Pages

▼

Monday, November 24, 2025

Informing Iowa Legislators About American Library Association

Critique of the American Library Association's Influence on Libraries and Legislation

The American Library Association (ALA), headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, has pursued policies for over 60 years that critics argue undermine parental rights in favor of unrestricted access to materials for children. Central to this is the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," adopted in 1939 and amended multiple times (most recently in 2019), which prohibits denying library use based on age, among other factors. This policy effectively treats age-based restrictions as discrimination, allowing children access to any materials without barriers. For historical context, see Rita Koganzon's analysis of 1970s school book controversies, which highlights how such disputes empowered parents to challenge perceived indoctrination in educational content.

This approach has accelerated the inclusion of s[*]xually explicit or educationally unsuitable materials in public and school libraries, prompting increased parental challenges. In response, librarians—often aligned with ALA guidance—portray these complaints as burdensome, despite the ALA's role in creating the underlying policy tensions.


ALA's Push to Codify the Library Bill of Rights into Law

To preempt parental challenges, the ALA has advocated for codifying its "Library Bill of Rights" into state laws, potentially overriding the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Board of Education v. Pico (1982). In Pico, a plurality opinion held that school boards cannot remove books from libraries solely due to ideological disapproval but may do so if materials are pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable. Books like Gender Queer have been removed from schools under this standard, which ALA opposes.

One court has ruled that the "Library Bill of Rights" holds no legal weight—it's merely aspirational and "means nothing" in a binding sense, as stated in Berry v. Yosemite Community College District (2019). Despite this, ALA has influenced over a third of state legislatures to consider such codification through initiatives like the "Right to Read Act" (also known as the "Freedom to Read Act"). As of November 2025, at least nine states have passed versions since 2023: California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Additional states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and others are considering or have advanced similar bills in 2025 sessions. For a detailed parent-focused critique, see the World Library Association's page on the Right to Read Act, which outlines how it limits parental petitions and grants librarians immunity from obscenity laws.

Part of ALA's push to get laws passed includes building in exemptions or affirmative defenses to obscenity crimes for librarians. That has been a long term ALA goal. See: Reisman, Judith A. and McAlister, Mary E. (2018) "Materials Deemed Harmful to Minors Are Welcomed into Classrooms and Libraries via Educational 'Obscenity Exemptions,'" Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 12: Iss. 3, Article 3. Available at https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol12/iss3/3:
Similarly, the American Library Association leans upon First Amendment protections against censorship to justify the obscenity exemption for libraries, often offering derisive remarks about parents' efforts to use "harmful to minors" statutes to remove inappropriate books.
ALA's strategy positions itself as both the source of the issue (unrestricted access) and the solution (legislative protections), aiming for nationwide adoption. In Iowa, from which ALA President Sam Helmick hails, this raises questions: Will Iowa follow suit and embed this Chicago-based organization's creed into state law?


Tactics for Influencing Legislators

ALA employs sophisticated methods to advance its agenda, often through affiliates like EveryLibrary, which provides training on "long-term inoculation"—building relationships with legislators to shape policy preemptively. This includes "getting to know your legislators" and "identifying and activating" supporters to prioritize children's unrestricted access. View the training here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. EveryLibrary's ties to ALA are detailed in analyses showing how it facilitates advocacy while maintaining a "crypto" (hidden) affiliation.

Another tactic involves "sustained messaging" to reframe s[*]xually explicit materials as essential for diversity, inclusion, and self-representation, downplaying concerns about appropriateness. This was revealed in training by ALA's former top lawyer, which Utah Senator Mike Lee highlighted in a 2025 Capitol Hill hearing on "banned books." Lee described it as "saying the quiet part out loud," accusing ALA of grooming and s[*]xualizing children to provide minors with explicit content while hiding it from parents. Watch the clip: https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments.



The "book ban" narrative has been debunked by the U.S. Department of Education, which dropped actions against parents after investigations. Critics trace this hoax back to ALA influence, used to mislead the public and maintain access to controversial materials.  Official U.S. Department of Education Press Release (January 24, 2025) announces dismissal of 11 complaints, rescission of guidance, and end to the "Biden's book ban hoax." https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-ends-bidens-book-ban-hoax


ALA's "Unite Against Book Bans" and Legal Setbacks

In response to successful Pico-based removals of "Gender Queer," ALA launched "Unite Against Book Bans" to lobby for laws blocking parental complaints and First Amendment redress rights. Recent setbacks include Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), where the Supreme Court affirmed parents' rights to opt children out of certain classroom content conflicting with religious beliefs. ALA has interpreted this narrowly, claiming it doesn't apply to libraries and warning against its misuse for censorship, but critics argue it's spreading misinformation to downplay parental opt-out options.

ALA's policies have real-world impacts, including harm to children. Detransitioner Maia Poet has publicly shared how a school librarian promoted trans ideology, leading to her binding her breasts and lasting physical damage, without parental knowledge. Watch her testimony, also shown below: https://x.com/thepeacepoet99/status/1890950617998217606. Another case involves a public library director reporting a child's death linked to ALA-recommended practices: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/ALAKillsBoy.html.


Deceptions and Hypocrisy

ALA often misleads on legal standards, insisting the "as a whole" test from Miller v. California (obscenity) applies over Pico's "pervasively vulgar" threshold, confusing discussions on school materials. It portrays challengers as extremists, ignoring polls showing most Americans oppose explicit books in schools. Tactics include faking "banned books" lists to mobilize communities (e.g., inflating LGBT book challenges until exposed), plagiarizing maps, and funding astroturf groups to overwhelm legislators with emails and turnout. ALA even trains librarians to evade open records laws by, among other things, using private channels like Signal.

Internally, ALA faces hypocrisy accusations. Trevor Dawes, a university librarian, criticized its shift to closed-door meetings, violating its own transparency policies and undermining advocacy for open government. As Dawes notes: "The irony is particularly sharp: an organization whose members fight daily battles against censorship... is now restricting access to its own decision-making processes."

ALA critiques rating systems by parents like BookLooks or Rated Books (https://www.ratedbooks.org/) while creating its own "Book Résumés," (https://bookresumes.uniteagainstbookbans.org/) which omit excerpts and emphasize awards, always deeming books suitable for all ages.  Compare the ratings for Gender Queer on Rated Books with Gender Queer on Book Résumés.


Another significant deception is the claim of an ongoing "culture war." After 60 years of effort by ALA to accelerate the inclusion of s[*]xually explicit or educationally unsuitable materials in public and school libraries, to the point where such material is essentially in every school library today, efforts to stop this are characterized by librarians as merely for political gain.  

For example, at the 5:39 mark of ALA's new documentary called "The Librarians," someone says, "Politicians are playing a very dangerous game when they try to make school libraries battlegrounds for their political war, because the only people that that is going to hurt are kids." See https://thelibrariansfilm.com/. So 60 years of effort by ALA cannot be countered by politicians because supposedly the kids are going to get hurt in a very dangerous game, all for politics.  It is a significant deception.


