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 caved and cancelled Robert Spencer in 2009 after Hamas-linked CAIR demanded adherence to Islamic law. "Do not defame or insult Islam." The ALA accommodates the sharia.
Check this out from SafeLibraries:
ALA Joins CAIR to Oppose Radicalization Hearings Sponsored by Congressman Pete King
ALA Joins CAIR to
Oppose Radicalization HearingsThe 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?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.
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:
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.
Freedom to Read Foundation
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?
