The well of child protection has been poisoned in Bloomington, Minnesota
 November 2, 2023

In 2023, the proverbial pitchforks are being drawn and wielded in Bloomington, Minnesota, but the persons brandishing them are not the ones we have been led to expect.

In our contemporary western society, in addition to so many other issues that merit concern, we must now also grapple with individuals and activist entities who think the human expression of sexuality should be completely free from propriety.

These activists think there should be no limits placed for the sake of common decency, such as age restrictions to protect impressionable children.

In terms of how this applies to the present situation concerning Bloomington Public Schools in Minnesota, there has been a negative reaction against parental attempts to stop schools from providing sexually explicit content to minors. The reaction has been similar to the GLAAD-inspired campaign to characterize Florida's attempt to protect their own school children as the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Anyone who took the time to read the Florida legislation would have discovered it made no reference whatsoever to anyone's sexual orientation. "Don't Say Gay" was merely sound-bite propaganda generated by critics of the legislation, in an attempt to manipulate people into anger and to continue providing prurient content to impressionable young minds.

But this is Minnesota, not Florida, and we are governed by provocateurs such as Leigh Finke, a transsexual activist legislator who pushed forward the Trans Refuge bill to make Minnesota a sanctuary state for minors from other states who want to sexually transition against the wishes of their parents.

This means exactly what it sounds like it means: Minnesota can legally prevent parents from protecting their own children. Some out there may cheer at what they perceive as a victory, conveniently abandoning empathy for the distraught parents who are trying to prevent their child from making a potentially irrevocable mistake with the only body that child will ever possess.

If one believes this sort of violation of a family's structure is acceptable, one should also prepare for even more far-reaching governmental interference as yet not established.

Parents who don't want their children exposed to sexual imagery and concepts are often Christians, though most secular parents are also concerned about indelible premature exposure to sexual pictures and literature once they see for themselves what the books actually contain.

Those who applaud the introduction of children to salacious content are attempting to use the same techniques employed by GLAAD and other militant activist organizations: poisoning the well by characterizing parental concern for their children's welfare as hatred and bigotry.

An online petition was recently created to bring attention to Bloomington school library books of an overtly sexual nature and immediately other individuals were moved to form counter groups such as 'Ban Hate Not Books Bloomington' in order to keep these materials in the school libraries. Early sexualization is apparently important to these groups.

The proponents of sexual exposure for children in school deliberately mistranslated an objection to obscenity into a hatred of non-heterosexuals. But this is a non sequitur. If you take an informal survey of what was allowed in schools prior to the 21st century, you will find very little, if any, explicitly sexual content in high school libraries, much less grade school libraries.

The issue has never been about where someone resides on the sexual compass, but the age-appropriateness of sexual materials. This can't be stressed enough: pretending that the issue is about sexual orientation is merely a bait and switch to get people enraged over lies they're being sold about bigoted censorship.

Anita Smithson, a representative for Ban Hate Not Books Bloomington said, "These books should be included in our school libraries for anyone who wants to choose them. It's not just about books. It is about erasure of people and ideas and concepts that some don't want to face."

Just what are those ideas and concepts that some people don't want to face? Will Smithson honestly and openly define them?

Defined in the case of "This Book Is Gay" by Juno Dawson would be: young boys committing fellatio, anonymous sex through glory holes, consuming fecal matter or urinating on each other for purposes of arousal, the utilization of amyl nitrate (a drug known for lowering someone's inhibitions and relaxing the throat and anus), promotion of Grindr for kids to connect with older kids and adults for sexual encounters, and the recreational option of orgies, among many other age-inappropriate topics.

Other books currently in question in Bloomington schools contain equal and greater inappropriate content, as this video recorded in Brentwood, California demonstrates.

Who are these people who wish to ensure that your young children have access to instruction manuals for kinky adult sexual activities? Are they truly champions of the First Amendment or are they simply amenable to the idea of exposing children to sexual concepts as early as possible?

This practice inadvertently creates an environment that is ripe for pedophilia and introduces children to multiple advanced perversions before they've even had their first kiss.

The 'Bloomington Parents Alliance' (BPA) on the other hand, is an organization founded for the articulated purpose of improving learning conditions for children attending Bloomington Public Schools by removing inappropriate materials and political agendas, and replacing those with a more focused effort toward a classical education.

