Showing posts with label RadicalizationHearings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RadicalizationHearings. Show all posts

Monday, March 21, 2011

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:
    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:
    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."

    .

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011

    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:
    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:

    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.

    .