Opposing FISA is the American Library Association's Latest Directive, on September 11, No Less

The American Library Association's [ALA] latest directive is to oppose FISA and its means to help prevent further terror attacks in the USA.  The ALA directive was made on September 11th, the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.  It uses paranoid scare tactics to motivate people to act, such as: "Watch what you say and do on your phones, emails and other communications":

• "Oppose H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2012," by Lynne Bradley, American Library Association, 11 September 2012, emphasis and hyperlinks in original:

Oppose H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2012 

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Lynne Bradley  

URGENT:  September 13th vote pending in the House on FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)

ACTIVISTS:  Use our legislative action center to send messages to House members opposing H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2012 or call your congressional representative now!

The message to all House members:  Oppose H.R. 5949 the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, H.R. 5949.  Protect Americans’ privacy and constitutional rights.  Do not extend the FAA sunset until December 31, 2017.

ALA asks library supporters to ask the House to oppose this latest attempt to reauthorize the FAA.  Unexpectedly, a quick vote on H.R. 5949, is scheduled for this Thursday, September 13th.

BACKGROUND:  It’s déjà vu all over again: Watch what you say and do on your phones, emails and other communications because, once again, the House of Representatives appears ready to reauthorize the 2008 FAA law that legalized the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and more.  The American public, including our library patrons, will continue to be exposed to needless surveillance under this reauthorization.

The FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, H.R. 5949, (yes, this is the correct name of the bill and the law) would extend the provisions of the 2008 FAA to December 31, 2017, rather than letting the FISA sunset on December 31, 2012.  The government is allowed to get 12-month orders from the secret FISA court to conduct “dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international communications—including phone calls, emails, and internet records—for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence.” *

As we did in 2008, the American Library Association (ALA) continues to argue against the FISA Amendments Act because of the FAA’s lack of transparency and the potential for abuse of the system that has been created.

....

* From the ACLU Washington Legislative Office web site where additional details are available: ACLU’s Washington Markup.

Furthermore, the ALA literally joined as co-signer with the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to oppose FISA in the past:

• "CAIR Co-Sponsors Letter to Congress on Wiretapping," by Unnamed, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 6 March 2008.

By contrast with ALA, the Obama Administration supports FAA:

• "President Pushes to Extend Surveillance Law," by Siobhan Gorman, Wall Street Journal, 11 September 2012:

  The Obama administration is lobbying for renewal of a controversial 2008 surveillance law, warning that the U.S. would lose a critical intelligence-collection tool if Congress allows the measure to expire at year's end.
  
  As President Barack Obama emphasizes his national-security record in his re-election campaign, he's facing strong resistance from some lawmakers who say the law lacks sufficient privacy protections.
  
  The Republican-dominated House is expected as soon as Wednesday to pass the bill, which would extend the law for five years.  But its fate is less clear in the Senate, where Sen. Ron Wyden (D, Ore.) is blocking Senate consideration, ...

• "FISA Fight; Congressional Vote to Reauthorize Surveillance Program Highlights Administration Reversals on Spying, Transparency," by CJ Ciaramella, Washington Free Beacon, 12 September 2012.

See also:

• "POMPEO: FISA Amendments Should be Extended; Hunting Terrorists, Protecting Americans," by Rep. Mike Pompeo, The Washington Times, 12 September 2012.
• "House Approves Sweeping, Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers," by David Kravets, Wired, 12 September 2012.
• "House Votes to Renew Controversial Surveillance Law," by Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post, 12 September 2012.

Do people realize George Soros is funding the ALA to shill for his own interests in support of terrorists?  Do people realize as self-arrogated "censorship" police, the ALA joined with CAIR to use pro-terrorist censorship to censor Robert Spencer, but parents keeping inappropriate material from children being "censorship" is the message of ALA's "Banned Books Week"?  Do people realize the ALA joined CAIR to oppose radicalization hearings?  And wasn't ALA uncharacteristically silent as terrorists destroyed a famous library in Timbuktu, Mali?

What does any of this have to do with librarianship, the proclaimed mission of the ALA?  Is the ALA in your community library having any influence at all?  Is it okay that a terrorist-friendly organization has influence over your local community library and local school library?

Has ALA political capital just been further attenuated by once again lining up on the losing side of yet another non-library matter?

While it is legitimate to oppose FISA, the ALA that supports terrorists remains true to form.  On September 11, no less.  On the day the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is killed.  On the day the U.S. Embassy in Egypt is attacked and destroyed.  Will ALA members do nothing about this?

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America was used by the NYPD for counterterrorism training.  The ALA is part of the problem described therein when it works with CAIR to censor perceived/presumed opposition such as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, uses Soros funding to support Soros/CAIR's interests, or directly joins with CAIR to oppose national security interests having nothing to do with librarianship.

Oh, for the people shocked to hear the ALA supports terrorists, here's one more example, showing the ALA wished library patron privacy laws had protected a 9/11 terrorist from being reported to the police:

• "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:  

  When the names and photographs were first released, Kathleen Hensman, a public librarian in Delray Beach, Fla., recognized some of the suspected hijackers in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as men who had used the computers in her small library.
  
  She immediately called the police.
  
  That broke a Florida law that guarantees confidentiality to library patrons.  It also violated a cardinal principle of librarians never to tell the police, in absence of a court order, about who uses their rooms and what books they check out.
  
  But almost no one thinks Ms. Hensman did the wrong thing.  Of course, she will not be prosecuted.
  
  ....
  
