Thursday, July 23, 2009

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

Here is the smoking gun of the American Library Association's [ALA] hypocritical use of censorship to control what Americans think, in this case about terrorism, thanks to "internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security," Steve Emerson. From "Library Association Buckles Under Pressure by CAIR; Censors Critic of Islamism," by Steve Emerson, Hudson Institute, 23 July 2009, emphasis mine:

CAIR subsequently pressured the other panelists to withdraw, until finally, with Spencer the only remaining participant, the ALA canceled the panel. [Myra] Appel[, chairperson of the ALA's Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Roundtable (EMIERT)] told [CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmed] Rehab, according to sources close to the situation, that she wanted to disinvite Spencer, but would be accused of censorship if she did so. The indirect method was a face-saving solution. And then, according to CAIR, the ALA agreed to work with CAIR to "schedule a future event on the same topic as the canceled panel discussion."


It is disturbing to see the ALA acquiesce in CAIR's attempt to silence Spencer's perspective, and uncritically accept the organization's defamatory characterization of him as a "bigot" – a term CAIR officials throw at anyone who exposes the nature of their organization and who works to resist the advance in the West of the global jihad in all its forms. Most disturbing of all is the fact Appel and other ALA officials seemed unconcerned about CAIR's ties to Jihadist and Islamist organizations such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. And so they have set yet another precedent in which a group with numerous ties to terrorist and Islamist organizations determines what Americans will learn about Islam, jihad, and the terror threat.

I have written about ALA involvement with terrorism previously:

I did not write about the Robert Spencer snub, until now, because I did not know, until now, that the ALA may have actually committed censorship. As Mr. Emerson points out, this from the group promoting "Banned Books Week," which is used to convince people to voluntarily give up legal means to keep children from sexually inappropriate material in public libraries. See also, "Library Association Abandons Principle, Allows Censorship," by Muslims Against Sharia, Muslims Against Sharia, 22 July 2009 (where I got the photo above). And the ALA is seen as authoritative in local communities on setting local policy for access to inappropriate material by children—basically, anything goes (sample).

However, the Steve Emerson article puts the icing on the cake. Those statements by a renown terrorism expert represent the smoking gun.

It appears the ALA supports terrorism. It appears the ALA practices censorship. It appears the ALA practices censorship in support of terrorism. Inquiring minds want to know more.

I challenge the ALA to provide more information in response to Steve Emerson's report. I challenge the ALA to include Robert Spencer in next year's panel.



  1. Dan,

    First, do you really think the ALA "controls what Americans think?" Really?

    Second, classy move not to include any statement from the ALA people involved, CAIR or anyone else. Just the incredibly sensible people at Family Security Matters and the Hudson Institute.

    Third, your friends over at West End would like to engage in a book burning. Wouldn't you consider a group of people breaking the law for the purposes of frightening and intimidating their neighbors to be, hmm, what's the word, "terrorist?"

    Fourth, for the sake of argument, let's say ALA is hypocritical about censorship or something else you claim they are.

    So what? What's that to you?


  2. And from the Annoyed Librarian comes this:

    "I doubt the ALA or the ALA Council will have much to say about this. Like so many on the left these days, their support for free speech ends wherever Islam begins."

    "We Support Free Speech, But...," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 27 July 2009.

  3. Further evidence of a cover up comes from Michael Golrick of the ALA. He uses ad hominem argument against me, the Annoyed Librarian, Steve Emerson, and Robert Spencer, all the while further excusing the "face-saving" censorship. See:

    "Censorship and ALA Program in Chicago," by Michael Golrick, Thoughts from a Library Administrator, 28 July 2009.

    Looks like we struck a nerve.


Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.