The Federation for American Immigration Reform has outlined a step-by-step process which you can follow in order to contact your member of Congress and express your concern about its unseemly haste in enacting this potentially catastrophic law. Show them that illegal aliens and their domestic lobbyists are not the only ones concerned about the fate of this country!

To live in New York is to be surrounded by people suffering from various pathologies, many of whom you encounter on a daily basis if-like most of us-you use public transportation. Living here also means being surrounded by Marxists of varying hues, including Maoists, Trotskyites, and-as the photograph above illustrates, supporters of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Most of the time, international supporters of the only communist hereditary dictatorship fly under the radar. Outside of the faltering consortium of ethnic Koreans living in Japan-whose own stability has been imperiled for obvious reasons-there are not many people willing to support a regime which has killed enough of its subjects to rank comfortably between Pol Pot and Mengistu Haile Mariam in the annals of historical, third world despotism.

The event which occasioned these paeans to The Great Leader was the opening night of Red Dawn, a 1984 action-adventure thriller involving a Soviet invasion of the mainland United States that-much to the chagrin of the director of the original film-is being remade into a would-be blockbuster where the main antagonists are North Korean shock troops. Being a state-barely-where an economy  doesn’t exist and ICBMs are too poorly designed to reach the shores of the United States appears to have its advantages, at least from the perspective of a Hollywood film producer.

However, those going out of their way to avoid controversy usually have it thrust upon them, whether it be in the form of racially insensitive tweets, or a counter-protest staged by a bedraggled band of true believers led by an SDS spokesman who resembles a more unkempt version of Eric Stoltz, ca. The Butterfly Effect.

You thought SDS had disappeared with the departure of the last Americans from the U.S. embassy in Saigon, South Vietnam? Alas, it’s still extant, as is the Workers World, which peddles old ideas from the new left slightly repackaged-emphasis on slightly-for the Internet Age. The bilingual edition of the latter no doubt aimed to appeal to emigres from that vast swathe of Latin America which is infatuated with socialism, notwithstanding its rather obvious shortcomings.

Whether the proclivity of newcomers to favor government management of the economy will translate into increased support for The Great, Dear, Omniscient Leader is a matter for future generations to decide, but the spirited crowd of approximately half a dozen devoted communists seemed to be solidly in the corner of Kim Jong-Un and opposed to the shameless political dwarfs behind the cinematic reincarnation of this motion picture.

One of the scheduled speakers was the man wearing the jaunty keffiyeh seen above, who hails from the workers’ paradise that is post-Batista Cuba. Apparently, Raul Castro’s tropical paradise is, like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, another victim of malicious, patently false Western propaganda. You might be asking yourself why, if that’s the case, he is in New York City right now instead of Havana. Oh, you vile, imperialist cur.

There was also an unofficial spokesperson from Occupy Wall Street whose purpose I wasn’t able to readily discern, although perhaps it was intended to add ballast to a movement that has seen better days. Most recently, when the Soviet Union existed as more than a whimsical advertising campaign from Hershey’s.

In fact, one of the points emphasized by our Alexi Lalas look-alike was that North Korea had a thriving economy during the untainted, benevolent reign of the Soviet Empire. Aside from the fact that this is wholly inaccurate, this assertion is 100 percent true. Still, you wonder why a regime that prides itself on its rigid autarky would rely upon its two largest neighbors in order to survive.

One of my hopes for the anti-Red Dawn/pro-deranged, overtly racist, vaguely Confucian Communist junta demonstration was that its small number of participants would be dwarfed by a slightly larger group of trolls, a la Communists for Kerry or Bureaucrash during its heyday.

Alas, no such hilarity ensued. I did get the chance to capture an amusing confrontation between comrade Maupin and a friend of mine who was also there to record this historic event. I don’t recall what was said verbatim, but I’m sure it involved a denunciation of capitalist lickspittles and/or running dogs of imperialism. For those of you who are interested in watching this tete-a-tete for yourselves, you can view it in its entirety on Youtube, which I’m certain would have been created by North Korean engineers if their nation hadn’t been bombarded by Western disinformation campaigns.

