The graphic above is taken from the brilliant Cognitive Bias Parade, which is one of many online venues that have chosen to show their solidarity with the 12 martyrs of Charlie Hebdo by embracing the satirical defiance which so aggrieves the soldiers of Allah. The insincere protestations of America’s intellectual gatekeepers notwithstanding, the reaction of the American press corps has been depressingly familiar. Of particular note was the petulant, disingenuous, and yet not altogether surprising outburst from New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet. You can read the very illuminating-as well as entertaining-Facebook thread which sparked this contretemps here. 

For an analysis of the choices made by the Canadian counterparts of  chickenshit American editors like Mr. Baquet, check out the superb interview of Jen Gerson on the Canadaland podcast. Even as editorial cartoonists in the Arab Middle East, a region filled with homicidal Islamic lunatics, have expressed sympathy for the latest victims of the The Religion of Peace, and those living in a brutal Islamic theocracy have engaged in the journalism the Daily News eschews, the most appropriate response to the events of this horrific week has come from one of the surviving members of Charlie Hebdo’s staff.

For an index of artistic depictions-ranging from reverent to blasphemous-of the media’s favorite bloodthirsty warlord, I recommend Zombietime’s Mohammed Image Archive, which is an invaluable resource in a time when even the images we see must come with a halal certification.

One of the most incisive, astute observers of the growing income inequality and stratification that characterizes large portions of this nation’s economy is writer Mickey Kaus. Unique among his colleagues for being a prominent voice within the mainstream media and yellow dog Democrat who opposes the mass, unskilled immigration which the institutional left and its press organs glorify, he now writes a regular column for the conservative Washington D.C. online news magazine The Daily Caller.

Kaus’s voice is essential, because it represents the last concrete manifestation of New Deal liberalism untethered to the Democratic Party’s post-1965 infatuation with empowering “new” minorities, even at the expense of the working class Americans who were once the indelible anchor of that party’s base. The historical transformation of the Democratic Party from an ostensible ally-if not tribune-of blue collar and impoverished Americans into a political force comprised primarily of servitors to corporate interests and ethnic lobbyists is no more apparent than in the current “debate” over enacting yet another sweeping legislative amnesty.

An unintentionally hilarious illustration of this change can be found in a column written by New York Times Editor-in-Chief Bill Keller which attempts to persuade skeptical liberals that embracing the Gang of Eight scheme is in their best interests. You can pinpoint the exact moment when elite liberal opinion keelhauled its followers when he touts the benefits of this bill by approvingly citing the open borders libertarians at the Cato Institute.

This is why watching the interview of Mickey Kaus by the Center for Immigration Studies is absolutely necessary for those of us who want to know why and how the ostensible political successor to Jefferson and Jackson came to embody the most unpalatable values of aristocratic, east coast elitism while at the same time becoming the  implacable foe of ordinary, working class Americans-even those who are critical to its electoral success.

I urge you all to watch this conversation closely and use it to pose some tough questions that Democrats have been dodging about this momentous plan to fundamentally transform America. The open borders caucus-which includes virtually every single elected Democratic in the nation’s capital-needs to be held to account for its decision to abandon its constituents.

The DC March for Jobs is less than two days away! I urge every immigration patriot-especially those living in Maryland, Virginia, and the nation’s capital-to make their best efforts to attend this historic event. This will be a momentous opportunity to show the nation’s lawmakers, who have made a habit of ignoring the will of their constituents, why the American public categorically rejects amnesty, as well as the massive increase in legal immigration that the Gang of Eight travesty-or a corresponding bill in the House-will unleash upon the labor market. 

To understand why this show of solidarity with unemployed and underemployed Americans is so vital, you should listen to Laura Ingraham’s fantastic interview of BALA spokeswoman Leah Durant, which illustrates the scale of the unemployment crisis facing American citizens, and how much this bill will exacerbate it. The Congressional Black Caucus-like much of Congress-doesn’t give a fig for the people they ostensibly represent; it’s time to show them that American voices must be heard in this debate. 