Implications for Iowa

Iowa legislators should scrutinize ALA's influence, given its president's local ties. Past Iowa issues include unfiltered library Internet leading to child molestation (exposed in 2011, prompting failed filtering legislation), s[*]x offenders in libraries (addressed in 2009 law), and misleading claims by directors like LaWanda Roudebush on filters. Recent writings highlight Iowa librarians supporting ALA's Marxist-leaning president https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/12/list-of-librarians-who-agree-marxism-is.html and details on stopping indoctrination: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/01/details-on-stopping-indoctrination.html.

Should Iowa adopt laws from an organization that flouts its own standards? Legislators face ALA-orchestrated pressure—expect astroturf campaigns—but prioritizing parental rights and child safety aligns with constitutional precedents.

If more details are needed, let me know.



Endnotes

1. American Library Association, “Library Bill of Rights” (adopted 1939, latest revision 2019)  

2. Rita Koganzon, “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s,” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26  

3. States that have passed “Right to Read Act” / “Freedom to Read Act” legislation (as of November 2025)
EveryLibrary Bill Tracking (includes Freedom to Read protections for libraries/librarians): https://www.everylibrary.org/billtracking Note: This page tracks positive "right to read" bills alongside other library legislation. For recent examples, see Delaware's passage announced November 10, 2025: https://www.alsc.ala.org/blog/2025/11/go-delaware-another-state-steps-up-for-the-freedom-to-read/ (confirms Delaware as a new adopter, building on prior states like California, Illinois, and others). ALA's adverse legislation page also contextualizes supportive bills: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/adverse-legislation-states.

4. World Library Association – Detailed parent-oriented critique of the Right to Read Act  

5. Board of Education v. Pico (1982) – key Supreme Court case on school library book removal  

6. Berry v. Yosemite Community College District (2019) – court rules ALA’s Library Bill of Rights “means nothing” legally  

7. EveryLibrary / ALA training on “long-term inoculation” and building relationships with legislators  

8. Documentation of EveryLibrary as a “crypto” ALA affiliate and its “long-term inoculation” tactics  

9. Senator Mike Lee (Utah) – “saying the quiet part out loud” clip from 2025 Capitol Hill hearing on banned books  


10. Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) – Supreme Court affirms parental opt-out rights; ALA’s response  

11. Maia Poet (detransitioner) testimony on harm caused by school librarian promoting trans ideology  

12. Public library director reports child death linked to ALA-recommended practices  

13. Trevor A. Dawes, “ALA’s Closed-Door Dilemma: When Governance Reform Conflicts with Organizational Values” (July 19, 2025)  

14. Guide for parents/legislators on obscenity law, Pico vs. Miller standards, and stopping indoctrination  

15. Harris Poll and other surveys showing majority opposition to s[*]xually explicit books in schools  

16. Exposure of ALA faking “banned books” lists to inflate LGBT challenges (2011)  

17. ALA caught plagiarizing a student’s “Censorship Map”  

18. ALA astroturfing: creating and funding local “grassroots” groups to pressure legislators  
    Bribes/incentives detail: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/03/ala-details-bribes.html Recently in Alabama, four separate ALA-created groups failed to stop the library board from voting against ALA:
Meanwhile, the board finalized a restriction on transgender books for children and teens. Once approved by legislative services, the code states that “any library material regarding transgender procedures, gender ideology or the concept of more than two genders” must be weeded out of library circulation or moved to the adult section. See: https://www.al.com/news/2025/11/alabama-library-board-finalizes-transgender-book-restrictions-delays-fairhope-funding.html

19. ALA’s deleted article on “sneakily” pushing Drag Queen Story Hour into conservative towns (archived)  

20. Librarians trained to evade open-records/FOIA laws using private channels (Signal, Slack, etc.)  

21. Iowa-specific posts referenced and other Iowa posts covered by SafeLibraries
    - Iowa librarians supporting Marxist ALA president: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2024/12/list-of-librarians-who-agree-marxism-is.html  
    - Child molestation in Iowa library linked to unfiltered porn (2011): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porn-and-sex-abuse-in-our-public.html  "Consider the case of a child molested in a public library bathroom and no one knew that it was the result of p[*]rn viewing!  I was the person who exposed the truth.  As a result of my work, the Iowa state legislature attempted to pass state library computer filtering legislation.  It would not have happened but for my involvement in that community."
    - Davenport Public Library director misleads on filters (2010): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/04/revive-iowa-internet-filtering-law-for.html
    - Unimpeded child p[*]rn viewing in the Council Bluffs Public Library" (2009): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/07/terminal-cancer-in-council-bluffs.html
    - Iowa nixes s[*]x offenders from libraries (2009): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/05/iowa-nixes-sex-offenders-from-libraries.html
    - ALA ruse keeping p[*]rn in Council Bluffs (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/08/ala-ruse-keeping-porn-widely-available.html
    - Burlington library director misleads on Internet filters (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/04/burlington-ia-library-director-misleads.html
    - Media needs to wake up to library crime (2008): https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/04/media-wake-up-to-library-crime-source.html
   

at No comments:

Thursday, October 30, 2025

Some Media Smear Parents, Laud School Librarians Indoctrinating Kids

Some media smear parents, laud school librarians indoctrinating kids.  Mike Deak for Courier News, top right (photo credit), obviously took whatever a school librarian said as truth and made zero effort to search out the truth of what he was being told, in my opinion.  I'm certain many parents know exactly what I'm talking about.

So here is a response I wrote to Mike Deak and USA Today that needs to know how such "journalists" are damaging their brand by violating their ethics code.

I never got a response from either.

Mr. Deak


Greetings Mr. Deak,

I'm Dan Kleinman.  You just wrote a story about me and my businesses, that are not related to the ethics matter that I brought as an individual, that is partly false and possibly defamatory, neither is it journalistic.  

Further, your news story was photographed and posted on Bluesky by former North Hunterdon-Voorhees High School school librarian Martha Hickson who added a description to a photo (ALT text) calling me "Dan Klownman."  See:

Given your story's content, it appears to me to have been sourced from Martha Hickson, a person who harasses me on a near weekly basis and who disparages my businesses on a near monthly basis.  

Is there a means by which people can officially request corrections in the Courier News?  I'll provide you with some context and see if you voluntarily correct the story.

Here's the story: 
"BOE is Cleared of Ethics Charges Over Book Banning," by Mike Deak, Courier News, 1 October 2025, p.1, above the fold.

"Eight present and former members of the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education have been cleared of ethics charges that they were influenced by special interest groups in a controversy over whether a book should be removed from the North Hunterdon High School Library."

That is deceptive.  The book is really not the issue, only the underlying reason potential ethics violations were exposed, and those violations are the real issue.  This is accurate:

"Eight present and former members of the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education have been cleared of ethics charges that they were influenced by special interest groups in a controversy over whether they were guided by a special interest group in violation of ethics laws, made advanced promises to vote a certain way before being elected, another violation of the law, and leaked information to certain members of the public, a third violation of the law."

