Cumberland County School Libraries Rife with Porn and Racist CRT
Cumberland Co. N.C. – Cumberland County school libraries are rife with obscene porn and racist CRT research audit shows.
An audit requested by CCBOE candidate Julissa Jumper was conducted of Cumberland County school libraries for books known to be inappropriate for the consumption of 6-17 year olds in K-12 classrooms.
The audit revealed a stunning amount of inappropriate material contained within the Cumberland County school system.
The Democrats have worked overtime to put their X-rated material into school systems all over the country. But the problem they are having implementing their plan comes from parents who keep sounding an alarm. Liberals believe that if they can get the pornographic material into enough hands, the next generation will grow up believing certain things that are usually ethically wrong are acceptable by the masses. The darkness of the liberal mind will only destroy the child’s innocent mind the more if they can access the kids. The Democrats […] need to keep the parents in the dark regarding what their kids are being taught in the classroom. It is the only way that the liberals can hijack the next generation’s minds without facing resistance from home. ~ Trong Nguyen
WARNING: This article contains examples of obscene pornographic and racist material from this point forward in the context of a determination and proof that there is obscene and racist material in the N.C. Cumberland County School system (school libraries). If you are under the age of 18 or are offended by obscene pornographic and racist material then you ARE NOT to continue reading past this point or click any links contained in this article.
Who Made Teachers the Authority on what is Taught?
Teachers are not our leaders. Teachers do not serve in elected positions representing “We the People” with the people’s permission to make any such decisions. That authority is reserved to the duly elected representatives serving in our legislatures. Teachers are nothing more than mere civil servants who are charged with a duty to teach in accordance with established law and have neither the authority to add nor detract from said laws. The same applies to all administrative and support staff too.
And the NCAE, NEA, American Federation of Teachers, or any other alphabet “Education Associations” certainly do not speak for “We the People” in any sense of the concept. These associations are not our friends. In fact, they are a very large part of the problem. Like ticks on a dog, they’ve infested our school boards and are exercising an undeserved amount of influence over said school boards. They are all largely, if not totally, partisan Democrat in ideology and actions.
Now, there are good teachers out there who stay in their lane and do what they’re supposed to but that doesn’t mean that all teachers get painted with the same bush of admiration because there are also bad teachers out there and it seems that there are increasingly more bad than good these days.
Where’s the Proof?
Here’s the proof: CRT and Obscene Pornographic Material in Cumberland Co Schools
CRT Examples
The Fayetteville Observer, a highly biased and liberal local Fayetteville, NC newspaper, attempted to lull its readers into complacency by citing in an article that; “Two candidates – Jumper and Melvin – say they oppose a theory that is not a major issue in Cumberland County Schools.” and “West said he was not familiar with the positions of other candidates, but Critical Race Theory is “not an issue in Cumberland County Schools.”
“The Fire Next Time” by James Baldwin and “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” by Malcolm X are widely acknowledged as critical race theory resources. If there is no “Critical Race Theory” being taught in Cumberland County schools then why are there numerous copies of these, and other, CRT books shelved in these Cumberland County schools? For what other purpose would any school have such an enormous number of copies of these books other than to support a teacher(s) making them assigned reading to several classes at once in order to get as many minds indoctrinated as possible in the shortest period of time?
And these are but two of numerous other CRT books in Cumberland County school libraries being used as class assignment texts for our children to consume without parents knowledge or permission. See; CRT Obscene Material in Cumberland Co Schools. One wonders how it is possible that CCBOE member Greg West can say;
“West said he was not familiar with the positions of other candidates, but Critical Race Theory is “not an issue in Cumberland County Schools.”
It’s all too easy to see that “Critical Race Theory” is very much an issue in Cumberland County schools and it is being taught right under the CCBOE’s very noses. All it took was a simple search of the internet to discover the material in Cumberland County schools, right down to each and every school. How is it that the CCBOE is not aware of this information? Does the CCBOE not audit what these school administrators and teachers are wanting to waste, and in fact wasting Cumberland County citizenry’s hard earned tax dollars on in our schools? Is it not a function of the CCBOE to be good stewards of those hard earned tax dollars?
Pornographic Examples
| Excerpt- “Most guys, no matter what age, get excited about curves and circles, but not me. Don’t get me wrong. I like girls and their curves. And I really like women and their curvier curves. I spend hours in the bathroom with a magazine that has one thousand pictures of naked movie stars: Yep, that’s right, I admit that I masturbate. I’m proud of it. I’m good at it. I’m ambidextrous. If there were a Professional Masturbators League, Id get drafted number one and make millions of dollars. And maybe you’re thinking, Well you really shouldn’t be talking about masturbation in public. Well, tough, I’m going to talk about it because EVERYBODY does it. And EVERYBODY likes it. And if God hadn’t wanted us to masturbate, then God wouldn’t have given us thumbs. So I thank God for my thumbs.” | Excerpt – “The five Sweet Home men looked at the new girl and decided to let her be. They were young and so sick with the absence of women they had taken to calves. Yet they let the iron-eyed girl be, so she could choose in spite of the fact that each one would have beaten the others to mush to have her. It took her a year to choose–a long, tough year of thrashing on pallets eaten up with dreams of her. A year of yearning, when rape seemed the solitary gift of life. The restraint they had exercised possible only because they were Sweet Home men” (12). “Occasionally a kneeling man chose gunshot in his head as the price,maybe, of taking a bit of foreskin with him to Jesus” (Morrison 63) “All in their twenties, minus women, fucking cows, dreaming of rape.” |
These are but just two of the mildest numerous pornographic books in Cumberland County school libraries being used as class assignment texts for our children to consume without parents knowledge or permission. See; CRT Obscene Material in Cumberland Co Schools.
