Ben Baker is used to getting pushback. A conservative in the Missouri statehouse, he’s been on the wrong side of the fringe Left before. But nothing compares to this. The dad of four is getting death threats at his office, violent messages on his phone — all for trying to give parents a say on Drag Queen Story Hour.

“It’s been unbelievable,” he said on “Washington Watch.” On his Twitter feed, he’s posted pictures of some of the mail he’s gotten, including, he says sarcastically, “a friendly note of tolerance” from “All the librarians in St. Louis City and County.” “STOP IT," the handwritten card says, "with your imbecilic proclivities.” This is the world we live in today, Ben shakes his head. Trying to protect children from inappropriate content in our libraries could get you killed. “It seems we no longer live in a society where you can have civil discourse about ideas.”

Ironically, his bill, the Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act, is all about debating ideas. What he’s asking is for parents to have a say in what’s taking place at their local library. “Look,” he told me, “it seems like every week we hear another story where these things are happening in our library that are very disturbing. And it’s happened several places in Missouri, [which] is what really sparked me to take on this issue — just realizing that we have got to do something about our public libraries being used as a tool, as a vehicle, to push the LGBTQ agenda onto our children. This is a public space funded by our tax dollars, and it shouldn’t be allowed in those situations.”

Instead of filling their heads with knowledge, these libraries are filling kids’ heads with political agendas. With some sort of community scrutiny, Ben hopes that moms and dads finally have a voice. But of course, that’s exactly what the far-Left doesn’t want. “The opposition that’s happened [is] really unprecedented for me,” he explained. “[T]his has been, by far, the most hate and vitriol that I have received… Death threats and threats of violence. I think part of it is the American Library Association (ALA) is at the heart of this problem, and their policies are atrocious.”

After digging into this issue, he realized just how extreme the ALA’s LGBT agenda is. “They encourage drag queen story hours,” he points out. “They discouraged any restrictions when it comes to age or grade level for library content or library events — and they call that ‘censorship,’ if you attempt to do that. And they’ve riled up the troops to push back on this. And I hate to say it — but they’re effective, because it makes it appear that they are the majority, and I know that’s not the case. But it’s something that we’re up against.”

Along with a liberal media that doesn’t seem interested in the facts. There’ve been headlines like, “Missouri Republican Wants to Jail Librarians Who Allow Drag Queens to Read Books to Kids” and “Missouri Lawmaker Proposes Bill Criminalizing Public Libraries’ Drag Queen Story Hours.” But the reality is a lot less sensationalist. “We have standards,” Ben explained, and tying them to taxpayer dollars is completely appropriate.

“The language in my bill regarding objectionable sexual material is Supreme Court precedent language…” And yet, Ben told listeners, “the way the media addressed it was, ‘He’s banning books and jailing librarians.’ Well, the penalty provision was the exact same penalty [as] if they [didn’t] put Internet blocking software on the library computers. It’s the same. So I’m asking: why can’t we apply this same principle of protecting our children to other content?”

Good question. One we hope the leaders of every state start asking themselves.

Originally published here.

Weakened at Bernie’s Plan for Abortion

Like a lot of readers, Alexandra DeSanctis almost choked on her morning coffee when she saw it. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — a “family values” candidate? Was the New York Times joking? Apparently, not. Elizabeth Bruenig, one of the paper’s writers, is a firm believer that Sanders could win if we all just focused on how much he cares about parents and kids. He’s a “family values candidate in disguise," she insists. Well, the disguise must be a good one, because based on his latest abortion plan, there won’t be many children left to care about.

Sure, Sanders took a few steps back on Super Tuesday, but America’s favorite socialist is still a threat. If the senator wants to hang around, Bruenig argues, it’s time for his campaign to set its sights "on the kinds of voters who turned out for Mr. Biden on Tuesday night — anxious suburbanites wearied by the tumult of the Trump years.” She ticks off all the ways that Bernie ought to appeal to the Democratic “normie:” his universal child care plan, his parental leave program. “Go to the voting booth for Mr. Sanders,” she urges, “because he wants all kids — your kids, my kids — to be safe and happy. He wants to give all parents time to nurse, cuddle, and bond with their newborns without sinking into debt or poverty.”

That all sounds great, until you look at how Sanders actually votes on children. If they’re wanted, yes — maybe he’ll find a place for them in his pre-K indoctrination program. If they’re not, then he’s quite content letting them die before, or even after, they’re born. Remember, infanticide, as far as Bernie and 43 other senators are concerned, is just another form of abortion. So when Bruenig says he wants to give “all parents time to nurse, cuddle, and bond with their newborns,” she means it like Governor Ralph Northam (D-Va.) meant it. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired…”

Bernie Sanders isn’t just an extremist on abortion. He’s a proven extremist. “Back when some Democratic politicians still considered themselves pro-life or voted in favor of abortion restrictions or conscience protections for pro-lifers,” Alexandra points out, “there was Sanders — standing staunchly in favor of abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason, funded by taxpayers.”

Now even those views seem tame compared to what else the Vermont senator is suggesting. His “Reproductive Health Care and Justice for All” plan is about as fanatical as it gets — and that’s counting Senator Cory Booker’s (D-N.J.) White House office of abortion. Bernie wouldn’t just blow the limits off abortion (limits the majority of Americans on both sides support), he’d also export abortion (on your dime), boost Planned Parenthood funding, strip away every religious exemption to performing abortion or paying for it, punish anyone who won’t participate in it, defund pregnancy care centers, make dangerous forms of birth control available over the counter, and ban abstinence education.

But wait, there’s more. Sanders, like every other Democrat running for president, wants to codify Roe v. Wade. Now, some people might not be familiar with the term. By “codifying" Roe, Democrats mean making it permanent law. Why is that important? Because despite being around 47 years, Roe v. Wade isn’t a federal statute. It’s still just a court decision that can be overturned. So when liberals start beating the drum on "codifying Roe,” what they’re really saying is abortion’s in jeopardy. (Now more than ever, thanks to Donald Trump’s two originalist justices.) Which leads Bernie to his next point: litmus tests on Supreme Court nominees. As president, he promises to “require all judicial nominees to support Roe v. Wade as settled law.

As his website says, "Bernie believes abortion is a constitutional right, period.” If that makes him a “family values” candidate, then I’d hate to see what a real liberal looks like!

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.