That’s the question Congress is trying to get to the bottom of. The testimony above comes from the Benghazi hearings. The media coverage of the hearings, like that of the jihadist assault that precipitated them, has been less than illuminating. Stay tuned for further developments…

Update:  My live-tweet of the debate is now online. 

One of the underreported consequences of the Arab Spring is the enormous outflow of North African and Middle Eastern refugees from their countries of origin. In addition to the devastating impact upon Mediterranean islands which serve as the gateway to continental Europe, e.g. Lampedusa and Malta, this exodus has posed existential questions about the future of Europe. Some of these questions will undoubtedly be addressed in the Intelligence Squared debate broadcast later today on BBC America. 

Debating the wisdom of Europe’s laxity regarding third world immigration-particularly in a time of acute economic distress-is long overdue. You can find out how when to watch this program by accessing the BBC’s schedule. We’ll be reposting a link to the debate when it becomes available. 

Video of Frank Gaffney’s speech can be found on Urban Infidel.

One of the unofficial mottos of the United States, this phrase-which is minted on this country’s coins and emblazoned upon our paper bills-embodies the common heritage of the American nation, which was created from the union of thirteen distinct, unique former British colonies. Over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it came to symbolize the melting pot forged from a collection of people who came to the United States from various European nations in order to reconstitute their lives.

It is a concept that, like many of its inhabitants, has become alien to contemporary America. We now live in a country comprised from a polyglot agglomeration of foreign tribes, individuals and extended families, many of whom would be unable to assimilate to American culture even if a coherent one still existed and they were encouraged to do so, both dubious propositions.

One of the most persistent questions raised by the September 11th attacks, and recurring periodically since, e.g. during the debate over the construction of Park 51, the debacle that the trial of Ft. Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan has occasioned, and other terrorist attacks conceived by native or naturalized American citizens, has  revolved around whether Islam as it’s practiced today can be reconciled with traditional American values embodied in documents like the United States Constitution.

This question is what brought Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, to the Women’s National Republican Club last week, where he addressed the “civilizational jihad” he asserts Islamists are waging against the United States, as well as the West more broadly conceived. While the sight of Mr. Gaffney delivering a policy address is far from unusual, the fact that the event was hosted by Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies reflects a growing recognition among some conservatives-albeit, not all-that our nation’s immigration policy has a deep and profound influence upon national security and foreign policy concerns.

While some believe that the growing diminution of the traditional demographic profile of America will lead to a more pacific, non-interventionist foreign policy-analogizing it to the anti-war sentiment which prevailed in this country before its entry into World War I-it can be argued that the government’s embrace of heretofore foreign ethnic and religious groups will foster an even more aggressive, and in many ways detrimental, foreign policy, which might well endanger American diplomats, servicemen and civilians in the future-as it has in the recent past. What’s more, the union of multinational jihadist platforms with digital technology has given an entire generation of Arab, Asian and African Muslim young men who are essentially unmoored-having been transplanted to a foreign land at a young age-a distinct cultural and political identity; one which involves the replacement of Western norms and mores with a muscular, revanchist interpretation of Islam. The fact that the dominant legal, cultural, and political class have spent the past five decades attempting to minimize or nullify these very same values speeds their mission.

A perfect illustration of this dilemma was discussed by Frank Gaffney in relation to the Somali community within Minnesota, which now numbers in the tens of thousands. Resettled in previously homogeneous, tranquil parts of the United States at the urging of a United Nations bureaucracy and with the assistance of the U.S. State Department, these refugees have children who are now returning to the homeland of their parents and enlisting in battle against the Transitional Federal Government which our government helped to establish and killing African Union peacekeepers whose mission it ostensibly supports. Beyond the validity of their refugee claims-many of which are wholly fraudulent-there is the inescapable conclusion one must draw that the wealth confiscated from American citizens in the form of taxes-and lavished upon social welfare programs necessitated by the Somalis inability to support themselves or their families legally-is being used in some small measure to defray the cost of living of those who intend on blowing other people up.

In addition to the expense-born in our pocketbooks and  in the gradual erosion of American community-of this experiment, there is the the genuine threat posed by a large segment of migrants who dislike this country both because of specific foreign policy decisions and concrete Koranic injunctions. It beggars belief that the federal government would seek to import scores of foreigners from third world nations whose populations harbor significant hostility towards America while at the same time another branch of the state engages in nation-building experiments and military operations in those very same lands. The fact that this process is facilitated by the United Nations, a world body whose values are diametrically opposed to those cherished by most Americans, strains credulity.

One of the points emphasized throughout Gaffney’s lecture was the global, multidimensional nature of the jihadist threat. He focused extensively on the case of a particular individual who was detained while he and his hijab-clad wife filmed the support structure of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, an incident which would ultimately lead to one of the most critical pieces of evidence introduced during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, at the time the largest Islamic charity in the United States. The HLF was eventually revealed to be not only a financial conduit for Hamas but also part of a network of institutions within the United States which were created under the auspices of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to achieve their ideological goals on American soil.

