We urge you to contact your own police commissioner or sheriff and request that he or she join the effort to nullify the President’s latest unlawful, extraconstitutional edict, just as those charged with enforcing and applying immigration law have done, in spite of the potential professional repercussions.

Ours is a nation of laws, despite what the former lecturer in Constitutional law currently occupying the White House may think.

When in doubt, shout ‘RACIST!’ The open borders lynch mob continues its uniformed, malicious smear of Jason Richwine, occasionally taking time to engage in subsidiary slanders against other scholars, such as Charles Murray, even after its campaign of defamation succeeded in forcing his resignation from the Heritage foundation. You can now read his  PhD thesis, instead of  relying upon the testimony of envenomed, doltish public relations hacks and ethnic spokespeople who long for the Bush Restoration. For those who can’t spare the time, I urge you to read Michelle Malkin’s spirited defense of someone who’s learned the danger of acting out the leftist nostrum and speaking truth to power.

Rush’s take is also worth reading, notwithstanding the unjustified-in my estimation-criticism leveled against him from some quarters. Finally, J. Christian Adams takes Potemkin conservatives to task for their eagerness to engage in racialized vilification-long thought to be the sole province of the left-in the cause of political opportunism. Put simply, our enemies are afraid. Their coalition is dissipating, both in Silicon Valley and among those who owe their election to the successful exploitation of race. Don’t let diversionary tactics about hate facts distract us from our chief goal, i.e. killing the bill!

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.

One of the frustrating things about the open borders right-although this can just as easily be said of the open borders left, or center-is the rigid adherence to discredited arguments. A perfect example of this tendency is Jennifer Rubin’s response to the thoughtful post made by Peter Robinson, of the Hoover Institution, in response to her essay lamenting the dire straits the state of California currently finds itself in.

While acknowledging the partial culpability of public employee unions for California’s deep fiscal woes, something that pro-enforcement blogger Mickey Kaus has also pointed out, Robinson asks Rubin why she is reluctant to address the proverbial elephant in the room, i.e. the transformation of California into an oasis of immigrants, including millions of illegal aliens. It’s undoubtedly true that many of these newcomers  and their children have made invaluable contributions to the the state, from the second generation Vietnamese and Korean-Americans who excel in California’s public university system, to first generation immigrants like Sergey Brin, who has revolutionized the world as we know it. However, it’s also true that many other newcomers have brought the state to fiscal insolvency with their demands on education, health care and other budget items whose expense increases with each passing year.

I wish that Rubin offered a persuasive counter-argument to Mr. Robinson’s concern, but in all honesty she actually makes a rather convincing case for curtailing the current wave of immigration, or at the very least, preventing more illegal aliens from settling in states like California. One of her chief reasons for embracing amnesty and supporting more immigration is a study cited by the director of  the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, who explains in his essay that,

The 1997 National Research Council study found that, although the fiscal impact of a typical immigrant and his or her descendants is strongly positive at the federal level, it is negative at the state and local level.

And who goes on to minimize these findings by claiming that the number of new job opportunities created by these immigrants-which are never specified-mitigate the enormous costs they incur from accessing state and local social services, primarily health care and public education. But perhaps even more troubling than Ms. Rubin’s flimsy justification for increased immigration is her  defense of the status quo, which amounts to a justification for the policies that have burdened California’s economy, strained the social fabric of the state, and introduced a host of problems that will only get worse if her philosophy continues to adopted in the future.

California has the highest number of illegal immigrants in the country. But that still amounts to just 6.9 percent of the population. We are a very, very long way from seeing the culture become “more Mexican than American.” The schools, as rotten as they are, teach some facsimile of American history, American literature, etc., as the mainstays of their curriculum. (And to its credit, California was among the first to take a stab at doing away with bilingual education.) Pop culture, much of which emanates from California, is “American.”

There you have it. Only seven percent of the population is illegal, the wretched system of public education offers a facsimile of American history, and pop culture-whatever that phrase implies-is uniquely “American,” although the fact that American is enclosed in quotation marks makes me think Rubin’s malleable interpretation of the concept underlying the word renders it virtually meaningless.

