The Bullies of Banned Books Week

BannedBooksby Linda Harvey   9/19/14
What would you do if you wanted to expose kids to trash and treason while keeping pesky parents away? You might try something like “Banned Books Week,” a diversionary tactic invented by the leftist American Library Association in league with predictable business interests anxious to market tons of total garbage to children without interference.

During the week of September 21 to 27 this year, the ALA (joined by obscene profiteers) will moan about the “freedom to read” while many libraries systematically purge collections of Christian and conservative material, deluding themselves that this is admirable and in no way hypocritical.

In reality, there’s no “banning” happening, in the sense of government removal of material from circulation. What does happen is that certain library or school material at the local level is sometimes openly questioned by parents. This infuriates liberals, who demand the right to quietly make decisions behind the scenes. They choose books/videos that predictably advocate abortion, any-faith-but-Christianity, homosexuality, anti-Americanism, evolution, neo-paganism, atheism, Marxism, and they reject others.

In other words, they practice censorship. But when a wise leftist does it in the privacy of her office, it’s called “choice.”

Savvy parents will question the underlying premise that there’s a huge problem in America with “book banning.” This non-problem is phony, phony, phony. “Parents, leave us alone!” is the real dilemma for librarians or curriculum committees in schools, who want to prescribe for other people’s children a “freedom to read” any kind of jaw-dropping bilge that exists.

Their decisions seldom see the light of day, or of parental input, so there is little accountability for the small-minded prejudice of the Christophobic ideologues making these decisions.

Now admittedly, not all librarians are loony leftists. In fact, some are speaking out here and there against the fascist, anti-knowledge approach of BBW. They admit the goal is all about exaggeration and intimidation. In other words, “Banned Books Week” is essentially a pro-bullying strategy, with parents, the community, even thoughtful teachers the victims.

Censorship is a common practice in totalitarian regimes, like the Nazis, to eliminate materials that don’t fit the prevailing ideology. Surely some of you are nodding and thinking, “Yes, this sounds like the liberals in America today!” Absolutely correct.

So why isn’t the ALA and its outrage over “book banning” challenged as a fraud?

Well, it has been. Twenty years ago, Thomas Sowell wrote an article called “Hogwash is happening,” and pointed out the foundational problems with BBW. Sowell related seeing a window display decrying “book banning,” yet as he pointed out, none of the books in question were banned but still widely available in the U.S.

Here’s what our friends at Safe, have to say:

The American Library Association ( ALA) celebrates so-called ‘Banned Books Week’ every year. But no books are banned in the United States. All books are available in any bookstore and many libraries nationwide. So why is the ALA telling us about the banning of books? Because that propaganda ensures people continue to allow children unfettered access to inappropriate material.

And then there’s the issue of Internet filters, which we won’t cover in great detail, but it’s worth noting that the “Banned Books Week” Coalition generally opposes—yes, opposes—filters for children. Here’s what one of the BBW coalition members, the National Coalition Against Censorship, says in opposition to filters. They agree with a recent report on Internet filters, that the use of filters, “…limits the free exchange of ideas necessary in a healthy democracy.” I guess a “healthy democracy” means being comfortable with eight-year-olds viewing images of people having sex with animals, or scenes of adult-child sexual contact?

The “Banned Books Week” web site has a map of censorship, which eerily resembles the “hate group map” published by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [Full disclosure: my group, Mission America, is marked as a dot on the SPLC map, as if we are a “scaarry” group. Liberal bullying, 101.]

So, already wary about the misuse of such “maps,” I spent some time perusing the frightening incidents of book banning, this “crisis” we should all fear. Here are a few highlights.

In Bentonville, Arkansas in 2007, a book called The Whole Lesbian Sex Book by Felice Newman was removed from the public library. I have not read this book, but suspecting it might be just as outrageously explicit as most “gay” material (and unconcerned about any impact on children), I consulted the Internet.

A search revealed a glowing review and some highlights from the book, including [warning: graphic content ]–“how to keep your sex life hot – whether you have one partner or many, or are going solo; how to have all the orgasms you desire – expanded chapter on Tantra, G-spot orgasms, multiple orgasms…the latest vibrators, dildos, and harnesses – and how to get the most out of your sex toys,” and so on.

In most people’s minds, this is not public library material.

A book I am somewhat familiar with, The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, received complaints in many towns in recent years, including Portage, Indiana; Grandview Heights, Ohio; and Roanoke, Virginia. It’s actually an inconsequential and vulgar book featuring repeated episodes of graphic sex (including among teens), physical abuse, masturbation, alcoholism, you name it. Any child—no, make that person — reading Perks will be degraded, not enlightened.

Another book on my shelf, Amy Sonnie’s Revolutionary Voices, an anthology of allegedly teen thoughts and experiences was the subject of a complaint in Burlington County, New Jersey in 2010. Here’s a passage from this book:

As far as I know, I’ve been masturbating my whole life. But it wasn’t until 9 that I realized it was an impulse that you had to turn off. Especially in class. (p. 220)

Here’s another one:

I am a triracial, First Nation, Two-Spirit Fairy Trans Faggot activist…I am committed to unleashing Out/rage/us Acts of Delightful Revolution. ( p.198.)