  Judith Krug, director of the American Library Association's office of intellectual freedom, said, "I would have felt better if she had followed the Florida law."

ALA has a lot of positive influence in our communities.  However, let's get the negative influence of the ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" out of our public libraries, out of our school libraries, and out of our minds.  Its actions do not warrant our blind acquiescence.

Follow @SafeLibraries

American Library Association's Social Activism Undermines Public Trust in a Community Institution

Read this report highly critical of the American Library Association's "social agenda":

• Agenda on the Shelves; The American Library Association's Social Activism Undermines Public Trust in a Community Institution, by Emily Whitten, WORLD Magazine, 6 July 2012:

  The ALA's increasingly vocal social agenda combined with policies that prevent local librarians from responding to their community's values are very real dangers.  And these policies may be undermining library relevance and public trust at a time when both are sorely needed.

Read this response by librarian David Lee King:

• "Bad Reporting and Weird Views about ALA," by David Lee King, David Lee King, 7 July 2012.

Now read my own comment:

The ALA's actions include not only those described above, but also intentionally false and misleading actions intended to mislead an entire nation.  For example, ALA publishes each year an annual list of the top 10 most challenged books.  This year’s list, for example, notes the "jump" of "The Hunger Games" from 5th position to 3rd position, likely as a means to ride the wave of the movie's popularity, and no actual proof of actual numbers is ever given despite request.

But in 2010, the ALA rode another wave.  It pushed 2 books on the list as being opposed for their LGBT content.  It said the top book was challenged dozens of times.  In reality it was challenged only 4 times all year across the entire nation.  It said another LGBT book was challenged for its LGBT content.  In reality the parents objected to the graphic of two Boy Scouts watching two people having anal sex, and, more significantly to the matter of the ALA's intentional deception, the author of the book admitted that ALA told her other books had been challenged more often that hers, but it pushed the book up the list due to its LGBT content and its successful removal from a single school.

And I have the tape recording of the author saying this in public at her speech at a New Jersey Library Association annual meeting.  See/listen for yourselves: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/09/banned-books-week-is-gay-promotion.html

So the ALA essentially faked its 2010 annual list of top 10 challenged books to push the LGBT issue.

That said, I have no evidence that ALA was pushing the LGBT issue to promote it.  Rather I suspect it pushed the LGBT issue to cynically take advantage of the false controversy it was intentionally faking so the LGBT community would pick up the issue and carry the ALA's false censorship message further than the ALA could do alone.  I think the ALA was stepping on the LGBT community to use it to its own advantage.  Similarly in 2011, the ALA dropped all LGBT books from its annual list and is now riding The Hunger Games movie wave to push its false message.

Remember, the last book censored in the USA was "Fanny Hill" and that was about half a century ago.  So the ALA definitely needs help in spreading its false message that censorship is occurring everyday in nearly every community.  Desperately faking / manipulating lists to promote falsity is a sure sign the ALA knows people are not buying the bull.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, tell everyone what you think about the Emily Whitten report in the comments below.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Open Borders and Illegal Immigration Support is the American Library Association's Latest Non-Library Venture; Welcome to Choose Privacy Week

Open borders and illegal immigration support is the American Library Association's [ALA] latest non-library venture, thanks to George Soros:

• "New Choose Privacy Week Documentary: 'Vanishing Liberties,'" by Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 7 May 2012.

I am quoted extensively in this article about the ALA's new venture into illegal alien support:

• "Revealed:  The Evil Lurking in Libraries; Association Accused of 'Prostituting Itself Out to Issue Propaganda,'" by Dave Tombers, WorldNetDaily, 14 May 2012:

Kleinman asked of the grant from Soros and the video production, "Why is the American Library Association prostituting itself out to the likes of George Soros to issue propaganda for him and his message on topics that are not a library issue?"

He added, "The video is clearly promoting an end to illegal immigration enforcement, to usher in an era of open borders.  What do open borders have to do with libraries?"

....

He added, "The bottom line is this.  The ALA has expanded its mission to promote causes that have nothing to do with librarianship – and that's concerning."

The ALA did not respond to a WND request for comment.

See also:

• Know the ALA.

If you are a librarian and you are learning for the first time that the ALA is promoting open borders propaganda in exchange for large sums of money, how are you not wondering how the ALA has wandered so far from its mission?  Welcome to "Choose Privacy Week."

Here's one way to oppose the ALA on this issue:

• Re-elect Sheriff Joe Arpaio (SheriffJoe.org)

Illegal Immigration: "It's a Crime."

Follow @SafeLibraries

Is the ALA Harmful to Minors?

The American Library Association [ALA] works hard to eliminate "harmful to minors" laws and legislation.  Why?  What does that have to do with libraries?

The ALA Claims to Promote Libraries

According to the ALA Constitution, "The object of the American Library Association shall be to promote library service and librarianship."

According to the ALA Mission, the ALA is to "provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all."

Where does eliminating "harmful to minors" laws fit into that?  