What exactly is the “artistic | social | skill development value” imparted to a 12, 13, or 14 year old middle school boy or girl regarding an Indian masturbating, or 15, 16, 17 year old high schoolers regarding Blacks having carnal knowledge of cattle and then raping Black women? Just what important knowledge or skill is given to our school children reading about masturbation or cow screwing?
Pro-Trans Lifestyle Examples
| Promotion of LGBTQ+ lifestyle with graphic representations of two middle school age boys kissing on a stage in public. | Morris loves to wear a tangerine dress from his classroom’s dress-up closet–and suffers his classmates’ taunts for it. The book does not present a ‘normal way’ of life” and may give boys who had never previously thought of wearing dresses the idea that it is okay to to do so. |
Why do thirty (30) Cumberland County elementary and middle schools have a book about two middle school age boys kissing on a stage in front of an audience? Why is there a book in our elementary schools about a boy who “loves” to wear a dress? And these are the tamest examples of the lot. What is the goal here? What are the teacher’s intent? Why is this being allowed to happen? What happened to our morals and common sense?
The Arguments
Parents who challenge a book because of language need to bear in mind that many of the parents and teachers who approve of these objectionable texts use the same obscene and profane language commonly and casually in their personal lives, even with their children, though they will not likely admit it. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that they will concede that profanity and obscenity are objectionable, for conceding that would constitute a personal indictment:
1. Parents are taking words out of context, and it is the context that justifies the language.
Response: There is no context that renders frequent and excessively obscene language acceptable in texts selected by public school teachers for minor children. In other words, the extreme nature and pervasiveness of obscenity renders the entire text unsuitable for public schools whose mission is to cultivate the best behavior in students.
2. Profane and obscene language is justified because it represents authentic adolescent language.
Response: If the author is justified in using this language to portray authentically adolescent culture and the emotional experiences of adolescents, then surely students are justified in using this language in school in order to be authentic and to express adequately and accurately their emotional truths. Teachers too should be allowed to use this language because it also represents authentic adult language and experience. In fact, society often erroneously and euphemistically refers to profanity and obscenity as “adult language.”
3. Counting numbers of swear words constitutes an immature or silly evaluative mechanism.
Response: Taking into account the extent of foul language is neither silly nor juvenile. There is a substantive difference between one incident of “f**k” and one hundred. The incessant drumbeat of obscenities desensitizes readers to their offensiveness and normalizes their use. Moreover, although adults may distinguish between literary use and endorsement, many adolescents do not.
First, the prevalence of foul language should be taken into account. Second, the nature of the obscenity or profanity should be taken into account. Third, who is using the offensive language should be taken into account. Is it the hero or the antagonist? Fourth, parents and educators should realize that books with profuse obscenity and the willingness of educators’ to teach them convey the message that there are justifiable reasons and contexts for using extremely foul language.
4. Since students mature at different rates, some students are mature enough for these texts. Parents, therefore, should decide what is appropriate for their child.
Response: Whoever makes this argument should be asked to define maturity. If they are referring to intellectual development, then it is irrelevant to the discussion in that parents who challenge texts because of language, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages, are not doing so because they find the material intellectually inaccessible.
If educators are referring to emotional maturity, meaning that students are emotionally stable enough to read and discuss emotionally difficult material without being traumatized, that too is likely irrelevant, for few parents who object to language, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages are concerned that their children will be emotionally traumatized.
The concern conservative parents have is with moral development. They recognize that all adolescents, including even mature high school seniors, are not yet adults. They are still constructing a moral compass. They are impressionable, malleable, and much more vulnerable to external influences than are adults whose moral compass is likely fixed and stable. For a teacher to contend that there is any 12-18 year-old whose moral compass is fully developed, mature, and fixed represents an ignorant and hubristic assertion.
Every parent should be able to send their child to school confident that their beliefs regarding decency and morality will not be challenged by educators or curricula, especially since this confidence can be secured without compromising the academic enterprise. It is even more important today in a culture in which profanity, obscenity, and sexual imagery relentlessly bombard our youth that schools stand as one of the last bastions of integrity, civility, and temperance.
5. A small minority group is trying to impose their morality or religious beliefs on the whole community.
Response: Since schools are ostensibly committed to honoring the voices of all in the community, there is no justifiable reason to ignore the concerns of even minority voices. Schools should respect the values of people of faith, especially when doing so does not compromise student learning. In addition, objections to obscenity, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages can be either religious or secular in nature. If objections to, for example, the use of obscenity represented the imposition of religious belief, then why do virtually all school districts have policies against its use by students in school? It is the mark of a civilized society to honor the concerns and values of people of diverse faiths and to aspire to decency.
