While it seems like every major story on the planet involves the Trump administration, things have actually been rather interesting in the rest of the world. Under the leadership of former ski bum Justin Trudeau, our neighbor to the north seems to be embracing some of the values that have made Europe so inhospitable to its indigenous population.

As Barbara Kay has explained both in print and other media, the proposed law by a Muslim MP targeting Islamophobia is simply a pretext to police inconvenient thought which happens to offend the political class. Keep in mind, the country was no bastion of free speech before discussion of this non-binding resolution discussed in the House of Commons of Canada. The long prosecution of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant for dissident speech, as well as the demise of Free Dominion at the hands of inquisitor Richard Warman, attest to that.

The idea that this is simply a noble effort to protect Canada’s ruthlessly persecuted Muslim minority is belied by the robust effort that community has made to make acceptance of Islam by Canadian natives mandatory. Contrary to popular belief among the ruling class and its eager supplicants, Islamophobia is not a real issue. The terms itself is an ad hominem meant to distract from the disturbing frequency with which the adherents to Islam murder/intimidate those who are not.

If you want to experience what real fear looks like, I suggest you take a trip to Europe, where the paragons of virtue that run that continent have turned a glorious civilization into what increasingly looks like a garrison state. From the bullet-proof glass wall built around the base of the Eiffel Tower, announced in the wake of a respectful Egyptian’s jihadist machete attack at the Louvre and several thwarted Islamic terror attacks, to the fence being constructed between Latvia and Russia, to the Catholic pensioners being murdered by Saudi migrants, there are signs everywhere that Europe is under siege.

The fact that European governments are persecuting those who speak the truth about the wave of migrant crime merely serves to illustrate how warped the values which animate Europe’s ruling class are. That they continue to entrust with power, however ceremonial it may be, the same people who brought their continent to the brink of the abyss demonstrates how disconnected they are from the anger and discontent animating Europeans in France, Denmark, the Netherlands and throughout a continent being ravaged by undiluted multiculturalism, moral relativism, and perpetual open borders.

The fact that the vast majority of Europeans vehemently oppose further Muslim immigration is deemed irrelevant by those who want to transform the continent of Europe. Those who rule have made the replacement of Western peoples with Islamic settlers a priority, despite the intense suffering of the Middle East’s persecuted Christian minority, and woe to anyone who opposes this grand project. 2016 was not the end of the fight against this mentality-which has governed the West for over half a century-it was just the beginning.

We’ll publish photos and accounts by our allies in the days ahead.

The mendacity of our current administration is at times stunning, even for those of us who should by now have become inured to the lies regurgitated by the Obama administration and its factotums for the better part of two terms. The disavowals by La Raza graduate Cecilia Munoz and village idiot Joe Biden notwithstanding, the systematic emigration of unaccompanied minors from their homelands to the southwestern United States is nothing if not a ploy designed by those in power to destroy whatever prophylactic measures the government currently takes to prevent the complete dissolution of our nation’s system of border controls. 

-You need look no further than ICE itself, whose bureaucrats acknowledge that a contract request to escort these youths was publicly advertised as early as the beginning of this year to realize how fatuous the current administration’s protestations of innocence are. The fact that this crisis is completely and utterly contrived seems not to have dissuaded the usual suspects in the mainstream  news media from putting the most appealing face on what has become an untrammeled invasion. Perhaps predictably, the fact that those tasked with protecting our nation’s security are now the functional equivalent of babysitters to carriers of lethal, communicable diseases has only exacerbated the existing tendency among press outlets to treat every breakdown of public order and security risk as a vessel for the classic illegal immigrant sob story.

-That the public is being largely denied pertinent information about the risks posed by these cherubic children-or a rational debate over whether surviving custodians/parents are practicing child abuse by forcing them to make a potentially lethal, 120+ mile trek through the Mexican desert-should come as no surprise. While concerned citizens might be surprised to learn that many of these “unaccompanied minors” are in fact vicious gang members, the fact that this tidbit is being overlooked by every single national broadcast network is nothing new when it comes to immigration coverage, unfortunately. Even the question of whether these individuals are being released into the care of human traffickers is probably not going to be raised by reporters invested in the wholesale erasure of American sovereignty.

-What galls, however, is the deafening silence by the fourth estate regarding the manipulation of access to the detainment cells and way stations, including military bases, housing these uninvited guests from Central America. Naturally, any critics of this administration’s  calculatedly disastrous immigration policy are being denied entry to the facilities housing the latest cohort of illegal aliens, as Arizona Speaker Andy Tobin learned recently. Likewise, any reporters seeking to engage in journalism-not merely act as stenographers for LULAC or the ACLU-are obstructed from practicing their craft, even as the Border Patrol officers who would seek to assist them are threatened with prosecution by their superiors, a la Fast and Furious. Thus, the freedom of information whose death the press routinely sheds crocodile tears for ends, not with a bang, and barely a whimper from the credentialed hypocrites.

-In contrast to the brick wall greeting those few genuinely patriotic lawmakers and intrepid journalists seeking the truth, the Spanish-speaking subjects of so many glowing personal interest stories over the past month are being provided with the best in legal representation that your tax dollars can buy. Someone should inform President Obama and his sidekick that these star-studded legal teams are promising their clients amnesty, which is open to them through a variety of means, including the notoriously porous refugee resettlement program.