The DC March for Jobs is less than a week away! Although the chartered bus  from New Jersey is no longer available, there are still available buses for those willing to make the trek from other parts of the country. Even as the Congressional Black Caucus turns its back on its constituents, the Black American Leadership Alliance is standing up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to find work in a job market that has seen virtually no net job growth among citizens over the past decade.

Joint Leah Durant, Senator Ted Cruz, distinguished scholar Peter Kirsanow and other American patriots next week as they stand up in defense of border security, employment, and equity for American citizens!

Former sergeant Layne Morris has made his objections to Khadr’s release widely known, as have the widow and surviving relatives of Sgt. 1st Class Chris Speer, whose life was taken by one of Al Qaeda’s princelings. As infuriating as this situation is, there is something that you can do to help the family Sgt. Speer left behind. The Speer Kids’ Fund was established in order to assist Tabitha Speer as she continues to pay down legal costs incurred by this case, as well as to defray the expense of educating her two children. Ezra Levant explains the details behind the fund established in her children’s name in this segment of The Source.

Note:  Video footage, including a rousing speech made by the legendary Pamela Geller, as well as a moving speech by 9/11 mother Nelly Braginskaya, at Atlas Shrugs. Also, additional photos and footage provided by the indefatigable photo-blogger Urban Infidel. 

If  there was a single, overarching theme to the first Stop the Islamization of Nations Congress, it was just that. Freedom. The freedom exercised by Rifqa Bary-the courageous young woman who converted to Christianity despite the wishes of her Muslim parents, and whose portrait you see emblazoned upon the poster above-as well as the freedom to engage in critical inquiry regarding any and all subjects-including Islam-are one and the same. For fundamentally, they both come down to the exercise of free will. Individual choice is something that is not highly valued in authentic Islamic culture, as the plight of the recently freed Iranian Christian pastor  Yousef Nardakani, and the fate which befell Arab journalists who republished the famous Jyllands Posten Mohammed cartoons, demonstrate.

I traveled to the UN Millennium Plaza Hotel on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 massacres in order to listen to a roster of speakers who would illuminate just how precarious the freedom we enjoy is, why it is imperiled-not only in the United States, but across the globe-by whom, and how we can resist the encroachment of those who would circumscribe, and ultimately, eliminate it.

Notwithstanding the passel of amiably grouped American and United Nations flags in that photo, the  values of the United States and those undergirding the United Nations could not be further removed from one another. Anyone who has read the aptly titled The UN Gang by Pedro Sanjuan, a career diplomat and Foreign Service officer-a book that , ironically enough, was stolen while I attended the conference-would recognize just how different our nation is from the anti-American swamp in Turtle Bay. Unfortunately, those in power today-particularly within this administration-seemingly want to emulate the rogue’s gallery of Islamic theocracies, tinhorn military dictatorships, and third world socialist backwaters that currently comprise its membership. At least, with respect to the citizen’s relationship to the state.

Although the words from the Old Testament prophet are laudable-if a bit confusing when juxtaposed against the United Nations general opinion of Jews-they in stark contrast to most of the actions undertaken by the UN, which range from supplication before the preeminent state sponsor of terror, to deploying “peacekeepers” whose chief recreational activity consists of terrorizing the people they were putatively sent to protect. However, the most insidious threat posed by the United Nations is its attempt to nullify our natural rights in order to preserve the edifice of Islam as a great religion.

In decades past, the free world-led by the United States-would have led the fight against criminalizing dissent. However, the position espoused by the American government has been changed dramatically. The instinctive reflex on the part of government officials is exemplified by the craven tweet-since deleted-by the United States embassy in Cairo issued shortly before it was assaulted by a salafi mob. A mob which included, it should be noted, both the younger brother of Al Qaeda’s current emir and members of the terrorist organization whose leader is responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing. Of course, now that the Arab Spring is in full bloom, we should keep in mind that yesterday’s terrorist might very well be today’s democrat.

