Update: Plot twist. 

The White House won’t immediately appeal this ruling. 

Josh Blackman has an interesting post explaining the possible paths going forward for the Trump administration. 

The temporary restraining order against President Trump’s executive order is still in effect, as you probably know. Josh Blackman has a good analysis of the ruling on his website, which I would recommend reading. There are a number of fascinating and disturbing elements of this decision, including the imposition of a “no evidence” standard upon the Trump administration. Although some are attempting to put the best face on what is a sweeping, unprecedented ruling, the truth is that we are entering uncharted waters. We have the largest circuit court in the federal system essentially erasing the plenary power doctrine as it relates to immigration matters.

The fact that the administration was intentionally hamstrung in its appeal is irrelevant in the larger context, i.e. we are dealing with a federal judiciary that’s unwilling to recognize Congressional and presidential authority to execute immigration law. What’s more, the reasoning, such as it is, behind this decision is so shoddy that it would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so dire. The idea that universities and colleges have a vested interest, i.e. continuing the flow of tuition dollars from the coffers of foreign students, which supersedes the national security concerns of the President and his cabinet would be an absurdity in any other era. Keep in mind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the defiant architect of the 9/11 massacres, was brought to the United States along with other Muslim students from abroad in order to pad the enrollment and keep afloat a struggling North Carolina college.

Even if the statutory and Constitutional rationales for enjoining the President’s executive order are incredibly weak-which they are-that doesn’t make the path forward any easier. Whether the administration decides to rewrite this EO from scratch, as some have suggested, or simply appeals to the Supreme Court, those of us who believe that American interests outweigh those of foreign nationals and international organizations have already been dealt a grievous blow by a judiciary which no longer recognizes itself as a co-equal branch of government.

How long before this quasi-ironic tweet becomes a reality? I suppose we’ll find out soon enough.

The big news to come out of the President’s first weeks in office is a federal judge enjoining his executive order blocking immigration from 7 nations of concern. The motion by the Trump administration for an emergency stay has been denied by the 9th Circuit, a decision which bodes ill for its ultimate fate, as Andrew McCarthy points out, although the court will hear the challenge later today. There are a number of troubling aspects to this ruling, foremost among them being the idea that a single judge can influence American foreign policy and national security based upon specious legal reasoning. This is a distressingly familiar sight for the patriotic immigration reform movement, which has seen a single judge thwart Proposition 187-consigning California to its current dismal fate-and another obstruct the implementation of SB 1070-the law which inspired this very website.

The biggest threat to President Trump’s immigration agenda, beyond the attempt by the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP to undermine it within Congress, is judicial obstruction. Immigration law is just one of many domains usurped by the federal judiciary over the past century, however it is one of the most vital to the survival of our republic. Notwithstanding the media-generated fog, this executive order is critically important, not least because it drastically reduces the number of refugees being resettled in the United States and, to the horror of the ACLU, targets criminal aliens.

The lack of reasoning that went into this decision is transparent. As Byron York points out, this injunction-relying upon a litany of unexamined open borders cliches-has been rebutted by the Justice Department, which described in painstaking detail the plenary power exercised by the Executive Branch with regard to the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. Contrary to the Obama administration, which attempted to confer a panoply of benefits upon illegal aliens without the consent of Congress, this is a measured attempt at maintaining the security of American citizens at minimal cost/inconvenience to foreigners. Even so, the same bureaucratic forces which enabled President Obama to flout the Constitution are intent upon thwarting that very reasonable aim of the current administration.

Josh Blackman has a thorough 2 part exploration of the injunction from a statutory perspective, which I highly recommend reading. These cases will set the precedent for how immigration is dealt with going forward. Therefore, we need to address and refute the myths and exaggerations which have already taken hold in large swathes of the media landscape. We cannot allow lies to dominate the narrative, because immigration is the defining issue of our era.

A pick that threatens all the work done by Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

It seems like racial arsonist and world-class grifter Al Sharpton has stumbled upon the truth of the matter. The left’s opposition to Jeff Sessions is not driven by a genuine fear of how he’ll approach civil rights issues-almost all of these objections are based upon falsehoods or distortions, and the primary accusers have suspect characters, to say the least-but is based upon the realization that he’ll attend to the rank corruption which has permeated the Justice Department over the past 8 years.

