The only flags that should be displayed at schools should be the United States Flag and the California State Flag. If you think Pride flags are appropriate then there are many different "Prides" that could be displayed that you might not want.... themes that are sexual, racial, political, etc.
And we don't need a flag or classes to teach children tolerance of Gays, Straights, Blacks, Asians, Whites, Hispanics, Indians, etc. Just show respect for everyone. Just an opinion.

Spot on Parent and Voter!

And ask yourself this: why is it that Peet’s Coffee allows the pride flag to be displayed inside their Alamo location for an entire month?

Never once have I witnessed the California state flag or American flag displayed inside that location. And isn’t it interesting how gay pride lasts a month, whereas Veterans Day and Memorial Day last only one day.

Gay pride isn’t about pride, it’s turned into a sort of ideology. Which is what LGBT supports; which is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. It’s self-evident.

School boards in particular are allowing gay pornography into school libraries. Take Fairfax County in Texas as a prime example.

After seeing a school board meeting in Texas on pornography in schools, Stacy Langton decided to check the titles at her child’s high school, Fairfax High School. She said the books were available, and she checked them out. Both of those books included pedophilia, sex between men and boys, according to Langton. She stated the following to the school board: “The illustrations include fellatio, sex toys, masturbation, and violent nudity.”

That pride flag means nothing to me and never will. Shelly Clark said the pride flag is not an explicitly political symbol. Wrong. That flag represents politics, which is what Newsom and Bontha represent.

shouldn't really the kids decide this? I mean, they are the true stakeholders here. Tax payers, perhaps parents with kids in the system are too, but secondary at best.

If the kids are all right with it, rest of you should chill out.

@S. Hale

No the kids shouldn’t decide. Those kids are minors. But apparently you think it’s okay for minors to view pornography at school? Man, talk about the dumbing down of society!

What’s next S. Hale? Should minors be able to drink and smoke pot at school too? Maybe you should chill out from an Irrational thought process. You and Newsom make a fine pair.

The Gadsden rattlesnake flag and some future Gays Against Groomers flag (if ever created) underlined my question to the SRVUSD Board: “What are your CRITERIA for special treatment of organized groups, including the ‘Day of Silence’ and the flying of flags for an entire month?”

If Gays Against Groomers ever do create a flag, I said, “will you fly that one if asked? Probably not, I’m guessing, since in fact [SRVUSD] teaching personnel have enthused about their ‘experiences in queering the classroom.’”

As I added: the “progress flag,” with blue and pink wedges to celebrate transgender psychosis, began as the Harvey Milk / Gilbert Baker rainbow flag.

Baker’s drag-queen persona was “Busty Ross,” his satirical play on Betsy Ross, who was credited with the first adopted stars and bars version of the American flag.

A Milk friend, Randy Shilts, was also his biographer, in a book entitled “The Mayor of Castro Street — the Life and Times of Harvey Milk.”

Shilts — like Milk, a prominent homosexual — was honest about the downsides and dangers of homosexual activity. In “And the Band Played On” he called for closing homosexual bathhouses as a means of slowing the spread of AIDS.

And in his Harvey Milk biography, Shilts revealed that “Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems.” In other words, Harvey Milk was a pederast who preyed upon young men with drug habits.

Nevertheless, SRVUSD lionizes Harvey Milk with TK through 5 elementary grade read-alouds of the book "Pride, the Story of Harvey Milk and the Rainbow Flag."

Those who watch the Aug. 15 Board meeting video ( Web Link ) will see Bob Allen, a teacher mentioned in the story which led these comments, seated behind the speaker table.

When speakers he evidently didn’t like arrived to offer comment, he opened and distractingly waved a Chinese folding fan showing a rainbow White House and the inscription “Make America Gay Again.”

>But apparently you think it’s okay for minors to view pornography at school?
I realize you enjoy inflating things with your opinions of what actually happens. You ARE the entertainment here.

but. do you have kids in the school system right now? did you ever? If you feel normal education is showing 'pornography; is it possible you are a bit sensitive?

So, circling back certainly middle and HS kids can decide for themselves was is reasonable. Your opinion shows you have a difficult time being reasonable.

Kids have a voice in this, whether you want them to or not.