The ALA's Top Mission Now is Defeating Harmful to Minors Laws

FTRF Logo

The ALA uses the organization it created called the Freedom to Read Foundation [FTRF] to oppose "harmful to minors" laws.  The FTRF just made opposing "harmful to minors" law its top priority.  See for yourself:

2010–2011 ALA CD#22.1

(2011 ALA Annual Conference)

Freedom to Read Foundation

REPORT TO COUNCIL

2011 Annual Conference — New Orleans, Louisiana

As President of the Freedom to Read Foundation, it is my privilege to report on the Foundation’s activities since the 2011 Midwinter Meeting:


FACING THE FUTURE

At the Midwinter Meeting in San Diego, the FTRF Board of Trustees began to set new priorities for the Freedom to Read Foundation, with the goal of firmly establishing FTRF as the premier legal advocate for intellectual freedom in libraries.  The trustees took a number of concrete steps toward that goal here in New Orleans, identifying key action areas and approving elements of a strategic plan that will secure FTRF’s financial future, expand its membership, and make it possible for FTRF to take the lead in litigation that protects the right to access information.  We look forward to concluding the strategic planning process at the 2012 Midwinter Meeting in Dallas.

DEFENDING THE FREEDOM TO READ

The Freedom to Read Foundation’s core mission remains the vindication of the public’s right to hear what is spoken and to read what is written, no matter how the message is communicated to the public.  Laws that aim to restrict publication of constitutionally protected materials—such as state laws that criminalize the distribution of legal materials deemed “harmful to minors” over the Internet—fall squarely within that mission.  FTRF is currently participating as a plaintiff in two different lawsuits that are intended to ensure our freedom to read information published via the Internet without restriction or government interference.

The first lawsuit, Florence v. Shurtleff, is a long-standing challenge to Utah’s “harmful to minors” statute that would impair access to lawful Internet content and allow the state’s attorney general to create an Adult Content Registry that could sweep in any site the attorney general deems unacceptable.  For several months, counsel for the Freedom to Read Foundation sought to reach an agreement with the Utah attorney general that would restrict application of the “harmful to minors” law to those individuals who have one-on-one contact with a viewer and who subsequently disseminate “harmful to minors” materials to that viewer when the individual knows or believes the viewer is a minor.  These negotiations failed, and FTRF and its co-plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on June 8, 2011.

The second lawsuit, ABFFE, et al. v. Burns, challenges Alaska’s newly adopted “harmful to minors” statute that criminalizes the distribution of certain material to minors under the age of 16.  Under the new law, a crime is committed if the material distributed fits within the law’s definition of “harmful to minors” and is distributed to a person under 16 years of age or to a person the distributor believes is under 16 years of age.

As I reported earlier, the federal district court hearing the lawsuit issued a preliminary injunction in October 2010, forbidding enforcement of the Alaska statute during the pendency of the lawsuit.  Subsequently, FTRF and its co-plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment that sought a final declaration that the law violated the First Amendment.  The state attorney general responded by filing both a cross-motion for summary judgment and a motion asking that the lawsuit be certified to the Alaska Supreme Court for an interpretation of the statute.  On June 8, 2011, the Alaska Supreme Court declined the request for certification.  The case will now return to the district court for a decision on the motions for summary judgment filed by both parties.

The Foundation continues to monitor with interest Sarah Bradburn et al v. North Central Library District, a suit filed by the ACLU of Washington against the North Central Library District on behalf of three library patrons and the Second Amendment Foundation.  The suit alleges that the library violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by refusing to disable Internet filters at the request of adult patrons, consistent with standards established in the opinion rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Children’s Internet Protection Act case.  The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the North Central Library System policy and actions did not violate the state constitution.  We are currently awaiting a decision from the district court judge, who will decide whether the library’s policy and actions violates the U.S. Constitution.

Finally, like many other First Amendment organizations, we are anxiously waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association).  FTRF joined an amicus brief in support of EMA arguing that there are no exceptions to First Amendment protection for depictions or descriptions of violence.  The brief also took the position that California’s statute is content-based, subjective, and relies on an extremely broad and unconstitutionally vague definition of violence.  The implications for library material content and access to currently constitutionally protected information, should the Supreme Court decide in California’s favor, are significant.  The last scheduled day for decisions from the Supreme Court this term is June 27, 2011; we will make a full report on the decision at the Midwinter Meeting in Dallas.

.... 

Respectfully submitted,
Kent Oliver

President, Freedom to Read Foundation

Look at all that time and effort and ALA member dues going into defeating "harmful to minors" laws.  Does the FTRF work as hard on any other issues?  How about on library issues, as opposed to "harmful to minors" laws?

Evident Display by the FTRF of Disdain for Local Interests 

And that one matter he mentioned about the Bradburn case?  That was a loser for the likes of the FTRF but a winner for communities.  See, "Library Porn Removal Roadmap; NCRL Director Dean Marney Details How to Legally Remove Legal Porn from Public Library Computers and Advises that the ALA Relies on Outdated Dogma."

Notice how the ALA interests were defeated in the state, so it is taking the case to the feds.  "The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the North Central Library System policy and actions did not violate the state constitution.  We are currently awaiting a decision from the district court judge, who will decide whether the library’s policy and actions violates the U.S. Constitution."  The disdain for local control over public libraries is evident.

Alaska State Harmful to Minors Law Overturned and Librarians Gloat

To be clear, protecting civil liberties vis-à-vis "harmful to minors" legislation is very important.  There are a number of organizations doing that.  But should library associations that claim to "promote library service and librarianship" "to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all" work to defeat "harmful to minors" legislation?  Then gloat about it?

The FTRF and the Alaska Library Association [AkLA] were part of a lawsuit seeking to overturn a "harmful to minors" act in Alaska.  Indeed the law was invalidated:

• "Federal Judge Blocks State Anti-Child-Porn Law," by Chris Klint and The Associated Press, 2 KTUU, 1 July 2011.