Sarcasm aside, one of the most disturbing aspects of this rally was a brief speech delivered by an envoy from the America-Democratic Republic of Korea Friendship Committee, who parroted the same lies you find published regularly by North Korea’s official news service.

Like the useful idiots who traveled back from Moscow with nothing but praise for Joseph Stalin-even as he was in the process of liquidating class enemies within the Soviet state-this loathsome creature returned from Pyongyang in order to stand upon a soapbox-quite literally-and laud the achievements of  a state which is synonymous with indifference to human life and the ruthless suppression of anyone who dares to exercise his natural rights.

It’s sickening to think that such a creature walks among us, but like ignorance, disease, and hatred, he is a pestilence which has yet to be eradicated in a world where knowledge is at the fingertips of most of humanity. A sad yet ineluctable truth that we’ll have confront as plunge ahead into an era just as turbulent as the one which occasioned a cinematic classic of the Cold War.

Update: Breitbart coverage here.  Also, a write-up from North Korea News. Watch Adrian Hong’s speech Escape from North Korea. A much longer speech by a survivor of a North Korean concentration camp can be viewed here. Hat Tip: Todd Seavey.

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.

One of the fascinating aspects of living in this city is that, for good or ill, you’re exposed to a whole raft of ideologies and political philosophies of which, but for location, you might have remained blissfully ignorant in perpetuity. Granted, some of us choose to remain mired in a state of ignorance notwithstanding the fact that we dwell in the cultural capital of the planet. Even so, those of us with a smidgen of intellectual curiosity find ourselves compelled to investigate  these esoteric political beliefs, if for no other reason than merely to satisfy the more quizzical side of our nature.

That’s what brought me down to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, the site of multiple demonstrations against the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this past week. The largest faction of protesters came at the urging of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, otherwise known as the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran, otherwise known as the MKO, not to be confused with the National Council of Resistance in Iran, which serves as the MEK’s parliament-in-exile. Confused yet? Bear with me.

The banner you see above might look vaguely familiar, and that’s probably because you’ve seen it before-in New York City, no less! That’s right, it was part of the original Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park, which was eventually dispersed by the NYPD.

Despite its many permutations throughout the decades, one of the constants of the MEK has been its association, however attenuated, with the  left. So its decision to align itself with the staggeringly incoherent, yet incontestably leftist, OWS movement should not have come as a surprise. And just as you’ll find PMOI supporters at large gatherings of leftists, you’re more than likely to find a diverse array of leftists-with an interest in anti-IRI activism-at MEK rallies.

At the last MEK demonstration against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I observed an informational booth manned by a member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran-in exile, of course- who stood behind a crimson red banner that resembled this flag. The irony of denouncing the world’s leading state sponsor of terror while venerating-seemingly-Russia’s first mass terrorist apparently being lost on him.

Large sections of this rally weren’t any more intellectually coherent, unfortunately. Case in point, a group of Western feminists protesting the Iranian state’s deplorable treatment of women, including the not infrequent executions of those who run afoul of its clerical leadership’s capricious enforcement of Islamic law.

Although the Iranian regime’s periodic bloodletting of its citizenry is deserving of universal condemnation, I can’t help but think that doing so while wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the image of one of the Western Hemisphere’s most notorious executioners-and a totalitarian, to boot-is a decidedly mixed message.

Even so, it can’t be disputed that the Iranian system of justice-including its hellish penal institutions-is barbaric even by the most narrow definition of human rights. As the poster above indicates, Iran is one of the few countries that still routinely sentences juveniles to death, more often than not carrying out those verdicts. This tragedy is made all the more horrific by the complicity of Western suppliers of construction equipment; equipment that is regularly utilized in one of the Iranian regime’s preferred methods of execution.

Even though this facet of capital punishment in Iran is rapidly changing due to grassroots political pressure, there are other more traditional methods of murdering unsatisfied citizens, as the picture above-and the story of Soraya M.-demonstrate.