Although it might seem absurd to believe that bedrock American institutions can be undermined by a small coterie of Islamic ideologues, you have to consider the havoc the institutional left has already inflicted upon our society. An Iraqi refugee-with prior criminal offenses-has been charged with maliciously damaging federal property for attempting to destroy a Social Security Administration office with an improvised explosive device! The systematic execution of over a dozen soldiers by Nidal Malik Hasan is deemed a case of  ‘workplace violence’ by our federal government. A premeditated jihadist assault on LAX’s El Al terminal is not even considered a hate crime, and the head of the Justice Department cannot even utter the name of the religion whose doctrines inspired the man who attempted to obliterate Times Square with an explosive device which dwarfed that used in the Oklahoma City bombing.

In this context, it’s not difficult to see how a machiavellian political apparatchik with an outsized influence over the conservative movement, or an influential Democratic congressmen popular among both leftists and militant Muslims, or a presidential advisor with dubious ties to apologists for the Muslim Brotherhood can do permanent harm, especially when constitutional rights like freedom of speech are being used as bargaining chips in relations with the Muslim world.

The fact that a would-be facilitator of regicide and terrorist financier was able to enter the good graces of a sitting president and establish a program for Muslim chaplains, which still exists, because of the oleaginous influence of someone who purports to represent American Muslims illustrates the toxic combination of  identity politics and K street lobbying. And while some maintain that establishing a pro-Arab/Muslim political infrastructure in this country is necessary to balance the existing pro-Israel bias among American lawmakers, it’s hard to imagine Israelis-regardless of the wisdom of their specific policy views-enacting violent revenge upon Americans for their government’s policy regarding the West Bank or votes on the UN Security Council.

Glenn Greenwald raises the question of whether Nidal Malik was engaged in an act of terrorism, since-from his perspective, at least-he was fighting those who had enlisted in an army which had attacked his coreligionists in the nation of Yemen. But a more pertinent question is why someone who places allegiance to a foreign religion or a terrorist group in the Persian Gulf above his oath to the U.S. Army, or even his  obligation not to slaughter unarmed Americans, is in the United States to begin with. Why must the cult of diversity take precedence over the lives of ordinary American citizens?

And the answer is not comforting. It’s because our immigration policy is not designed with the interests of Americans in mind. Our laws are built to satisfy the demand of  colleges and universities that need the tuition paid by tens of thousands of Saudi students. Of private and public institutions that demand the addition of Muslim chaplains, regardless of ideology. Of parasitical federal contractors which make a killing by resettling scores of refugees who are a drain on state coffers in towns and cities throughout the country.

The customary response from advocates of changing the cultural landscape of America is that we need to do these things in order to change the hearts and minds of those living in the Islamic world. We need to project an image of openness in order to change the negative image of the United States overseas. The problem is that it has not worked, and in all likelihood, will never work. Globalization, insofar as it facilitates the exchange of goods and services according to the law of supply and demand, is a good thing. However, importing the maladies, cultural neuroses and obscurantist religious dogmas of foreign cultures for the sake of appeasing the gods of diversity and multiculturalism, even as we engage in questionable foreign interventions urged on by figures whose interests are inimical to those of the United States, is madness.

The rotten fruit of the Arab Spring, like that from the most recent war in Iraq, is being brought to our shores, so this is as good a time as any to begin having a conversation about what we want our country’s future to look like. Like Frank Gaffney, I believe it’s time to discontinue the diversity lottery, stop issuing visas to imams for whom there is no demand, and begin to look out for the interests of Americans, first and foremost.

The global jihad against speech-aided and abetted by our enemedia-was the primary subject of discussion at the SION conference this past Tuesday, and the panels assembled represented the full spectrum of thought and action that is being suppressed as a result of the collaboration between government officials-both elected and unelected-intent on “managing” our ever-diminishing pool of  liberty, the custodians of the fifth estate, and the presumptive caliphate which is using them as its ideological cat’s paw. The mobs overwhelming embassies in North Africa and the Middle East and slaughtering American citizens represent the physical violence that most associate with the term jihad, yet there is another more potent element of jihadist doctrine which involves employing coercive means more subtle than car bombs, rocket propelled-grenades, and Kalashnikovs.

The most powerful and efficacious weapon against jihadist ideology is, in fact, the truth. Which is why the vanguards of Islam and their accomplices go to such great lengths in order to suppress the means through which the truth is disseminated. That was the main theme of the second panel of the Stop Islamization of Nations Congress, which comprised men and women from England-until recently, one of the most resilient bastions of free expression on the planet-and Australia, a much younger parliamentary democracy whose citizens find themselves caught beneath a resurgent Islamic tidal wave facilitated by its leaders abandonment of sound immigration policy.