The following is defamatory, and it's how you describe me to your audience, as if written by Martha Hickson who regularly defames me and my businesses for at least a year:

"For more than a decade, Kleinman, based in Chatham, has waged a national campaign on what he believes are inappropriate books and websites in schools. He is also executive director of the World Library Association, an alternative to the American Library Association which he has called 'terrorist friendly, child unfriendly, and dishonest/unethical.'"

"Waged a national campaign"?  I am a parent responding to an approximately 60 year effort by a special interest group from Chicago, IL, American Library Association, to promote age inappropriate material to children.  See: 
Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. 

World Library Association has nothing to do with this case I filed individually.  Yet you introduce it by labeling it "an alternative to the American Library Association which he has called 'terrorist friendly, child unfriendly, and dishonest/unethical.'"  That's defamatory.  You definitely got that from the person defaming me and my businesses for years.  

WLA was formed two years ago, yet your quote is from 2011, fourteen years ago.  Further, had you yourself looked at the quote, you would have seen it was based on a New York Times story in which the patron privacy rights of one of the 9/11 terrorists who killed thousands of Americans were defending by ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" and "Freedom to Read Foundation" leader Judith Krug after a Florida librarian turned in a terrorist's presence to the police. See: 

So it's an accurate statement to say ALA is terrorist friendly, and it is based on a New York Times story where the ALA leader defended the patron privacy rights of a 9/11 terrorist to use a public library computer to learn how to better kill more Americans.  Had you had that context and been a real journalist, I bet you would have excluded that smear of one of my businesses.

Similarly, I gave extensive primary sources proving the other assertions I made long ago that are now presented by you without context in a way that disparages my business.  Here are those sources, if they haven't aged out over time:

Contrast how you introduced me to your readers with how you introduced Martha Hickson: "Former school librarian Martha Hickson was given the American Library Association's 2022 Lemony Snicket Prize for Noble Librarians Faced with Adversity for her efforts to keep the books in the library."

Clear bias right there in your news story.  I supposedly waged a national campaign assumedly falsely calling the American Library Association is terrorist friendly, which it is, while Martha Hickson is an award winning librarian, which she got from ALA to promote how she harmed school children with age inappropriate material that may even violate NJ 2C:34-3 Obscenity for Persons Under 18--the very law the school board explicitly overrode to follow instead the advice of special interest group from Chicago, American Library Association.  

You didn't introduce me in a similar fashion.  You could have said, for example, that Ernest Istook, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, described me as a "trusted source" on the issue of how the American Library Association misleads communities about public library law.  See:

It's right at the top of my About Me page but you missed it because you wrote a hit piece, and that's not journalism.  See:

Part of how media manipulates the public is by not presenting information it should.  You have done that.  And it shows again you got your information from Martha Hickson, not from any actual effort at real journalism.  

Had you actually investigated the story, or even asked me for input, you would have known the attorney for the school board, Comegno Law Group, repeatedly violated NJ School Ethics Commission rules--even the Commission's attorney had to interrupt to advise that rules were being broken.  

And where did you miss this information that is entirely relevant to the story?  Right on the Commission's website, the minutes of the August 19, 2025, meeting. A journalist would have made that part of his story.  Instead, I see only a megaphoning of the defamatory statements of Martha Hickson who then implicitly bragged about her getting you to write that story on her Bluesky account by posting it and using it as a platform to again call me Klownman.  Here is the link proving the above directly from the NJ SEC site that you completely missed because you wrote a hit piece, not something journalistic:

And that violation of rules may have been a violation of the NJ Rules of Professional Ethics and it may have been the reason why the Commission decided as it did.  But any potential of that is completely absent from your reporting.

You also missed that one of the Commission's members, Rich Tomko, was hired by the school's superintendent to consult on the Strategic Plan.

As I said earlier, part of how media manipulates the public is by not presenting information it should.

Mike Deak, I'm sure you'll be writing about me again.  I'm forgiving.  Next time pick up a phone and speak with me before blindly publishing agitprop from an American Library Association librarian.  

It might be relevant, for example, that ALA helped Martha Hickson so completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes, so much so that the ALA President bragged about it in her yearly speech to ALA membership about how ALA tools provided to Martha Hickson helped her keep the 2C:34-3 book in the school library.  See:
"ALA Details How It Controls Communities Nationwide: The Quiet Part Out Loud Now In Transcript Form"

(35:07):
And so we know that people are battling back and we are using that platform to pull people together. I was at a a conference and uh Martha Hickson was there who some of you may know as school librarian in New Jersey. And when she faced a challenge at her school through that UABB platform, and other forms of organizing, 400 community members came and joined her to sign, to to stand with her in that moment. [00:35:30] So the United Against Book baba Bans platform facilitates that. Our state chapters are using uh OneClickPolitics®, a tool that comes from our Chapter Relations Office and from uh the Washington Office to organize locally. We know that local organizing is what wins the day, that ALA can't come in and save places, but what we can do is provide the tools to the people who are on the ground doing that kind of organizing work. We continue to look for ways to expand our work in uh the Office of Intellectual Freedom.

"Mike Deak has worked in Central Jersey journalism for more than four decades.  Our journalists adhere to the USA TODAY NETWORK Principles of Ethical Conduct For Newsrooms."  See:


Not this time.  You violated a lot of those ethics rules.  Read them:

You violated ethics rules, to support a school board potentially improperly cleared of violating ethics rules.  All to keep school children reading inappropriate material that may violate New Jersey obscenity law but doesn't violate American Library Association standards or lack thereof.

All of the above is my opinion.

------------
Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services

By the Way


By the way, since writing the above, I have learned the NJ School Ethics Commission may have some ethics problems of its own.  We shall see.  

In the meantime, one of the board members formerly under ethical review (Beth Kotran) is running to be reelected by lying about the ethics decision.  I discuss just this at the 28 October 2025 board meeting, seen here:

 
at No comments:

Thursday, September 4, 2025

FOIA OPRA Request for Comegno Legal Bills and the Daughter Who Reads Almost Every Day

I've had to submit to the North Hunterdon-Voorhees school a FOIA request that in New Jersey is called OPRA.  It's my opinion the taxpayers are getting ripped off by the Comegno Law Group that is billing the school/taxpayers for work it really is did/volunteered for Chicago's American Library Association.  The OPRA is to determine if this is the case.  

Further, an ethics decision may have been biased in an unethical way, indicated to me by the following sentence: "My daughter reads almost every day."  

Here is a Table of Contents/Evidence to support the OPRA request and more, and all evidence is included below:

Table of Contents/Evidence:
  • NJ SEC Scheduling Letter
  • Public Comments at the 8/19/2025 School Ethics Committee Meeting
  • OPRA Request 007: Comegno Legal Bills
  • Recording of Public Portion of NJ SEC Meeting 8/19/25
  • Graphics of NJ SEC Scheduling Letter 8/12/25
  • Public Disclosure by Me of the Above Matter on Liberty Launch Group

Below is that OPRA request, but first is some information I reference in the OPRA request, namely, the scheduling letter from the NJ School Ethics Commission.  