Formal education is supposed to be the purpose of the public education system, though the disappointing achievement statistics of high school graduates in the United States, including from Bloomington Independent School District 271 (Kennedy High School and Jefferson High School), clearly indicate something is wrong with public education.

Unfortunately the proverbial well has been poisoned by local fans of sexual aggrandizement. An in depth look at the two Facebook groups called 'Bloomington MN for All' and 'Concerned Citizens of Bloomington' yields a knee-jerk barrage of zealous venom directed at members of the Bloomington Parents Alliance.

The attacks are many and varied, but they all rest upon the false assumption that the BPA and everyone involved with it are hate-filled bigots who want to eliminate from the planet any human being who isn't straight, religious and white.

That allegedly rational, reasonable adults would rely on tired extremist caricatures instead of giving the issue some earnest thought is a sobering and depressing state of our shared reality in 2023. Nowhere on the BPA web site is there anything that even vaguely resembles bigotry.

The Ban Hate Not Books group's brand of underhanded tactics may be historically effective in silencing conservative voices, but in this case they are doomed to failure because no conscientious parents, regardless of political leanings, want their children exposed to sexually explicit materials in school at a young age or at any age for that matter.

Another focus of the BPA web site is to call attention to the source material for GSA clubs in schools. GSA used to stand for Gay and Straight Alliance, but has since been changed to Gender and Sexualities Alliance. The GSA source material is from the web site.

The common, uninformed perception of a high school GSA club is that it's merely an opportunity for LGBTQ kids and their straight friends to get together in a safe environment.

However, just like the Black Lives Matter organization and the infamous statements they removed from their web site regarding their intention to disrupt the traditional family, the GSA web site itself includes what they refer to as the 'TRUTH: 9 Point Platform.'

The TRUTH 9 Point Platform promotes revolutionary, society-destabilizing Marxist directives that have nothing to do with showing kindness and understanding to a teen who is questioning his or her sexuality.

One of parents' natural obligations to their children is to protect them from potential harm. Any attempts to perform this most basic of responsibilities should not be critically scrutinized to discern if these attempts conform to the current sexual amorality that permeates every aspect of our culture.

Parental concern over premature exposure to overtly sexual content certainly doesn't warrant ad hominem attacks from other adults who believe public school is an appropriate place to 'educate' children in the practical application of dildos and butt plugs.

Consider this: in an attempt to shield all children in a grade school classroom from potentially deadly allergens, peanut butter in sandwiches is often forbidden to be included in school lunches. Most parents accept this restriction due to the potential severity of exposure.

But some of those same parents commence on cue to aggressively squawk about First Amendment rights, bigotry and hatred when other parents express concern for the mental, physical and spiritual well being of their own children while attending public school.

Are we as a society really going to bow to the unsustainable worldview that anything goes sexually, regardless of age? That is a precursor to legalized pedophilia, and in recent years the Overton Window has been moved beyond the bounds that normal, decent, conscientious parents are willing to tolerate.

What are these bounds? Numerous public efforts to normalize pedophilia are flying under many citizens' radar, such as the rebranding of pedophiles as "Minor Attracted Persons" (MAPs) [example 1], [example 2], [example 3]. Even official TED talks are not free from this insidious development [example 4].

Also consider Drag Queen Story Hour. What was initially a curious anomaly of a handful of libraries in 2015 in San Francisco has since spread prolifically across the entire country and paved the way for 'family friendly' drag shows where even toddlers are allowed to attend [example 1], [example 2].

At these shows the drag queens do all the same sexually suggestive things they do in adult gay night clubs and typically feature vulgar humor, even with their stage names. No matter where you stand in your assessment of drag queens, they are men who act out their transvestic autogynephilia on stage, something that may not be the wisest choice for a young child's entertainment.

Furthermore, consider the controversial video released by the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus entitled "A Message from the Gay Community," which can be found on YouTube.

In that video, the SFGMC cleverly characterize their intentions as converting children to be "tolerant and fair." However, the points they're making are not quite as subtle as they may have intended. Here are some of the lyrics:

"But you're just frightened,
You think that we'll corrupt your kids
If our agenda goes unchecked;
Funny, just this once, you're correct.
We'll convert your children, happens bit by bit
Quietly and subtly and you barely notice it...
Oh and you'll be disgusted (so gross)
When they start finding things online
That you kept far from their sight (like information)"

Instead of arguing about the genuine motivations for writing the song, one should take note that its appearance and tone does very little to engender trust of entities outside the family unit who may or may not have the best intentions for your children. The last time I checked, online pornography isn't typically characterized as "information."