Debbie Robinson, of the Q Society, gave us a detailed overview of the parlous situation Australians find themselves in due to the proliferation of Muslim immigrants faithful to the Koran now living on a continent built upon British common law. The most recent  manifestation of this danger can be found in Muslim Brotherhood acolytes calling for the summary execution of the filmmaker who, in their eyes, committed blasphemy, exploiting the very freedom which they could never hope to enjoy in one of the many despotic Muslim nations from which they emigrated.

However, the question of sharia law’s application in Australia is not one of recent vintage, despite the befuddled media coverage of jihadi demonstrations in that nation’s capital this week. In fact, it is a question which has become so embedded within national discourse that a former Chief Justice of Australia has publicly rejected the notion that sharia law can coexist with the laws of his country. You need look no further than the scourging  a convert to Wahabbism received at the hands of his masked attackers to realize that this isn’t a theoretical debate for Australians. Is it really that far-fetched to conceive of a day when the punishment meted out to a member of the Burns’ Gang in the drama The Proposition might befall the unfortunate recipient of justice from a sharia court?

That question is even more pertinent to the men who came to New York City from England, which some would characterize as Ground Zero in the war between Islamic supremacism and Western societal norms.

Kevin Carroll of the English Defense League-seen above-described some of the battles in this titanic struggle. Currently running for sheriff in a newly created constituency, Mr. Carroll and other members of the EDL have been subjected not only to physical attacks-some so violent as to require hospitalization-by crypto-fascist, Marxist goon squads and their Islamist accomplices, but have been persecuted by the English authorities, which view those exercising their rights to assemble lawfully and express support for the United Kingdom as posing more of an exigent threat than those organizing terror plots in what is now the hub of pan-Islamic nationalism and jihad within Europe.

The extent to which the inherent rights exercised by Englishmen and women have been curtailed in the name of insulating Islam and its practitioners from any substantive criticism was brought home by Tommy Robinson, the founder and leader of the English Defense League. A life-long resident of town of Luton in the county of Bedfordshire, England,  Robinson embodies the selfless patriotism and commitment to family that were once hallmarks of the English working class. Unfortunately, today he represents a besieged minority under attack on the streets, in the courtroom, and in the yellow press for defending what the intelligentsia consider antiquated notions of Englishness. Instead of resisting the Islamists and their leftist shock troops who are threatening the lives of Robinson and his family, the British police have instructed him to remove himself from Luton-his childhood home-lest he antagonize the Muslim supremacists behind  one of England’s numerous, unofficial Sharia law zones.

The skewed priorities of UK law enforcement-which view the EDL as posing a more exigent threat than the intellectual progeny of Bin Laden did not come as a surprise. What did strike me though was Tommy Robinson’s almost apologetic defense of the gifts he brings to bear in this struggle against Islamic nationalism and its infection of contemporary Europe. He made the inexorable point that, unlike the rest of the continent, Great Britain-with a few notable exceptions-does not have any towering intellectuals or courageous political leaders to rally public opinion on behalf of the Enlightenment values which are now imperiled. The political class within the UK is effectively neutered, spinelessness being virtually a prerequisite for public office, as Tommy and his cousin Kevin Carroll pointed out during their speeches.

The same can be said of most British pseudo-intellectuals, who are equally culpable for the disastrous cultural and spiritual degradation of contemporary Great Britain. The political extermination Northern Irish classicist, poet and parliamentarian Enoch Powell experienced at the hands of England’s opinion-shapers for daring to question the status quo is one of the main reasons why the fight against Islamist ideology is being led by men like Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll, although I don’t believe either man has to qualify the vitally important elements of courage and honesty in identifying the problems facing Britain they both bring to this task. After all, the battle over whether sharia law and Islamic doctrine should prevail over the values of the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution will be decided in the streets and the homes of ordinary Britons, not intellectual salons in London.

That said, the address delivered by George Igler, the creator of the Discourse Institute, outlined the intellectual argument against the UK’s increasingly restrictive view of individual liberty. At least, that liberty not enjoyed by Islamic ideologues. The son of parents who experienced the absence of liberty firsthand behind the Iron Curtain of Communist Hungary, Igler recognizes the inherent tenuousness of liberties that most Westerners have taken for granted for centuries. His speech focused upon the ways in which British bureaucrats and politicians had distorted the relationship between man and state, pointing out that our sufferance of government is tied exclusively to the protection of inalienable-and non government-derived-rights. This compact has been abrogated by a state that now views its function as maintaining stability in inter-communal relations, which means that some groups, e.g. Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-as well as their offspring-are given protection from the critical speech of groups like the EDL. This fundamental negation of rights illustrates why conferences like the Stop Islamization of Nations Congress are so urgent at this moment in time.