@S. Hale

I’m not inflating anything. Just pointing out the FACT that you think it’s okay for CHILDREN to view pornography in school. You obviously have an issue, an issue that would concern any parent. What’s next S. Hale? What else do you want to normalize?

By the way, you made the following statement:

“If you feel normal education is showing 'pornography…” Stop right there.

Normal education? What is your definition of normal education? You mean YOUR version of normal education involves allowing children to view pornography at school. You took a roundabout way to get to you point, but at least we all know where you stand.

It makes me wonder what other perversive thoughts you have in mind.

“Gays Against Groomers,” mentioned in the article leading this discussion, do indeed “oppose the recent trend of indoctrinating, sexualizing and medicalizing children under the guise of ‘LGBTQIA+’” ( Web Link ).

Further, they say, their community “has been hijacked by radical activists who are now pushing extreme concepts onto society, specifically targeting children in recent years.” They point accurately to “school boards, government, woke media, and corporations” as collaborators in radical gender-bender campaigns.

In my public comments, a meeting segment preceding SRVUSD’s resolution discussion, I mentioned key moments in SRVUSD’s own such activist campaign, including what Country Club Elementary principal Christy Glaser and instructional coach Korby Saunders have called “queering the classroom.”

Their read-aloud picture-story times, even for 4 and 5-year-old transition kindergarteners, use Saunders-recommended “Books About Gender,” “[Books with] “LGBTQ+ Main Characters” and “Trans Representation,” etc. See Web Link .

By the time students reach high school, it’s pornography in school libraries, so that LGBTQ students “can see themselves,” say District honchos.

In a Bay Area News Group article aimed at Moms for Liberty, however, SRVUSD spokeswoman Ilana Samuels is reported as claiming that “The district does not provide gender transition counseling, Samuels said, nor does it have an expanded curriculum for LGBTQ+ education” ( Web Link ).

So I’ve written to Samuels, copying the reporter, to note (along with facts above) SRVUSD’s “Gender Support Plans” (from activist outfit “Gender Spectrum”) and lineup of counselors/coordinators for same, one for each District school ( Web Link , click on “LGBTQ+ there.)

Of course, kids shouldn't decide and thank goodness our kids are grown. Progressive activists are a tough pill to swallow and thank goodness they're a minority. It's "feel good" politics and a detriment to society. Whatever happened to the three R's? Kids are in school to learn. Parents aren't "secondary." They're parents. And kids are minors. If you think kids should call the shots as to what is taught in school, you have a screw loose.

>>Of course, kids shouldn't decide
Going to disagree here as regards to HS kids. They are old enough, smart enough to make decisions about their campus. With the Site Council & Student Council they are well equipped to decide issues. It's the adults that can't be trusted; especially those who aren't stakeholders beyond 'maybe' they pay taxes in the county(s) in question.

Like I stated above S. Hale: You have absolutely no issues with pornography at the high school level.

School boards in particular are allowing gay pornography into school libraries. Take Fairfax County in Texas as a prime example.

After seeing a school board meeting in Texas on pornography in schools, Stacy Langton decided to check the titles at her child’s high school, Fairfax High School. She said the books were available, and she checked them out. Both of those books included pedophilia, sex between men and boys, according to Langton. She stated the following to the school board: “The illustrations include fellatio, sex toys, masturbation, and violent nudity.”

You agree that illustrations which include fellatio, sex toys, masturbation, and violent nudity be shown at high school, S. Hale?

20 U.S. Code 3401(3) stipulates that PARENTS have primary responsibility in educating children. Schools (and other state institutions) are to SUPPORT that role, not usurp and subvert it.

Unfortunately, parents of SRVUSD schoolkids are in fact secondary in the District’s scheme of things, despite frequent claims by administrators that parents are their “partners.”

A Jan. 12, 2021 email by Korby Saunders (a “queering the classroom” promoter, in her own words and those of Country Club Elementary principal Christy Glaser, from a Nov. 2020 program for their seminar on “Affirming LGBTQ+ Identities in the Elementary Grades”) said the opposite.

Saunders claimed that a child’s new “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” may not be disclosed by SRVUSD personnel to parents unless the child (even 4 and 5-year-olds in transition kindergarten) gives permission.

As a chemistry/math teacher (and swim coach) in the 70s and 80s, I had to take mind-numbing “professional educator” courses, including educational psychology. A common-sense principle reiterated therein was that children do not think like adults.