-These unaccompanied aliens-and presumably, the adults who are assisting their perilous voyage north-are acting upon an entirely rational, understandable impulse. Namely, to leave behind a third world life of desperate poverty and lack of security in order to live in a, relatively speaking, prosperous and safe environment-one in which attempts to circumscribe their access to any welfare program will be met with howls of rage by indignant, open borders fanatics. They’re doing so because they have concluded that they will not be deported to their countries of origin, and despite the disingenuous protestations to the contrary by this administration and its apparatchiks, this is a largely accurate assessment of the situation, as columnist Ross Douthat has pointed out in the pages of the New York Times.

News & Notes

-Perhaps predictably, the political earthquake that vaporized Eric Cantor’s future career arc  doesn’t seem to have reached the denizens of Capitol Hill, K Street, or the White House. Valerie Jarrett’s recent comments about Rupert Murdoch and Dave Brat only serve to underscore the cosmic disconnect between those who make their living manipulating the political process in order to serve their financial and political interests and the people throughout the country laboring to sate their avarice. Unfortunately, just as we seem to be stuck with Murdoch, there is no prospect of Ms. Jarrett returning to Iran any time in the near future. GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, unlike his Australian counterpart, was actually born in the United States, therefore should presumably have a deeper attachment to American sovereignty and the quality of life of this nation’s citizens. Unfortunately, as Breitbart reports, that is simply not the case.

-One group that passionately detests the United States-at least, as it’s currently constituted-is the National Council of La Raza. Shockingly, they seem to have drawn all the wrong conclusions from Eric Cantor’s epic primary defeat, demonstrating yet again the utter futility of hispandering in  hopes of garnering that ever-elusive, much-heralded latino vote. One man who does not tailor his message in order to appeal to segmented ethnic groups is the gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo, a man whose praises we have sung repeatedly on this website. Of course, the open borders elites who control the GOP machinery despise Congressman Tancredo, which is all the more reason registered Republicans in the state of Colorado should go out and vote for him in today’s primary.

And with that important admonition, we conclude today’s Daily Rattle.

The purpose of  last Wednesday’s events, like the marches and rallies staged on Cinco de Mayo, was to pressure elected officials in Washington D.C. into repeating the same disastrous mistakes of the past. In this case, a wholesale amnesty which would cost upwards of six trillion dollars in the coming decades. While most of the people gathered in Union Square were open borders advocates of one sort or another, there was a spirited contingent of counter-protestors from New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement, a.k.a. NY ICE, whom I’ll get to in due time.

There were several journalists eager to cover the pro-legalization marchers, including a reporter-and I use that term advisedly-from the New York City affiliate of Noticias Mundo, a Spanish-language collaboration between Colombian channel RCN and cheap labor enthusiast Rupert Murdorch’s chief American asset, Newscorp.

And while there were many people agitated over the immigration-and the various proposals floating around Congress that purport to address the subject-as with any reasonably large demonstration spearheaded by the left, mission creep was evident from the beginning. The issue sprawl ranged all the way from global concerns, such as the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership…

…to more localized grievances, such as the cascading effects of the U.S. Postal Service’s insolvency, as well as the recently resolved school bus strike in the City.

The parlous state of our city’s public education system was also addressed-in both English and Spanish.

And of course, plenty of protesters blamed the dreaded process of sequestration-whose impact verges on the apocalyptic according to some analysts-for the plight of specific ethnic groups and economic classes.

The Sequester Game was an attempt to inject some levity into an otherwise earnest day of political sloganeering and ideological indoctrination.

One that drew upon traditional May Day tropes, such as this Maypole inscribed with exhortations to pursue various political projects of concern to the left. Although traditionally viewed as a festival heralding the arrival of spring, it is now an occasion which has been colonized by  those with a Marxist interpretation of history.

The top of the pole was graced by a papier-mâché babushka bearing a placard with a statement just as  ambiguous as her facial expression. 

I saw a few familiar faces in the crowd, including the attractive young rollerblader who played the part of  a money bunny at an Occupy Wall Street rally held in Bryant Park last year. Rather than targeting her ire at Herr Bloomberg-whose last term is mercifully drawing to a close-she took aim at some of the investment banks which have balanced their ledger sheet by feeding at the public trough. One of the most conspicuous offenders in this regard, CEO of JP Morgan Chase Jamie Dimon, is depicted in the effigy seen above. A man who not only benefits from outright wealth transfers from American taxpayers, but also regulatory structures that inhibit competition. Pretty much the antithesis of capitalism, as it’s correctly understand.

One group that continues to loosely align itself with OWS is Anonymous.

If nothing else, the market for Guy Fawkes masks remains robust.

Although I’m not sure wearing them while manning literature tables is their intended usage.

Speaking of literature booths, there were a lot of them in Union Square Park, including those run by Marx’s bête noire, i.e. anarchists.

They had a variety of pamphlets, including one exploring the concept of jury nullification.

Socialism today, socialism tomorrow, socialism…well, you get the picture.