They, along with the Discourse Institute, wouldn’t be necessary if the “free” press exercised its right to dissent from political and religious orthodoxy, rather than attempting to hunt down individuals who blasphemed Islam or to blacken the name of patriotic citizens who want to ensure that their children enjoy the same freedoms they once did. But the fact remains that we are not only facing an aggressive, resurgent political Islam, but a much greater threat posed by those who would do away with our patrimony from England, and ultimately, Greece, in order to placate the sensitivities of an ideology with whom no mutual reciprocity exists and which, according to its holy book-none can be achieved.

In Part III of our report, we’ll be examining how the threat of Islamic jihad is experienced by those in the continent from which the armies of Mohammed first emerged.

One of the hallmarks of demonstrations organized by the left-as anyone who lives in this city can attest-is a consistently muddled message-or assemblage of messages-which often has little bearing on the theme ostensibly animating the protest movement in question. I’m not sure if the occupiers displaying the words of anti-USSR, Marxist Polish philosopher-turned anti-Marxist Solidarity activist-Leszek Kolakowski appreciate their import-considering the number of CCCP t-shirts and Soviet flags I saw displayed throughout May Day, I doubt most of them do. However, the Kolakowski quote did strike an ironic note when juxtaposed against the sea of slogans chanted by protesters this past Tuesday, some of them contradictory, some of them incoherent, and some of them not even leftist so much as anti-state.

Unlike in past years, the number of self-styled activists who were promoting mass legalization of illegal aliens was miniscule. There was the Aztec warrior you see below, who was wearing sneakers made of vulcanized rubber that I’m pretty certain was not part of pre-Columbian civilization.

There were also abandoned signs alluding to mass amnesty and opposition to immigration enforcement measures such as SB 1070:

However, the primary action was to be found among those agitating for a grab bag of legislative proposals, most consisting of the redistribution-some would say confiscation-of wealth from the “1 percent” and the transfer of said riches to the “99 percent.” The person below, for example, feels that “millionaires” should be taxed disproportionately. Leaving aside the fact that they already are in relation to the rest of the population, and that the phrase itself is incredibly misleading, insofar as the tax would be levied on those with six figure incomes, the idea that this proposal would reduce wealth stratification is completely erroneous.

Regardless of the message intended, there were several thousand of these people dispersed throughout the city Tuesday. Hence, the seemingly endless stream NYPD vehicles parked on the street opposite Bryant Park.

And signs denouncing the occupants of said vehicles. For what it’s worth, the application process for acquiring a sound permit in this city is incredibly difficult, although to be fair, the serpentine bureaucracy governing nearly everything in this city-including constitutionally protected activities-is probably more at fault than any individual police officer.

I spotted the gigantic sign bearing that singular, capitalized verb as I was entering Bryant Park from the west. I wasn’t able to discern its precise meaning. Then again, neither were the women walking beside me, who asked the seemingly obvious question, “rise against what?”

Some of the other signs on display were just as cryptic, such as the one above, which as a generic exhortation to creativity and industry is not such a bad suggestion. However, one wonders how much reinvention-or invention, for that matter-will occur once the optimal ratio of regulation and taxation envisioned by OWS is achieved. Some signs, of course, were even more inscrutable:

The somewhat contradictory ambitions of the movement could be found if one looked hard enough. For example, these two signs juxtaposed below, one urging an American spring-presumably with a concomitant flowering of individual freedom-while the one directly above it calls for the abrogation of freedom of speech.

The 1st Amendment, it should be noted, even enshrines freedom of speech and assembly for the fairer sex, a fact that I’m not sure the person who crafted this sign is fully cognizant of.

Many of the participants in May Day rallies used the opportunity to speak out against  perceived injustices, including what they viewed as misguided American foreign policy. The interesting aspect of this segment of protest, from my perspective, was how often president George W. Bush was singled out for criticism, notwithstanding the fact that it’s been nearly four years since Barack Obama was elected to succeed him as POTUS.

The quietude of the anti-war left during the Obama administration has been much remarked upon, and the fact that there weren’t many protesters focusing on these issues-with a few exceptions, such as the man seen below-proves more than anything else that the anti-war movement was largely based upon partisan differences rather than any sincere philosophical attachment to pacifism and non-interventionism.

Although I wasn’t able to spot the Wikileaks truck, which was stationed across the street from Zuccotti Park during the first iteration of Occupy Wall Street, I did see one sign highlighting the prosecution of Bradley Manning, the Army private charged with handing over classified material to Julian Assange.

There was a surprisingly potent anti-government sentiment to be found at the gatherings I observed, although how far such expressions extend is open to question. Whether the critique of anti-terrorist surveillance  techniques deployed by the federal government,

Will be broadened to include criticism of the state’s interpolation of itself into an individual’s working life is something that remains to be seen. Considering the litany of economic demands being made by OWS, it appears doubtful.

