Scary Letter from Citizens in Texas about Libraries

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-22 03:21pm

Appearantly, the American Library Association is Saddam Hussein for having a Freedom to Read and View policy.

The Commissioners Court is considering changes to the library policy. This has been an ongoing controversy since the Commissioners banned two books from the library. After public outcry and a new review system which added citizens to the review process, the books were returned to the shelves of the library. Evidently the citizens calling for the ban were not satisfied with the results. A letter sent to three of the men on Commissioners Court from Mark Cadwallader who is a member of the Republican Leadership Council urges the men to vote for changes in the policy to reflect “community standards”. The letter was dated May 27, 2003. At a meeting of Mainstream Montgomery County, Ann Bayerkohler said, “It appears as if this was trying to be pushed through with no one knowing about it from reading the letter.” The group is planning on fighting these changes, which calls for the library to remove itself from organizations such as the American Library Association. The proposal removes the Texas Library’s Association, “Intellectual Freedom Statement”, the American Library Association’s, “Freedom to Read Statement” and “Freedom to View Statement” and replaces it with “Freedom to Exercise Good Judgment Statement.” You can read the letter in its entirety on this website. The main changes and the “Freedom to Exercise Good Judgment Statement” is also printed on this website.

Editors note: Below is the reproduced copy of a letter sent to the County Judge and two of the Commissioners
The letter was reproduced to make them more legible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citizen’s Task Force for Family-Friendly Libraries

May 27, 2003

Montgomery County Judge, Alan B. Sadler
Commissioner Precinct 2, Craig Doyal
Commissioner Precinct 4, Ed Rinehart

Dear Commissioners Doyal and Rinehart, and County Judge Sadler:

We are aware of the many troublesome issues confronting the Commissioner’s Court at this time, with corruption charges in prisons, schools, etc. We are aware of the struggle with the Sheriff’s Dept. We understand the pressure you are under contending with corruption in our county. As I mentioned in conversations with Judge Sadler, I will encourage those asking me about progress in the fight for decency and community service in our Library system, to pray daily for our county commissioners, and for each of you personally. I and many others are committing right now to upholding you all in prayer as you seek to serve the citizens of our county rightly.

But I want to stress the seriousness of the Library situation, a situation underpinned by a philosophy and policy which promotes “anything goes” as the ALA preaches through and through, even to minor children. This is why our county library policy must not only be changed, but changed by giving it a whole new direction, one which stands up for community values, and decency and protection of minors, etc. A watered down issuance of a new policy will not change anything.

Some problems cannot simply be pruned over; they need to be completely uprooted. Saddam Hussein was one such problem. He had to be totally uprooted. ALA library management philosophy is another such problem.

In a meeting I had with Jerilyn Williams in January of this year, she told me that “just as no parent should deposit their child in the middle of the freeway, no parent should allow their child unsupervised in the library”! What an admission! Honorable Sirs, this is the problem. Why should taxpayers support a county institution that fails to protect and is actually dangerous to their own children? – except that everybody kow-tows to, and is intimidated by, and indoctrinated by ALA philosophy? To me and many others it is no wonder that our Jesse Jones State Forest is now off-limits much of the time – because of kow-towing to an “anything goes” philosophy, counter to all moral tradition.

We understand that such a library policy change reflecting community and moral responsibility may very well involve complaints from those who believe in the ALA. But no true change takes place without objections from those currently benefiting from the status quo. It took a fight to remove Saddam Hussein, but the fight turned out to be a lot easier than most people expected.

We have so far honored Judge Sadler’s request to keep our work quiet But as mentioned we have people asking about progress in the library situation, and we had previously planned to take public several book reviews along with a litany of the ALA propaganda, and other information to churches and to news media, etc. We can do so by direct mail to key voters as well. This information can now include the new proposed library policy you before you. The new policy, I think you will agree, better reflects the true balance between moral constraint and public access which America’s Founding Fathers believed in, as opposed to the unrestrained libertine ideas of the liberal and leftist ALA organization.

Yet in deference to a “better” way we have held back, understanding and agreeing with you that a more quiet change dictated from the top down according to established rules of process would be more effective and less messy. Once voted into place by the commissioners, it would be done, and opposition reaction should be short-lived. It would also be seen by your base of supporters as good leadership on your part.