The alternative to what? Prosperity and freedom, perhaps. Unfortunately, socialism and/or corporatism is the default economic setting for much of the world today, with a few notable exceptions.

The apex of socialism, of course, can be found in the proposition that the state exercises final authority over  its subjects’ bodies. Notwithstanding the fact that the lawmakers who crafted Obamacare are already fleeing from its consequences, there are still millions of people willing to go further down the rabbit hole of wholly socialized medicine.

I’m sure among those can be counted the Trotskyists who were gathered in Union Square.

As well as the small coterie of Bolsheviks I found as I made my way through the police barricades erected in anticipation of this event.

The woman wearing the strange, black and green biohazard cap was apparently in charge of this group, although to what purpose its members were being put is beyond my ken.

What I did glean from my encounter with the useful idiots-who weren’t so useful in this case-was that they had a problem being photographed.  I discovered this after having a conversation with the Don Pedro fan seen in the picture above. The idea that anyone would express a natural curiosity in people wandering around Manhattan wearing t-shirts extolling an ideology that has murdered between 50 and 100 million people, and deprived tens of millions more of their liberty, never seemed to cross their minds, such as they are.

Patiently explaining my purpose merely seemed to heighten his anxiety, especially after I gave him my business card and told him the name of this website. This is a brief recapitulation of our exchange:

Communist: American Rattlesnake? I don’t know if I like that name.

Me: Why are you disturbed by the name?

Communist: Because most of the time…that rattlesnake thing is for reactionaries and fascists who wave the American flag!

Me: Like the Latino family standing next to the George Washington statue? 

Communist: That’s different! 

Me: How so? 

Communist: Mmm…

(Followed by a minute of so of silence and a stupefyingly dull facial expression.)

I can’t say that I expected a more welcome reaction from the dozen or so emissaries of Bob Avakian, the founder and head of a bizarre personality cult called the Revolutionary Communist Party.

If the Shepard Fairey-like silkscreened t-shirts bearing Avakian’s youthful visage aren’t enough to set off alarm bells, a brief excursion to the RCP’s website-which gives North Korean propaganda a run for its money in the weirdness department-should be enough to persuade you that these people are certifiably insane.

One of the recurring mantras of the Avakian supplicants is that the “real revolution” is imminent, and that you should get with it immediately.

Or entrale a la verdadera revolucion, if you prefer. In either case, it’s redolent more of a Marshall Applewhite-led Heaven’s Gate initiation than scientific socialism.

Nevertheless, the declamation of  revolutionary Communism must go on, even if mesh, pop-up hampers must take the place of wooden rostra and bullhorns. Evolution, my friends!

In addition to cyberspace, the proteges of Avakian also broadcast their incredibly delusional message through the cutting edge technology of dead trees, which bolsters the thriving industry of print journalism.

Alas, my preliminary investigation of these pioneering revolutionaries was abruptly curtailed when several of them demanded that I cease and desist taking pictures.  I can’t imagine what possible objections Communists could have to some harmless photography, but I took thge dispute in stride and calmly described-once again-the purpose of this website. After one Avakianik insisted that I give him copies of American Rattlesnake’s “newspaper,” I proceeded to explain the concept of a news website and why mass-producing a newspaper on pulp, a la Screw or The Nation, is an unnecessary and costly investment. He was not persuaded.

Therefore, I decided to make better use of my time by studying some of The Master’s doctrine, including what seems to be the handbook for all aspiring Revolutionary Communists, Basics.

A compendium of Avakian’s lectures and writings, Basics can also be used-it turns out-as a handy visual aid. In this case, as a giant mercator projection that focused on the depredations which global capitalism has inflicted upon various parts of the globe. One of the worst seems to be the manifestation of widespread famine in developing nations that have embraced the free market. Apparently, collectivism is the way to go in agriculture. Yes, a proven success.

The fact that there was widespread famine and civil strife in India during post-independence, socialist rule, and that that devastating hunger could be attributed in large measure to misguided agricultural policies, is an historical anomaly, I’m sure.

It’s impossible to attend any protest organized by the left and not be greeted by several dozen-or hundred, depending upon the turnout-t-shirts bearing the image of Ernesto “Che” Guevara Lynch, one of Ireland’s most embarrassing exports this side of Bono. Just multiply the image you see above twenty or so times and you’ll have an idea of what walking around Manhattan on May Day is like.

Less recognizable than Argentina’s Che Guevara, but still admired by Marxists of a certain age and disposition, is Africa’s Che Guevara, i.e. Thomas Sankara, the president of Burkina Faso for much of the 1980s. Another friend of Fidel, Sankara even had his version of the Young Pioneers.

In contrast to much of today’s brain-dead, multi-culti, post-modern left, Sankara was a strident opponent of such quaint cultural-religious practices as forced polygamy and female genital mutilation. However, he was in favor of armed Marxist revolution-having come to power in a coup d’état himself-and collective ownership of the means of production. Hence, his enduring popularity among a small segment of western-educated Marxists. Unlike another African ally of Che, whose successful revolution was effaced by subsequent events.

As obscure as the  former Communist president of Burkina Faso might seem, the Cuban Five-now the Cuban Four-are probably even less well known to those who aren’t aware of the extensive and capable intelligence network run by the Cuban government within the United States.