The most significant aspect of this transformation is the State Department’s active encouragement of a UN resolution, crafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which would criminalize any substantive criticism of Islam. As Robert Spencer pointed out during the conference, this treaty would have the force of law, and there’s no reason to believe that the United States Supreme Court-McConnell vs. FEC made its cavalier attitude towards expressive speech plain-to honor our First Amendment rights any more than it has recognized those enshrined within the Second Amendment, or, I would add, the Fifth.

The institutionalization of this dhimmification of our legal system is occurring in our own backyard. State Senator David Storobin, who-regardless of any other criticism that can be leveled against him-should be congratulated for having the temerity to attend this conference, explained why this is such a pernicious development. A man whose family escaped from the Soviet Union-the largest totalitarian empire in world history-and whose relatives were slaughtered by Islamic separatists-Senator Storobin is perhaps uniquely qualified to speak to this issue. He denounced hate speech laws, which he correctly described as penalizing thought rather than criminal action, and averred that he believed in the principles of the Founders. “The founding fathers of America, not the Soviet Union. Madison, not Lenin.”

It’s a quote worth keeping in mind when the vanguards of the left insist upon adopting a policy of prior restraint against the only religion of global breadth they seemingly venerate.  What makes matters even more grave is the fact that those whose sensitivities will be preserved at the expense of our liberty, unlike the victims of other thought crimes-or perceived thought crimes-the left has sought to give protected status, these individuals have the propensity to vent their displeasure in ways much more colorful than public protests or civil disobedience. This fact was brought home to the audience during the speech of the man you see below, David Yerushalmi, founder of the American Freedom Law Center and tireless advocate for American civil liberties.

Mr. Yarushalmi’s speech focused on the nexus between the application of sharia law within Western societies and the inexorable diminishment of civil rights and liberties of citizens living in those societies. Contrary to the anodyne picture of sharia which has been painted by the press, academe, and assorted lapdogs of CAIR touted by our intellectual betters, the facets of Islamic law-provided we ever agree on a school of Islam to impose-which many have no trouble with in principle are diametrically opposed to the values we cherish as American citizens. A perfect illustration of this conflict in practice occurred earlier this year during an Arab American festival held in the city of Dearborn, Michigan.

Exercising their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and voice their opinions, several Christian missionaries decided to demonstrate their profession of faith in Christ-and disbelief in the assertions found within the pages of the Koran-during this event. Doubting the claims of Mohammed-or his adherents-is a criminal offense-in Islam, not in the United States-which led to these men to being stoned by a frenzied mob of “Arab Americans.” Despite the fact that it was the peaceful protesters who were attacked-to the point of bloodshed-they were the ones told to vacate the premises, lest they be arrested.

The Orwellian revision of the facts by local and national media outlets-where the victims and aggressors were inverted-was not surprising. However, the willingness of a large municipal police department to enforce the legal code that contradicts the 1st Amendment is what led Mr. Yarushalmi to pursue a lawsuit against the officials responsible for this outrage.

While this incident might be interpreted as speaking to the depressing lack of respect for constitutional rights by those entrusted with the use of deadly force by the state, the tenacity with which this lawyer is seeking redress is what stands out in my mind. This determination to protect the sacred right of free speech can also be seen in the legal battle between the American Freedom Defense Initiative/Stop the Islamization of America and the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority over the content of the subway ad you see presented in the powerpoint presentation below.

Questioning the rationale behind the construction of a mosque within sight of Ground Zero, the ad was initially deemed unacceptable by MTA executives before a lawsuit reminded them that freedom of speech trumps the tender sensibilities of a teflon-coated religion. The same MTA was forced to back down again after a federal judge chastised it for refusing to consent to the display of another AFDI/SIOA ad which supported the state of Israel.

However, the most intriguing recent legal victory of Mr. Yarushalmi’s was the decision by the corresponding public transportation governing authority in the city of Detroit.