As I mentioned to Judge Sadler, I really do believe that providing real change to library policy will benefit all of you politically. Why?, because it is the right thing, and we have the moral high ground appreciated by the broad breadth and grassroots of this county. People appreciate being led in the right direction. The public is still very uninformed about the whole library problem. And this time around we will not let the library staff and local media improperly frame the issue as one of “censorship”, when in fact is one of community protection, moral judgment, and decency. Remember, the opposition has already shown its colors in the library decency case last fall. It consists of the Green Party, some liberal democrats, ALA indoctrinated librarians, and PFLAG members.

President Bush fought the recent Iraq war in the face of media outcry, large demonstrations against war majority international opinion against it, etc. Yet the war was not nearly as messy as many feared, loss of life was limited, the war was short and now the Iraqi people are grateful and free, and a brutal corrupt dictator and sponsor of terrorism with the threat of WMD has been removed. George Bush’s approval ratings have soared because people respect the courage and vision he has demonstrated to do the right thing. Courage, in the cause of right and freedom. That’s what makes America great.

Just as George W. is reaping the benefits of courageously standing for the protection of the nation he governs, so you will benefit by being seen to stand for the protection of the community in Montgomery County. Adapting Jerilyn Williams’ analogy, why should we let our children rummage for books in the middle of the freeway? By dumping the ALA thinking, and adopting a good new policy, you can provide the community protection that is the primary mandate for government.

The last verse of the National Anthem says, “…then conquer we must when our cause it is just and this be our motto, in God is our trust. And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave, o’er the land of the free, and home of the brave.” That verse is as true today as it was when it was first penned by Francis Scott Key.

I urge you all to vote into place the library policy, understanding that real change sometimes requires a fight, but that this fight is one you will win. And, as with George W. and Iraq, you can create a changed world order that will be accrued to your credit. Remember that it’s not just you against media perception, or just you against political opposition, but that there is a power we can lean on, who is bigger than us all, who stands for righteousness and justice, and who will support you in governing for righteousness and justice.

Sincerely,

Mark Cadwallader –
For Citizen’s Task Force for Family-Friendly Libraries

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-22 03:47pm

That is some scary shit....

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-09-22 04:59pm

Oi fucking vey.

Scary shit indeed.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-09-22 05:00pm

Which books were they trying to ban?

EDIT: By the way, their proposed library policy is MUCH scarier than the letter.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-09-22 05:09pm

This is why I am in favour of force sterlization to prevent the spreading of stupidity

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-09-22 05:13pm

Yadda yadda yadda, we must keep our children safe, yadda yadda yadda, toss the books into the fire, yadda yadda yadda, fearless leader.

As RedImperiator said, why didn't they explain why libraries need to be made safe? It's like telling someone "They'll be a rally tomorrow" without telling them where it will be, and what it will be about.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-22 05:17pm

Apparently both illegal and "immoral" books should not be available in libraries...

As soon as someone starts throwing around the term "immoral" as a criteria for removing something alarm bells need to be ringing....

Also a great line from thier plan for when a book should be removed from the collection when it is

"determined to have created a disproportionate balance of viewpoints on a given subject matter"

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-22 07:28pm

I like how their plan states that all books should be considered by objective criteria, yet every single one of their criteria is almost competely subjective.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-22 07:31pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I like how their plan states that all books should be considered by objective criteria, yet every single one of their criteria is almost competely subjective.

Yup, plus did you see how they wanted the committe run?
Appointed by the local politicians/judges, with automatic replacement if they arent behaving to his/her liking....

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-09-22 07:55pm

Assuming this is a real letter, it is pretty scary. What the fuck does Bush have to due with library policy. Id be curious which books they want banned. Probably something that discuss' birth control.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-09-22 08:04pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Assuming this is a real letter, it is pretty scary. What the fuck does Bush have to due with library policy. Id be curious which books they want banned. Probably something that discuss' birth control.

They dont state it directly anywhere, but they want a basically unaccountable committie who are nothing to do with the library service to decide what books are and are not suitable based on thier standards of what is suitable moral material.....

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-22 08:20pm

Probably stuff like 'The Picture of Dorian Gray', 'Fahreinheit 451', any book that discusses evolution, contraception, etc. etc.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-09-22 08:25pm

UGH. This is BS.