Although most Americans are oblivious to their existence, these spies serve as a potent rallying cry for the Castro regime, as well as a cause célèbre for the anti-American left. Some of you will remember the same type of literature and agitprop at previous demonstrations documented by this website.

Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised by the dedicated group of enthusiastic members of NY ICE I spotted from across the street.

Despite the balmy weather, these people are no sunshine patriots, but stalwart defenders of the Constitutional values upon which this country has thrived. They are in the streets, online, and on the phones pleading the case of ordinary Americans, year after year, regardless of the adverse political climate,  antipathy of the news media, or gamed lobbying structure of Capitol Hill.

Because they are aware of how much our government’s indulgence of illegal immigration has cost us in the past, and how much it will cost future generations of Americans if we don’t address this issue.

With real, substantive solutions, not the regurgitation of false rhetoric and the promise of deterrent measures which will never be implemented if and when the ultimate goal of immigration reform advocates, i.e. amnesty, is achieved.

If we’re going to look at adjusting our nation’s immigration policies, a good place to start would be with the words of our nation’s founding fathers, who remain a much better guidepost to wise decision-making than their dismal successors. If we really want to honor the labor of working Americans, we should start by rejecting plans that

With the United States Senate rushing headlong into its rendezvous with destiny, i.e. deconstructing what remains of this nation’s anemic and beleaguered economy, and the U.S. House following suit, it  seems appropriate to examine cui bono from these developments. Obviously not American citizens, beyond Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and the politicians who’ll be handsomely rewarded by his corporation as a result of  yet another mass amnesty. Undoubtedly the thousands of immigration attorneys who’ll be enriched through the passage of the Gang of Eight proposal-whose case was pleaded by Laura Lichter, the president of the AILA, in laughably skewed immigration hearings-will accrue some financial benefits after comprehensive immigration reform finally occurs.

Certainly, the individuals and institutions which have collectively spent over a billion dollars lobbying Congress over the past half-decade feel that they have a vested interest in altering this nation’s immigration laws. However, the more immediate beneficiaries will be the millions of illegal aliens who will have their status changed, with the resultant benefits, including those enjoyed by their immediate family members and relatives.

That part of this story is the ostensible focus of Two Americans, a documentary about Katherine Figueroa-whose beatific face you see juxtaposed against the snarling visage of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the print ad above-a nine year-old girl from Arizona whose Mexican parents were arrested and detained after an immigration sweep at their workplace.

I caught a screening of the film by directors Dan Devivo and Valeria Fernandez, which was sponsored by the Justice Action Center and Racial Justice Project of New York Law School, last week just as the debate-such as it is-about immigration reform was percolating within Congress. As you can tell by the names of these academic centers, the foremost concern among faculty members-and presumably, their students-is achieving a desired political outcome-in this case for preferred racial and ethnic groups-regardless of whether that result is consonant with basic Constitutional precepts, a broader conception of justice according to natural law, or a firm foundation in American history. One of the main problems I have with the legal  assault against immigration enforcement-and the left’s approach to the law in general-is that it relies upon this sort of results-based policy, which is predicated on achieving an outcome that is politically-not deontologically-correct.

In my estimation, this is the polar opposite of “justice,” whose definition has until recently-perhaps before the era when critical legal studies achieved a foothold in academe-meant the application of objective rules which applied equally to everyone, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Fortunately, the filmmakers behind Two Americans do grapple with the statutory and constitutional issues, such as habeas corpus, due process, and equal protection, that the enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona-specifically, the suppression sweeps launched by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County-raise. In fact, the film’s focus upon these enforcement actions-and the difficult questions of federalism and the criminal justice system-is arguably the most substantive aspect of this documentary. Personally, I wish the directors had chosen to focus exclusively on these issues, rather than attempt to create an ambitious, almost panoramic-yet not altogether successful-film that often feels like four or five separate documentaries stitched together.

While the film’s promotional materials bill it as an investigation of Joe Arpaio’s expenditure of state funds as head of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, as well as a portrayal of the struggles of young Katherine Figueroa, it actually touches upon at least half a dozen other subjects that could have constituted distinct cinematic projects. From the President’s implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an extension of his administration’s administrative amnesty, to the political struggle over Arizona’s landmark law SB 1070, to the issues of leadership raised by the activities of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, to the relationship between Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, to the relentless effort by his critics, such as Randy Parraz,  to dislodge him from office, to the battle between Sheriff Joe and the President himself, this documentary seemingly attempts to cover every angle of the immigration debate within Arizona in its hour and a half running time.

The relationship between the sheriff and Figueroa’s family is tenuous at best, as Dan Devivo readily conceded during a post-screening question and answer session, where he described how Joe Arpaio is merely a stand-in for all of the elected officials and law enforcement officers-however few in number-who are attempting to enforce immigration laws in a robust manner. I was genuinely surprised by the negligible amount of time devoted to Katherine’s dilemma-even the focus on the Figueroa family was divided between interviews of Katherine, her parents, and her custodial relatives. She is a very appealing personality for the anti-enforcement movement-lending credence to Mickey Kaus’s theory that the DREAM Act was merely a stalking horse for a much broader amnesty-and I had made the assumption going into the screening that she would be centerpiece of this film.