Senator Sessions is not a racist, and has never been a racist. The man now being slandered by cultural Marxists and those who traffic in racial calumnies is the same person who desegregated schools and put the KKK out of business in his home state. What’s occurring now is the quintessential Borking, which makes sense when you realize that Jeff Sessions was the first Republican judicial nominee to be Borked, even before Judge Bork himself. The only problem is that this tactic no longer works, as the election of Donald Trump to the presidency illustrates.

The public can no longer be intimidated into accepting bien pensant opinion or swallowing blatant lies about patriotic, normal American citizens. They realize implicitly that the stated reasons for these attacks are untruths. They’ve watched as the Obama administration has used its remaining time to force small, peaceful towns to acquiesce to the whims of Muslims and hire non-citizens to enforce American law. They’ve seen a Department of Justice willing to collude with the husband of a presidential candidate, a former President himself, under criminal investigation. They’ve watched hundreds die in the United States and Mexico as a result of this White House’s gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels.

Leftists should be afraid, but not for the reasons they’ve outlined in hysterical cable news jeremiads over the past week. They should be fearful because Jeff Sessions is the person entrusted to drain the swamp that the Justice Department has become under President Obama.

I took the image you see above in my old stomping grounds of Bay Ridge, which has earned the moniker Beirut in recent years, for obvious reasons. Aside from the Alpine Theater-which was in danger of being added to the adjacent mosque at one point-and Galaxy Comics, you would be hard-pressed to find a building along Bay Ridge or 5th Avenue whose awning was not covered in Arabic script. Judging by the number of hookah bars, halal restaurants and food carts, not to mention demure apparel shops for the fashion forward 7th century Muslima, a tourist would be forgiven for thinking he’d landed somewhere in the Maghreb rather than southwest Brooklyn.

Lest you think the Islamic Leadership Of New York is merely a benign group of patriotic citizens, here is the website mobilizing this New York’s civic-minded Muslims. Although seemingly under construction, you will notice a few things which belie the red, white and blue messaging of the banner seen in my photograph. Leaving aside the fact that every member of this group’s executive committee is a man-I’m sure there’s absolutely no Koranic basis for that anomaly-you’ll also notice a few other oddities, including the prominent place of unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and former Louis Farrakhan acolyte  Siraj Wahhaj. After all, what could be more quintessentially American, more mom and apple pie, than working with the leader of a mosque which invites 9/11 truthers to expatiate on topics of public interest and believes this country serves no greater purpose than to enlarge upon the Caliphate?

Perhaps North American offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, several of which are members of Majlis Ashura, including the Islamic Circle of North America, Mohammed Morsi’s old pals. It almost makes you wonder if those Americans who oppose resettling tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees in the United States might be on to something after all. Is it possible that the adulatory praise Muslims receive from the American press corps, and the self-serving dawah Muslims themselves churn out for public consumption, is simply a load of manipulative crap? These are questions begging to be asked, especially since the leading presidential candidate’s closest aide is a woman intimately linked to radical Islamists.

That’s right, in addition to being an unofficial political liaison for rich donors to the elaborate money-laundering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation, Huma Abedin is also the daughter of a woman who-like most Pakistanis-doesn’t believe in quaint Western customs like women’s emancipation. Saleha Abedin does believe that Muslims in the diaspora-men, at the very least-are entitled to the full panoply of rights and privileges, including, presumably, the right not to have their religious beliefs critically examined by non-Muslims. In fairness, her parents were recruited to Saudi Arabia for the express purpose of proselytizing for the Muslim World League, an anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, Wahhabist NGO bankrolled by the Saudi government, so these beliefs shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Whether these beliefs influenced their daughter is an open to question, but the fact that no mainstream media outlet has deigned to ask that question tells you how thoroughly corrupt the fourth estate has become. While European nations are having their national identities effaced under a flood of migration, America is undergoing its own radical transformation which is being cheered on by the ruling class. The lives our our fellow citizens are under attack, both literally and figuratively, by invaders it has welcomed into this country and their instinctive reaction is to condemn the victims of these assaults. If the Majlis Ashura gets its way, expect more attempts to squelch the speech of its perceived enemies. Their preferred candidate has already promised as much in private. After all, what difference does it make?

Update: Jill Stein, Green Party standard-bearer, drops a pipe bomb. 

The plot thickens. 

