By Mark Swarbrick
Library Double Standard
Antony Deter, the director of the Dixon Public Library in Dixon, Illinois is stubbornly defending the illegal child pornography in the Library. In regard to the comic book for children that displays oral sex between children, Deter has made the following statements:
“Materials should not be excluded from a collection solely because the content or its creator may be considered offensive or controversial,”
“Refusing to select resources due to potential controversy is considered censorship.”
“Censorship must be exercised by patrons for themselves. The Board of Directors and the Library Director cannot restrict the selection of the patron, and neither can the patron restrict the freedom of selection of other patrons.”
“From an ethical point of view, I can’t just remove books because someone asked me to.”
Concerned parents, who object to the material, have been labeled “bigots” by Director Deter’s wife. She said in a Facebook post about those objecting to the porn, “I hate bigots and I don’t say it enough.”
Mrs. Deter went on to express her attitude that children should be having sex:
“Our hearts and minds are with the people who showed up for the First Amendment rights for our public library and the rights of young, gay kids to not be hidden during Pride Month,”
Child Sex Approved
Let that statement sink in and consider her phrase, “young gay kids.” Excuse me? Her statement implies that she believes that young kids have a “right” to have sex. Seriously? Yes, that unfortunately happens, but is this something to be encouraged? No one with a lick of common sense thinks that is something that should be pushed in a public library. Yet, Mrs. Deter believes that “young kids” have a “right” to engage in sex. How is it that people bereft of a moral compass attain positions of power?
Morally, sex is reserved for married adults. Legally, sex must at least be between consenting adults. To encourage sex between children is absolutely insane, unless your goal is to spread disease, cause unwanted pregnancies, destroy stable American families, increase the welfare burden, and increase crime from juvenile delinquency. The “young gay kids” statement by Mrs. Deter shows the true intention behind the material in the library, and those who promote it – to inflame adolescent passions and groom kids to have sex with each other.
Children have not attained the maturity necessary to deal with the powerful emotional attachments that come with sex. Young children who are encouraged to engage in sex are being set up for heartache they are not prepared to handle. Such carelessness can result in an increase in teen suicides. Anyone who encourages sex between children is guilty of child abuse. This reveals the sort of depraved minds of some in positions of power in the government of the city of Dixon – something to bear in mind on election day.
Gaslighting with Constitutional Craziness
Deter says that promoting illegal child porn in the public library is a matter of defending the First Amendment. How absurd! The First Amendment has nothing to do with getting illegal child porn out of a library. It is amazing how many people in public office have no understanding of jurisprudence in regard to the Constitution and the laws of the land.
Director Deter further reveals his ignorance of the law when he asserts:
“Removing them on a discriminatory basis would put the library in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”
The 14th Amendment? Nonsense. I have to wonder how Mr. Deter said that with a straight face, for it is one of the most blatant cases of gaslighting I have ever heard. Deter would have us believe that the Constitution requires that illegal child porn be allowed in the library. Does he think that the people of Dixon cannot read?
The 14th Amendment says that no state shall:
“deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
To assert that the guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” would be violated by removing a pornographic book is quite a stretch. Let’s see if we can stretch it that far. Here are the hoops we have to jump through to get there.
- Establish that children, by virtue of engagement in homosexual activities, somehow become a separate race of people. Let’s call that Race Group A.
- Establish that children engaging in heterosexual sex are another separate race of people. Let’s call that Race Group B.
- Establish that images of children engaging in heterosexual sex (Group B) are currently being permitted in the library and codify that permissibility into law.
- Establish that images of children engaging in homosexual sex (Group A) are not being permitted in the library. Codify that into law.
All four statements above must be established as fact. Then and only then could it be argued that a group of people are being denied equal protection of the laws. But it is easily seen that none of those four conditions are met. Deter’s argument apparently is as follows: The images are of children engaging in homosexual oral sex, and that this somehow constitutes a protected group which should enjoy the same privilege under the law as children engaging in heterosexual oral sex.