Admittedly, I wasn’t moved to tears-a reaction that Andrea Callan, the ACLU advocate who hosted this event, assured us would be forthcoming-at any point during Two Americans. Perhaps I’ve become inured to the barrage of sob stories and media puffery which deluge the American public on a daily basis regarding the plight of the undocumented. However, it’s hard to discount the notion that Katherine Figueroa’s story is tailor-made for a sympathetic human interest story which could have filled the plot of an anti-enforcement film in its own right. The directors chose to focus instead on the political nature of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s public persona, which is often overlooked in discussions about the utility, legality, and impact of his office’s enforcement campaigns.

In truth, Arpaio is, in addition to being the chief law enforcement officer in Maricopa County, a public official whose capacity as sheriff rests upon his popularity with Arizona voters. So it’s not surprising that his most hotly contested public stance generates scrutiny regarding his motives; the filmmakers asserted-both in the film and subsequent Q&A session-that his crusade against illegal immigration is driven solely by political opportunism. It’s a charge seemingly buttressed by the testimony of a former colleague-interviewed throughout this film-who claims that Joe Arpaio jumped on the anti-illegal alien bandwagon in order to prosper politically. However, I feel this critique wanting, not least because Dan Devivo, in response to an audience member’s (translated) question, averred that Arpaio’s support within Maricopa was dwindling with each subsequent election. One wonders why an extremely popular elected official would adopt a stance that would earn him scorn and political antagonism among open borders enthusiasts throughout the country-and certainly generate opposition within his home county-if it wasn’t based at least partially on personal conviction.

Furthermore, the same insinuation can be made of Arpaio’s political enemies, such as open borders socialist Raul Grijalva, whose political fortunes-and campaign bank account-haven’t suffered as a result of his dogged campaign against SB 1070 and the current sheriff of Maricopa County. And while  questions pertaining to Arpaio’s use of his investigatory authority-particularly with regard to his office’s MACE unit-are certainly valid, the misuse and exploitation of power by some of Arpaio’s most powerful opponents is a question never broached by Two Americans. Specifically, the highly politicized tenure of Thomas Perez-President Obama’s nominee to replace Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, but at the time of the administration’s lawsuit against Maricopa County the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights-is never raised, nor is his extensive history of open borders activism.

Given that this documentary is advocacy journalism, I don’t know how much balance on this subject the audience is entitled to expect. However, the narrative thread of this film continuously returned to the bad faith of people who support immigration enforcement, with the implicit accusation that their beliefs are responsible for the travails of Katherine Figuroa, rather than the actions of her two parents. I give the filmmakers credit for highlighting to a certain degree the fusillade of hatred open borders advocates have unleashed upon Arpaio-including the credible death threats he has received in office-yet the reasons why Arizona voters continue to support him are never seriously scrutinized, nor examined in anything but the most cursory manner.

The extensive and sustained public support for laws such as SB 1070 never arises at any point in this documentary, and the only footage of protestors who are critical of illegal immigration focuses, curiously enough, on members of the National Socialist Movement. The many peaceful, multi-ethnic, well-attended rallies supporting this law-which were covered by mainstream, liberal media outlets in Arizona at the time-completely escape the notice of the filmmakers, as do the public statements of  large, representative, reputable immigration reduction and anti-illegal immigration organizations and individuals in this country. In the end, I think that is the biggest shortcoming of Two Americans. Not the sprawling focus, but the refusal to honestly present the arguments made by the respective camps in the immigration debate. It’s a problem that will persist so long as one side refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of their opponents’ beliefs.

It’s not being done by our captive press corps, which continues to manipulate and distort in order to achieve its preferred legislative outcomes. And it’s not being done by the craven members of Congress, who are quietly looking to eviscerate E-Verify even as they reward illegal aliens with benefits above and beyond what they’ve already received from the unconstitutional and very likely illegal memorandum known as DACA. That’s why we should be thankful that there are still members of the United States Senate like Jeff Sessions, who has meticulously exposed perhaps the single worst aspect of the current amnesty proposal. Namely, the way in which it will drastically expand chain migration.

The critical response of Senator Sessions to the markup of this bill is worth watching because it’s a foretaste of what’s to come if the Gang of Eight has its way. Let’s ensure that does not happen.

.

If you thought Hilda Solis was bad for American workers-and she was-then wait until you see who Barack Obama has tapped to replace her as the next head of the Department of Labor. Oh-so-mainstream Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, a man that has devoted a large portion of his career to empowering illegal aliens served by organizations like Casa De Maryland, a lavishly-funded, open borders outfit which seeks to not only forcibly impose illegal day laborers upon Maryland taxpayers, but to  eradicate immigration enforcement altogether.

To get an idea of how fanatical this organization and its leaders are, read this WorldNetDaily report on their activities during the last major national debate over immigration reform. This is an entity whose perverse goals Thomas Perez sacrificed his time and energy to help achieve, one which advocated for the interests of illegal aliens over and above those of taxpaying, American citizens-despite the fact that he was ostensibly elected to represent his fellow citizens on the Montgomery County Council. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to state that the upcoming debate over the Perez nomination is a battle between open borders dogmatists and the American public. Thankfully, there are still some members of the United States Senate in our corner; we’ll need them in order to thwart one of the President’s worst nominations to date.