There is also a transcript of the public comments made at that meeting.  I made the recording and the transcript.  The entire recording is linked below.  To my knowledge, the NJSEC itself makes no such records public, so below is likely the only copy.  You will be told by the people who support American Library Association to ignore me and especially the evidence, the recording.  Will you not read the transcript for yourselves?  Will you not listen?

At the hearing a public statement was read out loud about the imminent public comment portion of the meeting.  That statement included the following admonition:
Parties to a matter currently pending before the Commission are reminded not to publicly litigate the merits of their case.  The Commission's review in the matter will be limited to the written [unintelligible] and any public comments or statements which address the merits of the matter will not be considered by the Commission today.
In the transcript a Commissioner speaks during a break between public comments that, "My daughter reads almost every day."  Cute, right?  Not cute.  It is an indication, at least to me, that he heard what the Comegno attorney argued, then, despite the unethical nature of her comments and her refusal to follow direct verbal direction from the Commission chairman and again from the Commission attorney, he was swayed by her unethical comments.  Why?  Because his takeaway was the importance of libraries and how his daughter enjoys reading almost every day.  I could hear nothing from him about how the Comegno attorney just blew through ethical requirements without a care in the world.  To me, this was the most disheartening part of the hearing and it told me this guy is going to fall for the America / democracy / libraries sob story and decide not to hold the school board responsible for breaking the law.

And should anyone argue the Comegno lawyer's words were simply effective in making a point since the Commissioner was swayed to think of his daughter and her reading thanks to libraries, you don't get or give credit when an attorney achieves a goal in an unethical manner.


I've said this is my opinion, but it's also my opinion anyone looking at the scheduling letter, its red, italicized, and underlined admonition, the public comments and NJSEC's Chairperson's opening statement and NJSEC lawyer's verbal admonition, will come to essentially the same conclusion that Comegno Law Group is draining board/taxpayer money to fund instead volunteer work for the American Library Association that has control over the school board (as my ethics complaint may decide), the legislature that passed the Freedom to Read Act written by ALA (Senator Andrew Zwicker who called me a "meddling minority" told me so directly at a hearing in Trenton), and is now attempting to use taxpayer funds to illegally sway the NJ School Ethics Commission in violation of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Ethics [potentially RPC 3.3(a)(4 & 5); 3.4(c); 3.5(a & c); 8.4(a & c & d)].

Remember, the Comegno Law Group attorney is
  1. experienced in education law practice,
  2. got the 8/12/25 letter not to talk about the case,
  3. heard the opening comments that parties may not talk about the case, discussed the case anyway,
  4. heard the Commission attorney tell her directly to stop talking about the case, but went right on ahead talking anyway to do what she knows not to do and to three times ignore the School Ethics Commission.
Three strikes you're out, yes?  Or no, because librarians are wonderful people who would never hurt anyone, American Library Association is wonderful, its Freedom to Read Act is about liberty and democracy, so the ethics case is moot, nothing to see here, let's move on.

She concluded by directly arguing the merits of the case despite multiple warnings, and even got in the good word for American Library Association's Freedom to Read Act as the reason to defy my ethics complaint by summarizing, "the record shows the members acted in good faith, within policy, and in line with the state law protecting access to books."  They did not act in good faith.  They violated ethics laws, and their attorney violated professional ethics laws, all to keep children exposed to inappropriate material in schools, in my opinion.  

Besides, that Freedom to Read Act was signed into law on December 9, 2024.  The alleged unethical actions taken by the board predated that and the ethics complaint itself was filed on November 4, 2024.  Even the respondents themselves complained in their response, "this matter was initially and incorrectly filed on October 23, 2024."  Gosh forbid a pro se complainant should misfile a complaint without the petty attorney trying to score points because screw justice.  Always the effort to belittle, to attack the messenger, but still, Comegno Law Group knows my ethics complaint predated the passage of the Freedom to Read Act, so summarizing by saying, "the record shows the members acted ... in line with the state law protecting access to books," is not only arguing the merits of the case, but it is deceptively dishonest to argue something that postdated the complaint.  It is factually false.  It might even right there represent an additional violation of yet another professional rule of attorney ethics.  "RPC 8.4. Misconduct; It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:... (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."  And all after having been warned three times not to discuss the merits of the case, in a matter that may represent another violation of the ethics code.  Had she not violated at least one rule, another rule would not have been violated.  My opinion, of course.

I am publishing all this so the taxpayers and especially the parents at the school can see for themselves exactly what happened at the 8/19/25 NJSEC meeting and how they are being used/sponged off of to promote a Chicago ALA agenda—all to keep school kids subject to ALA's 60 year effort to indoctrinate school children (shown here).  They can also see that local control needs to be restored from ALA's overarching control, such control being so complete that a law firm willingly defied rules of professional conduct, starting with their own school board.  The ALA policy embedded in school policy needs to be removed and books that are pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable per Pico standards need to be summarily removed, Freedom to Read Act notwithstanding.  The US Supreme Court trumps the Chicago American Library Association.

That initial ethics decision will be out in a few weeks.  Let's hope soon afterwards some school board members become ex school board members.

And get rid of that unethical law firm.  What's the problem?  Plenty of ethical lawyers can take their place, do far better, and not rip you off.  My opinion!


NJ SEC Scheduling Letter (red, italic, underlined lettering in original):

12 AUGUST 2025

SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION

August 12, 2025

For Complainant
Dan Kleinman
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928

For Respondents
John B. Comegno II, Esquire
Giulia Lima, Esq.
Comegno Law Group
521 Pleasant Valley Avenue
Moorestown, NJ 08057
SUBJECT: DAN KLEINMAN v. JESSICA VIOTTO, BETH KOTRAN, TARA
MARIE HINTZ, BRYAN CHAPMAN, DANIEL SPANTON, GLEN
FARBANISH, JOHN MELICK, BRENDAN MCISAAC, NORTH
HUNTERDON-VORHEES BOARD OF EDUCATION, HUNTERDON
COUNTY, SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION DOCKET #C89-24
Dear Parties:

Please be advised that the above-captioned matter will be discussed by the School Ethics
Commission (Commission) at its meeting on August 19, 2025. At this meeting, the Commission
will discuss whether probable cause exists for the allegations in the Complaint. Probable cause
shall be found when the facts and circumstances presented in the Complaint and Written
Statement would lead a reasonable person to believe that the School Ethics Act has been violated.

In addition, because Respondents alleged that the complaint is frivolous, the Commission
will also discuss this allegation, and any response thereto. If the Commission determines that the
Complaint is frivolous, such a finding may constitute sole grounds for dismissal, and such
dismissal shall constitute final agency action. N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.4. In addition, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:12-29(e), the Commission may impose a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00).

The Commission’s meeting will take place at the New Jersey Department of Education,
100 Riverview Plaza, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. Although you are permitted to attend public
session, please note that this is not an opportunity to discuss or to otherwise publicly litigate the
merits of the case. Further, the Commission’s review and discussion of this matter will take place
in Executive Session.

Page 2

Following its meeting on August 19, 2025, it is anticipated that the Commission will adopt
a decision at its next regularly scheduled monthly meeting thereafter. Once adopted by the
Commission, the parties shall be duly notified of the Commission’s decision (in writing) and will
be advised as to how the above-captioned matter will be processed.