The poster you see above is nearly identical in content to billboards commissioned by atheist activists exhorting non-Muslim believers to abjure their faith. The only difference being that a the consequence for individuals who answer the question posed here in the affirmative is death. As the tragic fates of Jessica Mokdad…

…and Aqsa Parvez make clear.

It is precisely the willingness among adherents to the Koran to inflict often lethal violence upon its critics which leads governments to attempt to circumscribe the actions, and police the expression of thoughts, of the people whom they ostensibly serve. However, the complicity of almost every major media organ-both in print and on television-in the whitewashing of Islam’s intolerance of dissent-among other less than admirable traits-has as much to do with affinity for the ends-if not always the means-of its followers, as it does any craven abdication of responsibility linked to fear. We’ll examine the responsibility of the press for the current state of affairs in Part II of our coverage.

Despite the theatrical exodus of its most useless faction of lawmakers, Congress coalesced into a bipartisan coalition this week to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his obstruction of investigations into the Fast and Furious debacle. Here’s the roll call for the contempt vote. Kudos to the seventeen Democrats-including New York’s own Kathy Hochul and Bill Owens-who broke with their party in order to hold the head of the Department of Justice accountable for his malfeasance in office. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, also deserves commendation for introducing into the public record evidence from a March 2010 wiretap application which belies Eric Holder’s repeated protestations of ignorance regarding gunwalking south of the border. 

Hopefully, this momentous vote means Congress will continue its oversight of a rogue administration that seems incapable of policing itself. 

Some qualified good news came out of the Supreme Court recently, with a decision that partially upheld Arizona’s 2004 voter identification law. Unfortunately, while the court let stand the portion of Proposition 200 that required voters to provide I.D. in order to vote, it invalidated the I.D. requirement for voter registration.

The bigger news though, from the perspective of those of us who want to ensure fair and transparent elections, is the decision by the American Legislative Exchange Council to  withdraw its support for the voter identification laws now under sustained legal assault by the Obama administration. Although the ostensible rationale for ALEC’s narrowed legislative focus is the coordinated left wing crusade against Stand your Ground laws in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, this incident was simply the pretext for an ongoing attempt to legitimize election fraud by Van Jones and his open borders, collectivist allies.

For those of you who are followers of American Rattlesnake, you’ll know that the campaign against ALEC has been a key aspect of the Democratic Party’s election year drive to enliven a voter base whose enthusiasm has waned since 2008. Stretching back to last December, there have been rallies against any effort to prevent parties and voters from engaging in electoral fraud. The insipidity of their arguments is exemplified by the sign held aloft by one of our friends from the MinkWon Center, which graces the top of this page.

The American Spectator has an in-depth exploration of the forces behind these attacks on voter integrity, which include former Obama green jobs ‘czar’ and 9/11 truther Van Jones, as well as Color of Change, a demagogic open borders group that has attempted to accomplish through boycotts and 21st century mau-mauing what can’t be achieved in the legislative arena. These forces are now pressuring businesses that have in the past supported ALEC to sever ties with the organization. Even if  knuckling under to leftist intimidation spares some multinational corporations Jackson and Sharpton-style muscling-the controversial stances of the race-based, hard left Congressional Black Caucus do not seem to elicit the same concerns-ALEC’s attempt to spare itself from further harassment will ultimately prove futile.

The reason is that the institutional left is not interested in achieving consensus, especially when they perceive themselves-accurately, in this case-to be winning the public relations battle. The attempt by Arizona’s ignominious congressman Raul Grijalva and his radical colleague Keith Ellison to coerce states into rejecting stand your ground laws is proof that regardless of how many concessions you make to political correctness, its practitioners are never quite satisfied. That’s why ALEC would do well to remember that standing by principle-while  unprofitable in the short term-often is the best policy course for organizations that want to be taken seriously as agents for free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism.