But with LGBTQ-themed read-aloud picture-story books for even TK kids, ranging to depraved pornography in high school libraries, many or most SRVUSD personnel evidently believe that children do think like adults — because they are adults who think like children.

Parents facing indoctrination programs — at Country Club and elsewhere — should insist on prior notice of “gender” and sex-related readings, speakers, etc., and demand that their children be excused, or keep them home on such days.

Parents should cite SRVUSD’s own policies as needed. For example: #6142.2 requires that “Staff members shall be highly sensitive to their obligation not to interfere with religious development.”

Library porn? New policy #6219.24 considers the “displaying or transmitting of sexual objects, pornography, pictures, or depictions to a student” to be a “boundary violation.”

@Scott Hale & Malcom Hex...viewing pornography should not be a part of any school curriculum or school.library offering. If kids want to view porn, they can do it on their own time and via their own devices (i.e. smartphone, computer).

As for the flags...flags that denote social and/or political agendas should not be flown in public venues because they are bound to promote conflicts and controversy.

If someone wants to fly a rainbow or BLM flag, they should display it on their own private property.

Scott Hale’s recommended SRVUSD site councils? They’re often syndicates steered by left-wing advocates of existing indoctrination campaigns. For 30 years or more, they’ve routinely rubber-stamped age-inappropriate materials and programs.

In 1993, for example, a Golden View Elementary third grader brought home a library-recommended book but said worriedly, "Mom, there's bad words in this book….”

The text, noted the parents in their complaint, was liberally spiced with words the SRV Times report printed only in truncated form (e.g., "dip___," "bull___," and "___hole"). The Herald 's story omitted the words altogether, then juxtaposed a second piece critical of PARENTAL "censorship."
Other passages alluded to child pornography and marijuana use. Various characters regularly "flipped off" each other.

Board Policy 6916 of the time (I find no equivalent now) required that library materials demonstrate "educational suitability, good taste, relevance, appropriateness to age and grade level." So the parents requested Golden View, the superintendent, and finally the School Board to remove the book from the school’s library.

But a stacked site council, and later the superintendent and Board refused, saying (in the case of a left-wing Board member speaking for the group), that retention of the book, with no restrictions, represented a "thoughtful, intelligent, rational, and totally defensible decision."

The same approach, again with site council approval, was taken with a 1997 showing of the R-rated, blasphemous film “The Last Temptation of Christ” at Monte Vista High School, during Holy Week, in an English class unit on “The Bible as Literature.”

A continuing problem is the largely controlling influence of SRVUSD’s teacher union, a CTA chapter. CTA venomously defied parents and other taxpayers in its 1984 publication, Guidelines for Academic Freedom in the Public Schools: “Who dares take on religion, free enterprise, patriotism, and motherhood? We do — and we must!

Sorry, hadn't realized that the 2000-character limit here had knocked off quotation marks at the end above!

I am in concurrence with those who strongly believe that promoting an LGBTQ+ agenda in public schools under the guise of educational enlightenment is both unwarranted and unacceptable because children and adolescents do not need to be exposed to the graphic details of this particular subculture at such an early age.

When I was in the service (USAF), there were a few airmen that we suspected as being gay but they adhered to the "Don't say, don't tell" doctrine of President Clinton and things went relatively smoothly as everyone focused on their job and responsibilities.

Most people accept (or tolerate) the LGBTQ+ community for what it is but they do not want the pride agenda shoved down their throats or passed on to their school-aged children.

@ Lennox

I think you were directing your argument at S. Hale. I'm in agreement with you.

Hex

While I can sympathize with parental concerns, having an open book policy allows our children to see the real world and this is what many progressive educators are striving for.

Diversity and inclusion are the key focal points today and in retrospect, censorship and the suppression of literary expression rarely pays long-term dividends.

If anything, these controversial books should have a designated area in the library and only be allowed for check-out with parental approval or consent.

Problem solved.

Regarding the sad state of our country and by extension, our educational system today, I'd recommend watching two documentaries that are both available (at the moment) on Amazon Prime.

1 - Agenda: Grinding America Down (2010)
2 - Agenda 2: Masters of Deceit (2016)

They're a few years old. But they're more relevant today, than ever.

@Rothstein stated the following:

"If anything, these controversial books should have a designated area in the library and only be allowed for check-out with parental approval or consent. Problem solved."

