades-old record album cover showing a young girl posing nude may be illegal in the UK, but the controversial image has not been banned in the U.S., where Wikipedia is hosted. The user-created online encyclopedia has therefore determined it would be censorship to remove the image from its pages. Several British ISPs have restricted access to the page, however, in response to a complaint.

The boogey man is real; he lives on the internet

Protect the children.



And if your librarian thinks children don't need filters, sit her down in front of this video.