Then the Alaska Library Association celebrated with this email from the AkLA "Intellectual Freedom Committee" leader dated 1 July 2011:

Greetings -

You may remember that AkLA signed on to the lawsuit challenging the law that criminalized "indecent" speech on the Internet that minors might view.  I'm happy to announce that the Federal District Court agreed with us and found the law unconstitutional.  Here's the press announcement.

An appropriate victory for free speech on July 4th weekend!

June Pinnell-Stephens

Sue Sherif

To add to the gloating, Sue Sherif, the AkLA's ALA Representative and Alaska State Head of Library Development, added the following comment:

Hooray for our court and their decision, although I have to say that when I read your subject line I had a little scare because it looked like the court had struck down an statute that was intended to protect First Amendment rights!  I hope I’m the only one who scanned it incorrectly.

Yea, team!

So we have an Alaska state government employee publicly gloating over the removal of an Alaska state "harmful to minors" law.  And what does that have to do with "promot[ing] library service and librarianship" "to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all"?

Communities Must Weigh ALA Efforts to Oppose Harmful to Minors Laws

When people evaluate whether to be guided by the diktat of the ALA in their own public libraries, there is now one more thing to consider, setting aside the evident disdain for local control over libraries—the ALA's FTRF has made defeating "harmful to minors" laws its top priority.

I can see the ACLU doing that, and it does, but not a library association stepping outside the library world it defines for itself to take on yet another non-library issue, particularly one that may literally be harmful to minors.

Is the ALA harmful to minors?  Since it exceeds its mission, that is a legitimate concern.

Follow @SafeLibraries

Will the ALA Oppose Economic Terrorism? Stephen Lerner of the SEIU Spells Out Battle Plans Against America, a Perfect Non-Library Issue for the ALA to Sink Its Teeth Into

Click to watch:
"UNCUT TAPE: Former SEIU
Official Reveals Secret
Plan To Destroy
JP Morgan"

The American Library Association [ALA] takes on many non-library issues, often with the excuse that library patrons or librarians are affected by the non-library issues.  Patrons, librarians, and libraries themselves will certainly be directly and negatively affected by the economic terrorism about to be unleashed on the United States, allegedly.

Will the ALA take a position against this?  Here are media reports of the words of people planning to bring an end to the American way of life as we know it:

• "Caught On Tape: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America," by Henry Blodget, Business Insider, 22 March 2011.

• "Revealed — The Left's Economic Terrorism Playbook: The Chase Campaign by a Coalition of Unions, Community Groups, Lawmakers and Students to Take Down US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth & Power", by Naked Emperor News, The Blaze, 22 March 2011.  (Contains cut and uncut recordings of the alleged economic terrorists themselves, including allegedly Stephen Lerner of the SEIU, describing how to "bring down" America and "create moments like Madison."  What a coincidence!  The ALA supports moments like Madison!)

• "What to Make of SEIU Official's Supposed Socialist Fantasy Plan," by John Hudson, National Journal, 22 March 2011.

MMfA Agrees:  Economic Terrorism

Even George Soros-supported Media Matters for America admits "[c]alling for strikes and civil disobedience is tantamount to 'economic terrorism'...."

Will the George Soros-supported ALA speak out against this economic terrorism to protect patrons, librarians, and libraries?  Let's look at other non-library issues the ALA addresses.  The ALA:

• Opposes parents seeking to protect children, even mocks those who protect children.
• Opposes the radicalization hearings.
• Opposes airport security.
• Opposes more accurate school books about America.
• Supports less accurate school books about Cuba.
• Supports privacy rights of terrorists.
• Supports the Fairness Doctrine.
• Supports the Red-Green alliance.
• Supports unions seeking to overturn elections.
• Supports the "healthcare public option."
• Supports keeping books about ex-gays out of libraries.
  
• Supports anonymously astroturfing for George Soros-supported Free Press and net neutrality.
• Supports animal cruelty depictions.
• Supports "gay marriage."

All this from a "library" association that, in reality, changed over 40 years ago with the influence of the ACLU—even ALA members can't stand the ALA's political tilt.  Anyone see a pattern?

I thought this would be a perfect non-library issue for the ALA to sink its teeth into, precisely because there will be no more libraries, no more ALA, if the economic terrorism succeeds as planned.  Anyone think the ALA will oppose economic terrorism?


NOTE ADDED 23 MARCH 2011:

See also: "Steve Lerner's Plan," by Ezra Klein, The Washington Post, 23 March 2011.


NOTE ADDED 24 MARCH 2011:

See also: "Glenn Beck, Economic Terrorist; The Fox Bully's Crusade Against Progressives Who Want to Fix the Economy is Getting Ridiculous," by Joan Walsh, Salon, 23 March 2011.

This Salon article is remarkable as it supports the economic destruction of the United States, "I certainly endorse Lerner's analysis," and does so in part by using personal attack on those reporting on the imminent economic terrorism, among other techniques used to get people to look the other way.

The personal attack path is not unremarkable.  Indeed here's a story pointing out how Media Matters "resort[ed] to an ad hominen [sic] attack on Beck": "The Sound of Silence: Media Ignores Stephen Lerner's Revolutionary Plan to Bring Down US Economy," by Emily Esfahani Smith, The Blaze, 23 March 2011. (I note this Blaze article, in my opinion, indirectly refers to this SafeLibraries blog post as part of a "handful of opinion blogs" that discussed the Stephen Lerner speech.)

How does his relate to the ALA?  The ALA uses personal attack to smear people as well so as to distract others from the real issues.  For just one example, consider how the ALA labeled every single person who complied with ALA directives to file material reconsideration complaints as censors.