In addition to compounding the government’s fiscal insolvency and further marginalizing the most economically disadvantaged segments of American society, the newest amnesty proposal-should it be enacted-will create even more national security nightmares. Michael Cutler-himself responsible for safeguarding national security in his many decades working for the Immigration and Naturalization Service-explores some of the disastrous implications of “earned” legalization in an examination of this issue for Accuracy in Media.

As infuriating as it is to watch elderly foreigners exploit a welfare state that is already functionally bankrupt, the danger posed by the imminent wave of naturalized illegal aliens is even greater. Whether it’s Al Qaeda field marshals or Somalian suicide bombers, the record of the federal immigration bureaucracy for discernment in this regard is poor, at best. What new horrors await after 15-20 million more illegal aliens are green-lighted for American citizenship-with all the invaluable documents such status confers?

Much like Obamacare, I suppose we’ll just have to wait for it to be forced upon us to find out.

One simple word which encapsulates the sum of the aspirations harbored by Iranians throughout the world, both those in exile and those living, and suffering, in the land of their birth. It was one of the demands invoked repeatedly throughout the pro-democracy demonstrations which took place last week at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza. These protests were held against the backdrop of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last speech before the United Nations General Assembly, evoking memories of the election he purloined in order to remain in power.

Although various factions within the Iranian freedom movement were present, the bulk of those in attendance came from the MEK, an organization led by the woman seen in the placard above, Maryam Rajavi.

The president of the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran-and wife of Massoud Rajavi, the leader of that group’s political arm, The National Council of Resistance in Iran-she controls what is arguably the most controversial, and undoubtedly the most personality-driven, group within the anti-IRI opposition movement which has taken root among the Iranian diaspora created by the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

The cloud surrounding the MEK exists for a number of reasons, one of the most prominent among them being its inclusion in a list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations created by the State Department, which includes such illustrious fraternal associations as Abu Sayyaf and Lashkar-e-Taiba. 

At first glance, it would appear that this designation is appropriate. After all, as this ABC News report about the recent removal of the MEK from proscribed terrorist organizations makes clear, it was responsible for the deaths of Americans-both civilian and military-abroad, much like northern California jihadi John Walker Lindh. It was given sanctuary for decades by Iraq-itself considered a state sponsor of terror until the removal of Saddam Hussein from power-much like the Palestinian Liberation Front, a terrorist group responsible for murdering American citizens in the most callous manner.

So if the terrorist designation is applied to any group which has the blood of Americans on its hands, then the State Department should not have even contemplated de-listing the MEK. However, if that is the policy, then what explanation is there for the federal government’s consistent policy of embracing, if not feting, PLO leaders? Men who  are directly implicated in the murder of American diplomats, and who represent an entity responsible  for the deaths of more Americans  any other terrorist organization in the contemporary era-and whose hands are stained with blood much fresher than that taken by the MKO-with the exceptions of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. The PLO might even outrank the latter in body count, if we consider that its chief operations planner was once a protege of Yasser Arafat.

If the criteria for inclusion is militarization and/or criminal activity, then it’s hard to explain why the Irish Republican Army has never been designated an FTO. After all, the IRA Army Council didn’t formally renounce its armed campaign until 2005, which marked the year it finally decommissioned its supply of arms. What’s more, members of the IRA have engaged not only in murder and obstruction of justice within the past decade-as well as other notorious criminal activities-but shared their bomb-making expertise with the most prolific terrorist group in the Western Hemisphere.

So what explains the MEK’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department? Although obviously a self-interested stance, I can’t help but agree with the MEK itself, which concludes that this decision was made in an attempt at currying favor with the Iranian regime. A regime whose presidency was held by the pseudo-reformist Mohammed Khatami, assiduously courted by the Clinton administration, at the time this list was formulated. As others have pointed out, this policy of engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran has not returned much in the way of political or diplomatic dividends.

Even so, the MEK’s fiercest adversaries do pose some valid objections. The organization does have a very sordid past, a past which Kenneth Timmerman has extensively and eloquently limned over the years. And despite some exaggeration of the dangers it poses, there is an inexorably cultish quality to the organization created by Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, although it should be noted that there are numerous cults in this country which do not engage in terrorism. At least, as it is generally defined.

Another valid critique of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq  is the assertion that it is not a genuinely grassroots opposition movement. Anyone who has observed an MEK rally firsthand can’t escape the impression that the astroturf accusations are not completely devoid of merit. The man above didn’t seem to have much interest in the internal political dynamics of Iran, much less the MEK, although the fact that he was at a rally with fans of the Redskins and Giants did speak to a rare intra-divisional amity this NFL season.

Even protestors with more substantive concerns-such as these Cameroonian men-did not seem particularly interested in the issues that animated others at this rally.

Notwithstanding the occasional references to “Iranian freedom,” most of their chants focused exclusively upon the injustice of Paul Biya’s lengthy dictatorship over the people of Cameroon, and the persecution their countrymen endure for opposing it.