But it would have to be shown that images of children engaging in heterosexual oral sex are being allowed and not objected to. Such is not the case. The decent citizens of Dixon don’t want ANY oral sex portrayed in children’s comic books. Thus the 14th Amendment is not in play.
Despite Mr. Deter’s confident assertions, he doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talking about. The 14th Amendment guarantees that the state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. Since photos or cartoons of sex between minors is forbidden by federal law, there is no injustice if cartoons of homosexual sex are forbidden also.
Federal Law Blatantly Violated
Indeed, the federal law makes it clear that depictions of any sex between minors is illegal:
“a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct…or depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in…oral-genital contact…whether between persons of the same or opposite sex…or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A.” (Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code)
And just so it is clear to everyone, the comic book Gender Queer which is in the Dixon Public Library – the book that the Deters staunchly defend – depicts sex between minors. It is obvious from the images in the comic book that these are kids. The book is a comic book for children. Furthermore, Page 61 contains text which defines the age of the two children as “11 or 12 years old,” and the next frame on page 62 shows the two naked children engaged in sex with one on top of the other. The Dixon Public Library, Director Deter, and the City Council of Dixon, Illinois are in defiance of not just morality and common decency, but are standing in contempt of federal law.
Equal Treatment?
Deter claims to be so eager to do things fairly and equally. He claims to be opposed to “censorship.” He often speaks of following the “library code” as laid down by the American Library Association. So, let us consider the actions of the American Library Association against books that promote wholesome family values.
The Little House on the Prairie books contain the true experiences of Laura Ingalls Wilder as she went west by covered wagon with her family and built a homestead on the prairie. Her children’s books were so popular that they spawned the TV series, Little House on the Prairie, produced by Michael Landon. Like the books, the TV series promoted conservative Christian values and was very popular. It ran for nine seasons, from 1974 to 1983.
In 1954, the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), which is a division of the American Library Association (ALA), established an award for authors who make a substantial and lasting contribution to literature for children. In recognition of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s renowned contribution to children’s literature, the award was named The Laura Ingalls Wilder Award.
But today the ALA is headed by Emily Drabinski, a self-avowed Marxist and a lesbian who absolutely hates conservative family values. She has vowed to “subvert normal family types” in America. She intends to dismember the traditional American family by grooming children with homosexual pornography and she is using the public library system to attain her diabolical goal. Apparently, she has an army of followers and the Deters seem to be aligned with that.
Wholesome books like Little House on the Prairie are antithetical to the goal of the ALA, so they have to go. In 2018 the ALA changed the name of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award to the Children’s Literature Legacy Award. The organization says they changed the name because the Little House accounts contain “expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC core values.” Apparently, the core values of the ALA do not include the American values of independence, reverence, traditional marriage and Judeo-Christian ethics.
The ALA launched a disinformation campaign to defame the Ingalls, claiming that the Ingalls stole Indian land and the books contain racial epithets about Indians. These are outright falsehoods, as I shall demonstrate. The ALA hates the books merely because they present conservative family values, not because the Ingalls were actually bigoted in any way.
The Lie Exposed
I have read all the books in the series by Laura Ingalls Wilder. They cover the time period between 1870 to 1894. These are factual accounts recorded by someone who was there. Laura merely tells it like it was.
Many people that the Ingalls encountered had fought in the Indian wars. There were a lot of bad feelings between whites and Indians at the time. This is history as it really happened. Laura’s mother Caroline was afraid of the Indians, and for good reason. In their first homestead on the prairie, numerous tribes congregated nearby to decide if all the settlers should be wiped out. The war drums could be heard every night for weeks and they greatly frightened Caroline.
Earlier, Laura’s father had befriended an Indian who had marched right into the Ingalls cabin. The first visit happened while Charles was away. The Indian walked around the cabin silently looking at things and then left. The abrupt and bold entrance of the Indian into their cabin gave Caroline and the children a terrible fright. Charles had taught his family that there were good and bad Indians just as there were good and bad white men. He often told Caroline, “not all Indians are bad.” But she still feared them and Caroline had no idea if this was a good or bad Indian.
