In order to illustrate what havoc our government’s encouragement of bad actors like Wahabbist theocracies like Qatar and Saudi Arabia-not to say nothing of Turkey’s latest sultan-we’re going to share video footage that is beyond disturbing. We should preface this with a strong warning that the video you’re about to watch is gruesome, but an example, nevertheless, of why we need to stop interfering in conflicts where there is no exigent United States foreign policy or national security interest.

With that said, here is the latest abomination to occur within Syria.

Update: You can also read coverage of the event by the Staten Island Advance.

The events of the past week have prevented us from discussing an issue dear to the hearts of many of our followers. Namely, the continuing, deliberate assault by public officials upon the intrinsic liberties of Americans. Specifically, the right to defend our lives and property from unprovoked aggression. We know what happens when citizens surrender their individual rights to the state; the burning fields in Mexico and the  inferno in Sweden illustrate why entrusting your security to the guardianship of the state-which in many cases is responsible for placing you in peril in the first place-is such a monumentally foolish idea.  

Unfortunately, that is precisely what public servants-who almost never serve the interests of the public-across the nation have embraced as a response to the most recent, horrific mass shootings. The most widely publicized attempt to circumscribe our right to self defense has been New York’s SAFE Act, a hastily-written, arbitrary, and capricious bill that was stampeded into law under the most questionable of circumstances and with virtually no debate.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that resistance to implementation around this state is widespread and growing. In addition to district attorneys who refuse to prosecute individuals who have run afoul of this unconstitutional, ex post facto law, there are numerous counties which have called for its repeal. In addition to these tangible demonstrations of opposition to Governor Cuomo and the legislature, there have been mass rallies, demonstrations and marches staged across the state rejecting the notion that New Yorkers who choose to exercise their constitutional rights are no better than common criminals.

One such protest was held in Eltingville, Staten Island this past weekend by Gun Rights Across America and the Richmond County Tea Party Patriots, a local counterweight to the drearily statist political forces that dominate both the borough and city.

As you can see, the rally took place in the midst of a monsoon. Nevertheless, the inclement weather was not an impediment for the several dozen Second Amendment supporters in attendance, nor the Tea Party leaders who took the platform in order to describe why the SAFE Act must be repealed.

Bobby Zahn, president of the Tea Party Patriots, was the first to address the crowd. He began his speech by describing the application process his organization went through in order to obtain a permit to gather that day. Unsurprisingly, they were initially denied by city bureaucrats, whose superiors have repeatedly attempted to thwart New Yorkers from exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Notwithstanding the fact that we live in a city that was once the nation’s capital, there is probably no city or town in this nation whose elected officials and bureaucrats are more implacably hostile to expressive speech.

A perfect illustration of this antipathy to one of the most indelible aspects of our constitutional republic can be seen in Governor Cuomo’s reaction to law enforcement officers and county sheriffs who pointed out the impracticality and unenforceable nature of the SAFE Act. Instead of meeting with them and asking for suggestions on how to modify this law, he told them to shut up. This is why resistance to Cuomo and the legislature’s actions is so vital; once we’ve yielded to assaults upon one of our inalienable rights the entire covenant of liberties is imperiled. The reason the Bill of Rights exists in its current form, a charter of enumerated rights, is to prevent our freedom from being litigated in the court of public opinion, or subjected to curtailment and/or revocation by a democratic majority.

While Mr. Zahn rightly condemned the pusillanimity of our representatives-who, with one exception, voted to send this bill to Andrew Cuomo’s desk-his speech left me questioning the viability of his strategy in seeking redress for this gross violation of our rights. Yes, we are law-abiding citizens, but that doesn’t mean that we are compelled to submit to laws that are clearly violative of the Constitution. After all, what is a law? If it’s simply a decree that we must submit to-regardless of whether or not it’s consonant with basic Constitutional principles-then what’s the point of political participation of any kind?

As Edmund Burke declared, All human laws are, properly speaking, only declaratory; they have no power over the substance of original justice.

As part of its mission statement, the Tea Party Patriots pointedly reject the notion of majoritarian rule; which is good, because as Mr. Zahn declared throughout his speech, people who share our beliefs are in the distinct minority in this state. As welcome as Andrew Cuomo leaving office might be-and as necessary as building opposition to his policies is-that doesn’t mean we should abdicate responsibility for defending our innate rights. Launching legal challenges to blatant encroachments upon our Constitutional rights is an important safeguard of our rights, as civil rights attorney Alan Gura has demonstrated  repeatedly, and needs to be part of any movement intent on thwarting statutes like the Safe Act.