Finally, the allegation that the MEK bought its way off of the State Department’s list of proscribed terrorist groups must be addressed. The fact that the former head of the Department of Homeland Security is willing to speak to crowd of MKO supporters, and urge other nations to facilitate the resettlement of MEK members now living in Camp Liberty, speaks to the efficacy of their lobbying efforts.

As does the bipartisan nature of the support they receive. Which runs the gamut from avid motorist Patrick Kennedy,

to former New Mexico governor-and Clinton fixer-Bill Richardson,

to the far more reputable, and decidedly conservative, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Whatever motivates these public figures to support their cause-to a greater or lesser degree-it can’t be disputed that the  mobilization of the MEK within the halls of American power has played a significant role in their political rehabilitation.

That said, it strikes me as slightly hypocritical to bemoan the (legal) lobbying by an anti-IRI organization while ignoring the corresponding public relations campaign undertaken by friends of the mullahcracy. Even if you truly believe that the MEK is a monstrous organization, how much more bestial and inhumane is the regime it stands against?

Which isn’t to imply that the MEK is worthy of political support-either through taxpayer subsidies or individual donations-or a model which Iranian dissidents should emulate. Personally, I find the idea of it serving as “the government” of any future, post-Islamic Iranian republic fairly ludicrous. And of course, there already exist opposition activists with much compelling, forward-thinking platforms.

Nevertheless, the widespread efforts to demonize the MEK-for all its failures-seems to be profoundly misplaced. Even if we were to concede that this organization comprised the most detestable collection of rogues known to man, its continued existence is itself a byproduct of the brutal theocracy which has ruled Iran for the past three decades.

Their goals might be more ignoble than those of the Green Movement, and more incoherent than those of the constitutional monarchists and the left, but they exist within the context of opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. A regime which rules largely-ironically enough-because of their past actions. However, the past is the past. To use the actions a group took decades ago, however heinous, as a justification for arbitrary political decisions, even those that might be enjoy widespread popularity, would be mistaken.

The first gathering of the Stop Islamization of Nations Congress took place on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the city-and nation-targeted by pan-Islamic jihadists on that clear September day. Considering the deeply-rooted religious and ideological convictions that were  to serve as the fulcrum of those massacres, it was only fitting that any discussion of Islam’s predatory relationship to the inalienable rights of Americans take place on that day and in this city. However, the scope of this discussion extended well beyond the borders of America, because the ambitions of Islamic jihad go well beyond the geography of the United States.

That’s why men and women from across the globe came to New York City last week to attend the Stop Islamization of Nations Congress. Oppressed people throughout the world, from non-Malay second class citizens living in a “moderate” Muslim country, to indigenous Burmese threatened by Southeast Asian jihadists standing up for their illegal alien Islamic brethren the Rohingyas-even as they labor under the despotic reign of a military junta-to Iranian exiles forced to flee from the terror that is Khomeinism, came to stand in solidarity with their fellow freedom activists inside of the Millennium Plaza Hotel.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer deserve credit for having the tenacity and courage to make such an event possible, regardless of the personal costs and risks that attend to launching a campaign as déclassé as standing up for free inquiry and open debate. Even as every major organ in this country’s cadaverous media complex refuses to show the satirical cartoons published by French magazine Charlie Hebdo-sketches approved by my namesake, a man with more courage than the entire editorial staffs of the Washington Post and New York Times combined-the individuals responsible for the SION conference continue to stand up for the inalienable rights which are imperiled by global jihadism in its various manifestations.

The actions of Charlie Hebdo echo the bravery exhibited by the editors of Jyllands Posten and cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, so it was only fitting that the final panel of last week’s SION conference should include Anders Gravers of Stop the Islamization of Europe, which was created during the manufactured Jyllands Posten conflagration in order to defend European values from jihadist incursions. Hailing from Denmark, home to Jyllands Posten, Gravers has a unique perspective on what it means to live in a nation that’s been subjected to a carefully orchestrated, meticulously planned, global campaign of hatred and intimidation initiated by the adherents of Islam, who-at one point in our collective history-were more accurately characterized as Mohammedans.

The attempt by totalitarian Islamic states to intimidate the Danish people into passively acquiescing to sharia law-including its absolute prohibition of criticism of Mohammed and Islamic dogma-along with the internal assault by an Islamic fifth column within Europe’s borders, prompted Mr. Gravers to found an organization based upon the premise that the seemingly inexorable Islamization and dhimmification of his country and continent could be reversed.

In order to stand up for what had heretofore been regarded as inviolable human rights, he had to withstand an unceasing barrage of criticism from what he charitably calls the misleadia, a vast network of increasingly obsolescent press outlets that, rather than conducting intrepid, investigative journalism, concentrate their energies upon demonizing and denigrating ordinary individuals who pose simple questions about the direction in which Europe is headed.

Much like his fellow countryman, Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society has withstood intense political pressure to renounce his beliefs and truckle to the transformation of his country into something completely alien to most Danes who grew up in the aftermath of post-war Europe. His prosecution by the government  for “hate speech” was, in its essence, a heresy trial where he was prosecuted for having the temerity to openly question a system where unfettered immigration of Muslims from third world nations is coupled with a revocation of fundamental natural rights, foremost among them being the liberty to speak and write without fear of reprisals from agents of the state.