How about this one:

My sexuality is as fluid, infinite, undefinable, and ever-changing as the north-flowing river…Sexuality is not black or white…it is gray…I know that defining myself is not so simple… ( p.167.)

Now, aren’t such stellar examples of youth “freedom” just what your child needs to become well-educated?

Here’s a thought about Banned Books Week and how we should observe it. Choose several of your favorite Christian or conservative books and email your local public and high school libraries to suggest they add these titles to their collections. Most libraries make their own purchases, so don’t plan a book donation unless you get the library’s okay.

But let’s just see how sincere library professionals are, how unbiased, about this “freedom to read.”

And parents: keep questioning the cheap trash being tossed into the lives of children. Pushback against the left is always a good thing.

MissionAmericaThumbLinda Harvey is president of Mission America and hosts a talk show on Salem affiliate WRFD in Columbus, OH. • (6002 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Bullies of Banned Books Week

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Liberals love to rely on credentials. This way, a “professional” librarian is presumed to be censoring based on objective standards of quality rather than (as is actually the case) based on the same sort of personal views that are the basis of complaints by ordinary citizens.

    As for the bullying aspect, this is another inherent aspect of liberalism. It no longer seems ironic to point out that no one complains more about bullying that liberals — and no one engages in (intellectual/emotional) bullying more than liberals do.

    • David Ray says:

      “Liberals love to rely on credentials.”

      Very observant point. I’ll provide you with an example . . .
      Mary Mapes, who was quietly fired along with Dan Rather, was debating someone. (I heard it over news radio.) She constantly would ask: “Are you a news reporter?” knowing that he wasn’t. She would then quip that he had no authority to comment on her obsessed debacle that happened between her and Dan Rather.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Given the record of reporters over the past decade (which is why I call them newsliars), not being one is an asset.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This article a wonderful explication of the kind of deception that we have to deal with. And, believe me, a lot of people who are not sympathetic to the Left have have fully fallen for their tactics.

    If you prohibit, say, an XXX adult magazine from being displayed in an elementary school library, you have committed the dreaded sin of “censorship.” You might as well take “Inherit the Wind” and “To Kill a Mockingbird” and start a big bonfire and throw them on. You’re no better than a Nazi.

    Of course, this does not apply to the books that the Left wants to keep out of the library. In such cases they are not censoring but merely protecting some supposed victim group’s right not to be offended.

    This isn’t a particularly difficult bit of deception to see through. But you’d be surprised how many people do not. They are useful idiots for the Left whether they realize it or not. Many actually think of themselves as conservatives or even libertarians.

    The reason this is a difficult issue for many is because the idea of holding to basic standards of appropriateness is not something people are taught. It’s more of an “all or nothing” impulse that invades our society, which is why libertarianism inherently aids and abets the Left.

    We need reasonable and proportional thinking, and moral standards that are based in the sense that there are decent and indecent things in this world, and at the very least that there are age-appropriate things.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Note that Ray Bradbury was very explicit in Fahrenheit 451 that one of the major inducements for getting rid of books was that different groups didn’t like books that made them feel bad.

      • David Ray says:

        That same Ray Bradbury placed a phone call to bloviator Michael Moore and asked him not to call his Goebbels film “Fahrenheit 911”.
        Moore said he was a fan of Bradbury and showed it by shrugging him off and never calling him back.

  3. Boo says:

    “In reality, there’s no “banning” happening, in the sense of government removal of material from circulation. What does happen is that certain library or school material at the local level is sometimes openly questioned by parents.”

    The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      What you apparently have decided not to notice is that the same people who make a big to-do about “banned books” are often quite eager to exclude books that they disagree with (I remember reading many years ago that a biography of Phyllis Schlafly — who would be a great feminist heroine if feminism were truly about empowering women rather than pushing a specific political agenda — was frequently excluded by liberal librarians). The result is that the “banned” books usually are included, but the books your side considers undesirable are not.

      Speaking of cognitive dissonance . . . or perhaps just plain, old-fashioned hypocrisy.

    • GHG says:

      I think what you will find on this site is a respect for others, at least until they prove unworthy of respect. Respectful discussion of different viewpoints is welcome, dismissive snide remarks not so much.


    And of course the people behind this nonsense, the Democratic Left, are in the middle of making their fourth attempt in two years to repeal the First Amendment so they can censor political speech. These are the people who moan about how terrible the Citizens United decision was, where the government was prevented from banning a film about Hillary Clinton.

    Hypocrites isn’t a strong enough word to describe these people.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Scratch a liberal, and you find O’Brien of 1984, albeit usually without the blatant sadism. This should never be forgotten, lest they succeed in creating their totalitarian dystopia.

  5. I am named in this article. If anyone would like my assistance, please click the link under my name then look for the About Me page. Thank you.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I went back and didn’t find your name anywhere, either in the article or in the comments. If you want to get people to click on your own site, try being honest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *