ALA Deals with non-library pro-Muslim Issues

I am solely addressing the ALA's actions in jumping on board yet another non-library issue and its actions in joining an organization such as CAIR in seeking to prevent the disclosure of national security-related information. This from the self-arrogated freedom of speech people. Suddenly, freedom of speech is no longer of interest to the ALA.

The ACLU's letter says, "Holding hearings ... will ... chill ... free speech." So does opposing the hearings. The ALA opposing the hearings despite its claimed support for free speech is ironic. Apparently, its political interests outweigh its claimed interest in First Amendment rights. It is yet another ALA double standard.

Even librarians abhor the ALA when it takes on non-library issues:

* "The ALA Alienates Librarians Because It is Politicized, Elitist, Group Think Oriented, Not Very Professional, and Generally Does Not Serve the Needs of Librarians"

* "ALA Personally Attacks ALA Councilor Who As a Conservative Christian Sometimes Stood Alone Against 180 ALA Councilors Debating Non-Library Issues; Young ALA Members Urged to Stand Against the ALA When It Takes on World Issues Having Nothing To Do with Librarianship"


And yes, the National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC] is joining the ALA and CAIR in seeking to censor the hearings. Like the ALA, the NCAC is another organization that tells local communities to keep their children reading inappropriate material.

I believe American citizens need to consider whether they wish the ALA to have the influence it does in local public libraries. The ALA may have political interests that communities may oppose. Such interests may shed light on existing ALA-inspired local library policies. Whose interests is the ALA actually promoting?

King: Hearings are to Show Extent of Radicalization in Muslim American C...

Exactly what is the ALA doing opposing radicalization hearings? Do the hearings have anything to do with libraries? Exactly why is the ALA joining CAIR in this effort?

Concerns being raised here are about the ALA and whether it should be viewed as authoritative in local communities when the facts show it appears to support terrorists or at least be sympathetic. For example, when an actual 9/11 terrorist's presence in a Florida library was revealed to the authorities by a librarian, the ALA's de facto leader said she wished the librarian had followed library patron confidentiality laws and not reported the incident. See: "A Nation Challenged: Questions of Confidentiality; Competing Principles Leave Some Professionals Debating Responsibility to Government" by David E. Rosenbaum, The New York Times, 23 November 2001. I would call that supporting terrorists, wouldn't you?

In addition, consider the following previous posts of mine on the ALA's affinity for terrorists:

* "Proof of ALA Pro-Terrorist Censorship; ALA Challenged to Explain and to Include Censored Speaker Next Time"

* "ALA Opposes FISA; Joins Soros, ACLU, and PFAW to Restrict War on Terror"

* "Soros, the ALA, and Terrorists"

* "ALA is Duplicitous and Fraudulent, Censors Whomever It Wants, Suppresses Intellectual Freedom, and Joins the Jihad"

* "ALA Defends Book Confiscation Worldwide by Communist/Terrorist Regimes? SafeLibraries Asks ALA Councilor James Casey to Clarify Anti-American Stand"

* "American Troops Defamed by ALA Councilor Peter McDonald"

As SafeLibraries, I take no official position on Rep. Pete King, the radicalization hearings, CAIR, or any issue unrelated to libraries or the ALA. Indeed, I have been told by members of the Islamic community that my goal of advising communities about protecting children from harm completely aligns with Islamic goals in that regard and that I should consider fund raising in mosques.