American Library Association Blames YouTube Video for Benghazi Attack; Passes Policy Silencing Prayer After Jewish Man Prays for Dead Colleagues at ALA Meeting; Does Not Support Free Speech

ALA claims Benghazi attack was
"fueled" by a YouTube video.

The American Library Association [ALA] claims a YouTube video was responsible for the Benghazi attack.  Yet the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack.  Instead its use supports Islamist efforts to use blasphemy laws to silence the free speech of those speaking out about Islam from a different point of view than the Islamists.  ALA now evidences agreement with that anti-free speech goal.

ALA, supposedly a supporter of free speech, has in the past censored a speaker in response to complaints from Islamists and maintains a block on speech from Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.  Now it has joined with those promoting blasphemy laws to silence free speech.  The video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, yet ALA calls it, "the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi"?

• "Appeals Court Decision Undermines Free Speech, Misinterpret Copyright Law," by Carrie Russell, Director of the Program on Public Access to Information in the Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP), American Library Association, 14 April 2014 (hyperlinks in original, emphasis mine, grammatical errors in title and text are in original):

  Last week, the American Library Association (ALA) joined an amicus brief calling for reconsideration of a 9th circuit court decision in Garcia v. Google, case where actress Cindy Sue Garcia sued Google for not removing a YouTube video in which she appears.  Garcia appears for five seconds in “Innocence of Muslims,” the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi.  The video was uploaded on YouTube, exposing Garcia to threats and hate mail.  Garcia did not know that her five second performance would be used in a controversial video.

ALA Policy Silencing Impromptu Prayer at ALA Meetings

By the way, at ALA's latest annual conference, it passed a policy silencing prayer at ALA meetings in response to a Jewish ALA member saying a quick prayer over other ALA members who had just died:

As former ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon said, "When Mr. Friedman intoned the Jewish mourner's 'Kaddish' after the sudden deaths of 2 Councilors, I was highly indignant and walked out.  It never should have been allowed and before the second incident I begged Mr. Friedman not to repeat the prayer-at least on Council floor." Source: ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon.

Anyone is free to pray at any time, anywhere.  What people are not free to do is to force others to participate in their prayers, which is what happens when one prays aloud.  If Mr. Friedman wished to offer a prayer in his own particular religious format, he has a temple or synagogue in which to do so.  An ALA meeting is not a religious service, & if Mr. Friedman wished to express his sadness over the deaths of the councilors there, he's free to do so in a non-religious way.  Source: Sherry Rhodes.

So the self-arrogated free speech police who claim it violates free speech to keep children from inappropriate material and decry "banned books" think one has free speech to "express sadness over the deaths of the councilors" but only "in a non-religious way," unless you go your own "temple or synagogue."

A single ALA member (ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon) was incensed at a Jewish prayer being said in a single ALA meeting and ALA has now banned such prayer.  The free speech police banned free speech.  Remember, ALA claims a single parent should not be allowed to "censor what others students can read" in public schools; one parent should not control an entire school.  But it is okay for one person to react to Jewish prayer and cause ALA to block religious free speech ALA wide.  Just another double standard.

It is right that ALA is not a religious institution and should not have official prayers or prayer times, but a colleague saying an impromptu prayer upon news of the death of another colleague is not official ALA prayer and ALA had no right to silence people in such a fashion.

ALA Censorship Double Standard; ALA Does Not Support Free Speech

What we see here is ALA censorship promoted by impromptu Jewish prayer while ALA promotes censorship of those who oppose radical Islam.  All while telling communities it is censorship to block porn in public libraries and censorship to keep school children from inappropriate material.

ALA supports Islamic blasphemy laws that silence free speech, censors points of view that differ from Islamist views, and silences its own members after a Jewish man makes a quick Jewish prayer at an ALA meeting out of respect for a dead colleague.  ALA does not support free speech.

URL of the page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/04/ALABlasphemy.html

On Twitter:  @ALALibrary @JihadWatchRS @OITP

Follow @SafeLibraries

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

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.

.