Birds of a feather....

NOTE ADDED 7 OCTOBER 2011:

Now that plans to try to destroy the United States as being united under the US Constitution are coming to fruition, the Progressive Librarians Guild has decided to join in:

From: Mark C. Rosenzweig [mailto:iskra@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:58 AM
To: plgnet; Council srrt; mem; biblio-progresistas
Subject: [member-forum] Progressive Librarians Guild Supports "Occupy Wall Street"

PLG statement on Occupy Wall Street -  10/06/11

The Progressive Librarians Guild supports the initiative of the Occupy Wall Street protest and the movement it has sparked, with manifestations all across the U.S.

We applaud the commitment and creativity being shown in providing a space for the articulation of opposition to the whole apparatus of the one-sided class war against workers, unions, the poor, immigrants, minorities, people of color, women, students and other sectors which make up the vast majority of Americans. We applaud the movement's resistance to the greed,,injustice and inequality which is corroding the fabric of American society  and its desire to imagine and help build a better future ,starting right now , for all Americans, by freeing ourselves from the destructive grip of unaccountable elites , insatiable profiteers and ruthless and cynical corporate plunderers.

We note that the Occupy Wall Street community has seen the need to create a "library" as part of its essential infrastructure even under the very difficult conditions under which the occupation has to operate in the streets. We call upon members of the Progressive Librarians Guild and all librarians of conscience to assist the movement with resources and technical aid. Please support the Occupation movement, document its development and report back to the library community to encourage greater understanding and wider support among our colleagues and in our communities.

PLG Coordinating Committee

Here is a better picture of what these librarians actively support that supposedly Occupy Wall Street "sparked":

• "Video Exposing How 'Occupy Wall Street' was Organized from Day One by SEIU/ACORN Front – The Working Family Party, and How They All Tie to the Obama Administration, DNC, Democratic Socialists of America, Tides and George Soros," by Naked Emperor News, The Blaze, 7 October 2011.

Now the ALA can no longer remain silent as the Progressive Librarians Guild has dragged it into the frey with all its violence, hatred, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, queer kids kill your parents, etc.  Will the ALA speak out?  I'll wager it will join in.

Oh look, there's AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka visiting the Occupy Wall Street library the Progressive Librarians Guild supports.

If the USA becomes Marxist as a result of what is happening now and everyone suffers as a result or are murdered by the millions as happens in such societies and has already been planned for the USA, the ALA will happily change its name to the MLA and won't mind missing a few million library patrons.

.

ALA Promotes Red-Green Alliance and Is a Leftist Anti-War Group Supporting Radical Islamist Terror

The American Library Association promotes the Red-Green alliance?  Is it a leftist "anti-war" group supporting radical Islamist terror?  Do libraries censor out the politically incorrect and promote the opposite?  I advise, you surmise:

• "Leftist 'Anti-War' Groups Supporting Radical Islamist Terror," by Lisa Graas, Lisa Graas, 20 March 2011, hyperlinks and emphasis in original:

As Osama Bin Laden himself noted: "The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders."

....

The groups listed here are all listed at Discover the Networks as leftist "anti-war" groups with radical agendas and appear as signatories on a recent letter authored by one of the groups, the ACLU, protesting the hearings on radicalization.  Though these organizations do not focus solely on an 'anti-war' agenda, they are lead players in the so-called "anti-war" movement, paving the way for smaller groups that make all the noise, like Code Pink.

....

Librarians?  You betcha.  The American Library Association (ALA) is the "oldest and largest library association in the world" with 61,043 members in America and abroad.  The ALA is anti-Israel, opposes the Patriot Act and actively works against anti-terrorism measures.

....

While refusing to acknowledge any threat from within the Muslim community, ALA has falsely accused Israel of destruction of "Palestinian" libraries, and even reserves the right to make such false accusations despite proof that they are false.  In the view of the ALA, then, Islamists are above scrutiny while Israel may be blamed even for good intentions.

....

If you are providing support for your local library, you may want to check to see if they are supporting ALA.  Your money could be used by this organization to undermine America’s efforts to prevent terrorism.

Having read that, get a load of this eye opener on library censorship.  The author comments on the Lisa Graas post quoted above then adds revealing information about library censorship:

• "Five Groups Promoting the Red-Green Alliance," by Carl in Jerusalem, Israel Matzav, 21 March 2011, hyperlinks in original:

This hit home because my late mother was an ALA member, and saw which way the organization was heading.  When I googled my mother's name with the ALA, I found two local publications of the Boston chapter, one announcing her initial employment by the Boston Public Library, and the second announcing her transfer to a different branch.

My mother was a big supporter of local libraries and was forever advocating for our local suburb to build a good public library - which they did long after my brother and I could have benefited from it.  But for the last 25 years or so of her career, she was employed at a local community college, where she was constantly spending money from her own pocket to buy books that gave a more balanced view on Israel to counteract her radical Leftist boss who was constantly buying pro-'Palestinian' books using the library's budget.

I've mentioned before on this blog that both my parents were (and my father still is) knee0jerk Democratic voters.  But the ALA is obviously much more radical since my parents were Democrats but were (and my father still is) strongly pro-Israel.  I guess Mom's boss was much more in line with the librarians' thinking.

/sigh

Read the whole thing.  (Yes, the rest of it is just as exhaustively researched).