Although Mr. Hedegaard emerged from this state-sponsored debasement more or less intact, and-in a sense-triumphant, this ritual of state-driven, Islamist-supported intimidation established a precedent which will be followed in the future. Europe’s modern witch hunters will, henceforth, find new victims to burn at the stake, because the capacity of bien pensant elites to punish speech deemed insensitive to the feelings of Muslims-like the capacity for (selective) Muslim outrage-is boundless. Just like officials in the United States, Eurocrats need something to deflect attention from the real problem facing Europe.

However, the persecution of these individuals is merely a shadow of the threat posed  by the growth of an imported ideology which seeks to extend its dominion over all human affairs-an all-encompassing religion wherein the personal is political, and vice-versa. Those who aren’t patient enough to wait for the state to punish anti-Islamic speech often try to take matters into their own hands, as the man speaking in the video above, acclaimed Swedish artist and iconoclast Lars Vilks, well knows.

Mr. Vilks was not well known outside of Europe, or artistic circles, before he created the satirical drawing that you see above. Mohammed as a roundabout dog-an installation art movement begun in Sweden-was meant to test the limits of artistic expression within the confines of today’s stultifying political correctness and reluctance to gainsay left wing shibboleths.

The reason we know about this drawing today is precisely because the fear, timidity, and groveling solicitude regularly shown towards The Religion of Peace-and its warped conception of free speech-forced art directors who were initially willing to host his artwork to beg off, which in turn prompted a newspaper to publish the drawing that has-for better or worse-become inextricably linked with Mr. Vilks’s identity as an artist. The caricature of Mohammed as half-canine would go on to be displayed in a Scandinavian art exhibition-complete with a cautionary curatorial note that would normally precede an exhibit devoted to examining war crimes. However, it “went viral” because a single news editor had the temerity to make a choice all too many editors, publishers, publishing houses, academics, and ostensible journalists blanche at making.

The decision by  Nerikes Allehanda to publish roundabout Mohammed led to a chain reaction which might have been predicted by anyone who had followed the course of the first battle of the Cartoon Wars. One of Mr. Vilks’s aggrieved critics-seen above-decided to take matters into his own hands, and-along with other members of Somali militia/Al Qaeda affiliate Al Shabaab-plot his murder. What’s remarkable is that this was just one of nearly half a dozen major terrorist attempts on his life, including one undertaken by an American Muslim convert who went by the colorful moniker Jihad Jane. The incongruity of a blond woman from Pennsylvania leading an international plot aimed at his assassination was not lost on Vilks, who described it as something you would typically find in the plot to a suspense-thriller.

One of pleasant surprises of this fascinating speech was its brilliantly sardonic wit and lacerating humor, which I hadn’t expected when I first came to the SION Conference. Most people would have difficulty apprehending the humor of the harebrained schemes concocted with the ultimate goal-however unrealized-of facilitating that person’s death. However, Vilks was able to mine humor from what would ordinarily be seen as terrifying circumstances, even to lightheartedly mock the transparent illiteracy of some would-be Pakistani jihadists-seen above.

As well as their inability to acquire an actual Swedish flag to incinerate during their anti-Vilks hate rally. A problem that, perhaps unsurprisingly, does not bedevil Muslims seeking to vent their anti-American sentiments.

His sense of levity extended to those who satirized him as an artist-such as the cartoonist who created the deprecatory drawing seen above. In fact, he contrasted this peaceful, lawful critique of his artwork with the coercive violence that serves as the default reaction within large sections of the global community of Muslim worshippers. One manifestation of this tendency was the fire-bombing of his home in Sweden, the results of which you can see below.

Although not as imminent a threat to his life, the attacks upon Lars Vilks during lecture tours he conducted throughout his native Sweden demonstrate perhaps an even more disturbing phenomenon found within academic circles.

Whether he is being bombarded with eggs, paint-as seen above-or that old standby, closed fists, Vilks has been subjected to a systemic campaign of intimidation that passes for debate in the cloistered, intolerant halls of academe. The intellectually torpid environment, inflexible hostility to Western culture and lack of critical analysis found in most liberal arts universities only serves to reinforce the pre-existing obedience to authority and customs ingrained within Islam, a toxic interaction illustrated by the collegiate experience of the architect of 9/11.

This is yet another reason why I agree with other panelists from the SION conference, who reiterated the necessity of revising our disastrous federal immigration policy, which routinely confers residence-if not citzenship-upon people who are not only unassimilable and a burden upon taxpayers-but often present an potentially lethal security risk, to say nothing of the danger posed by those who enter this country illegally.

Yes, we must stand up for the essential liberties that differentiate our culture from their theirs. We must also rediscover the ability to mock our enemies and their myopic world view, which doesn’t recognize the inherent irony of violently marauding in opposition to a film depicting their prophet as an inveterately violent human being. And we must absolutely resist the urge to not write, draw or speak about this subject. However, as we affirm the necessity of preserving the values and culture of the Enlightenment, we must also acknowledge that the post-war experiment of creating a multicultural society built from the planks of unfettered immigration has failed. I hope to write about that failure, and how it can be addressed, in the days ahead.