As for the Bush thing, they're probably trying to compare his going through with Iraq despite popular opposition with that group trying to ram through this proposal despite any opposition.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-22 09:14pm

I'm just curious as to what they want out...

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-09-22 09:28pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Probably stuff like 'Fahreinheit 451',

Now that would be ironic.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-22 09:31pm

They didn't say, I think, what they wanted out, but rather that they object to the Free to Read and View policy and that they want to put the ability to pull books from public libraries under the control of some sort of citizen review, namely them.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-09-23 12:10am

They're merely continuing a long-standing US tradition: see here, here, and here for some of the most frequent targets. Farenheit 451, incidently, was yanked from the required reading list of the West Marion High School in Foxworth, Mississippi in 1998 when a parent complained about the use of the words "god damn" (it's on the third list I linked to.)

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-09-23 06:14am

Refer to: Hitler, Adolf.

And to use a phrase from the German student movement: "The thoughts are free." At least I always thought so...

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-23 07:28am

[quote="beyond hope"]They're merely continuing a long-standing US tradition: see here, here, and here

you have posted some perfect examples of how both the left and right in every nation on the earth engages in book banning for political and religious reasons. it's just easy to pick on texas because, well...it's texas.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-23 08:34am

beyond hope wrote:They're merely continuing a long-standing US tradition: see here, here, and here for some of the most frequent targets. Farenheit 451, incidently, was yanked from the required reading list of the West Marion High School in Foxworth, Mississippi in 1998 when a parent complained about the use of the words "god damn" (it's on the third list I linked to.)

It's funny, in high school, our teachers practically chose books for the class to read based on the second link there. I read ten out of the top twenty in English class. They all weren't all that great books, for instance, the only reason anyone knows about Catcher in the Rye today is because it got banned, so now everyone reads it. If they'd let it alone, it would have been an obscure book from the fifties.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-09-23 08:39am

Cancer of the Earth wrote:The new policy, I think you will agree, better reflects the true balance between moral constraint and public access which America’s Founding Fathers believed in, as opposed to the unrestrained libertine ideas of the liberal and leftist ALA organization.

The founding fathers where religiously motivated fascists?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-23 10:16am

Gil Hamilton wrote:It's funny, in high school, our teachers practically chose books for the class to read based on the second link there. I read ten out of the top twenty in English class. They all weren't all that great books, for instance, the only reason anyone knows about Catcher in the Rye today is because it got banned, so now everyone reads it. If they'd let it alone, it would have been an obscure book from the fifties.

The Catcher in the Rye is being pulled from more and more reading lists because of it's conplete lack of "diversity". There was a segment on NBC news regarding that a while back. And it has come full circle.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-23 10:20am

Col. Crackpot wrote:The Catcher in the Rye is being pulled from more and more reading lists because of it's conplete lack of "diversity". There was a segment on NBC news regarding that a while back. And it has come full circle.

Certain? I thought it was being pulled because it had the main character try to get a hooker and stuff like that. I don't see what "diversity" has to do with it.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-09-23 10:46am

I think this is a BS letter, used as flame-fanning by folks who want to scare people out of supporting the Patriot Act. It just seems too blatant in all the wrong ways, and too obscure in others.

They don't list the books to be banned or why they are morally repugnant. Anyone that felt they had a strong enough case to arouse such activism would target the offensive books and preach about their negative effect on children or whatever they thought the problem was.

The Patriot Act is kind of scary enough as it is; dressing it up in a Halloween costume is not necessary and could actually backfire.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-23 11:25am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:The Catcher in the Rye is being pulled from more and more reading lists because of it's conplete lack of "diversity". There was a segment on NBC news regarding that a while back. And it has come full circle.
Certain? I thought it was being pulled because it had the main character try to get a hooker and stuff like that. I don't see what "diversity" has to do with it.

The charectors are all white and the protaganist is privledged enough to attend a boarding school. The segment contended that the powers that be in school districts with large minority populations pulled the book and other books ( A Seperate Peace, many works of Shakespere etc) because they feel that the minorities in the schools cannot relate to the non-minority charectors and would be better of reading novels containing or written by "people of color".