Given what I just wrote about the ALA ("ALA Joins CAIR to Oppose Radicalization Hearings Sponsored by Congressman Pete King"), I believe the material presented above about the ALA is largely accurate.  However, some of the support for certain statements is a little dated and does not include more recent information, like the George Soros money flooding into the ALA.  I do not know about the remaining non-ALA subject matter.

See also Librarians For Fairness. 

What do you think?  Does the ALA promote the Red-Green alliance?  Is it a leftist "anti-war" group supporting radical Islamist terror, as Lisa reports?  Do you think libraries buy materials they support politically and censor out those they do not, as Carl reports?  Do you think the ALA includes books having "a more balanced view on Israel" being kept out of libraries in its Banned Books Week hoax?  Please comment below.

"If you are providing support for your local library, you may want to check to see if they are supporting ALA.  Your money could be used by this organization to undermine America’s efforts to prevent terrorism."

.

ALA Joins CAIR to Oppose Radicalization Hearings Sponsored by Congressman Pete King

ALA Joins CAIR to
Oppose Radicalization Hearings

The American Library Association [ALA] has joined with the Council On American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] to oppose Congressman Pete King's congressional hearings to "show [the] extent of radicalization in [the] Muslim American community."  For proof, read the ACLU press release and letter to Rep. King.

What is CAIR that the ALA should align with it?  According to Rep. Pete King, "to me it's a badge of honor to be attacked by CAIR which was named as a, uh, unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorist financing case."  Similarly, a group called Anti-CAIR says, "Let there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, founded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in America."

Here is more about the radicalization hearings:

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. 

Freedom to Read Foundation

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?


NOTE ADDED 10 MARCH 2011:

This blog post has been linked here:

"American Library Association Supports Muslim Brotherhood-linked CAIR Against Rep King's Counter Terror Hearings," by Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs, 9 March 2011:

This is what it must have looked like in pre-war Nazi Germany.  One after another, they all fall down.

The ALA is the same craven organization that cave and cancelled Robert Spencer in 2009 after Hamas-linked CAIR demanded adherence to Islamic law.  "Do not defame or insult Islam."  The ALA accomdoates the sharia.

Check this out from SafeLibraries....

And that comment received this response from another George Soros funded organization:

"Geller Compares Opposition To Muslim Radicalization Hearings To 'Pre-War Nazi Germany,'" by Matt Gertz, Media Matters for America, 10 March 2011.

.

Look For the Union Label at the ALA

The American Library Association [ALA], ever jumping into non-library issues, has joined the jihad, fretted about fried librarian giblets, touted the "public option" in health care, advocated for "gay marriage," secretly promoted net neutrality, and is currently pushing in public schools a George Soros curriculum for school-aged children—and I called the head of the ALA section responsible for this and she had no clue who created the curriculum she is promoting.

Now the ALA supports public sector unions seeking to retain their huge benefits at public expense despite many states being broke precisely because of these benefits.  For a historical perspective, perhaps the ALA should read:

• "Public Unions Must Go; A Death Knell for Government Unions? If Only," by Jonah Goldberg, National Review, 23 February 2011
• "Even FDR Understood: No Collective Bargaining for Public Servants; There is No Legitimate Role for Government Unions," by Peter Ferrara, Pajamas Media, 23 February 2011

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, for example, has said, "The second big issue we must tackle this year is our antiquated and unsustainable pension and benefit system.  Nearly 75 percent—3 out of every 4 dollars—of our State's municipal and county budgets are driven by personnel and labor costs."

The ALA supports "standing up for workers' rights" nonetheless:

CHICAGO - As thousands protest proposed collective bargaining legislation in Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana, American Library Association (ALA) President Roberta Stevens released the following statement in support of those standing up for workers’ rights.


“While governments are facing financial challenges, addressing deficits should not serve as an opportunity to strip away the hard-won right of workers to collectively bargain,” said Stevens.


“As library visits continue to soar, with job seekers and families turning to our libraries to gain new skills and free access to education resources, the value of library service and staff should be recognized and protected.


“The ALA supports library employees in seeking equitable compensation and recognizes the principle of collective bargaining as an important element of successful labor-management relations.  We affirm the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers, without fear of reprisal.  These are basic workers’ rights that we defend for thousands of academic, public and school library professionals.”


The American Library Association is the voice of America's libraries and the millions of people who depend on them.  With more than 63,000 members, the ALA is the oldest and largest library association in the world and represents all types of libraries and librarians.


-30-

Source: "American Library Association President Roberta Stevens on Proposed Collective Bargaining Legislation," by Macey Morales, American Library Association, 24 February 2011.

Joyce Latham

Just to be clear this has nothing to do with libraries, commenter Joyce M. Latham said,  "GOOD to see ALA take a position on worker rights and labor action.  Joyce M. Latham."  This is Joyce M. Latham from Wisconsin, specifically from the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  This is the same propagandist who misled a local Wisconsin community to give up legal means to protect children from harm in West Bend, WI.

Just to be clear this is the ALA backing unions, "CyberGoddess" and ALA Councilor-at-Large Sue Kamm said, "Former Councilor Ruth Gordon is wondering why ALA hasn't made a statement about the union-busting tactics in Wisconsin.  So do I.  (Wonder, that is.)  If this is a statement that should properly come before ALA/APA, how do we get something started?  Enquiring minds want to know."  This was days before the ALA President's statement.

As Andrew McCarthy put it, the "Left has demonstrated to an appalled country just how ugly they intend to make things — thug leaders calling for blood in the street, the Nazi/Mubarak/Mussolini rhetoric, lawmakers abdicating their duty and shutting down the legislative process when they can’t get their way."  By supporting the unions, the supposedly free speech ALA is implicitly supporting anti-semitism, assault, free speech violations, and "sheer hatred" by union thugs:

Tabitha Hale.
Christian.  American.  Capitalist.