Death and imminent danger were recurring themes throughout the rally, along with the threat posed by a potentially nuclear-armed IRI. Those executed by the Iranian state, before, during, and after the 2009 Green Revolution were highlighted at different points throughout the day.

Another issue promoted-in keeping with the depressingly repetitive news coming across the news wires-is the anti-Assad revolution within Syria. In addition to spotting some Syrians sporting hats with the logo of the Free Syrian Army-a group engaged in questionable  actions itself-there were dozens of men and women bearing the pre-Baathist flag of the Syrian Republic, which has become synonymous with the civil war which has ravaged Syria for the past year and a half.

The inextricable bond between that regime and its benefactors in the Iranian government was referenced throughout the rally. That the Syrian government would probably be unable to repulse its domestic opponents without the military assistance it receives from Iran is an inexorable truth.

So is, it would seem, the precarious nature of Bashar al-Assad’s decade-long reign, although making geopolitical predictions-as history tells us-is always a dicey proposition.

One of the intriguing elements of the anti-Assad faction within this demonstration was the attempt to cast a non-sectarian facade over their efforts. Even though the ecumenical sentiments of these opponents of Baathism were no doubt sincere, I’m not certain that Syrian Christians feel the same way, especially after witnessing the fate of their Assyrian and Catholic brethren in neighboring Iraq.

Though the Syrian regime’s persecution of religious and ethnic minorities is well documented, the prospect that Syria’s most imperiled minority will benefit from yet another Islamic awakening during this Arab Spring is doubtful. One need only look to the precedent established by the Islamic Revolution in Iran in order to see that non-Islamic faiths don’t always thrive in the aftermath of Middle Eastern regime change.

That said, those looking to depose the mullahs in Iran have a compelling argument to make. One that I hope to examine in my third and final post on this subject, in which I’ll continue to explore the history-and perhaps the future-of one of the most vocal and controversial Iranian opposition groups, the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq.

Update: My full live-tweet of the SION Conference is online! Read it here. 

Today marks the eleventh anniversary of the catastrophic attacks upon the Pentagon and World Trade Center, as well as the thwarted assault aimed at the U.S. Capitol, which led to the loss of thousands of lives and introduced millions of Americans to the apocalyptic ideology of Al Qaeda and assorted Sunni jihadists.

As the democidal tyrants in Tehran inch ever-closer to acquiring the second Islamic bomb, one which will be at the disposal of adherents to an apocalyptic, Shia millenarianism, it’s worth noting that violence is merely the chosen expedient for people who want to impose their dogma upon the entire globe. A much more existential, and efficacious, threat to our civilization is the campaign to erode, and eventually abolish altogether, the fundamental natural rights we exercise every day of our lives and which we have taken for granted for far too long. The foremost right among them being the freedom to debate issues such as this one without the fear of coercion and reprisal from those who disagree with our opinions.

That’s why the SION Freedom Conference, organized by my dear friend Pamela Geller and slated to take place later today, is such a watershed moment. It will serve as the chief forum from which to illuminate the dire threat posed by an ideology that wishes to permanently redact, to criminalize, any critical observations about it inside of nations where speaking your mind is enshrined as a bedrock constitutional principle.

In addition to Atlas, there will be a roster of courageous dissidents from across the globe showcased this afternoon, including Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has experienced firsthand the animosity some Muslims feel towards those engaged in critical inquiries regarding the Religion of Peace. I will attempt to live-tweet both speeches-along with the rest of the proceedings-provided my not-so-smart phone doesn’t fail me-as it so often does.

You can follow my updates here, and ask questions of your own @OddLane. For those of you blessed to have some disposable income during the worst economic recession in recent memory, might I suggest putting some of it towards defraying the immense costs that events such as the SION Freedom Conference impose upon their sponsors? If inclined, you can do so by accessing this link.

Hopefully, tomorrow’s event will honor the memories of those thousands-from New York and elsewhere-who can no longer speak for themselves.