Today marks the official commemoration of Martin Luther King’s birthday. Perhaps the most iconic figure in the modern Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. was also a tireless champion of the fight to eliminate inequality in the United States.  So it’s only fitting that we stop for a moment to scrutinize one of the factors that has deepened economic fissures within this country and enhanced pre-existing trends of wealth stratification. That ingredient, often overlooked by open borders apologists masquerading as liberals, is, of course, unfettered immigration. Coupled with the federal government’s persistent unwillingness to secure our borders-which has created a new breed of indentured servants-this has impacted African-Americans more greatly than any other demographic group in this country.

With black unemployment at its highest rate in nearly three decades, and youth unemployment in this category approaching fifty percent, the impact of this administration’s skewed priorities regarding immigration policy are drawn even more starkly into relief. That’s why I’m pleased to highlight a powerful essay first published in The Root, a Web zine focusing on issues of concern to African-Americans. Published by a division of the Washington Post and edited by Henry Louis Gates, that website would probably be the last place you would normally look for a sensible exposition of the issue of immigration enforcement. However, How Illegal Immigration Hurts Black America is a must-read for anyone who wants to read an intelligent, fair analysis of the devastating consequences that stem from our government’s lax attitude towards illegal immigration.

One of the best ways to honor Dr. King is to fight for the ideals of this country and ensure that America remains true to its ideals, not those of open borders fetishists who would like nothing better than to turn this country into Brazil writ large. Keep the dream alive! Study, learn, communicate, inform.

We continue our election series today with a closer examination of yet another congressional race that might have escaped public notice-even among voters in the congressional district in which it’s taking place-were it not for the anti-incumbent wave currently surging over the country. The incumbent we’re focusing on in this post is the illustrious Sheila Jackson-Lee, who represents the 18th Congressional District in Texas and serves as both a senior whip in the House Democratic Caucus and the whip of the Congressional Black Caucus. Perhaps best known for her breathtakingly dense statements about matters large and small, managing to synthesize, to a rare degree, historical and scientific ignorance, what most commentators don’t dwell upon at any length are her shockingly radical stances on immigration policy.

Although almost every member of the CBC espouses the standard, NCLR and LULAC-approved open borders stance, as this informative piece in The Root illustrates, Congresswoman Lee’s work on behalf of immigration attorneys, illegal aliens, the entrenched, ruling elite of Mexico, and those looking to exploit the opportunities that come with a United States visa and/or green card, is so extensive and relentless that even in that rather unimpressive legislative caucus she stands out.

You need look no further than her website’s page devoted to immigration in order to discern just how far she departs from the views of her African-American constituents. She wants to increase the number of beneficiaries of temporary protected status, an ill-conceived program that acts as a de facto amnesty for large groups of refugees that hail from a specific nation or region, as well as expand family reunification policies, the lynchpin of chain migration, by increasing the number of family-based visas allocated to a rate of nearly one million per year! Don’t take my word for it though,read it for yourself. And as if this almost unblemished record of bad ideas weren’t enough, Congresswoman Lee also believes that illegal aliens should be eligible for coverage under the recently-enacted health care law, a position she explains with perfect equanimity to a justifiably baffled Greta Van Susteren during her interview On The Record.

The good news is that you can help defeat this woman, who by any objective assessment is one of the most ill-equipped, unqualified individuals currently in the House of Representatives. And the first step to accomplishing the goal of unseating her is visiting the website of John Faulk, who is currently standing against Congresswoman Lee for the 18th District of Texas. Not only does Mr. Faulk oppose amnesty, a position that in itself would recommend his candidacy in this race, he also supports strong employer verification standards and sanctions against those employers who refuse to scrupulously adhere to the law, something that Jackson-Lee has steadfastly opposed during her long tenure in Congress.

The bottom line is that deciding who runs the show on Capitol Hill is ultimately in your hands. Do voters want to return Rep. Jackson-Lee to the halls of Congress, and continue to be insulted by someone who cares more about the citizens of foreign countries than her own constituents? Or do they want to institute real, progressive change that Americans are yearning for in this pivotal election season? We’ll find out soon enough.