This is Bill Mundhausen with another edition of What Makes Sense. A few months ago, Key Radio broadcast a special report featuring independent Journalist Naomi Wolf. Wolf is an interesting personality who burst on the scene in the 1990’s as a feminist author and later advisor to President Bill Clinton. She’s been referred to as a darling of the left and a conspiracy theorist who has pursued some controversial subjects and has a reputation for playing loose with the facts. I think that reputation falls on anyone who deals with difficult topics because facts are hard to determine when the rich and powerful are trying to hide them. However, she said something very insightful and important in a short interview at the conclusion of our special broadcast. She asserted that all of America’s institutions are corrupt.
What are America’s institutions? Public education, the healthcare industry, colleges and universities, science and technology, professional associations, the military, public sector jobs (sometimes referred to as the deep state), political offices, and even the public library. What does Wolf mean when she says they are corrupt? To say they’ve been taken over by the political left is true, but an inadequate explanation. They have been taken over by moral duplicity, an institutionalized inability to understand what is right and do it. Part of that is an intentional leftist strategy to disrupt our institutions to such an extent that we will abandon traditional American practices for whatever new, “improved” way the left might suggest. Consider how capitalism has acquired such a bad name in spite of the fact that capitalism generated the material prosperity of western civilization. A new generation now sees socialism as an inevitable improvement.
But I digress. We can’t blame moral duplicity on a leftist conspiracy. Americans have lost their national identity. Half of our people no longer care about God and eternal consequences, understand their importance as parents of the next generation, cherish their freedoms, enjoy hard work, crave accomplishment, and make preservation of the nation a priority. That half only cares about personal peace and prosperity. We have lost our common knowledge or national agreement about what is true and morally right. A good example is homosexuality, a sinful behavior in the eyes of Christians, but a personal right in the view of atheists. Atheists don’t really care about LGBTQ rights; it’s just easier to permit something rather than take a position. It’s easier for atheists to assert that it doesn’t affect them personally, so there’s no reason to care about the issue. They also don’t really care about future generations because the future doesn’t affect them either. To complicate matters further, most atheists are in denial about whether they care about these issues, because caring is one of their supposed values.
Let me explain the matter of caring with an example. I just read an article that Elton John has urged British lawmakers to do more to fight HIV and AIDS, saying the U.K. can be the first country in the world “to defeat this awful virus.” The openly gay British star spoke to lawmakers and campaigners in the grand Speaker’s House of Parliament at an event honoring his dedication to fighting HIV in the U.K. and beyond. HIV is one of those issues that is largely forgotten in our ever-changing news cycle, but I remember years ago the media campaign to convince the public that HIV was not just a homosexual issue. However, Elton John understands that HIV remains primarily a homosexual health crisis. Perhaps you’ve noticed the ongoing TV advertising for something called PrEP, a medication that can be taken before exposure to prevent HIV. The advertising features LGBTQ people, seemingly because they are the primary candidates for HIV prevention. The media, advertisers, scientific researchers, and healthcare professionals have been dancing around this issue for decades because they didn’t want to prejudice the public against any victims of HIV. I understand their reasoning. However, the direct solution to HIV is for people to have fewer sexual partners whether homosexual or heterosexual, but that solution is unacceptable to those institutions which advocate sexual diversity and experimentation. The result is that the most fundamental solution to HIV and all STD’s is being withheld from the public for philosophical reasons. Does the healthcare industry demonstrate “caring” when they withhold solutions? Obviously, not.
Another example is what science has done in regard to climate change. Scientific research has been purposefully distorted to promote climate change resulting in billions of dollars being made available to researchers to study climate. It’s that old story of follow the money, but the issue doesn’t stop in the scientific community. Politicians saw the possibilities of harnessing the climate change cause as a means to their end of increasing their power and control over government. Remember when petroleum companies were being blamed for killing the electric car? Thanks to climate change activists the entire automotive industry is converting to electrification at the same time that motorists are finding the limitations of a technology and infrastructure that really doesn’t meet their needs. All of these institutions are serving some people while harming others. Rather than caring about the world’s people, they are locked into ideologies and special interests.