6. There are other options for those who object to particular texts.
Response: First, opting out of reading an assigned class text results in a diminished, isolated academic experience for students. But equally important is the issue of whether taxpayers, even those who have no children in school, should be required to fund the teaching of offensive material. A text like Angels in America contributes to the debasement of an already vulgar culture, and schools should never in any way contribute to the baser aspects of culture. This does not mean that texts must avoid looking at the flaws and evil that afflict man. Rather, it means that we should choose texts that look at the presence of ignobility and evil but do so in ways that inspire, edify, chasten, and point us in the direction of truth, beauty and righteousness. Texts like Angels in America do none of this.
7. Refusing to offer this book will lead ineluctably to the world of book-burning à la Fahrenheit 451.
Response: This is an irrational, alarmist, specious canard. There is simply no evidence that including in selection criteria the nature and extent of obscene language or sexuality, or a consideration of highly controversial political messages will result in wholesale book banning. There is, however, ample evidence, that a steadfast refusal to ever take into account these elements will result in a slippery slide down the other slope to the use of corrosively vulgar and polemical texts.
8. This book has won prestigious literary awards or has been approved by the American Library Association (ALA).
Response: This justification begs the question: Who serves on committees that award prizes or review texts? And this argument calls for a serious, open, and honest examination of the ideological monopoly that controls academia and the elite world of the arts that for decades has engaged in censorship of conservative scholarship. To offer as justification for teaching a text the garnering of literary prizes or ALA approval without acknowledging that those who award the prizes and belong to the ALA are generally of the same ideological bent is an exercise in sophistry.
What school committees, departments, administrations, school boards, the ALA, the National Education Association (NEA), and organizations that award literary prizes desperately need is the one form of diversity about which they are least concerned and to which they are least committed: ideological diversity.
9. Kids relate to this book and, therefore, it captures and holds their interest.
Response: If this criterion has assumed a dominant place in the selection process, then teachers have abandoned their proper role as educators. Appealing to the sensibilities and appetites of adolescents should not be the goal of educators. There’s another word for capitulating to the tastes of adolescents: it is called pandering. Schools should teach those texts that students will likely not read on their own. We should teach those texts that are intellectually challenging and offer insight, wisdom, beauty, and truth. We should avoid those that are highly polemical, blasphemous, and vulgar.
10. To remove this text constitutes censorship.
Response: Parents who object to the inclusion of texts on recommended or required reading lists due to obscene language, sexuality, or highly controversial messages are not engaging in some kind of inappropriate censorship. All educators evaluate curricular materials for objectionable content, including language, sexuality, and controversial themes. The irony is that when teachers decide not to select a text due to these elements, the choice constitutes an exercise in legitimate decision-making, but when parents engage in it, they are tarred with the label of “censor.”
Furthermore, virtually no parents advocate prior restraint and only rarely are they asking for the removal of a text from a school library. Rather, parents are suggesting that it is reasonable to include the nature and extent of profanity, obscenity, and sexuality when selecting texts to be recommended and/or taught to minors in public schools.
Are those teachers, administrators, and school board members who disagree with that suggestion saying that they will never take into account the nature and extent of profanity, obscenity, and sexuality? If they are claiming that they will never take into account these elements, then parents should reconsider their fitness for teaching.
In all four years of high school English, students read approximately 28-32 books. From the dozens and dozens of texts available, it seems unlikely that any student’s education would be compromised by teachers, in the service of respect for parental values, comity, and modesty, avoiding the most controversial texts.
~ Laurie Higgins
Parents have the right to decide what material their children are exposed to and when.
Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents’ ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material. “Literary works containing explicit [scenes, as well as] vulgar and obscene language” were on the approved reading list for grades 7-12, according to Speak up for Standards, a group seeking age-appropriate reading materials for students in Dallas, Texas. Children or teens can be exposed to books their parents wouldn’t approve of before the parents even find out what their children are reading.
Bans are necessary because “opting your child out of reading [a certain] book doesn’t protect him or her. They are still surrounded by the other students who are going to be saturated with this book,” said writer Macey France.
Keeping books with inappropriate content out of libraries protects kids, but doesn’t stop people from reading those books or prevent authors from writing them.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council noted that removing certain books from libraries is about showing discretion and respecting a community’s values, and doesn’t prevent people from getting those books elsewhere: “It’s an exaggeration to refer to this as book banning. There is nothing preventing books from being written or sold, nothing to prevent parents from buying it or children from reading it.”
What some call “book banning,” many see as making responsible choices about what books are available in public and school libraries. “Is it censorship that you’re unable to go to your local taxpayer-funded branch and check out a copy of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’? For better or for worse, these books are still widely available. Your local community has simply decided that finite public resources are not going to be spent disseminating them,” Weekly Standard writer and school board member Mark Hemingway stated.
The Solution
The solution is simple. We remove those from office who are failing us by failing to protect and properly instruct our children and replace them with those who have morality and common sense. It is more important than ever to get out and VOTE!
VOTE WISELY!