Even so, there were more than a few elements of Tuesday’s day of action that struck an almost Tea Partyish note, including a flag of Benjamin Franklin’s iconic woodcut urging resistance to British tyranny.

There was even a lone Ron Paul supporter standing amongst the throngs of occupiers who massed in Union Square, although I’m not sure he found much common ground with the scores of labor activists who traveled to Manhattan.

Which brings us to the main subject of this photo-essay. Namely, the public sector unions that have largely subsumed the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Kerry Picket, of the Washington Times, has analogized the labor unions that have taken over OWS to the Muslim Brotherhood, which exploited the unexpected success of mass demonstrations in Tahrir Square-which were initially led by students and nonsectarian anti-Mubarak forces-to achieve permanent political power within Egypt. As Picket has pointed out, while the unfocused, disorganized protests of OWS often result in reprisals by law enforcement, the disciplined militancy of Big Labor ensure that its followers-whose jobs depend upon political largesse more often than collective bargaining-are spared any harsh nights in Riker’s Island.

The main beneficiary of this uneasy coalition is the Service Employees International Union, which flooded Union Square with bodies during the May Day “strike.”

In addition to the SEIU, which served as the spearhead of President Obama’s initial presidential campaign, members of the American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees-the single largest contributor to national political campaigns in the country-were there to demand their “fair share” of the public treasury, i.e. private wealth confiscated by agents of the government through taxation. Apparently, the portion that their employees in the legislature are giving them now isn’t quite enough to satisfy their wants.

For the most part, the interests of OWS and their union allies coincide. The fact the latter-and at least a large portion of the former-want to live off of the taxpayer ensure that they find many points of agreement, illustrated by the sign below, which enunciated the chief proposals outlined by the organizers of the May day strike.

In addition to the soft socialism pedaled by most of the attendees, there was also a much more explicit, hard communism endorsed by pockets within the crowd.

Despite the PRC flag-and copies of The China Daily-this man was not among them. In fact, he is what some would call a professional troll; he shows up at virtually every demonstration of any size that takes place in the City-you may even recognize him from the anti-police surveillance, CAIR-endorsed rally I covered earlier this year. There were, however, genuine Marxists and Communists participating in May Day, which shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the contemporary interpretation of May 1st.

The quote above is taken from Theodore Adorno, the German sociologist who was one of the chief theorists of the Frankfurt School, a branch of cultural Marxism that was transplanted to the United States from Western Europe after Adolf Hitler’s NSDAP seized power. Of course, there were those who didn’t feel the need to qualify their Marxism.

Or, if Marx is not to your liking, there’s always the ideology responsible for more unnecessary deaths than any other in the 20th century.

For the fashionable, historically and morally illiterate:

And no Occupy Wall Street convocation would be complete without a gaggle of neo-hippies ineptly copying what they perceive to be Eastern religious rites.

Pascal Bruckner would no doubt have a field day with some of the modern primitives that made their way to Bryant Park last week, although personally I don’t think they’re any more interesting than the Hare Krishnas I occasionally run into as I make my way through the Times Square 42nd St. station.

In my next post, I’ll scrutinize some of the artistic elements of OWS’s May Day “general strike.”

Last night I had the pleasure of attending the latest installment in the Half King’s weekly reading series. It’s only fitting that the guest of honor that evening was the intrepid English-born, Mexico City-based journalist Ioan Grillo, since the bar is owned by renowned  journalist and documentarian Sebastian Junger. Junger  is probably best known for his reporting from war zones, specifically Afghanistan, and there is a plaque in the bar honoring his former collaborator on the film Restrepo, the late English photojournalist Tim Hetherington. Mr. Grillo was there in order to share some anecdotes and observations related to his newly released book, El Narco, an in-depth analysis of the sociological and political reasons behind the rise of what he described as a “parallel state” built upon drug-financed and cartel-derived institutions inside of Mexico. 

His talk was particularly timely, given a report just published in the Los Angeles Times which examines the connection between international banking institutions and  those seeking to launder money from illicit sources within Mexico. The systemic nature of the narco problem, its global scope, and the duration of the fight against its symptoms-if not causes-was vividly illustrated by Grillo, who in an hour-long discussion ranged from the impact of drugs on his birthplace of Brighton, England, to the wholly ineffectual attempt to impound heroin being trafficked over the Mexican-American border through Operation Intercept, to the thirteen individuals that were intimately involved in this book, including five who contributed materially to its creation who were killed during or after the writing of El Narco. 

Although the industry of trafficking drugs into the United States from Mexico has existed since Congress effectively prohibited the distribution and production of a wide range of heretofore legal opiates with the Harrison Act, the transformation of this somewhat lucrative trade in contraband into an over thirty billion dollar per annum “insurgencia,” a noun fraught with meaning, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has learned, is a story that requires a more holistic explanation, which Ioan Grillo attempts to provide in El Narco. Rather than focusing simply upon the horrific, heart-rending atrocities that we associate with Mexico from American media reports, Grillo digs deeper into what he describes as the “machinery of murder” by interviewing those who participate in it directly. He traces the arc of the “low intensity war” that has erupted in the decade since he’s been reporting from Mexico and which escalated with the 2006 decision by President Felipe Calderon to wage war against the cartels, a decision which has led to the loss of over 45,000 lives in the ensuing years.