However, nullification-whether on a statewide or city and county level-can’t be taken off the table. To the contrary, moves to nullify these laws-like the anti-SAFE Act resolutions passed by many counties in upstate New York-should occupy a prominent place in any political strategy designed to thwart their implementation. Fundamentally, this is a debate over whether the state is able to deprive you of your natural rights; whether these inerrant rights are subject to rescission by a majority of legislators.

It comes down to the question of whether we should yield to laws that are unjust and unconstitutional by their very nature.

That’s why the speech by Louis Adimando-who is arguably more knowledgeable of the law than those responsible for drafting the SAFE Act-was so refreshing. He contextualized Governor Cuomo’s attack upon the Second Amendment into the broader assault upon civil liberties and rights we’re currently enduring. The attempts by the Obama administration to undermine the 1st Amendment, including  freedom of the press, as well as its sustained assault on the 4th Amendment, pose no less of a threat than efforts by Cuomo and his fellow governors to deny individuals the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

That is what the debate, such as it is, over the SAFE Act boils down to. There are rights enjoyed by mankind which predate the creation of governments, and which were incorporated into the text of this nation’s founding documents because they are inalienable, i.e. incapable of being surrendered. Regardless of  how politicians interpret the Constitution, the words of that document represent real rights, not artificial constructs that are only intended to diminish the scope of our freedoms. These are rights that are universal, not delimited to uniformed officers, be they active duty or retired.

I have to commend Dino Longueira for not only urging people to join the National Rifle Association-which has a well-deserved reputation as a lobbying powerhouse on Capitol Hill-but smaller, grassroots gun rights organizations like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and Gun Owners of America. These organizations, although underfunded, are the first line of defense in the war to preserve our civil liberties and civil rights. These groups constitute the hemoglobin of a thriving republic’s bloodstream, and to the extent that the NRA resists temporizing its principles, they are responsible.

The right to defend your life, property, and liberty is a fundamental right, and it’s not simply a matter of keeping your guns. As long as tyrannical governments have existed, there have been attempts to disarm the population. The same arbitrary distinctions between ordinary citizens and those deputized by the state were invoked in past weapons bans having nothing to do with firearms. Even today, restrictions imposed upon the possession of defensive weapons can be found in nations across the globe, including the United Kingdom, which has some of the most draconian penalties for violating these restrictions on the planet, although I doubt the Lee Rigby’s family finds much solace in that.

The man who drafted the Declaration of Independence was correct when he wrote, 

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.

However, that does not mean we can not and should not resist the impulse by the Cuomos and the Malloys to arrogate more power to the state even as they attempt to strip us of our liberties. The widespread and spontaneous resistance to the SAFE Act, as well as other attempts to erode the protections of the Second Amendment, is a sign that Americans are not as pliant as our authoritarian leaders and their political apparatchiks believe us to be.

For a transcript of the remarks at this rally by the Tea Party Patriots, Molon Labe by Legal, Political Processes, and to see a few of the (much better) photos taken by my friend Virginia Ross, check out this thread on Free Republic.

In summary, DUMP CUOMO and stick to your guns!

He didn’t find himself in America, because it’s not easy!

O Rly? 

It seems like the theories espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood-in Arabic, of course-are shared by its Sunni brethren from the Caucasus, perhaps unsurprisingly. Here’s a very abbreviated list of popular conspiracy theories believed by millions of Muslims throughout the world. Something tells me this will not end well.

h/t: Urban Infidel

Living in this city your entire life gives one the opportunity to experience things you would not normally encounter in any other part of the country. Many of these experiences are deeply unpleasant and disturbing, including periodic attempts, with varying degrees of success, by terrorists to blow up large sections of it, along with its inhabitants. Putting aside the preternatural feeling that I’m living in a very bad Michael Bay film-as if there is any other kind-there aren’t many things that occur to or in  New York that shake me out of the existential torpor which stems from spending most days trying to avoid 8 million people.

That said, if you had told me a decade ago that there would be another nationwide, star-studded telethon created with the intention of raising millions of dollars for relief and recovery efforts ostensibly helping the victims of an epic disaster in New York City, I probably would have scoffed. Granted, New York has seen its share of momentous climatic events, including nor’easters, earthquakes, and even tornadoes. Yet not many people expected a natural disaster that would kill over forty people in this city, nearly half of whom came from Staten Island.

The idea that there would be scenes of devastation less than two miles from my home which echoed images from catastrophic tsunamis across the globe is something that I still have trouble reconciling with my conception of New York City. The dislocation experienced by thousands of New Yorkers was something that hadn’t occurred since September 11th, and which will probably persist well into the next decade.