I could give you more examples, but it all becomes abstract, so let me relate an institution to which I am personally connected. The Camden County Commission appointed me to serve on our little local Camden County Library Board of Trustees as a representative of the residents of Camden County. I now find myself in an awkward position because of a provision in our library’s bylaws which says, “No Board member shall release to the public, orally or in writing, information about the library not previously agreed upon at board meetings.” Does that mean I can’t speak to the public as their representative? I think not. I interpret this to mean I can’t talk about anything that is under consideration by the Board, as in a decision that has not yet been made, but that may not be the provision’s intent. I can only add that I consider it my primary responsibility to serve the people as their representative, so it’s important for the people to know every issue related to their library.
One of the most important issues is accountability to the people of Camden County. When I was appointed to the Board in September, I was asked to watch a video of the August meeting and observed an impassioned speech by a departing Board member in which she claimed the library system was not accountable to any outside entity. I believe that assertion was directed toward the Camden County Commission since they had just appointed someone to replace her, but it wasn’t clear. Since that time, I’ve raised the issue of influence on our library by the American Library Association (the ALA) and the Missouri Library Association (the MLA). Although others insisted strenuously that I was wrong in that assessment, it must be a misunderstanding since there are such abundant evidences regarding the influence of the ALA and MLA on our library that it is exceedingly clear. For example, our library’s bylaws state, “The library district shall be an institutional member of the Missouri Library Association and the American Library Association. In addition, the library district shall provide for individual membership dues to the Missouri Library Association for each Trustee and the Director.”
The reason this is important is that both the ALA and MLA reject accountability and citizen involvement in determining library content. To that end, the ALA crafted a document called the Library Bill of Rights, a kind of declaration of independence and autonomy for the library system. Does it affect our library? It’s in our policy manual and published on our library’s web site, so you be the judge. Here is what the Library Bill of Rights proposes:
Item I reads that, “ Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves.” Well enough, but it continues, “Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.” So begins the ALA’s propaganda against discernment in determining a community library collection. Clearly the views expressed in some book titles should not be included in every public library. There are areas of decency, truthfulness, and age-appropriateness that affect what should be displayed.
Item II says, “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.” The reality is that a local public library does not have the space to display every book that’s published. That means a reasonable standard of scholarship must be considered when book titles are ordered for our collection, and that standard should certainly exclude books that fail to meet the standard. In other words, some points of view are merely opinions, and some opinions are just plain dumb.
Item III goes on to assert, “Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.” That’s another way of saying that libraries should not care what the public thinks about book titles.
Item IV calls for libraries to support other institutions that demand autonomy from public opinion. It says, “Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.” They are advocating a conspiracy of allies.
In addition to the Library Bill of Rights is the ALA’s document about intellectual freedom, also posted on our local library’s web site and in its policy manual. It’s an interesting set of propositions, many of which sound good because our American sense of liberty is contrary to censorship. Unfortunately, the propositions in the ALA’s document also eliminate any options for discernment, for properly discriminating between ideas that are useful versus those that are harmful. The document is long and highly nuanced in its language, so I won’t read it all here, but encourage you to read it on either the ALA web site or that of our local library. I’ll give you a taste however from its first proposition which reads, “It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox, unpopular, or considered dangerous by the majority.” I emphasize “considered dangerous by the majority.” Does a local public library serve its constituents by forcing dangerous ideas on them? What is at issue is not intellectual freedom. I support the right of free speech including the ability for an author to write books on any topic, even dangerous ones. However, a local community service like our library must consider the community’s needs, especially since the book shelves in our library are accessible to children as well as adults and there are many titles appropriate for adults that children need not see.