So, Rothstein is another one, much like S.Hale, who believes pornography should be allowed at schools. And Rothstein concluded his tant with "problem solved."

What's next Rothstein? Maybe we should allow minors to purchase drugs and alcohol at school too? Where does it stop.

Hey Rothstein, have you checked out some of the filth the lbgtq community is attempting to push? The bottom line is that you and S.Hale share in pushing pornography on minors. But just so you know:

Child pornography cannot be shared, sold, or exhibited in California. Anyone who does knowing that a minor under eighteen is featured in sexual material violates the Penal Code - 311.1(a).

@Malcom Hex:
Another option might be to offer this curriculum as an optional elective pending parental approval for each participating student.

No different than other outside activities like sports, band, chess club, robotics club etc.

Malcom Hex...according to many educators, there are several advantages to teaching LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/questioning) topics in public schools, among them:

(1) inclusivity and acceptance
(2) mental health support
(3) bullying prevention
(4) comprehensive sex education
(5) cultural diversity
(6) historical context

The key is to present this educational information in a non-biased manner that neither advocates or scorns.

Offering an after school LGBTQ club for interested parties might be the solution to this controversy.

Keeping the topic outside of school classrooms and school libraries should appease those who are against the curriculum.

Attitudes and acceptance towards non-binary individuals are evolving, but there is still a significant amount of bias, prejudice, and lack of understanding.

We can do better than that by supporting and encouraging our children to be whoever and whatever they aspire to be.

Malcom Hex...according to a Chat GPT inquiry:

Question: Is the teaching of LGBTQ issues and having LGBTQ books in public schools pornographic?

Answer: No, the teaching of LGBTQ issues and having LGBTQ books in public schools is not inherently pornographic.

These resources aim to promote inclusivity, diversity, and respect for all individuals, including those who identify as LGBTQ.

Educating students about LGBTQ topics is part of fostering a safe and supportive learning environment for all students.

• The next controversy: Artificial Intelligence (AI) being too woke.

"The same approach, again with site council approval, was taken with a 1997 showing of the R-rated, blasphemous film “The Last Temptation of Christ” at Monte Vista High School, during Holy Week, in an English class unit on “The Bible as Literature.”

@Mike Arata
Religious doctrines have no place in public schools. They are secular institutions.

In parochial schools, there is more latitude in which to embrace various religious perspectives.

Personally speaking, I would not have included the Bible as literature in an English class because it is more of a sacred text than an accurate work of literature.

Misunderstood by some above is the determined subterfuge of SRVUSD’s sexual revolutionaries. See Web Link and Web Link-ii for sordid details.

Elementary SRVUSD personnel, envious of the “Gay-Straight Alliances” initiated in high schools and middle schools in 2003 after a “behind the scenes” collaboration with GLSEN, decided by late 2020 to install TK-5 versions of GSAs.

Their ensuing “experiences of queering the classroom” (their term) have included their own resolute concealment effort.

Initially, their 4th and 5th-grade “Prism Clubs” required OPT-IN parental permission. But in a Feb. 2021 CTA presentation, Country Club Elementary activist Korby Saunders and then Quail Run first-grade teacher Blaire Wyatt discussed ending the parental permission requirement and holding Prism Club meetings at lunchtime. That too “kind of eliminates a little bit of that parent interaction,” they agreed.

By Apr. 20, 2021, Saunders was “still trying to get rid of permission slips for Prism Clubs.” She succeeded a month later. No permission slips were then required until Jan. 2022, after the scheme was exposed on national news and then in a Dec. 2021 school board meeting.

The new permission slips are deficient OPT-OUT versions, the wrong default for young children.

“Queering the classroom” includes read-aloud picture-story books even in “transition kindergarten” — a term now carrying ominous double meaning. Saunders wrote other SRVUSD personnel in Jan. 2021 to advise not informing parents of new “gender identities” or “sexual orientations” of even the TK 4 and 4-year-olds without the kids’ permission.

This, of course, after “queering the classroom” (of impressionable little ones) has succeeded. Further, SRVUSD has officially confirmed to me that “Gender Support Plans,” using forms supplied by gender-bender outfit “Gender Spectrum,” also remain undisclosed to parents unless the kids allow disclosure.