Living within the borough that has born perhaps the biggest brunt of Hurricane Sandy was disconcerting, but not because of any hardship I had experienced personally. Thankfully, except for some damage too miniscule to speak of I came out of the storm relatively unscathed. I wish I could say the same of my friends, some of whose lives were completely upended, an experience that included being driven from the places into which they had invested blood, sweat and tears for decades in order to make a home for their families.

Despite the regrets I have about leaving Brooklyn two years ago-and I still miss it every day-I don’t think I can properly express the gratitude I have for the people of Staten Island-friends, acquaintances, and in some cases complete strangers-who’ve shown me over these past two months the quality of character they have, regardless of how trying the circumstances they face might be. These are people who didn’t wait to be rescued by some benevolent factotum from the Office of Emergency Management or staffer from the Red Cross.

They banded together to help their neighbors and their community recover, even if their lives had been devastated by the effects of Sandy. They cleared debris, provided provisions to desperate families, and raised money earmarked for the neighborhoods which had been effaced by one of the worst natural disasters this city has ever experienced. In my town, they even created a  toy drive-complete with Santa and his helpers-which brought smiles to the faces of scores of young children whose families didn’t have the resources to give them a normal Christmas in 2012.

I recognize the cleavage that exists between newcomers to this borough and native-born Staten Islanders-a split that increases as thousands of other New Yorkers move to the borough and inevitably clog its traffic arteries with their cars-but one of the greatest impressions I was left with in the wake of Sandy was the sense of solidarity that extended throughout the broader community. Granted, this sentiment wasn’t universal, but the generosity of spirit and lack of ill will reflected an essential goodness about the people who live here.

Growing up, I thought of this borough as a place my family would periodically visit in order to shop at the Staten Island Mall-even as we rolled up the windows in order to diminish the odor wafting from the Fresh Kills landfill-or to see a peripatetic relative who now lives in Florida. I never envisioned it as a place where I would spend a significant portion of my life; even after living here for two years I had an emotional remove from this part of the city.

But after witnessing firsthand  Staten Islanders response to the worst of circumstances-including dealing with officials attempting to compound castrophe with their own callous disregard for those suffering in Sandy’s aftermath-it’s hard not to identify with this borough. It’s a response to be proud of, even if it goes unrecognized much of the time. One of my resolutions for the coming year is to see that I’m more cognizant of the spirit of self-reliance and community that characterizes my new home.

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.

One of the chief distinctions between the anti-Israel rally and the slightly smaller, yet equally exuberant, pro-Israel counter-demonstration held in Times Square this weekend was the sentiments expressed by the participants. While the former vocalized their antipathy towards Israel and the United States and demanded ordinary Israelis be punished-through measures such as the BDS movement-and spent most of their time anathematizing Jews in the most historically inaccurate way possible, the latter concentrated mostly upon messages of solidarity with Israel.

There were, of course, expressions of hostility towards the jihadists who have instigated the current wave of bloodshed, and who continued to barrage terrified Israeli civilians with Iranian-designed missiles even as this was being written.

However, I saw no generalized contempt for the Palestinian people, or even the bellicose Islamist leaders of neighboring countries who exhorted those currently entrusted with power in the Gaza Strip to stand their ground.

The overwhelming sentiment was one of resilience, not hatred, and was expressed through chants like “Am Yisrael Chai,” the people of Israel live, and the singing of the Hatikvah, the national anthem of Israel.

As well as an attempt to convey, in concrete terms, the intensity of the terror ordinary civilians, especially those living in southern Israel, experience on a daily basis.

And to connect the coercive violence aimed at Israel to the jihadist attacks carried out against similar Western nations throughout the globe.

Specifically, the United States, which has endured jihadist attacks for the past several decades, including lethal assaults initiated by the men currently in charge of the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip.

Needless to say, there are legitimate critiques to be made of the methods Israel employed in responding to the rocket war waged by Hamas, as well as unaffiliated jihadist and Palestinian gangs. If nothing else, the fact that Hamas has been able to enchance its growing diplomatic standing in the Middle East-while preserving its vast, Iranian-supplied weapons arsenal-and was able to deter Israel from a ground invasion bodes ill for the security of Israeli citizens, to say nothing of those Palestinians who will be the unfortunate human shields in future military engagements.

Whether or not the result of this conflict constitutes a victory for Hamas, it is clear to all but the most deluded observers that it is a defeat for the adversaries of Hamas. Rather than Thing, a.k.a. Ben Grimm, Israel reacted to this assault in the dithering, indecisive manner of Shakespeare’s tragic hero, Hamlet. And as we all know, this strategy, if it can be called that, only leads to more bloodshed in the future.