Next, consider the editorial entitled 'The Gay Revolutionary,' originally published in the Gay Community News in February of 1987, available at LGBTQ web site, reintroduced as 'The Gay Manifesto.'

While LGBTQ supporters blithely dismiss concerns over its contents by claiming the initial line automatically reduces it all to innocuous satire, the contents are still disturbing and warrant attention from conscientious people. A small portion of it:

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."

For those who aren't familiar with the Overton Window and the systematic deterioration of a nation, long-term cultural threats to society are considered by some to be a far-right conspiracy theory.

However, university graduates of sociology, psychiatry, politics and history are familiar with the concept and can identify the distinct stages of public ethos that transmogrify a culture through time into an unsustainable shambles of debauchery.

If some parents want to expose their young children to licentious concepts under the facades of education and inclusion, it is debatable whether or not they are free to do so without a visit from Child Protective Services, but they are not free to inflict their profligate propensities onto other parents' children.

This is a battle that will not go away, regardless of the customary character assassinations perpetually vomited from far-left liberals toward conservatives and Christians.

It is already established that teens engage with online pornography at high levels, and the long-term results of those engagements are becoming known. What about even younger children whose access to online pornography is effectively prevented by parents, but are still able to access sexually explicit content via staff-approved books present in their own school libraries and classrooms?

The scientific evidence regarding the exposure of children to sexual images and concepts is growing, and the conclusions are compellingly against the practice in terms of negative outcomes. These negative outcomes include the [emergence of risky behavior], [early sexual initiation increases likelihood of nicotine and drug abuse], [exposure to sexually explicit media is a risk factor for sexual initiation, increased sexual activity, and increased permissive attitudes about sex during adolescence], [early sexual initiation increases the risk of depression in females], [sexually active teenagers are more likely to be depressed and attempt suicide].

The proponents of pornographic accessibility for school children will likely endeavor to produce their own studies and statistics that buttress their claim that there's nothing wrong with exposing young children to sexual details beyond their hormone levels.

The relevant question becomes: why risk being wrong and potentially generating detrimental results for your child's long term emotional and physical well-being?

We don't need a scientific study to understand the basic truth that sexual experimentation with anyone sporting a pulse has absolutely nothing to do with a healthy expression of unselfish love between two human beings.

Ultimately, in the face of all this anecdotal, statistical and scientific evidence, what is the response from those who want all children to have access to this filth?

They scold us that "love is love," and if a human being of any age wishes to explore the kinkiest fringes of sexuality, then they should be enabled to do so under the authority of Constitutional freedom.

Apparently for these parents, their children's experience of sexual orgasm is paramount and that is the article of faith which guides their parental decision-making process in this matter.

A major contributing factor at the center of this philosophical conflict is the successful propaganda campaign waged in all forms of media since the late 1980's by gay activist groups to recast common public concerns about societal decorum as attempts to harm or stamp out the gay community.

A seminal initial publication was "The Overhauling of Straight America," which outlined all the propaganda techniques necessary to transfer power from straights to gays, techniques that are easy to identify in retrospect. The same author also produced a book called "After the Ball" that expanded on the ideas in the article.

The handy labels 'hate,' 'Nazi' and 'bigot' have been highly effective tools to liberally use against any person or organization that publicly expresses personal disinterest regarding non-traditional lifestyles.

In 2012, the CEO of Chick-fil-A simply referred to the audacity he felt it took for our generation to redefine marriage differently from the timeless arrangement that has served humanity well for thousands of years, and immediately he was drowning in accusations of hate. This is the standard reaction we have come to expect after doing nothing more than disagreeing with any non-heterosexual agenda.

The LGBTQ acronym may continue to grow as more and more non-heterosexual groups are appended to it, but the focus and purpose of LGBTQ activism remains the same. They seek to force the overwhelming majority of the heterosexual population to not only embrace their personal sexual proclivities but to also simultaneously insulate them as victims and cheer them on as they trumpet pride about those proclivities to the world.

Meanwhile, indifferent heterosexuals are under threat of being cancelled as bigots or hate-mongers if they decline to clothe their male toddler in a rainbow dress after the toddler decides to play with a Barbie doll. If this is what freedom looks like, we may want to revisit our Constitutional interpretations.