Some time later the mysterious lone Indian returned again when Charles was home. Laura observed how her Pa made friendly overtures, offering food, and sitting to smoke with the Indian in front of their fireplace. Laura said they passed Pa’s pipe back and forth while they sat in silence. Their visitor returned many times and Pa and the Indian would sit and smoke the pipe together while trying to communicate with hand signals. What did this native American want? Friendship? Or was he trying to find out what sort of people these settlers were? Charles had no idea, until later, that his friendliness would save the lives of themselves and many others.
When the tribes gathered to discuss wiping out the settlers, many chiefs stood up and spoke in favor of killing all the whites in the area. Finally, one night, the Indian that Charles Ingalls had befriended stood up to speak in the war council. All fell silent for everyone knew who he was – a highly respected chief of one of the largest tribes. He solemnly declared, “If you fight the settlers, you must fight me also.” Since he was a leader of a powerful tribe, this put an end to any idea of attacking the settlers in the area. Later the government withdrew the land from homesteading and granted it to the Indians, so the Ingalls abandoned their homestead they had worked so hard on.
I tell all this to counter the lies that say the Ingalls were racist and hated Indians. They didn’t have a mean bone in their body. They befriended Indians. The friendliness of Charles Ingalls towards Indians resulted in the saving of many lives. How different the truth is from the lies being spun by the ALA. And Caroline cannot be criticized for fearing the Indians during a time when bloodshed was not unheard of on the prairie. Any woman on the prairie had reason to fear in those days.
Conservative Christians
The Ingalls were devout conservative family-oriented Christians. But their town of De Smet, South Dakota had no church. Charles Ingalls was the first to propose they build a church. He was also the first to donate money to the project. Then he helped build it with his own hands. It stands yet today and the extensively remodeled building houses a thriving congregation.
The Ingalls were courageous, hardworking pioneers, and patriotic Americans. These are not the sort of people the ALA has any use for, which is the real reason they are attacked and libeled. To defame them while on the other hand promoting disgusting pornography that targets children reveals the cold black hearts of the ALA leadership. It reveals the double standard of the people running public libraries and shows they have an agenda that harms children and is intended to disrupt the American family.
Laura Ingalls, and her daughter Rose were both political conservatives. They hated the progressive New Deal program pushed by Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt. This is all the more reason why the ultra-left ALA hates the Wilder books, for they openly promote conservative and traditional values.
After the ALA launched its campaign against the Little House children’s books, libraries began banning them. The Lincoln Unified School District in Stockton, California removed Little House in the Big Woods, falsely claiming the book was racist. The Lafourche Parish elementary school libraries in Thibodaux, Louisiana removed Little House on the Prairie, claiming the book was offensive to Indians.
The number of conservative or Christian books banned by libraries is legend. The classic, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis was banned from all of the Howard County Maryland school system libraries. This is just a few examples of the many times that libraries have banned, or attempted to ban, conservative books across America. The ALA is the leader in a war on wholesome decency and the values that made America great.
So, let us not tolerate any more of Deter’s nonsense about how the library can’t ban books. They have been doing it to us for decades. Books that present conservative values are banned as politically incorrect and incompatible with the ALA’s “core values.” Yet, books that promote debauchery are promoted and protected. It is plain to see what the real core values of the ALA are.
Want to leave a comment? Scroll to the bottom of the page.
If you found this article interesting you may enjoy one of my books, available in both Kindle version and paperback. Click the images to get more info and/or purchase:
Read my book: Hidden History: The Real Story of the Democratic Party
Find out what the Democrats have been up to for the past 150 years!
Available on Amazon for just a few dollars – Click HERE.
Available in Paperback and Kindle eBook – 200 pages of documented facts!
The Covid C
onspiracy: The Cure for Covid and the Plot to Hide it from the World
Available from Amazon for only a few dollars – Click HERE.
End of Days: What the Bible Says Happens Next
Available on Amazon for just five dollars – Click HERE.
Other books by Pastor Mark Swarbrick, click the image below…