Perhaps most disconcertingly, the inhumanity and barbarity of Islamic law was papered over by the persistently hostile mass media which reported on the Gaza conflict.

As these images from the public execution and dismemberment of suspected “collaborators,” which has drawn remarkably little attention from the fifth estate-with some notable exceptions-demonstrate.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the collective expression of support for Israel we’ve witnessed in New York City, whether from ordinary citizens or self-interested pols, is going to have much of an impact on public discourse. The sad truth is that the dominant media narrative, i.e. Palestinians as perpetual victim and Israel as eternal aggressor, is going to remain in place for the foreseeable future, and not even the most well crafted, factually accurate  publicity campaign is going to alter the status quo.

In fact, it could be argued that the appeal of the formulaic, anti-Israel meta narrative will only grow as those sympathetic to the Islamist cause gain an even surer foothold in the corporate world, within Congress and among influential media organs. The only way to counter this cresting tide is, to paraphrase the great Franz Kafka, take an axe to the frozen sea inside of us. Or in this case, the ice inside of those who willfully ignore the truth before them.

The truth, like life, is not pretty, but it must be told. Israel, like most of the West,  faces an existential struggle. Its preservation does not hinge upon a slick media relations campaign, or a superficially persuasive viral video, but upon disabusing spectators of the fallacies that underlie much of received wisdom about this conflict. And the only way to accomplish that goal is by telling the truth about jihadist dogma and how it informs the actions of  organizations like Hamas.

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.

Most New Yorkers-especially natives-are inured to the daily spectacle which makes their city something of a super-sized freak show. However, most of the time that sideshow is of the sort one normally expects to see in Coney Island, i.e. entertaining enough as a diversionary pursuit, but not so garish or mind-altering as to force you to reconsider your general opinion of humanity.

However, every year the United Nations General Assembly-the Mos Eisley Cantina of international diplomacy-convenes in Turtle Bay so that ostensible heads of state from around the world can make pompous, almost universally forgettable speeches before an assembled crowd of profligate diplomats, spies, Islamic terrorists,  despots and indicted war criminals, among other political luminaries you would expect to find addressing an institution that was once headed by a man complicit in Nazi Germany’s numerous war atrocities in the Balkans.

Of course, because this collection of malefactors great and small decides to make New York City the backdrop for political theater-bankrolled by American taxpayers, of course-it means that the normally colorful streets of New York are graced with an even more eclectic selection of humanity. Including, as you’ll notice by glancing at the photograph atop this page, fans of newly elected Egyptian pharaoh and fan of sharia law Mohammed Morsi.

The first sight that greeted me before arriving at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza was, oddly enough, a group of fervent devotees-including the group of veiled women seen above-of the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e. the organization that’s served as the intellectual seedbed of virtually every pan-Islamic jihadist and/or terrorist movement that’s arisen over the past century. I know what you must be thinking at this point: “Ain’t multiculturalism grand?”

This being a free country, where everyone is allowed to voice his or her opinion-for the most part, at least-there were two bold Egyptian Christians willing to counter the Islamic supremacist perspective espoused by Mohammed Morsi’s New York welcoming committee.

One of the interesting aspects of this small band of counter-protestors was their devotion to their native land. Like Ashraf Ramelah, they obviously consider themselves true Egyptians, even if their Muslim countrymen vigorously disagree with that assessment.

A slightly more baffling sight confronted me as I made my way deeper into the protest pen cordoned off by the NYPD. I’m not quite certain why the man above chose the United Nations for his platform-which seemed to focus upon the inerrancy of Biblical prophecy-although he undoubtedly could have had a feisty conversation about millenarianism with one of the UN’s featured speakers this week.

Needless to say, there were individuals and groups there with a much less eschatological message, one of the most prominent among them being exponents of Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa teachings. In addition to practicing their meditative exercises, these Chinese men and women-most of whom probably can’t return to their homeland, for obvious reasons-highlighted the torture-such as that depicted in the drawings above-experienced by Falun Gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese regime.

In addition to the routine harassment and imprisonment experienced by anyone in the People’s Republic of China expressing political, philosophical or spiritual beliefs not sanctioned by the ruling Chinese Communist Party oligarchy, Falun Gong adherents have the misfortune of being perceived as an organized political opposition.

Therefore, its followers are subject to a range of horrific penalties, such as the CCP’s penchant for organ-harvesting from those within China’s extensive laogai.

One need only glance at the starkness of contrast between the two photos seen above in order to grasp the horrors inflicted upon ordinary Chinese citizens who run afoul of the their government’s perverse political priorities.