With the New Hampshire presidential primary fast approaching, it might be time to look at two of the Republican candidates who’ve often drawn comparisons in the mainstream media. Namely, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and 2008 GOP runner-up Mitt Romney. The rap on both men is very similar, i.e. both are technocratic, not very inspiring-yet seemingly competent-moderates who have extreme difficulties rallying the Republican faithful. And while Mr. Huntsman has increased the pace of his attacks on Governor Romney in recent days, you can’t help but notice the similarities between the two candidates.

While many conservative pundits have attempted-unsuccessfully in my view-to argue that Huntsman is an unabashed conservative, you can’t help but get the impression that supporters of past presidential campaigns by Pete McCloskey, John Anderson, Arlen Specter, and Lynn Martin, among many other liberal politicians who sought the GOP nod, said the very same thing about their preferred candidate. The fact remains that Huntsman-much like Mitt Romney, who garnered only one percent of  voters who labeled conservatism as their top priority in the Iowa caucuses-appeals predominately to those Republicans who are outliers within the party. They both garner plaudits from institutional left wing media organs and earn scorn from right wing opinion shapers, although Huntsman’s seemingly conscious effort to attack conservative sacred cows, and like defeated presidential candidate John McCain-one of Romney’s newest supporters-gratuitously insult conservatives, no doubt makes him a preferable opponent of President Obama to people like Stephen Colbert. 

Granted, there are some differences, both substantive and superficial, between the two men that require acknowledgement. While Mitt Romney’s rhetorical bellicosity towards China has been much remarked upon during this campaign, Huntsman-reflecting his history as a diplomat-has gone out of his way to allay concerns that a trade war between the PRC and the United States is imminent. Another distinction between the two is their approach with respect to national security and foreign policy issues. A perfect illustration of how they differ can be found in this exchange between the men over what should be done in the Afghanistan theater of war. But perhaps the greatest divide between the two candidates lies in an issue that has thus far escaped critical scrutiny, which is to say immigration.

While Huntsman has adopted the line of the open borders lobby-including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose leadership has slandered any patriotic American who embraces sensible immigration policies even as Mormons die as a result-Romney has thus far espoused one of the toughest stances against illegal immigration to be found among Republican challengers to Barack Obama. He has pledged to veto the DREAM Act, opposed sanctuary cities, supported E-Verify, and highlighted the importance of employer sanctions, which everyone recognizes as the keystone of any successful regime of immigration enforcement in this country. It was the relentless criticism of Romney-and to a lesser extent, Michele Bachmann-that torpedoed the presidential aspirations of Rick Perry, which we can all be grateful for. And perhaps most impressively of all, when pressed to explain how he would deal with illegal aliens who remain in this country despite stepped-up enforcement efforts, he gave the perfect answer.

Even so, there are good arguments to be made against Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy from a patriotic immigration reform perspective. Beyond the accusation that his tough stance against illegal immigration is merely a cynical political ploy-an accusation whose refutation is not helped by gaffes like these-there is Romney’s distressing support for H1-B visas and legal immigration mechanisms that are not only rife with fraud but existentially harmful to American citizens. However, even when you take into account these severe limitations, Mitt Romney still can be said to have a far superior record on issues of immigration and border security than his fellow Mormon ex-governor, Jon Huntsman. Whether good enough is good enough is a question that Republican voters will have to answer for themselves.

I have to preface this post by admitting that I’m not the greatest admirer of Paul Mulshine, long-time columnist for the Newark Star-Ledger. However, he penned a Thanksgiving Day column that caught my eye because it addresses many of the same issues you’ve seen tackled on this site.

The title, of course, is sarcastic, but beneath the veneer of caustic humor is the reality of a world created to minimize the freedoms you enjoy as a citizen while maximizing the liberties and opportunities of people whose way of life is antithetical to everything you believe in. In the example provided by Mulshine, the United Kingdom is being gradually erased as imported Islamists exercise dominion over native Englishmen and women, who can no longer exercise their free will. But as he points out in his column, the same problems could soon be facing the United States if open borders politicians-such as Governor Christie-have their way. 

Check out the column, it’s one of the few written by Mulshine in recent years that I find myself in full agreement with.