Consider this title that a library patron brought to my attention, “It’s Perfectly Normal” by Harris and Emberly. It’s cover says the book is appropriate for 10 year old children, but inside it depicts lesbian and homosexual sex and other behaviors that it proposes are to be considered normal and implies that religions are wrong that don’t support these behaviors. It’s clearly a title whose primary purpose is to propaganize children about sexuality along with a little anti-religious inuendo, and it would not be considered approporiate by most adults. Certainly many parents wouldn’t want their child exposed to this kind of material, but it’s unavoidable if they allow their child access to the library. Public libraries should be friendly to all people, even people with traditional values.
The Missouri legislature has decided to take measures to prevent libraries from displaying inappropriate materials by instituting a protection of minors provision in the state statute governing public libraries. The proposed rule requires, “The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible collection development policy addressing how selections are made in considering the appropriateness for the age and maturity level of any minor, as defined in 15 CSR 30-200.030 and a publicly-accessible policy allowing any minor’s parent or guardian to determine what materials and access will be available to a minor.” Unfortunately but predictably, the MLA strongly opposes the proposed regulation and seems to have suggested a work-around for member libraries to circumvent the law. Our own library implemented the strategy described on the MLA web site. Is it a coincidence, or is our local library following the MLA’s lead?
In my view, public libraries need not be this controversial, and I would favor a policy that excludes any book title whose primary purpose is to advocate any form of sexuality geared toward children. These books are not even appropriate in the adult section because they are geared to influence children sexually. Such a policy would not prevent library patrons from special ordering titles from other libraries or buying the title from a book store, so there is no infringement on anyone’s access to books. It’s simply a matter of what is appropriate to have in a public collection. That brings me back to the issue of moral duplicity, because some people would disagree with me and want everyone exposed to propaganda masquerading as literature.
None of what I have said is meant to be a criticism of our Camden County Library or its excellent staff and services, but I say it out of concern for our library. Citizens around the state are raising issues about book titles because of the conflict between the library hierarchy’s values (those of the ALA and MLA) and local community values, and I would not want the Camden County Library District to experience the same level of dissatisfaction. Instead, I call for Camden County residents to be more aware of the effect of state and national institutions on our little community. Left to ourselves, the people of Camden County could determine reasonable standards for our library collection, but organizations like the MLA and ALA will continue to lobby politically for libraries to remain autonomous and unaccountable and to resist allowing library patrons to have a say in how their library operates. They have a different moral compass than our local community and they see themselves as agents of change to re-mold local attitudes. Whether I can convince my fellow Board members that change is needed remains to be seen. It’s easy to go along with what has always been, especially when the hierarchy is powerful and claims to have expertise. It seems right to follow all the rules that are embedded in policy manuals, and there is so little that can be accomplished when meetings are limited to two hours a month and Sunshine laws effectively prevent Board members from conferring between meetings.
Nevertheless, reform is necessary. Library collections should feature great literature and reputable reference materials, not contemporary propaganda. Libraries should be safe places for people of all ages because controversial material is kept to a minimum. Libraries should serve its patrons by honoring our community’s mainstream values. Libraries should be accountable to local government officials who are accountable to the people through elections. None of these goals interfere with intellectual freedom or the ability of libraries to bring the best literature to their communities. A good start to accomplish these goals is to separate our local library from the highly politicized state and federal institutions and professional associations to which we are currently connected.
Let me change gears now to another news article highlighting the problems with our national institutions. The Montana legislature recently passed a law to ban people dressed in drag from reading books to children at public schools and libraries. The law is meant to protect children from what legislators called “indecent and inappropriate conduct” that is harmful to them. However, a group of people, organizations and businesses opposed to the law asked a federal judge to declare Montana’s law unconstitutional without requiring a trial. “Motivated by an irrational and unevidenced moral panic, legislators took aim at drag performers and the LGBTQ+ community,” Upper Seven Law argued. U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law last month, saying it targets free speech and expression and that the text of the law and its legislative history “evince anti-LGBTQ+ animus.” The Judge said, “No evidence before the Court indicates that minors face any harm from drag-related events or other speech and expression critical of gender norms.”