Subject to the exceptions set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.6(g), the Commission shall hold all
information confidential regarding any pending matter until the Commission finds that a school
official has violated the Act, or until such time that the above-captioned matter is settled,
withdrawn or dismissed.

If you have any questions, please contact our office at school.ethics@doe.nj.gov.

Sincerely,
/s/
Dana Jones
School Ethics Commission 


Public Comments at the 8/19/2025 School Ethics Committee Meeting:

Giulia Lima, Esq., Comengo Law Group for Respondents:

Good morning members of the Commission. I am Giulia Lima, Counsel for Respondents, the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education members named in the matter C89-24. This matter involves a May 7, 2024, vote by the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Board of Education on a library book challenge. This challenge was handled under established district policy. A review committee of educators, administrators, and a parent, considered the book and issued a divided recommendation. 

At the public meeting, more than twenty residents spoke with most supporting the book remaining. The board then voted not to remove it. That decision was made through the proper process and within the board's authority. 

The process was consistent not only with the district policy, but also with the principles later codified in the New Jersey Freedom to Read Act, which affirms students' right to access information and prohibits book bans based on disagreement with ideas. 

Dana Jones, School Ethics Commission Staff Member and Attorney:

Wait, Miss Lima, I just want to remind you, you can't talk about the merits of the case. 

Giulia Lima:

Okay.

Dana Jones:

So we talk and then the Commission decides whatever they decide. They're only going to consider what was in the complaint and the writ. 

Giulia Lima:

Yes.

Dana Jones:

So not, nothing of what you're talking about today. We do want to make sure that you don't talk about anything that we consider merits, defenses to the case. 

Giulia Lima:

Okay. 

School libraries have centers for voluntary inquiry, play a unique role in promoting intellectual freedom, providing equitable access to learning, resources, and promoting democracy by providing services to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, age, ability, gender, or social economic status. 

In sum, the record shows the members acted in good faith, within policy, and in line with the state law protecting access to books. 

Thank you for your time and your commitment to our schools, our teachers, and our students. 

...

Male Commissioner:

My daughter reads almost every day.

...

Jeannine Pizzigoni, School Ethics Commission Staff Member:

Can you state your name, please, and what case you are here for?

Dan Kleinman, Complainant:

Yes, my name is Dan Kleinman. I'm here for the case of the young lady over here that ...

[Discussion ensues within the SEC about Commissioner Richard Tomko having to go offline again like he did for Giulia Lima for conflict related to North Hunterdon-Voorhees BOE as he was applying for a contract with the BOE.  He has recused himself from the C89-24 process.  He will have the same access to the final decision after it is posted on the Commission’s website when the public will have access to that decision.]

I came here because I'm interested in the administration of justice. I'm fascinated by this School Ethics Commission. I wanted to just observe for myself what was going on in this case. I wasn't planning to say anything.

Jeannine Pizzigoni:

Okay.

Dan Kleinman:

And then the attorney spoke up. [Laughter ensues.] She's a very nice lady. 

But she did speak up on the, on the, uh, related to the case and and how you should basically be voting because she pointed out to how important libraries are and it's essential to our democracy that we have libraries. 

Then she was told, "We're sorry, you can't talk about things related to this case." And then she proceeded to proceed with more things related to this case. It's an attempt to spin the Ethics Commission. 

I'm not impressed with that. I just came to observe today. And what I observed was the continuing effort to claim that librarians are wonderful people and all books are wonderful, as the reason why this case should be, in your mind, just set aside. 

It's not the issue whether all libraries are wonderful, and I'm not gonna argue the merits of the case. I'm not impressed that she would, came up here and talked about this in violation of your rules, was warned about it, and then proceeded to continue to talk about this case in violation of the rules. 

It's not impressive. I hope when you make your decision that your decision is based on everything it's supposed to be based on, and the justice of the matter, and whether the law was violated, and that's it. 

And this is a very fascinating process. And I thank you guys for the efforts that you all put into doing this every month, it's a very important issue. 

Thank you.

Robert Bender, School Ethics Commission Chairperson:

I can tell you that, uh, as a commissioner, uh we've read, this material, it's not just a statement here or there, but we look into the depth of each case. And uh, uh, are we swayed? Uh, no, uh, we listen, uh, just as, as, you know, free speech, but at the same time, what we're dealing with is very serious. And, right now, we, we have read this, uh, we are certainly in detail in this, uh, and, uh, we'll give that great consideration. So, we don't take these things lightly. 

Dan Kleinman:

Okay.  This, her argument that the Freedom to Read Act passed in New Jersey, you know, that was written by Chicago's American Library Association. It's almost proof of what I've been saying. But thank you very much.


OPRA Request 007: Comegno Legal Bills:

Please provide all legal bills and accompanying documentation of what was done and when from any law firm including the Comegno Law Group, P.C., wherein the bills relate to preparation for and appearance at the August 19, 2025 New Jersey School Ethics Commission.  Consider this an open request until I am provided with documentation, just in case any bill has not yet been received.  Requesting this OPRA request to remain open will obviate the need for additional OPRA/FOIA requests, thereby saving time and money for all.  Once all such documents are provided to me, this request may be considered closed.  I am aware some law firms write legal bills in a manner that essentially circumvents OPRA laws.  Let's hope such games will not be played here or that will result in additional OPRA requests and associated costs that you will have brought upon yourselves.

My interest in the subject matter contained concerns saving the school district legal fees for work Comegno Law Group may have performed gratis for Chicago's American Library Association.  Essentially, Comegno Law Group, while ostensibly representing the school district, in reality performed work that may have violated New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct so as to benefit a special interest group, namely, American Library Association, the very same special interest group that is at the basis of the ethics complaint about the potential for the school board having broken ethics laws by favoring special interest groups in a manner against the law, among other things.  Comegno Law Group may have unethically promoted the interests of the special interest group while completely ignoring the interests of its client school board; any interests of the school board that were not also interests of the special interest group were not discussed at all before the NJ School Ethics Committee.  For example, the issue of board members having promised to vote a certain way on a certain issue in exchange for votes was not discussed.  Comegno Law Group was told repeatedly, including in person at the 8/19/25 meeting by the attorney for the Commission who had to interrupt the Comegno Law Group member, not to speak on topics relating to the case, but that didn't stop Comegno Law Group from charging ahead anyway with its open advocacy for special interest group American Library Association and for New Jersey's Freedom to Read Act that was written by American Library Association and passed as law in New Jersey.  The argument was essentially that since that law passed, the ethics matter under review was irrelevant, so no ethics were violated.  Ethics violated but not discuss by the attorney were essentially ignored.  Comegno Law Group may have violated rules of professional conduct to support American Library Association, but it never supported its school board client in the other ethics issues in the ethics complaint, and it certainly does not benefit the client to act unprofessionally to support the very outside interest group the school board may have also unethically supported, namely, American Library Association, the very basis of the ethics complaint.  So basically, Comegno Law Group volunteered work for American Library Association but charged the school board for that work.  This OPRA/FOIA request is to determine the existence and extent of the damage, if any, so it may be returned to the taxpayers.  I was at the hearing to see all this.  I have produced a transcript and the notice of hearing from the Commission to prove all this.  No member of the school board was in attendance, so only I saw this.  The meetings are not officially recorded.  I recorded the meeting on my iPhone and I produced an accurate transcript as a result.  So there's zero change Comegno Law Group can say it didn't happen or can keep people from hearing it for themselves.  All work billed to the school board related to the above should not have been billed to you.  The school board should refuse to pay any portion of any bill related to this matter.  Further, it should send a demand for payment of legal fees to American Library Association that directly benefitted from Comegno Law Group's unethical actions.  Finally, to avoid these litigious people supporting American Library Association's ability to harm school children with inappropriate material suing me, the above is all my opinion.