If that’s the best argument that can be marshaled in favor of open borders, then, to paraphrase a  supporter of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, “build the darn fence already!”

One of the few salutory effects of unfettered immigration to the West from developing and third world nations is the growing awareness among previously skeptical observers-even among certain parts of the left wing intelligentsia-that open borders might not be such an unqualified good.

A perfect illustration of this phenomenon can be found in the form of Salman Rushdie. World-renowned novelist, much-vilified apostate, liberal icon, and Muslim bete noire, Rushdie gave a fascinating interview to The (U.K.) Independent several years ago, the highlight of which was his surprising declaration about his own ambivalent feelings regarding Great Britain’s post-Thatcher immigration policies. Having been burned in effigy and the target of openly murderous rallies held in his adopted nation by people who also came from the Indian subcontinent, it’s not surprising that Mr. Rushdie has had second thoughts about the impact of mass Islamic immigration to countries that had heretofore been wholly Judeo-Christian in nature. This skepticism has of course been expressed by conservative writers before, most eloquently by Christopher Caldwell in his book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe and Mark Steyn in his groundbreaking work, America Alone.

But the fact that Rushdie, an outspoken liberal, is expressing similar thoughts is worth examining. The idea that foreigners are completely reshaping the face of European civilization is no longer merely a frightful specter raised by right wing followers of Enoch Powell, but a reality on the ground, vividly illustrated by the routine demonstrations staged by Islamic supremacists in the heart of London, and reflected in the new literature of Great Britain, such as the novels Brick Lane and White Teeth. Even the former (Socialist) chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt, has declared that the post-war gastarbeiter (guest-worker) program implemented in his country was a colossal mistake.

It seems that nearly every sector of society has become aware, however reluctantly, of the costs of mass immigration. The problem is that the people who benefit from the current system, namely, the political interests that reap the benefit of internal discord and marginalized citizens of previously cohesive nation-states, don’t want to change it. That’s where citizen-activism comes in. The fight to derail amnesty in this country, and to turn back the tide of Islamic immigration in the Netherlands and other parts of Europe, began as a people’s movement and needs to expand its reach if we are ever to hope of returning to a normal state of affairs.

Although public expressions by intellectuals who’ve realized the folly of open borders is a welcome addition to this debate, this is at its core a debate that’s driven by the public. We need to divest the powers that be of the authority to usher in millions of immigrants that will fundamentlly alter our constitutional republic. British children shouldn’t have to grow up in a nation where Koran-wielding fanatics from Pakistan can forbid them from expressing their thoughts, and American teenagers shouldn’t be forced to hide their country’s flag out of fear that they will be assaulted by people who shouldn’t be in the first place.

So I say, “three cheers for Salman Rushdie!”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made some waves with her recent comments on multiculturalism and immigration, which Israeli National News summarizes in an article that explores the broader, continental implications of untrammeled immigration to Europe from the third world.

Merkel’s statements come in the wake of a recent European Commission critique of her neighbor’s decision to forcibly disband illegal gypsy encampments and begin deportations  of  Roma to Bulgaria and Romania. But as much as this ongoing story has captured the imagination of the news media in both Europe, and to a much lesser extent, North America, the real problem posed to Europe’s future comes from the Arab-Muslim and Turkic world, which-as Chancellor Merkel says-is now part of Europe.

Although her implicit criticism of the post-war gastarbeiter program that brought in Turkish workers-and eventually, their extended families-in order to perform temporary labor is a welcome relief from the usual drivel mouthed about multiculturalism’s successes, it still doesn’t seem to address the fundamental incompatibility between a secular, Westernized European culture and a culture that is increasingly moving in an entirely different direction.

For a good primer how the new Muslim immigrants have changed the face of Europe, I suggest reading Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, which touches on many of the themes that Angela Merkel may have been too skittish or diplomatic to explore in her speech.

America is not the only part of the Western world dealing with immigration/assimilation problems, as recent events have taught us.