Some of the more interesting things that the author discussed included the intimate link between Colombia, where much of the drugs that come into this country are produced, and Mexico, through which most of our illegal narcotics are smuggled. Not only is there practical cooperation between narcos in both countries, there has also been a wholesale Mexicanization of the most conspicuous aspects of the Colombian narco culture; from the endemic corruption of political parties on the take of cartels, to the ostentatious display of wealth by drug barons, to the advent of the sicario-a Colombian derivation of a Latin word for assassin that Mexicans know all too well-to the development of paramilitary wings of cartels posing as vigilantes, such as Matas Zetas, i.e. the “Zetas killers.”  

The day-to-day lives of journalists in Mexico-and what they do and do not report-was another interesting subject that was addressed at some length. While the cartels have no problem with Grillo reporting on the idosyncracies of cartel members-such as the young assassin who also loves his Sony Playstation-identifying those responsible for specific murders is verboten and often punished by death, which is why domestic journalists often ommit the names of the cartels culpable for specific crimes-even when their identities are widely known.

The recommendations Grillo makes seem sensible enough, especially the concept of reconsidering the unrealistic nature of current interdiction efforts, exemplified by the unironic motto of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: A Drug-Free World. He also recommended a consolidation of the currently fragmented federal police system, which includes over 2,000 different-and often rivalrous-police forces by his estimation. Whatever the solutions are, I think Ioan Grillo’s book-which includes some startling photographs of the real victims of El Narco-is a good place to start the conversation.

Update: Welcome to readers from Creeping Sharia. Thanks, once again, to Pamela for the link! We always love getting readers from Atlas Shrugs.

Earlier today I took it upon myself to journey to Foley Square in Manhattan, where an anti-NYPD, anti-intelligence agency gathering sponsored by CAIR, Al-Awda, and Desis Rising Up & Moving, among other Islamic activist organizations, was taking place. For a full recap of what occurred I suggest you check out my Twitter account, which I used to live-tweet the event as it was occurring. However, for now I’ll just lay out my impression of the gathering and thoughts about its message, then let the photographs speak for themselves. The question of whether American citizens should be surveilled, watched, and interrogated for potential terrorist conspiracies is always a touchy one. As Americans we have problems with the notion that domestic investigative and law enforcement agencies are monitoring our activities, regardless of the merits of the case they may be able to mount, and react viscerally to any perceived encroachment upon our privacy.

However, when you have organizations such as CAIR-which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in this nation’s history and whose antecedent organization, the Islamic Association of Palestine, was an offshoot of Hamas-operating inside of your country, to ask agencies charged with protecting us-such as the FBI-to lay off is a bit much. When a group such as the Muslim American Society-another co-sponsor of this rally-which all but admits that it’s a branch of the same tree as the Muslim Brotherhood, is allowed to operate on American soil the notion that Americans would not be interested in their activities is a bit preposterous.

That’s why I think the best solution to this unique dilemma of retaining our open society, yet preventing both terrorism and the loss of our freedoms, is to eliminate the chances of a fifth column developing on American soil. There’s no reason we should allow the mass migration of people who can or will not adapt to American cultural norms to our shores. However, that’s the solution today’s demonstrators rejected wholeheartedly. Now on to the photos.

There was a sparse crowd at the beginning of the rally:

But it began to fill up as the day progressed. I’d estimate that there were somewhere between 70 and 85 people at the height of the rally, including the ubiquitous, green-hatted members of the Marxist National Lawyers Guild.

As well as the self-consciously imposing Muslim “toughs” acting as security for the day’s speakers.

This is a banner from the Muslim Solidarity Committee, an organization founded in order to raise funds for the family members of Yassin Aref and others convicted of rendering support to the Pakistani terror organization Jaish-e-Mohammed.

There were scads of lawyers and law students present, including those from the City University of New York:

And lots of praying, including the adhan, which is not nearly as mellifluous as some people would have us believe.

I wasn’t keeping track, but I did count at least three separate prayers during the time I was there.

And where there’s Islam, there’s proselytization:

There was no love lost between those in attendance and the New York Police Department.

Not that the Central Intelligence Agency was a fan favorite either.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was a frequent target of enmity, with calls for his dismissal echoing from the speaker’s podium and the crowd.

There were a large number of East Indians in attendance:

Most speakers tried to draw a parallel between the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that had taken place only a few blocks away, at Zuccotti Park, and today’s festivities. To be fair to the Muslims, they at least had a semi-consistent message going for them.