Recording of Public Portion of NJ SEC Meeting 8/19/25:


Graphics of NJ SEC Scheduling Letter 8/12/25:


Public Disclosure by Me of the Above Matter on Liberty Launch Group:

Spotify:


X:



NOTE ADDED 15 SEPTEMBER 2025:

The OPRA request was effectively denied and closed on 12 September 2025.  From experience, 100% of the time a FOIA request is denied, the government is hiding something.  

In my case, they are hiding legal bills.  In the past I received legal bills.  Not this time.  They are definitely hiding something.  I suspect it's that the law firm is serving American Library Association, not the school district itself.

They say they don't have the legal bills because they are "sent directly to the District's insurance carrier."  If that is true, then they have not reviewed the bills and they are possibly violating even more ethics laws.  They might even be hiding that they know tax money is being used to support Chicago ALA goals.

I'll have to dig in more now, and they will eventually blame me for wasting the public's money.  It's like they blame book challengers for wasting public money when it's ALA diktat that creates the book challenges in the first place.

Here is the actual rejection letter, and click to enlarge:




at No comments:

Friday, August 8, 2025

School Librarians Shape Young Minds with a Very Specific Worldview Leading to Tragedy

I just returned from the library, and I can’t even begin to describe the emotions surging through me. It’s a storm — anger, despair, disappointment, sadness, outrage, frustration — all at once.

I had gone there to pick up a book from the Simsbury High School summer reading list for English 10.1/10.2. My son had randomly selected a few titles, but most were already checked out, so I placed holds for us — and the first to become available was Someday by David Levithan.

After checking it out, I glanced at the cover. The tagline struck me immediately:
“Every day a new body. Every day a new life. Every day a new choice.”

Curious — and admittedly uneasy — I looked further. The story is about a character named “A,” a genderless being who wakes up in a different person’s body each day. The author, David Levithan, is also known for books like Two Boys Kissing and Boy Meets Boy — stories centering on themes of identity, gender, and s[*]xuality.

Something inside me recoiled. I asked my son to pick another book. I just couldn’t bring myself to let him read this — to me this looked like the intentional shaping of young minds with a very specific worldview. 

I tried reading Someday myself. Ten pages in, I had to stop. Not because I don’t enjoy reading — I absolutely do — but because this felt more like ideological grooming than literature. To give it a fair chance, I even asked Grok AI for a breakdown of the book. It listed some supposed benefits, like encouraging readers to “reconsider assumptions about gender” by exploring life through different bodies — male, female, nonbinary, unspecified.

But I can’t help but ask:
Is this really what will help my son develop strong reading comprehension? Will this improve his analytical skills, prepare him for college, give him insight into history, philosophy, literature, geography or human nature?
Or is it simply another nudge toward embracing a particular ideological agenda?

Why do I, as a parent, have to screen every single recommended book from a well-regarded public school — a school we pay high taxes to support — just to make sure it’s even appropriate?

When I was 15, I was an avid reader. I devoured books — Azerbaijani, Russian, American, European classics. No one had to check what I was reading, because our schools recommended works that built character, that inspired ambition, that taught us something enduring.
I grew up on Dickens, Dumas, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Charlotte Brontë, Jack London, Jules Verne — stories of human strength, moral struggle, discovery, and growth.

And now, in 2025, my son’s well-ranked Connecticut school recommends a book about a genderless being who lives in borrowed bodies.

Walking out of the teen section on the second floor of the Simsbury Public Library, I looked around. I’d seen it before, but today it hit differently. The “teen safe space” was draped in rainbow and transgender flags. A woman sat nearby, clearly signaling affiliation with the LGBTQ+ community. Librarians wore name tags with preferred pronouns prominently displayed. Posters announced “LGBTQ+ Teen Night” — every first Thursday of the month, ages 13-18, with free snacks, games, crafts, and community.

On the surface, it sounds innocent — welcoming, even. But something about it feels engineered, curated — like the goal isn’t connection but conversion. More and more, it seems that Simsbury High and Simsbury Public Library have become less about academic excellence and more about ideological celebration.

Instead of aiming for the best education, they’re drenched in rainbow-colored narratives, pushing teens deeper into identity confusion under the banner of inclusion.

And where does all this lead?

Sometimes — tragically — it ends the way it did for Ilene.
My daughter.
Who followed this very path of identity exploration and affirmation — only to end her life in the end.

Source of guest post:


Reprinted with the permission of the author.

Wow, Someday includes the "trans" main character k[*]lling people and enjoying it, then talking about dead bodies.  Can you believe that, given the tragedy that happened in the author's family?  Let me guess, librarians would say this is so "children can see themselves in the books on the shelves."
Sometimes — tragically — it ends the way it did for Ilene.
My daughter.
Who followed this very path of identity exploration and affirmation — only to end her life in the end.
I read the whole book. This book is the usual poor writing about political ideology and crushes, taking the place of good writing, like by "Dickens, Dumas, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Charlotte Brontë, Jack London, Jules Verne."  So kids are not only reading trash, but they aren't reading good books. It's a double negative.

Or as David Levithan put it in the book, as if reviewing his own book, "sh[*]t, I said."  It's "fifteen minutes of f[*]ck up time."  "It's all so predictable."

—
URL of this page: 

at No comments:

Monday, July 21, 2025

After Mahmoud, ALA Bluffs to Set ALA's Library Bill of Rights as State Law; Massachusetts H3591, H3594, H3598, and H2328

Regarding Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328
Submitted by Dan Kleinman, Executive Director, World Library Association

Dear Joint Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development,

Why are we here?  We are here because the American Library Association [ALA] based in Chicago, Illinois, has been working for over half a century to s3xualize and indoctrinate America’s children via the medium of its so-called "Library Bill of Rights" that half a century ago made it "age" discrimination to keep anything from children. See, Koganzon, Rita. “There Is No Such Thing as a Banned Book: Censorship, Authority, and the School Book Controversies of the 1970s.” American Political Thought 12, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/723442 (archived: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PZ2pDhKhRAtlNgR7gek_1kcdGFoskHpa/view?usp=sharing). This has driven the faster and faster pushing of inappropriate material into public libraries and school libraries, causing parents to challenge such material in greater numbers and frequency.  Then the librarians complain about all the parents complaining, after ALA first caused the problem.  