• "'That's Assault!': Union Protester Whacks Young FreedomWorks Activist," by Meredith Jessup, TheBlaze, 24 February 2011.
• "Video: CWA Union Thug Strikes Young Female FreedomWorks Activist; Updated", by Michelle Malkin, Michelle Malkin, 23 February 2011.
• "Union Thuggery Descends On FreedomWorks," by Tabitha Hale, RedState, 23 February 2011.
• "Bad Jew," by FreedomWorksAction, YouTube, 23 February 2011.

"The people driving this train, and driving us into bankruptcy, are left-wing activists whose power hinges on maintaining this perverse system in which unions effectively sit on both sides of the negotiations, passing piles of public money over and under the table."  The ALA, siding with unions in yet another left-wing, non-library issue, has placed itself in the driver's seat.

Look for the union label at the ALA.


NOTE ADDED 25 FEBRUARY 2011:

Joyce M. Latham has responded (to all) to a courtesy email I sent to her and all other people named in this blog post as follows:  "Worker rights are human rights and libraries are, first and foremost, about human rights.  It's good to see ALA weigh in on this.  My heart-felt congratulations to Roberta Stevens."

Roberta Stevens replied (to all) as follows:  "Thanks, Joyce."

.

ALA Professional Limits: The Case for Saying Less

Steve McKinzie, 590:  Local Notes – The American Library Association and Professional Limits: The Case for Saying Less,

21 Against the Grain 5, 76 (November 2009)

© Katina Strauch

     The American Library Association (ALA) recently threw its weight and influence behind specific federal health reform legislation.  On August 19th, the Association sent a letter to every member of Congress urging the passage of a “public option” in reference to health care legislation.  The letter stated emphatically that the association … “supports a “single-payer” option and believes [that] removing public options … would not accomplish the strong reform needed.”¹

     Of course, such pontifications by the ALA on non-library issues are nothing new.  The ALA has a record of speaking out on a wide range of issues – environmental topics, gender concerns, foreign policy – even the treatment of terror suspects.  Nevertheless, this habit of the ALA’s speaking out so frequently presents some real problems.  Whatever may be the merits of these various views (and some of the perspectives do indeed have merit), the association takes enormous risks by such political arm twisting and maneuverings – risks that have far-reaching ramifications for the organization.   By passing numerous political resolutions on non-library related questions, by heading the recommendations of the ALA’s Social Responsibilities Roundtable, and by indulging its desire for political relevance – by saying, in short, so many things about so many topics – the association squanders precious political capital.  That’s right.  Such actions inevitably undermine the ALA’s unique and valuable role – its voice for librarianship and its advocacy of libraries.

     Everyone has had the experience of witnessing the phenomena of someone whose boldly brazen posturing does more harm than good:  the articulate faculty member who seems bent only on making his own views known, the fellow librarian who doesn’t know how to listen, but has a way of making sure everyone else hears what she thinks, or the local town gadfly ready to volunteer an opinion the minute the town-hall floor opens for debate.  These folks aren’t necessarily wrong.  They simply talk more than they should.

     Most of us have also likely had the opposite experience – instances where you find yourself in the presence of individuals who carefully weigh their words – who speak out when the time is right and on matters close to home.  People such as this have a way of winning your admiration.  You instinctively respect someone who speaks rarely but speaks well.  Such people gain a hearing.  Sometimes they have a expertise to share.  Often they have a constituency to serve.

     Their voices you heed – not because you necessarily agree (often you don’t) – but because you respect their understanding and their advocacy.  You recognize that they are not easily drawn into peripheral issues, that they’re not the slaves of one political ideology or another.  On the contrary, they have a mission. They have a purpose.

     You may not know, for instance, what Amnesty International thinks about global warming (for the record, they don’t have a official view on the topic) but you likely know a lot about the organization – that they care about human rights abuses – that they champion the rights of the politically oppressed, whether such people find themselves abused by the left or mistreated by the right.  To be sure, the organization is political and outspoken, but the leadership of Amnesty International is also unabashedly judicious.  They weigh their words.  They choose their fights.  They know their mission.  They understand their purpose.

     I think the ALA should be like that.  We should be outspoken in our advocacy for libraries and access to information, and just as importantly we should be careful to speak well and to speak infrequently.  Let us remember that like any professional organization, the ALA has only so much political capital.  If we squander that capital, that influence, on issues unrelated to librarianship, we will have just that much less clout – that much less influence on issues that touch our profession directly.

     The ALA’s mission statement makes this point better than I. It insists that we, librarians and library staff alike, are to “provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services” – that we should do so, as the statement delineates, with a view “to enhance access to information for all.”²  Such professional perimeters embolden our advocacy, but they also narrow our focus.  We should speak out eloquently on censorship, champion literacy, and insist on the promotion of First Amendment Liberties.  Doing so is within our sphere of influence, within our expertise and responsibility.  Speaking out on non-library-related issues, however, only weakens our fundamental, primary mission.   That we should never do.

     Consequently, the ALA must reexamine its tendency (tempting though that tendency may be) to advocate certain controversial political positions that have little or no specific relation to the profession.  ALA must, in a sense, regain its focus, remember why we are here and what we are about.  Most importantly, the association should employ its precious political capital for the promotion and advocacy of libraries and librarianship – that and nothing more.