Not that inveterate, elderly Marxists didn’t try to muddle things a bit.

Their incongruous ally:

Speaking of Marxists, I ran into this gentleman, who denounced “all religions” and talked over one of the many calls to prayer-for which he was chastised by a Muslim participant in the crowd. Perhaps the Red-Green alliance isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, as the Mujahadeen e-Khalq learned the hard way.

One of the more disconcerting images from the rally in Foley Square, aside from the representative of CAIR praising the Detroit imam who was shot by the FBI, was the presence of both the mother and father of three men who were part of the terror plot involving an attack upon Fort Dix. Even though they were not given prime speaking slots-as was the mother of one of the men convicted in the Herald Square bomb plot-the fact that their case was used as an illustration of law enforcement overreach led me to question the true motives of those behind this demonstration.

They knew who the real guilty ones were, i.e. the people assisting the prosecution of terrorist suspects:

Many of the speakers denounced the notion of government informants, evoking images of the more widespread stop snitchin‘ campaign prevalent among many African-Americans living in urban communities. Overall, it was a slightly dispiriting experience, although it should be noted that there was at least one East Indian speaker who struck a distinctly conciliatory tone, and yet another speaker who went so far as to commemorate the massacres that occurred on September 11th, 2001, albeit only in the context of condemning other atrocities he saw as being of greater magnitude, e.g. the trans-Atlantic slave trade, expulsion of Native Americans from the interior of the country, and countless other sins we still haven’t atoned for as a nation, according to him.

I think that a lot of the issues raised would be resolved by a more sensible immigration policy, as opposed to the ad hoc, needlessly dangerous and stupid philosophy our government currently espouses, but that’s just my opinion. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

From the invaluable European weblog The Gates of Vienna comes a deeply disturbing video that highlights the extent of illegal migration currently afflicting the continent, especially now that the ‘Arab Spring’ has loosened border controls throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

The confluence of  liberalized intra-European visa requirements, large scale exoduses from failed Arab-Muslim states across the Mediterranean, and a European Union still unable to effectively address the “peaceful” invasion that is starting to resemble a real-life version of The Camp of the Saints, has turned what was once a minor inconvenience into a problem with potentially disastrous consequences for the future of Europe. 

Christopher Caldwell examined the inexorable changes European nations are undergoing in his book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, which should serve as a warning to American policy-makers and liberal actvists who routinely extol multiculturalism and mass immigration as the ultimate solution to America’s irredeemably racist past. In fact, the new Islamic immigrants have not ameliorated the racial and religious hatreds that wracked Europe during the 20th century. If anything, they’ve reinvigorated long-dormant feelings of anti-Semitism and bigotry, and given a new lease on life to native European racists. From Londonistan’s boycott of Holocaust Remembrance Day, to the sustained jihad waged within formerly peaceful Swedish hamlets like Malmo, to the French banlieues that have become so anarchic that they are the subject of futuristic, apocalyptic, yet not entirely implausible, action films modeled after movies like The Running Man, Europe’s grand experiment has proven to be a colossal failure. 

The shocking video above should stand as a pointed reminder of what can happen to a place that has lost sight of its roots, which in this case stem from Enlightenment values, the Renaissance, and Western civilization at its very core, i.e. classical Greece and Rome. That genuine European heritage is the very antithesis of the ersatz culture Eurocrats are trying to fashion from the seeds of politically correct, leftist dogma, post-war bureaucratization and hierarchy, and massive waves of unassimilable Islamic immigrants. That segment should serve as a sobering message to all of us of what happens when we cede the right to determine our future on our terms. Today those images come from Europe, but can America be far behind?

I wasn’t planning on discussing this issue today, but we do address important foreign policy issues on this site when the occasion demands it. Needless to say, President Obama’s insistence that the state of Israel, which has heretofore been our most trusted and reliable ally in the Middle East, return to annihilatory borders  is such an occasion.

Putting aside for a moment the observation that these borders are utterly indefensible, which has been made by experts much more well-versed in this subject than me, there are several issues with the President’s new “peace” proposals that pose even greater barriers to the adoption of what he seems to think will be a final resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One of them being the fact that these new guidelines are an explicit repudiation of the ironclad guarantees enunciated by President Bush when he and former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

Israel’s disengagement from Gaza required the heart-breaking removal of Israeli civilians from the homes in which they had lived for decades, not to mention the complete and utter destruction of a thriving economy that was in short order replaced by Hamas military bases from which rockets are now launched into Israeli territory. Israel withdrew from that territory based upon the promise that the United States government would not force it to retreat behind indefensible borders. Now, the President has not only shredded the pledges and agreements made by his predecessor in office, he has reneged on his own promise to the Jewish State, made not more than three years ago.