That's "TK 4 and 5-year-olds" in the second-last paragraph.

@Weiss

And you obviously believe in what you read or hear. But, as usual, many folks like you stray from the topic - which is pornography.

You and Frank believe pornography is okay for high school libraries. What does that say about you? Hmm? What's next? Smoking pot or drinking alcohol in class? You and your liberal friends want to take away social norms and replace them. Good luck on that.

Times change and so do societal views on taboo topics. Here are some examples of classic literature that were once banned in various parts of America but are now easily found in any library today (public or school).

• Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
• Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe
• Naked Lunch by William Burroughs
• Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
• Lady Chatterley’s Lover by DH Lawrence
• Women in Love by DH Lawrence
• Fanny Hill by John Cleland
• The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger
• Ulysses by James Joyce
• Candide by Voltaire

@Malcom Hex: Books are not dangerous!

There’s an accelerating, perverse effort to lower the “age of consent” to 12 — and here and there to normalize/cosmeticize pedophiles as “minor-attracted persons” (MAPS).

California’s AB665, for example, “would permit 12-year-olds to leave their families and go to a residential shelter without any notice to their parents and without claim — let alone proof — of harm (abuse, incest, danger)” ( Web Link ).

A school psychologist (amped up, say, on “gender identity” propaganda), could certify the supposed “need” ( Web Link ).

AB957 would include parental affirmation of a “child’s gender identity or gender expression” to be required for the “health, safety, and welfare of the child” in child-custody disputes. This would punish moral or religious parents with legitimate concerns about external influences like those of SRVUSD’s activists — and parents with common sense about child development and young children’s vulnerabilities.

Pornography? See Web Link and Web Link for introductions to “porn literacy” and “MAPS.”

SRVUSD engages in its own effort to normalize depraved, how-to pornography in its high school libraries, alleging that perverse maneuver to be “needed so that LGBTQ students can see themselves” in library selections. “As what,” I’ve answered, “porn objects?” Some examples are shown at Web Link .

Such books on library shelves imply adult cachet. And such material is not viewed only when it’s checked out from libraries. A record is presumably created then — but not when kids leaf through library books without checking them out (borrowing them).

According to the Rev. Al Sharpton at today's Civil Rights Commemoration in Washington DC, 'the dreamers' stand for the rights of all marginalized people including the LGBTQ community while 'the schemers' are working to suppress the civil rights of those they despise or fear.

We must move forward and restore America to the free society it was once envisioned to be.

To marginalize the LGBTQ community and people of color is a crime against American society and we must work together to ensure that all voices are heard, acknowledged, and respected.

The outcry against LGBTQ curriculum is based on the fear of everyday realities.

Like many reactionaries, Chicken Little was mistaken in thinking that the sky was falling.

I am very torn on this topic. On one hand & being a devout Catholic, I strongly support Mr. Arata's position on this curriculum being inappropriate for children.

On the other hand, stigmatizing the LGBTQ community by eliminating any acknowledgment of their existence seems overly harsh and bordering on bigotry.

Since there are two factions, a group parents in favor of this program & a group that is adamantly against it, where do we go from here?

Does the CA State Board of Education have any bearing or input towards resolving this issue or is it strictly up to the individual school districts to decide on the matter?

From a purely religious perspective, Corinthians 6:9-11 denounces male homosexuality but repentance remains an option.

Public schools being secular in nature are not bound by religious doctrines & so there is more latitude pertaining to the desemination of this controversial material.

And so the question is, are we doing a disservice to our kids by withholding this information or is it potentially creating further mental and/or emotional problems later down the road?

Growing up during the 1970s we were never subjected to these kinds of educational conflicts by opposing sides.

Raoul Mendez wants moral judgment about library porn turned over to Chat GPT — thereby, to whoever/whatever feeds controlling hierarchies to that platform. No thanks. Allowing some new Hal 9000 to run society would be a terminal error.

Does “Yesterday and Today” propose any age or content limits in school libraries? If not, he/she joins the outlook of the American Library Association and its self-declared “Marxist lesbian” president Emily Drabinski.

Library porn violates even SRVUSD’s own Policy 6219.24, which considers the “displaying or transmitting of sexual objects, pornography, pictures, or depictions to a student” to be a “boundary violation.”