This story illustrates how difficult it is to protect children, because there is no obvious agreement regarding morality in America. The primary reason that men dressed as women want to read stories to children is to normalize the LGBTQ lifestyle among children. It is clearly meant to influence, but opponents claim there is no evidence that harm is being done. They are technically right in that claim, because a scientific researcher would have to follow the lives of affected children to determine the outcome years later, and such a study is both impractical and inconclusive since the children could be influenced by many experiences over the years. This is how progressives and lefists get their way by denying the intuitive effect of their policies and defying conservatives to prove them wrong. Having drag queens teach our children would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, but LGBTQ activists have cleverly manipulated the American concept of freedom and free speech to bully opponents in courts which are already dominated by left of center judges. Everything is driven by political ideology.
Now for a story about what President Eisenhower warned us about, the military industrial complex. The Biden administration requested more than $100 billion in supplemental security spending, primarily for Israel and Ukraine, describing the mammoth spending package as “a smart investment” that will “pay dividends” to U.S. security interests. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the money will “flow through our defense industrial base, creating American jobs in more than 30 states.” However, many are skeptical that the conduct of war should be promoted as an economic measure. Presidential hopeful Robert Kennedy Jr. said, “Creating jobs is a poor excuse for a foreign policy that wreaks mayhem around the world. If we want to increase employment in good manufacturing and construction jobs, instead of making weapons we should repair our infrastructure and manufacture products that actually serve human well-being.”
Although it’s long been understood that wartime can boost an economy by creating jobs and sale of weapons, it’s also been understood that war should never be undertaken for its financial benefits. That moral proposition seems to be out the window as politicians, weapons manufacturers, and military leaders will propose any justification to go to war. It would be hard to make the case that keeping Ukraine separate from Russia is in America’s interests, especially since they have been united politically and ethnically in the past. The Ron Paul Institute and others have raised a similar concern about support for Ukraine saying that the American government has already given Ukraine more funding than the 2021 Russian military budget, and that such funding could have been used to address many of the internal problems faced by the American people.
Here’s a quick story about the healthcare industry, the aspect often referred to as “Big Pharma.” As I mentioned at the start of this episode, we broadcast a special report by Naomi Wolf about the Covid vaccines. Now Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Pfizer, alleging that the pharmaceutical giant lied about the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. In a press release obtained by Fox News Digital, Paxton’s office accused Pfizer of “unlawfully misrepresenting the effectiveness of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine and attempting to censor public discussion of the product.”
The COVID-19 vaccines are the miracle that wasn’t. At the end of 2020, Defendant Pfizer, Inc. (Defendant or Pfizer) broadcast to the world that its COVID-19 vaccine was “95% effective.” Based on this and other statements made by Pfizer touting the efficacy of its new vaccine, Americans were given the impression that Pfizer’s vaccine would end the coronavirus pandemic. Contrary to Pfizer’s public statements, however, the pandemic did not end; it got worse. More Americans died in 2021, with Pfizer’s vaccine available, than in 2020, the first year of the pandemic. This, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans received a COVID-19 vaccine, with most taking Pfizer’s. Indeed, by the end of 2021, official government reports showed that in at least some places a greater percentage of the vaccinated were dying from COVID-19 than the unvaccinated.
Pfizer said Paxton’s lawsuit has “no merit.” A corporate statement reads, “Pfizer is deeply committed to the well-being of the patients it serves and has no higher priority than the safety and effectiveness of its treatments and vaccines. Since its initial authorization by FDA in December 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has been administered to more than 1.5 billion people, demonstrated a favorable safety profile in all age groups, and helped protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death. The representations made by the company about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based.” Does the company care about people, or is the company merely defending its profits and hiding behind an unspecified “science-based” argument?
Bill's Blog 