Endnotes

1.  For a copy of ALA’s press release and letter, see ALA’s Washington Office page:  http://www.ala.org/ala/newspresscenter/news/pressreleases2009/august2009/pubop_wo.cfm.

2.  From the Coalition for Networked Information, A Compilation of Position Statements, Principles, Statutes, and Other Pertinent Statements.  http://www.cni.org/docs/infopols/ALA.html.

The preceding is related to my recent blog post, "ALA Blowhards."  I hereby thank the author, Steve McKinzie (Library Director, Corriher-Linn-Black Library, Catawba College, Salisbury, NC), pictured above, and his publisher, Against the Grain and Katina Strauch, for permission to republish.

.

ALA Blowhards

The Annoyed Librarian discusses another annoyed librarian and American Library Association [ALA] "blowhards."  Here is an excerpt from "Another Annoyed Librarian," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 9 December 2009, (and be sure to read the comments) emphasis mine:

The November issue of Against the Grain ... published "The American Library Association and Professional Limits:  The Case for Saying Less," by Steve McKinzie. McKinzie argues that:

"By passing numerous political resolutions on non-library related questions, by heading the recommendations of the ALA’s Social Responsibilities Roundtable, and by indulging its desire for political relevance — by saying, in short, so many things about so many topics — the association squanders precious political capital.  That’s right.  Such actions inevitably undermine the ALA’s unique and valuable role — its voice for librarianship and its advocacy of libraries."

He was prompted for action by the latest Council resolutions about health care legislation, which apparently library associations have some special expertise on that it's important to share with everyone else.

My argument is that such ALA political posturing just makes the ALA in particular and librarians in general look silly.  The ALA Councilors should speak to some non-librarians sometime to judge the response.  When I tell non-librarians about some of the more irrelevant resolutions, the response is always the same.  Why would anyone care what the librarians have to say?  When we speak about library-related issues, we speak with authority.  When we speak on issues of no direct concern to libraries, we're just blowhards.

McKinzie makes a similar point, asserting that "Everyone has had the experience of witnessing the phenomena of someone whose boldly brazen posturing does more harm than good," and contrasting this with the "voices you heed — not because you necessarily agree (often you don’t) — but because you respect their understanding and their advocacy."

When library associations speak about non-library issues, why would anyone respect what they have to say?  For McKinzie, it's the divergence from the ALA mission and purpose that makes these pronouncements irrelevant and endangers our credibility on relevant issues.

There's also the loss of political capital.  By speaking so often on any possible topic, the ALA makes it less likely anyone will take them more seriously when they speak on library related topics.  He concludes that "ALA must, in a sense, regain its focus, remember why we are here and what we are about.  Most importantly, the association should employ its precious political capital for the promotion and advocacy of libraries and librarianship — that and nothing more."

I agree, and I have previously said something similar:

• "ALA Trifecta: Socialized Medicine, Gay Marriage, and Animal Cruelty Depictions," 4 August 2009.
• "ALA Supports Animal Cruelty Depictions; What Does This Have to Do With Libraries," 15 July 2009.

And think about that sentence where McKinzie says, "Everyone has had the experience of witnessing the phenomena of someone whose boldly brazen posturing does more harm than good."  Banned Books Week, anyone?

Speaking of the Annoyed Librarian and BBW, remember:

• "Annoyed Librarian Rips ALA for Banned Books Week 'Nonsense' and for an 'Incoherent and Self-Serving' Definition of Censorship," 30 September 2009.

.

ALA Trifecta: Socialized Medicine, Gay Marriage, and Animal Cruelty Depictions

What do socialized medicine, gay marriage, and animal cruelty depictions have to do with public libraries? Nothing. But that does not stop the American Library Association [ALA] from officially supporting all three in an ALA trifecta.

As reported in "Librarians for Terror," by Lee Kaplan, FrontPage Magazine, 17 August 2004:

Dr. Stephen Karetzky, a noted librarian, wrote more than 20 years ago about the ALA's embracing, Soviet-style totalitarianism in the American library system in his book, Not Seeing Red: American Librarianship and the Soviet Union, 1917-1960. He contends that the ALA has always advanced radical socialist doctrine as being positive.... Library Science is closely tied in with today's university atmosphere where Marxism now thrives....

Is he right? Consider the following. It is not proof positive, but it may help to inform:

• Regarding socialized medicine: "ALA Council Endorses Legislative Proposals For Universal Health Care," American Library Association, 4 August 2009. Get a load of this excuse: "The ALA realizes that the rapidly rising cost of health-care benefits continues to inhibit the ability of libraries to create career opportunities for librarians and library workers, stunts improvements in wages and thereby threatens the future of our profession and our libraries." So the best medical system in the world is "threatening." This from the group that holds legally protecting children in public libraries threatens their First Amendment rights.
  
• Regarding gay marriage: "ALA Council Supports Marriage Rights For All," American Library Association, 4 August 2009. "In adopting the resolution, the council especially voiced its support of extending full civil marriage protections to all members of the library profession and library users." Ah! So now it the American Library Users Association! See also, "ALA 2009: The ALA Council and Same Sex Marriage," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 8 July 2009.
• Regarding animal cruelty depictions: "FTRF Urges Supreme Court to Reject Broad Speech Ban," American Library Association, 30 July 2009. See also my previous post, "ALA Supports Animal Cruelty Depictions; What Does This Have to Do With Libraries."

None of that has anything to do with public libraries, despite what the American Library Users Association says.

What say you?

.