The pornographic material to which I’ve objected here and in Board meetings includes explicit, how-to words-and-pictures manuals for sex acts involving every imaginable orifice, edited examples at Web Link .

And this excrement IS harmful. See, e.g., Web Link and Web Link .

Melba Washington paragon Al Sharpton is a self-aggrandizing huckster who goes wherever cameras and dollars lead him. He paid himself $648,000 during 2021 alone from his National Action Network “charity.”

As a district which characterizes parents as its “partners”: were SRVUSD ever actually to “work together to ensure that all voices are heard, acknowledged, and respected,” it would stop adopting texts which falsify the relationship between crime and incarceration rates, recommending “Straight Outta Compton” thug rap as some beneficial source of “change and empowerment” for 7th graders, and telling them that it’s okay to “have a prejudice against white people” ( Web Link ).

And it would stop actively “queering the classroom” (their term) even in transition kindergarten (i.e. classes of 4 and 5-year-olds, Web Link ).

@Peter Weiss
@Raoul Mendez
@Melba Washington

It’s quite obvious that all of you believe in the breakdown of social norms by allowing pornography to be introduced into high schools. What’s next? Junior high schools? Where do you draw the line? The fact is you three don’t want a line, period. Take a look around folks, we have lawlessness everywhere. Why? Because your liberal friends hate cops, want to defund law enforcement, and go easy on violent criminals.

But here’s the thing: all of you avoided the topic of pornography. Instead, you used the lgbtq community to make your arguments in place of distributing pornography in high schools. But when someone complains about it, all of you say things like the outcry against LGBTQ curriculum is based on the fear of everyday realities. That doesn’t even make sense. It’s a bunch of words strewn together. LOL! What is an everyday reality?

Like Mr. Arata stated: There’s an accelerating, perverse effort to lower the “age of consent” to 12 — and here and there to normalize/cosmeticize pedophiles as “minor-attracted persons”

So, Weiss, Mendez, and Washington, you all believe in lowering the age of consent to 12? Hmm? Argue that. Like I said, where’s the line? Where do you stop?

For Dennison Thorne: If “religious doctrines have no place in public schools,” then neither do ATTACKS on religious doctrines.

“The Last Temptation of Christ” portrays Christ as a conflicted, wimpy carpenter who builds crosses and helps Roman occupiers to crucify troublesome Jews. Judas, a zealot, berates Jesus as a sell-out.

Throughout this vile film, Judas is self-assured and strong; Jesus is weak, confused, neurotic. He considers himself a sinner, a liar, a hypocrite. His mother says “he’s not well in the head.” The film gets worse from there. I’ll skip its R-rated (should have been X-rated) pornographic content here.

Once upon a time, educators — like physicians — followed a cardinal rule: First, do no harm. And school personnel who supplied pornographic and/or blasphemous material to schoolchildren were called panderers, not teachers.

After I publicly criticized the instructor involved (this not being his first such incident), he retired, fortunately.

Consuelo, SRVUSD’s own Policy 6141.2 requires that instruction not “denigrate” religious belief, and that “Staff members shall be highly sensitive to their obligation not to interfere with religious development.”

Among other characteristics (real and imagined), #410 also prohibits discrimination based on religion, as well as race and color. That disallows treating whites as “oppressors” and everyone else as “victims.”

Another policy frequently ignored is #6144, which “expects teachers to ensure that all sides of a controversial issue are impartially presented, with adequate and appropriate factual information.”

Meanwhile, SRVUSD critics do not expect “eliminating any acknowledgment of [LGBTQ] existence.”

Instead, growing numbers of parents say they don’t want their authority subverted, their young TK-5 kids to be LGBTQ-groomed with inapposite pronouns and LGBTQ-themed, age-inappropriate LGBTQ read-aloud story books, nor library pornography to target 14 to 17-year-olds (who are still minors).

This all is to normalize any sexual act with children, this is where we are going. Our world and the greatest country on the plant are normalizing sex with minors, this is the biggest problem in our society today. Children are being exploited, sold and trafficked throughout the world, cartel’s are making more money with human trafficking than with drugs. Conservative, liberal, gay, straight we should all be in the same page to abolish sex acts with underaged children! When seeing it at our schools right in the open should tell us all that our government thinks it is ok, because our government is profiting on this filth. Our children our are most valuable and also the most vulnerable people on this earth and should be protected at all costs.