So in an effort to stop all parents anywhere from challenging materials, ALA had to come up with something.  ALA wants its "Library Bill of Rights" to be codified into state law nationwide, thereby effectively overruling the US Supreme Court case of Board of Education v. Pico ( https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/09/removal-of-books-with-lascivious-content-from-school-libraries-likely-not-unconstitutional/ ) and blocking parents from even filing complaints in the first place.  This Chicago organization called ALA has over a third of state legislatures considering whether to codify this "Library Bill of Rights" that one court ruled means "nothing" ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).

Now such legislation to overrule the Pico case and the First Amendment comes to Massachusetts in the form of Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328.  So that’s why we are here.  The question is, will Massachusetts legislators pass into law what a private organization from Illinois has put forth to try to turn its nothing "Library Bill of Rights" into Massachusetts law?

ALA caused the problem and provides the solution: legislation to essentially codify its own "Library Bill of Rights" nationwide.  Such legislation has passed in a few states but ALA wants more.  Now it wants Massachusetts.  And in a big way.  American Library Association is to be the Massachusetts standard setter in Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328.

    Bill H.3591 requires: "E. Adopt the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights ...."

    Bill H.3594 requires: "Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy...."  "The written policy shall be in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "The policy shall provide that if a material is the subject of a complaint or attempt to remove or restrict its use, it shall remain on the shelves pending a vote of the school committee during the process for responding to challenges...."  The latter is a direct violation of Board of Education v. Pico that allows for immediate removal.  The concept of ignoring Pico and leaving the book on the shelf until a long process has completed is the sole idea of Chicago's American Library Association.  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... : (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association...." "The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."

    Bill H.3598 requires: "Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy ... in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association...."  "The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."  "SECTION 12. Section 19B of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by ... inserting ... (8) adopt and make public a written policy for the selection and use of library materials and facilities in accordance with section 33; provided, that such policy shall incorporate the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights...."

    Bill S.2328 requires: "SECTION 3. Said chapter 71 is hereby further amended by inserting ... Section 82B. The school committee or other administrative authority of a school library shall establish a written policy ... in accordance with standards adopted by the American library association."  "SECTION 11. Section 15 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding ... (iv) the process to respond to book challenges, in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association and as required by section 19B.  The board of library commissioners ... shall make resources available ... in accordance with the standards adopted by the American Library Association."  "SECTION 12. Section 19B of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby amended by ... inserting ... 8) adopt and make public a written policy ... that such policy shall incorporate the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights...."  "SECTION 14. Said section 33 of said chapter 78, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word 'Association', in line 6, the following words:- including, but not limited to, its Library Bill of Rights...." 

Can you all see how Chicago ALA's "Library Bill of Rights" aspirational creed is set to set the standard for Massachusetts law?

I’m Dan Kleinman, the Executive Director of the World Library Association [WLA] based in Bee Cave, Texas.  WLA is the new alternative to ALA.  For opposing a similar law in New Jersey, also promoted by that same Illinois private organization, NJ state senator Andrew Zwicker called me a "meddling minority."  So the World Library Association from Texas is a meddling minority, but the American Library Association from Illinois that essentially wrote the Massachusetts legislation and that of all other states is not.  The meddling being done is by the Illinois organization trying to mislead Massachusetts legislators into violating Pico with false claims of First Amendment rights, intellectual freedom, the "right to read," and the right for children to "see themselves" in the book they are reading.

This effort by ALA has encompassed about 22 states so far, almost half of the United States.  The details of exactly how and why it is so bad, along with what states are considering codifying the Illinois organization’s aspirational creed that means nothing, is written at the Right to Read Act page on World Library Association here: https://worldlibraryassociation.org/right-to-read-act/  I feel there is no better guide on the topic from the point of view of parents.

To be very clear, ALA has worked for a very long time to mislead legislators nationwide into doing what the Illinois private organization wants, namely, ensure children get access to all materials at any age per the "Library Bill of Rights."  As you consider this legislation, ask yourselves if you wish to be misled and to discard US Supreme Court precedent designed to protect children from harm, and to discard the First Amendment and your own state constitution.  

And there it is, the Massachusetts Constitution, Article XIX (a real Article XIX, not the fake ones in the "Library Bill of Rights"), "The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer."  People have the right to seek redress of the government.  Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 basically remove that right.  No one will be able to seek redress of the government for inappropriate books because Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 enjoin that via the application of legislation written in Chicago, Illinois, by an organization tired of losing past efforts to keep kids reading inappropriate materials in school libraries. 

The right of redress is so important in Massachusetts that there is a second article in the constitution about it, and solely about the right of redress.  Article XXII: "The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, for correcting, strengthening and confirming the laws, and for making new laws, as the common good may require."

Does a law making available to children books about butt plugs and how to upload pictures to Grindr to meet a man for a night and blocking people from seeking redress serve "the common good"?  How many legislators have even done either?  Why might they create that right for school children if Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 pass into law?

Will Massachusetts legislators toss away Article XIX and Article XXII of their own state's constitution so blithely just to pass a law written by a Chicago organization working for 60 years to harm school children with inappropriate material that a court has already ruled its "Library Bill of Rights" means "nothing" and is just an organizational creed?

So if the four pieces of legislation crowning American Library Association as king pass into law, they will immediately violate the Massachusetts Constitution because parents will lose the right to seek redress without new, stringent preconditions from school and library boards whose hands are now tied by the law.  This is why people don’t want a private organization from Illinois writing any laws for Massachusetts.  ALA simply doesn’t give a whit about the Massachusetts Constitution, nor anything or anyone else for that matter.

One way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is with "long-term inoculation."  This is in training from EveryLibrary, a crypto ALA affiliate.  As part of long-term inoculation, ALA (via EveryLibrary) specifically states, "Get to know your legislators and local leaders," in the context of "identifying and activating others who care."  Have any Massachusetts legislators been "identified and activated" to "care" about ensuring children have unlimited access to anything whatsoever?  Have any librarians or library associations gotten to "know their legislators"?  See this for yourselves here: https://tinyurl.com/IntellectualFreedomAndBooks. And the crypto nature of EveryLibrary being a part of American Library Association is detailed here, as well as details on its "long-term inoculation": https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html

A second way ALA plans to manipulate legislators is via training ALA’s top lawyer gave to librarians, that before legislation is written, because that’s the goal they are after, before legislation is written, there needs to be "sustained messaging" that takes away the idea that certain materials are s-xually inappropriate for children and "reframes" the issue as one of diversity, inclusion, and the right for kids to "see themselves" in the materials they are provided.  This statement was surfaced and reported by me, after which Utah Senator Mike Lee discussed it at a recent "Banned Books" hearing on Capitol Hill.  He played the recording, then afterwards said ALA’s lawyer was "saying the quiet part out loud," that ALA is gr—ming and s-xualizing children.  His words.  As Utah Senator Mike Lee put it, “the goal is to s-xualize children, to provide minors with s-xually explicit material, and then hide this content from the parents.”  Watch Senate Mike Lee display then discuss this video World Library Association surfaced and listen to his discussion of the issues regarding the contents of supposed "banned books": https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c5085234/user-clip-sen-lee-comments

And remember, the "book ban" hoax has been exposed by the United States Department of Education and it has dropped all of its actions against parents.  I proved years ago it was ALA that caused US Dept of Ed to promulgate the "book ban" hoax in the first place ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2023/06/library-boards-trained-to-lie-by-ala.html ).  The hoax is over.  Now Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 is no longer needed.