As if this were not enough, Barack Obama compounded this egregious insult with yet more superfluous, fawning outreach to the Arab-Muslim “street,” including a reaffirmation of the false sense of victimhood Palestinians use to batter Israel’s reputation on the international stage. As Democratic pollster and Fox News analyst Pat Cadell has said, this is simply yet another attempt to assuage the feelings of Muslims at the expense of our national security priorities overseas. If anything, it only emboldens the forces intent on doing us and our allies harm, as the recent pronouncements by Hamas, those charming fellows who belong to the Osama Bin Laden Fan Club, make clear. The more of the Palestinian/Islamic supremacist narrative you accept, the more they will demand of you, as Israel has learned to its regret. The “humiliation” of the Palestinians is not something that can be alleviated by giving Hamas and the PA-and possibly Al Qaeda-yet more territory, it can only be addressed by tangible achievements that do not involve murdering Jews and Americans.

That is why Prime Minister Natanyahu’s bracing response to the President’s speech was so welcome, at least to those of us who have been waiting for a foreign leader who will resist the ill-conceived foreign policy decisions of the current adminstration. It seems like he has taken the advice of Caroline Glick and decided to assert an independent foreign policy based upon the best interests of Israel. Even though I’m not a huge Ron Paul enthusiast-especially after his recent embrace  of the worst of open borders dogma-I have to admit that his suggestion, i.e. that we disengage from the “peace process” altogether-instead of trying to impose a solution that will be disastrous for both the United States and Israel-makes a lot of sense. At the very least, we will not be forced to have endless discussions over what our obligations are to the participants in the current conflict. Our obligations should be to protect American lives and American interests abroad, which means letting Israel defend itself in the manner she sees fit. Her enemies are our enemies, which is as true now as it was decades ago.

A satirical article published by the website Big Peace  illustrates the absurdity of President Obama’s plan for “peace,” but it also highlights the disregard he has shown for national sovereignty as a general principle. Just as he wants to erase the borders of Israel by ceding territory to a terrorist entity, he desires the erasure of our borders through the wholesale adoption of amnesty. American land, which couldn’t be conquered militarily, must be relinquished through the force of law-that’s essentially the guiding principle of the Obama presidency, and it’s one that should be rejected by American voters, regardless of what position they hold on the Arab-Israeli peace process.

On Wednesday, smack in the middle of a working week, 1200 of us from the Northeast flew, drove or were bussed into Washington DC to strengthen the congressional commitment to help sustain Israel in this difficult time, amid the embroilment of so many Islamic Middle Eastern and North African states. We had not only given up a working day, but had paid between $120 and $150 for the privilege of doing so. This covered transportation, breakfast, lunch and supper en route or in DC. This 1200 represented a 20% rise over 2010 figures of 1,000, and that in turn represented a gain over the prior year of some 20%.
 
We saw 535  members of Congress, speaking with them about the perils facing Israel, and the indissoluble bond between our two nations, the US and Israel, as well as the non-transparency of the Palestinian Arabs and their odd reception of the annual US gift of  400 million dollars: Take the money, and poof! It is gone. It immediately disappears without a trace of aiding its intended recipients, only to pop up in new media, materials and textbooks that fan the flames of hatred against Jews and Israel’s existence in TV, radio and schools throughout the territory. These gilded-by-foreign-aid ingots of hate rouse the populace not to economic productivity or innovative entrepreneurship, but to repeated ransacking of opportunity—encouraging attacks against neighboring Israel by any means possible. 
 
This past fortnight, this hate-fueled violence resulted in the shocking brutality of butchering a family of five in the town of Itamar—two parents and three young children knifed in the middle of the night, stabbed for no other reason than the celebration of butchery. Candy and sweets were handed out by the Palestinian Arabs to their children and passersby when the ugly news of the five murdered Jewish victims of hate emerged.
 
We 1,200 were notably successful, judging by the warm reception accorded us by the men and women into whose offices we went in teams of 6 to 8 NORPAC members. This reporter alone visited Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, neither of whom was free, as they had a full roster of visitors on the days we visited, and the scheduler could not shoehorn in any more minutes into a  sausage-bursting day. The major affect one noted in all the senators and representatives, in fact, was one of exhaustion. They take meeting after meeting, without a break, all day for the months from February until late May, and they barely have time to scan the news tickers running at the foot of the muted TVs in their offices.
 
Events come at a rapid pace in that part of the world, the Middle East, and the recent discussions of ex cathedra fiat statehood for the disputed minority makes these delegations all the more important. People do not necessarily all read the papers or follow Drudge for the latest scoop. For those who feel that Israel is outnumbered and outspent, on weapons as well as PR, our day’s work was an imperative that sees results every time we hear the headlines.

After the delegation returned, we wrote follow-up notes to the senatorial aides and assistants with whom we interacted, reminding them that they had pledged to sign the Iranian transparency agreement, HR 740, and planned to continue their support of embattled Israel.

marion ds dreyfus                        .    .    .                 13 April 20©11