A Clinton supporter explains what’s wrong with this decision. 

A less than enthusiastic appraisal of Hillary’s problems by a liberal columnist in D.C. 

Spic ‘n’ Span. 

He said, she said. 

Relevant.

One of the most remarkable admissions during this press conference was that Hillary Clinton was not being punished because she is Hillary Clinton. The final point of Patrick Howley’s analysis is worth committing to memory and bringing up the next time someone starts rhapsodizing about the equal application of the law we have in the United States. 

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy’s reaction to today’s events is worth reading. 

I’m loathe to link to Red State, but this seems like a pretty accurate summation of what occurred a few hours ago. 

In unrelated news. 

A foretaste of what another Clinton presidency will look like. 

 Justice is not blind, evidently. 

Dissenting voices.

14 damning revelations from the Comey presser. 

What just happened, in black and white. The scale of Hillary’s non-negligence is staggering. 

Read Comey’s statement in full at the FBI’s website.

It looks like Judge Mukasey’s instincts were wrong. Watch Director James Comey’s press conference as it happens. Apparently, it’s good to have low friends in high places.

Most of you familiar with the work of Michael Mukasey probably remember him as the federal judge who granted Jose Padilla, an Al Qaeda agent designated an enemy combatant by the Bush administration, access to counsel during his detention in a U.S. military brig. Others might recall his refusal to declare waterboarding synonymous with torture during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings prior to his confirmation as Attorney General. However, the defining moment of his legal career was his oversight of the trial of the 1st World Trade Center bombing conspirators, led by The Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman.

It was this historic trial, as well as its implications for American society, which was the primary focus of Judge Mukasey’s speech to the Gertrude and Morrison Parker West Side Republican Club this past Tuesday. As he explained to a standing room only audience, this criminal conspiracy case was a milestone in our nation’s history, because it marked the first time that we learned of a jihadist cell bent on sowing terror, fear and destruction on American soil. Unfortunately, the lessons gleaned from that trial were largely lost on the immense federal bureaucracy ostensibly charged with protecting the lives and security of American citizens.

While the FBI ignored the ties Egyptian-born El Sayyid Nosair, the assassin of Rabbi Meir Kahane, had to jihadists both domestically and internationally-2 of the conspirators in the 1st World Trade Center bombing were present at Kahane’s murder-it likewise disregarded the links between the ’93 conspirators and Islamic terrorist networks abroad. Just as the failure of imagination and lack of moral clarity in Nosair’s prosecution set the stage for the 1993 WTC bombing, so too did the trial of these jihadists allow the 9/11 plotters, specifically the mastermind of the 9/11 massacre and cousin of Ramzi Yousef, breathing room to plot future acts of spectacular terror.

The question is why this was allowed to happen, and Judge Mukasey’s unequivocal answer is that it occurred because the institutional powers tasked with confronting this threat decided to ignore the connection between the tactic of international terrorism and the religious ideology which it serves. There was, as the former prosecutor of Sheik Rahman puts it, a willful blindness to the practical consequences of Islamic dogma, which is drawn from Islam’s sanctified texts. Texts with which our government is not only ignorant-and thus, unprepared to combat-but which are antithetical to our public officials’ increasingly absurdist pronouncements about Islam, which they view as a religion of peace and love.

The logical conclusion to this bizarre inversion of reality can be found in an article published by The Atlantic, which posits that even without Islam the Islamic State would still exist! An article shaped, it should be noted, by a former consultant to the Obama administration who publicly justifies the oppression of women that have had the misfortune of being born into Islam. Is it any wonder that when this same organization calls for the destruction of our nation’s crops and eradication of its food supply the media make no connection between that fatwa and the words ostensibly uttered by Mohammed, the ideal man according to  Muslims, which justified the same type of war crime in 7th century Arabia?

The disconnect between the apprehension felt by ordinary citizens, and the increasing body count of infidels, and the rose-colored view of Islam painted by our government and its media courtiers has never been broader. Although this gap can be seen throughout the federal government, from the FBI and the Department of Justice to the White House itself, it is most acute within the State Department. A government agency charged with expediting the resettlement of 10,000 unverifiable Muslims from Syria, but which refuses to countenance the idea that the precepts of Islam might have anything to do with the thousands of terror attacks which occur every single year around the globe. An agency which used the aftermath of the Brussels attack to remind Americans that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with the massacres committed explicitly and repeatedly in its name.

Even as the tangible  connection between Islam and global terrorism becomes inescapable for most observant human beings-even those, like Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who lead Islamic nations-the powers that be refuse to acknowledge the synergy between these two forces. All of the inexplicable actions taken by the Obama administration, from its brief flirtation with the idea of releasing The Blind Sheikh from incarceration, to its embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood as a negotiating partner-going so far as to host a Brotherhood leader at the White House-to Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s vow to punish anti-Islamic speech make sense when viewed within this context.

As Judge Mukasey pointed out throughout the course of his speech, the paradox of people who are considered to be dirty kuffar shaping our approach to Muslims, particularly those whose violent actions they are seeking to curb, is completely lost on our policy-makers. Hence, the proper Islamic burial of Osama Bin Laden. The folly of entrusting our national security to those who hold purportedly enlightened views of Islam can be seen most starkly in Europe, which is currently being devoured by Islamic refugees, many of whom were created by the presumptive Democratic nominee and Koranic expert, Hillary Clinton. Europeans are supposed to have faith in their leaders’ judgement, the same leaders who decided it would be a good idea to place Iranian refugees in charge of Arab-Muslim refugees, with predictable results.

As dispiriting as the current state of affairs is, Mr. Mukasey has a number of recommendations which might point us in the right direction, vis-a-vis defeating Islamic terrorism. For one, honestly and openly name the problem. Challenge elected officials, and to the extent possible, bureaucrats, who continue to deceive us about the connection between terrorist attacks by jihadists and the Islamic doctrine which inspired them, even if only indirectly. Obfuscation and denial will not get us any closer to resolving one of the most dire problems facing Western civilization. He also suggests building bridges to genuinely secular, liberal Muslims domestically, while encouraging diplomatic cooperation with anti-jihadist leaders abroad, such as President Sisi in Egypt.

Whether these steps will ultimately succeed is dependent upon our ability to influence those who wield power. Unfortunately, it looks bleak on that front, as our benevolent rulers continue to portray Islam as force for good in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, hope springs eternal. As long as there are ordinary American citizens, as well as distinguished officials such as Judge Mukasey, willing to speak the truth, I’m confident that the values inculcated by Western civilization will not pass from this earth.

It’s difficult to articulate the precise feeling I have after viewing the international media’s coverage of the anti-rape, anti-jihadist demonstrations which took place in Germany this weekend. Rage, disgust, alienation, and disbelief all fail to capture the degree of revulsion I felt watching the BBC, CNN and other purveyors of disinformation cover the brave PEGIDA protestors. The institutional coverup of the Cologne depredations-which were replicated throughout Europe-now seem less a case of bureaucratic face-saving than one more salvo in the ongoing war against Europeans and Europe.

Look no further than this headline, which makes it clear what most preoccupies German authorities at this moment. Not  the scores of foreign, Islamic invaders looking to rape-both literally and figuratively-their way through the continent, but the courageous few German citizens who are willing to stand up to truncheons and water cannons, to the assault of Marxist fanatics, and the universal defamation of the political and journalistic nomenklatura, in order to preserve their besieged culture. Now even those who willingly perform the roles normally assigned to the police in a functional society-defending the lives and safety of women now being terrorized-are the target of state persecution.

The people of Europe are paying-in blood and treasure-to indulge the warped fantasies of their rulers, and there’s no telling how high the cost will be.

Although the upcoming presidential race occupies national media attention-to the exclusion of virtually every other political contest-one of the most exciting elections will be taking place in the state of Arizona later this year. Senator John McCain, who is singularly awful, is facing a remarkably strong challenge from Arizona state legislator Kelli Ward, a candidate who’s already garnered the endorsements of her fellow lawmakers. Whether or not she succeeds remains to be seen, however the fact that she’s challenging one of the worst members of the United States Senate-mull over that statement for a second-should earn the praise of any patriotic citizen.

To find out more about Kelli and her campaign, check out her official website! Hopefully, we’ll be seeing a lot more from her in the years to come.

You’ll have trouble finding an accurate description of the motivation behind the terrorist attacks which took place in Copenhagen a little over a week ago, at least so far as the major media outlets are concerned. Even as European Jewry is being figuratively herded back into the ghetto, the newspapers and networks ostensibly responsible for reporting the news conceal it behind a veil of ideologically-inspired deception. The facts behind this outrage couldn’t be more readily available, yet the logical conclusions to be drawn are anathema to bien pensant opinion espoused by outlets such as the New York Times.

The deceased jihadist was not the first person to target the Great Synagogue of Copenhagen, as Daniel Greenfield points out. Unfortunately, I doubt that he will be the last, as the nation of Denmark-like most of Western Europe-has, over the past half century or so, been flooded with migrants whose progeny the Times will no doubt declare native sons if and when they decide to go postal on the indigenous population. In order to see what a failure the multiculturalist experiment in Europe, particularly Denmark, has been, I would recommend reading a piece by Michael Moynihan published two years ago in The Tablet.

Although encumbered by the open-borders dogma that plagues so many libertarians-and thus, unable to delineate the direct connection between mass immigration from the Islamic world and contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe-it is worth reading. Primarily because it makes explicit the ineluctable link between the tenets of Islam and the actions of immigrant youth which plague the headlines of European newspapers. We can’t begin to address this problem until we acknowledge what the problem is as a society. Alas, that’s something that the leaders of Europe-as well as the United States-are unwilling to do, regardless of the amount of innocent blood sacrificed to their ignoble ideal.

Flags of Freedom.

So goes the poem by iconic English writer Rudyard Kipling, a man who brilliantly limned the boundaries-be they political, cultural, or mental-which separate the East from the West. However, one commonality that both share, unfortunately, is the proliferation of a muscular, revanchist Islam intent upon dominating, if not eliminating altogether, its perceived adversaries. The penultimate panel of the Stop Islamization of Nations Congress examined countries which find themselves mired in “Stage 3” of the illness known as Islamic jihad, as we heard from three distinguished freedom activists who hail from societies which are on the front lines of the clash of civilizations.

Credit: Atlas Shrugs 

Considering that the spark for this latest iteration of global jihad was touched off in Cairo, it’s only appropriate that Ashraf Rameleh, the founder and president of the Voice of the Copts, spoke to the assembled about the 14 century-long subjugation of indigenous Egyptians by the forces of Islam. He contextualized the violence unleashed against Egypt’s remnant of believers in Christ by the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist allies by recounting his own personal biography, which has led him from being a persecuted minority within his homeland to a successful post-graduate education and architectural career in both Italy and the United States. The 9/11 attacks initiated by Al Qaeda upon his adopted homeland prompted him to delve more deeply into the world of anti-Islamist, pro-freedom political activism, the center of which became a campaign to raise awareness about the besieged community of Coptic Christians living in Egypt.

Although Copts were beleaguered iconoclasts among the Christian establishment of the Byzantine Empire, the true tragedy of their story began to unfold with the invasion of Egypt  by Umar’s Islamic armies. After several centuries, and the imposition of the jizya upon non-Islamic subjects, their country was transmuted into the Arab-Muslim state we’ve now come to associate with political and social regression, as well as both international and domestic terrorism.

However, even after Egypt had been fully conquered by the descendants of Mohammed, the full complement of sharia law was not implemented for many years. The provisional constitution of 2011 enshrines the primacy of Islam as a source of legislation, a plank that will inevitably be carried over into the new constitution. The warnings voiced by Ashraf Rameleh are important because they foreshadow the path our own country might take if we make any concessions to the notion of a dual legal system which recognizes sharia-either in civil or criminal matters.

The call by Mohammed Morsi to ban speech Muslims consider blasphemous is merely the prelude to a wider war the resurgent ummah and its allies will wage against the freedoms we once treasured in the West. By being the proverbial canary in the coal mine, Egypt’s Coptic Christians serve as a template for what will we happen if we don’t resist the forces harnessed on behalf of Muslim rage. By continuing to yield our freedoms to a totalitarian ideology, we are ensuring that the Copts will not be the last victims of the jihadist mentality.

Someone who is intimately familiar with that way of thinking is  Mordechai Kedar, an Arabic literature scholar from Bar-Ilan University. Dr. Kedar noted that his country, Israel, was under constant bombardment from its foes not merely because of its unique character as the sole Jewish state, but also because it serves as a symbolic avatar of the United States; little Satan to our Great Satan. The freedoms, including freedom of speech, which Israelis esteem are the same freedoms that Americans enjoy, but which is under withering attack by institutional forces sympathetic to Islam.

One of the more intriguing aspects of his speech touched upon the dichotomous nature of Islam’s response to criticism of its holy book and prophet, and by extension, its core religious tenets. He made the astute observation that Islam is not opposed to criticism per se, a point illustrated by the rejection-and conversely, codification-of certain hadiths that met with either approval or disapproval among the ruling ulama. No, what Islam’s adherents categorically reject is criticism and/or dissent from Islamic dogma by non-Muslims, i.e. kufr. Because Islam views itself as superior to all other faith systems, it cannot scruple any evidence that contradicts the revealed truth of the Koran which emanates from Christians or Jews, much less Hindus, Buddhists or atheists.

It is precisely this sense of superiority which makes the wave of Islamic immigration which has submerged the continent of Europe over the past half-century such an existential crisis. Dr. Kader’s identification of the demographic implosion European nations have undergone in the past half-century-and its attempt to mask this dilemma by importing bodies from the Middle East and North Africa-is not a novel concept. See Mark Steyn. However, I appreciated his honesty in pinpointing one of the main reasons for this crisis. Namely, the lack of will among Europeans to produce future generations of Europeans. The mass influx of Muslim immigrants into EU countries can be traced to a number of factors, but two of the most prominent-as Dr. Kader delineated in his speech-are the attempt by their nations of origin to displace economic-hence, political-discontent, and the slow, yet inexorable, death spiral of Europe. Personally, I don’t think Dr. Kader spent enough time examining the fundamentally undemocratic nature of Europe’s management of mass immigration, but I do applaud his refreshing willingness to “call a spade a spade.”

An equally blunt assessment of the dire nature of the threat Asia-and by inference, the West-faces came from Babu Suseelan, who hails from India, a cautionary tale on the perils of inter-communal relations, especially within those nations whose inhabitants disagree with regard to the virtue of Islamic teachings. Although most here might remember the exchange of citizens that occurred between India and Pakistan after the former’s postcolonial partition in 1949, what most aren’t aware of is the fact that over thirteen percent of the Indian population remains committed to various forms of Islam.

Although often portrayed as a tolerant, peaceful minority within the larger mosaic of a multi-confessional state, Muslims within India have had a checkered past that begins with the 7th century Arab-Muslim invasions of Punjab and Sindh and continued with a series of holocausts which-as Dr. Suseelan noted-have no equal in the history of religious persecution, and whose number of victims are conservatively placed at 80 million. Deobandism  takes its name from a center of Islamic “learning” that-although touted for its deceptively pacific overtures-is the Indian analogue to the obscurantist Islamic doctrine which took down the World Trade Center, and is responsible for the wave of “martyrs” who regularly slaughter innocents throughout the Indian subcontinent and South and Central Asia.

Yet the true threat posed by Islam is not merely terrorist violence-as horrific as this manifestation of jihad might be-which is merely an expedient to an end, rather than an end in itself. The mortal threat inherent in Islam is its persistent ability to circumscribe the terms of debate and discussion in heretofore open societies. The decision by the government of Rajiv Gandhi to ban the importation of The Satanic Verses, and the fact that public readings of this work are not allowed to take place-even as its author promotes his new memoir recounting his years in hiding from Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa-is testament to the enduring power of Islam to silence its critics, even in purportedly free societies. We’ve already witnessed scenes on American soil that are reminiscent of courageous Bengali writer Taslima Nasreen’s flight from India; how long before the right to dissent from Islamic orthodoxy is proscribed altogether? The banning of books is the gateway to the banning of ideas.

This is precisely why the question of Islam’s place in Western society must be debated and discussed openly, especially in countries like ours, which still has yet to bear the full brunt of a comprehensive ideology which seeks to consign its critics to the same fate as that of the courageous refuseniks who rejected the groupthink imposed by leaders of the former USSR. Whether the resolution to this problem is to enact a wholesale ban on Muslim immigration-as Mr. Susaleen suggests-remains to be seen. However, what can’t be denied is that the cavalier attitude we have towards the migration of millions human beings whose values and mindset are incontestably opposed to ours has not worked, and must be challenged on every level.

In our fourth and final part, we’ll reveal how this challenge is unfolding in Europe, the birthplace of Western civilization and one of the prime battlegrounds in the global battle for freedom of thought and expression.