So ALA has decades ago made it age discrimination to keep kids from materials.  The Pico case allows for the removal of inappropriate material; books like Gender Queer have been successfully removed from many schools under the Pico case, and ALA couldn’t stand for that.  Result?  It created "Unite Against Book Bans," one of the goals of which was to get legislation passed nationwide that would prevent parents from applying the Pico case and prevent parents from exercising their First Amendment and state constitutional rights to seek redress of the government from governmental actions.  And here you are in Massachusetts discussing this very legislation that has been the subject of "long-term inoculation" and "sustained messaging" that essentially "reframes" known inappropriate material as diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Along comes Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328. Compare them with the "Library Bill of Rights" that the Berry v. Yosemite Community College District court case ruled means "nothing" ( https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2019/08/library-bill-of-rights-means-nothing.html ).

American Library Association diktat has a trail of child victims, like Maia Poet who exposed how she was directly harmed by a school librarian predator.  Watch: https://x.com/thepeacepoet99/status/1890950617998217606?s=61


Not only does Bill H.3591 eliminate the US Supreme Court Pico case, it also eliminates the First Amendment’s and Massachusetts Constitution’s grant of the right of redress.  If the school board is constrained by law from removing Gender Queer and similar books, then parents' rights to seek redress of the government are eliminated, gone, or an unconstitutionally huge burden is placed on them and no book will ever be removed, no matter how inappropriate.  This is the goal of ALA.  Under the new legislation, there is no longer a right to ask a school board to remove a book from the school, or the right is so limited that nothing will ever be removed.  Never.  So those rights are gone.  The new legislation takes those rights away.  Under the wording of Bill H.3591, there is not a single book in the library now or ever that may be challenged by a parent and removed by a school board.  This is the goal of the Illinois-based private organization called ALA.

ALA recently lost a big case in Mahmoud v. Taylor.  Parents can now opt out of what ALA is pushing.  The US Supreme Court allows parents to opt out, but Massachusetts legislators want to make ALA legislation into law via Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328?

Look at the Massachusetts Association of School Committees [MASC] in what it said about the Mahmoud case.  https://www.masc.org/scotus-decision-in-mahmoud-v-taylor-considerations-for-district-policy/  It says:

"This case has been viewed as an attack on the LGBTQ+ community and a direct challenge to the fundamental responsibilities of local school committees and their districts. MASC will be examining to what extent this decision requires revisions to our current policy recommendations. Crafting an appropriate policy that will protect districts, and avoid unwelcomed results when applied, is challenging given that these cases are so fact specific and the latest decision provides minimal guidance." 

Look how hard MASC will be working to craft a proper policy in light of the Mahmoud decision to "protect districts, and avoid unwelcomed results when applied."  One policy "is challenging" and "these cases are so fact specific and the latest decision provides minimal guidance."   Yet Massachusetts legislators are ready to pass  Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 just on the trust of the American Library Association and its claimed and assumed adherence to and trend setting on "intellectual freedom"?

Let's be very clear, ALA being the trusted expert on intellectual freedom is illusory.  It doesn't even hold its own organization to the same standard.  See, "ALA’s Closed-Door Dilemma: When Governance Reform Conflicts with Organizational Values," by Trevor A. Dawes, Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums and May Morris University Librarian at the University of Delaware, https://trevordawes.wordpress.com/2025/07/19/ala-closed-door-meetings/

Quoting from Mr. Dawes: 

“The irony is particularly sharp: an organization whose members fight daily battles against censorship and for intellectual freedom is now restricting access to its own decision-making processes. When librarians advocate for open government meetings in their communities and resist attempts to conduct public business behind closed doors, how can their professional association justify adopting the very practices they oppose?”

“The library profession has long served as a bulwark against information gatekeeping. Librarians regularly advocate for government transparency, fight against secret deliberations by public bodies, and champion the public’s right to know. When ALA adopts the very practices its members oppose in other contexts, it undermines the moral authority of the profession’s advocacy efforts.”

“ALA’s credibility as an advocate for transparency and intellectual freedom depends partly on its willingness to embody these values in its own operations.”

“When librarians testify before city councils about the importance of open meetings or when they argue against secret deliberations in school board decisions, they draw moral authority from their profession’s commitment to these principles.”

“By retreating to closed-door deliberations without adequate justification or member input, ALA risks undermining not just its own democratic processes but the broader advocacy efforts of the library profession.”

“President Helmick and the ALA Executive Board have positioned this change as a technical adjustment to improve governance efficiency. However, the decision represents something far more significant: a choice between convenience and values, between operational ease and organizational integrity.”

“The question isn’t whether ALA can afford to maintain transparent governance practices. The question is whether it can afford not to.”

So, will Massachusetts constituents want their legislators to pass laws written by an outside organization that doesn't even live up to its own standards?  Won't enforce intellectual freedom within its own ranks?  This is the model to follow for Massachusetts?

I feel certain no parent wants any of this legislation to pass into law in Massachusetts, except those few who support that Illinois organization more than they support the law, community standards, and common sense, and except those few legislators who have been successfully co-opted by the "long-term inoculation" and the "sustained messaging" from the Illinois based private association of librarians and members of the local Massachusetts Library Association and the like.  To me, any legislator passing anything from American Library Association into law knowing the history of ALA and how it doesn't even stand up to its own standards will be complicit in the harm done by this legislation.  Any lawsuits brought under any of these laws if passed should include the legislators who knew ahead of time the harm being done but who chose to let the harm be done.

I further feel certain that should any of Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, or Bill H.2328 pass into law, it will be challenged in court for First Amendment violations, among other things, then eventually struck down.  Will that out-of-state private organization fund all that legal footwork to protect Massachusetts's children?  Of course not.  You'll all be on your own.

Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, and Bill H.2328 should never become law in the first place, and it should never be reworded because it is fatally flawed.  It comes from an out-of-state organization as part of an over half-century effort to "long-term inoculate" adults, especially legislators, so they drop their guard and allow children to be s3xualized and indoctrinated in schools and public libraries despite that being against the law, community standards, and common sense.  When the ALA lawyer says to "reframe" inappropriate material as DEI so kids can "see themselves," anyone can see for him or herself what’s going on, and Senator Lee’s words make it crystal clear.  And ALA won't even follow its own policies it expects you to pass into law.

Do not pass Chicago ALA’s Bill H.3591, Bill H.3594, Bill H.3598, or Bill H.2328 into law, else Massachusetts children will be directly harmed, and legislators could possibly be complicit in harming them.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Dan Kleinman, Executive Director
World Library Association

—
URL of this page: 


at No comments: