If there's one person all Americans have been keeping tabs on, it would have to be Trump. Some might say because he's the president of the United States; others might say because they want to witness how much further he can cripple the country. Whether you love or hate him, we all have the common interest of finding his name between the headlines. And indeed, his actions are that controversial.

So controversial that anyone associated with him – directly or indirectly – are accused of sharing the same mindset that Trump has shown to news outlets and the world of social media.

However, the subject here is not Trump, nor about his policies. Actually, this isn't even about his wife and First Lady, Melania Trump – despite her having to relate to the issue that I'm hear to discuss. No, this has everything to do with the waging war between censorship and liberalism.

Firstly, let me point out how I've come to this. Many of you may not know this, but it was recently National Read a Book Day on September 6th. Of course with everything else that the news has justly centered on, this day lingered in the shadows. However, it wasn't until now that people have become aware of it. It's not the reasons one would think; after all, it leaves a rather stale taste in people's mouths once you realize the ulterior motive.

Following the footsteps of Michelle Obama, Melania Trump decided to donate one school per state ten copies of Dr. Seuss books to their libraries. As great as it is that the First Lady finally takes some vantage with the spotlight she's given, things didn't end up so well for her. One school in particular in Cambridge, Massachusetts, publicly denied accepting the donations – or rather the librarian as the school itself didn't give their direct opinion. Below is just a link you can go to if you want to hear the defiant librarian's justification as to why her school doesn't need Dr. Seuss books:

http://www.hbook.com/2017/09/blogs/family-reading/dear-mrs-trump/#_

Whether you decided to read it out of curiosity or skipped to continue reading this, I'll go for the main points. For one, she directly rejected the donations from Melania Trump. The first three paragraphs, she utilized underlying sarcasm as she thanked her for the offer before shifting to why she can't accept the books.

After that, she makes a valid point that the schools that the First Lady should be collaborating with are those with low socioeconomic status – basically, the underfunded public schools that Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has turned a blind eye to. After all, she argued, her school was well enough on its own and had the necessary books for children to understand the importance of reading. She even decided to irrelevantly brag about her degree and how even that can contribute for her school to have educated students.

On the note of her unforeseen bravado, she also posted her personal viewpoint regarding people's adoration of Dr. Seuss and his books. At least regarding the United States (because I'm not sure how other countries handle children's books), we at least heard of Green Eggs and Ham, Cat in the Hat, The Sneetches and Other Stories, and other lecturing tales; either way, Dr. Seuss is that respected (so much that former President Barack Obama declared a holiday for him). However, this librarian disagreed with it all: the adoration, the fame, and the perception. She blatantly called these books racist, and even posted a book in her blog that "comproves" her theory of this. You can feel free to check it out on the link I provided above.

But with that, she definitely sparked an uproar amongst people – and the respect of others. If controversy is what she wanted, she got it; after all, I would not be here writing this if it were not the case. There are two sides of the reaction, so I'll post the links below.

For those who want a more center base on what people in general think:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/librarian-faces-backlash-for-rejecting-book-donation-from-melania-trump/

And for those who want to know what the other side of the coin thinks:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/29/librarian-rejects-melania-trump-s-dr-seuss-books-calls-them-racist-propaganda.html

But the people have spoken. Some have said that this was the right call, as "Trump's" ways can't be promoted further. Then there were those enticed by the fact that the librarian advocated for other authors and for the underfunded public schools. The parents from the school were quick to support her.

Then you have those that say that she used this to express her political frustration against Trump's policies – and took it out on Melania Trump. Also, there was plenty of criticism that she's setting a "bad" example for the children as they need to learn to be objective in these matters. The administration from her school was quick to cover up the mess by saying she was not their spokesperson, and that she didn't outright deny the donations.

Despite the divided chaos caused by this, I believe there is something familiar in play, a grave one at that. No, it isn't how this technically calls the First Lady an ignorant and racist person for the speculations of her motives. No, this isn't how what one librarian said calls into question how we educate children from a young age. No, this isn't how the librarian herself advocated for the lesser fortunate schools or minorities. No, none of that at all.

This is how astuteness takes advantage yet again of a circumstance.

She isn't exactly writing this for Melania; she's not even writing this to publicly share her political viewpoints. No, she's writing this for the people. Remember the hidden political messages she posted on that blog?

"Secretary DeVos would do well to scaffold and lift schools instead of punishing them with closures and slashed budgets."

Had she wanted to personally attack the Trump administration, she would've sent a private letter to the White House. There really was no need in the first place to say these things when she already justified that her school was well enough without the donations due to them being well funded. There was also no need to post this on a blog and make it as viral as possible, yet here we are – doing exactly what she wants us to do. Given that she directly attacked DeVos (who had no relevance to the donations), she wanted us – the audience – to agree with her call. For the most part I was convinced that she had wanted to raise awareness at the neglected schools that we easily ignore. But punishing and slashed are words that really push it, eh?

Especially if it's addressed to Melania Trump.

The First Lady has no direct say on who her husband approves to be on the administration inside the White House. (There's a reason why she didn't want to live there originally, most likely.) I know that if I'm writing to reject from someone an act of generosity, I would focus on the person themselves, rather than their acquaintances. If this was an effort to convince Melania Trump to advocate for public education, it was poorly done – especially if you're rejecting a small act that can improve it. And ignoring the part where the librarian does no effort to address DeVos herself... Here's another one that has that supposed political meaning.

"You and your husband have a direct impact on these children’s lives. Please make time to learn about and value them."

The contempt between the words is certainly overwhelming me. This librarian really does have it out for Melania Trump... Or is it to her husband? The president has no ties to this event, nor on how public education is ran. That's why he has DeVos as the Secretary of Education. But mentioning Trump in something that was purely from Melania Trump further downgrades the First Lady as something most sufferage movements advocated against: a submissive, obedient, quiet woman. Well let's not jump into that part, eh? I'm definitely not here to criticize Melania's choice of a spouse.

Look carefully where she says make time to learn and value in the quote above. She is definitely attacking Melania Trump's choice of books that the librarian defined as racist. There is no other way that this could mean anything but arguing her denying the books and throwing low-key shade at Trump, right?

But look again. If this is to say that Melania can use her power of the First Lady to do something, why mention Trump? One thing is that the First Lady does an excellent job at making herself scarce from the media, but another is to call her ignorant of the power she now holds. The argument is solely about the books, but this definitely lets the readers of the blog know that this is more than about it. This is a political stance meant to provoke a change, right? But where she says children's lives alludes to something more than the policies Trump is trying to enforce. She's attacking the education that the president and the First Lady received – and her wariness that they'll use their "ignorant" education to influence the children the wrong way.

But Cabby, can you at least mention this librarian by name? No can do about that. Why? She disgusts me; with her blatant propaganda, she's no better than El PRI and their usage of Frida Sofía. So I will not mention her name, although the surface research will allow you to discover just who is this "insurgent" librarian. I can't even take her little act of defiance seriously, not after her flimsy usage of ethos. Don't believe me?

"My students have access to a school library with over nine thousand volumes and a librarian with a graduate degree in library science. Multiple studies show that schools with professionally staffed libraries improve student performance. The American Association of School Librarians has a great infographic on these findings."

With that, let's take apart her argument. Since she is writing to the First Lady of the United States of America, she has to give herself credibility first in order to be heard, correct? After all, if I were the First Lady, I certainly wouldn't take time of my "busy" schedule to listen to someone rant about what my husband does. And since I'm married to someone that values the educated and wealthy majority of America, that means I have the same preconceived notions, correct? So logically, the only way to make me listen is to make sure that you went to college and that you do something with your degree. Send me all your recommendations while you're at it, right? Like I so don't care that this letter is a direct attack to something I did from the heart (and to appease other people); I only could care about what you're made of.

Well this librarian outdid herself. But, this and the other quotes above, were for the audience's benefit – not Melania Trump's. After all, as we're reading this from her blog, we obviously need to know who she is and why we – not the First Lady – should take her seriously. Saying her credentials? Check. Valuing the education of kids and remembering the lesser fortunate? Check. Agreeing that Trump is an ignorant leader? Check. Helpful links available to the curious mind and have statistics? Check.

But as Andrew Lang once said, "He used statistics the way a drunkard uses lampposts – for support, not illumination."

And she definitely falls in the category of support. But this isn't for the reasons that I originally thought – or what I've been hinting at. She isn't using this support of evidence in order to emphasize her justification to reject Dr. Seuss books for her school. In fact, her argument has nothing to do with the books.

I recommend reading that blog post. If you did, that's great. If you didn't, do go and skim through it. Once you're done, come back here for what I'm about to state.

Ready?

You sure?

Did you make sure to read between the lines?

You aren't that ready, right?

Fine, here it goes. Just admit it: you were probably thinking to yourself, she's right. But no, not about denying the books. Not her opinions of DeVos and Trump. Not even about the education system. You agree with the fact that Dr. Seuss books are cliché, and that a change need to happen in schools – specifically the books available to them.

At least here on Wattpad, we're all about changing the way things are handled and advocate for originality. We're sick of troupes; we want something new that can last in order for people to become more open-minded. We write Pokémon Fanfiction that goes out of the adventure norm – traversing the grounds of angst to the realm of absolute maturity. We don't want silly gym battles; we want to connect with the characters, original or not.

And with that, we all unconsciously have sided to go against censorship.

Tired of Pokémon games having some pointless adventure that beats an evil team and gets access to the new legendary? Censorship. Tired of Nintendo taking down fanmade games that have been your inspiration to write something unique? Censorship. Tired of the dubbed Pokémon anime taking out things that you feel that you can handle – such as kissing? Censorship. Tired of the fanfiction that populates the area that you don't want to represent the Pokémon fandom? Censorship.

Did you realize that Melania Trump is only collaborating with successful schools over underfunded ones? Censorship. Did you realize that you don't even know that many children's books outside of Dr. Seuss? Censorship. Did you realize that both the president and the First Lady are as ignorant as the librarian claims? Censorship. Did you realize that half of the things she even said you were completely unaware of? Censorship.

It's everywhere, a disease. Now I'm not disagreeing on raising the importance of the dangers of censorship; I'm disagreeing the manner in which she handled it.

It's great that she believed this about Dr. Seuss and all; it's terrific that she even provided a link for us to read the "terrible" truth. What's not brilliant is when she used children as an excuse to express her own political sentiments.

She used everything as her stage. The books and the children were her platform; the scapegoat was Melania Trump and the White House administration. The blog post was her prop; the commentators like myself are the antagonists. What does that leave her as? The shiny protagonist that has come to "enlighten" the quiet audience that has realized that such stage exists.

Trump is definitely an enemy to at least the part of America advocating for education. Melania Trump finally came out of the shadows to do something – which was stupid as it ignores the fact of the underfunded public schools. I feel useless that I can't do anything to protest, as people might not listen to me... Unless, that's it! I CAN so something about this! Let the world understand how censorship lead Trump into power. Let the world see for themselves how censorship makes them blind to what people like DeVos is doing! Let them hear on how their own education is dominated by censorship as they're too ignorant to realize what Dr. Seuss truly is!

Thus is how this blog post was even made.

Ignoring the fact that she took the donations of the book personally, this librarian definitely is pro-liberalist. Why else would she even bother providing a link for us – yes, we the audience, not Melania Trump – to discover children's books that we don't know of? Think about it. What are the odds of the First Lady stumbling onto this website and heeding to the advice? I'm more than sure her spokesperson did that for her... Because I'm willing to bet that she didn't even try to directly contact the First Lady for this.

The issue of censorship is as real as this librarian claims. I may not agree with how she took advantage of Melania to do this, or the manner in which she executed it. However, I do agree that people need to be more aware of the subtle war between censorship and liberalism. So even if this librarian shared her fair amount of insults to the First Lady (and accidentally to Obama for supporting Dr. Seuss' books), she still carried her point across.

There are several things regarding our upbringing that we pay little attention to. According to psychology, this is due to the fact that we believe that such information is useless to us – thus are less likely to remember it. However, all those things have subtle messages that have participated in conditioning us to see the world a certain way; we are even trained as to what to tolerate, and what to not tolerate. But if those things are exactly what makes us embrace the era of censorship, something needs to change. In order to do that, we need to identify what content is being controlled.

Maybe then we'd appreciate liberalism and all it stands for a little more.

[Written in September]