While I don’t have enough information about the subject to state, without reservation, that Falun Gong is “good,” I do know enough to assert that the state which persecutes its followers-and is responsible for the tableau seen in the photograph below-is not.

And although Chinese dissidents were well represented on Wednesday, the vast majority of protestors were assembled to rally against the current Iranian regime, which most regard as criminal in nature, if not so ghastly as to invoke images of one of cinematic horror’s most reviled figures.

One of the more striking features of the anti-IRI activities this week was the artistic dimension of the protests. Some of the efforts seemed redolent of typical political agitprop, using a caricature of Ahmadinejad’s physical features while pointing out the bloody hands of the current president…

As well as his well-publicized Holocaust denial, which was tied into the Iranian regime’s somewhat implausible claims about its nuclear program.

That said, there were some clever, less obvious mockeries of Ahmadinejad, such as the “I’m with stupid” cut-out seen below.

As well as the doormat with the dictator’s face emblazoned upon it, created by United Against a Nuclear Iran, a nonpartisan organization founded by  former ambassador to the United Nations Mark Wallace, which is dedicated to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

One of their campaigns, prior to Ahmadinejad’s arrival in New York, was a call to boycott the Warwick Hotel, which hosted the Iranian leader’s large entourage while he was staying in the Big Apple. Personally, I don’t find the Warwick’s decision nearly as objectionable as the one that allowed he and his cronies to set foot on American soil.

The “silent” partnership alluded to in the above poster is a reference to the unusual relationship between the Iranian regime and the leadership of Al Qaeda, much of which sought refuge in Iran after the September 11th attacks. Although the nature of this relationship is a matter of great dispute, the fact that Iran has been willing to support Afghan, Sunni insurgents-including the Taliban-with both tactics and weaponry is something to consider before dismissing the allegation out of hand.

One of the chief organizers of the protests against the clerical dictatorship of Iran was Iran 180. The UNwelcome campaign consisted of a combination of street theater and personal testimony from Iranian-Americans about the true nature of the Khomeinist regime.

FWIW, I felt some sympathy for the individual inside of the gigantic mock head, especially considering the unusually warm temperature that day. I do credit his enthusiasm-possibly the most entertaining part of this street theater being his pantomiming bass-playing on what I think was intended to be a machine gun as For Whom The Bell Tolls played in the background.

One of the costumed personages represented the real ruler of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. Under velayat-e-faqih, he-along with an equally undemocratic clique of obscurantist Shiite clerics and politically connected hacks-determines the course of Iranian domestic and foreign affairs, as recent events demonstrate.

One of the main, if largely unspoken, themes of the rally was the incestuous relationship between the IRI and the blood-soaked Baathist regime which currently rules Syria. Although the alliance between the government of Iran and that of Syria has been in place for over three decades-virtually since the inception of the Islamic Republic-the imminent threat of Bashar al-Assad’s political demise has forced that blood pact into the open. In fact, the symbiotic nature of the relationship has become so transparent that even Iran’s leading officials have trouble denying it.

Even though foreign policy played a prominent role in Iran 180′s demonstration, there was also a lengthy exposition of the domestic crimes of the Iranian regime, especially with respect to religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. Gigi Nikpour, the woman seen above, described how the clerical regime which controls Iran had institutionalized many of the canonical aspects of Islam, including Koranic injunctions against homosexuality. These religious proscriptions are not merely theoretical points of discussion, as the scores of gay men and lesbians executed by the theocratic regime in Tehran illustrate.

This is yet another reason why the ubiquitous creeping sharia the rest of the country has just become aware of poses such an ominous threat. It seeks not only to regulate and/or circumscribe our thoughts and speech, but dictate the most minute aspects of our private lives and daily behavior, and eliminate those activities its enforcers deem contrary to the tenets of Islam.

In our next post we’ll explore one of the groups that helped propel these Koran-thumping megalomaniacs to power in Iran, but who soon found that the enemies of Islam are manifold, and subject to arbitrary changes depending upon the needs and political whims of the revolution.

Truth wins out.

So much for the freelance Mukhabarat’s efforts at squelching Pamela Geller’s voice.  For more on the arrest of a former Guardian journalist-shocking, I know-who’s as conversant with the 1st Amendment as Barack Obama is with comparative religion and American history, check out updated coverage from Jihad Watch, which includes the New York Post article and the video detailing my friend’s gutsy tutorial in expressive advocacy and constitutionally protected speech.

Is this what progressive Islam looks like? Count me out.

Hat Tip: Vigilant Squirrel Brigade.

Flags of Freedom.

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

Credit: Atlas Shrugs 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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