Update: Matt Bruenig explains what happened this weekend. 

Michael Tracey raises an interesting question. 

Keith Ellison’s loss is noteworthy for a number of reasons, many of them unrelated to the fact that his victorious opponent will be the first self-identifying Hispanic to preside over the Democratic National Committee. Yes, ethnicity/race did play a pivotal role in this intra-party election, but not in the way that the mainstream media and Democratic shills would have you believe. Perez’s victory is not so much a case of Democrats implicitly rebuking President Trump and his purportedly anti-latino immigration policies as Barack Obama’s man on the inside once again stepping on the Bernie Bros.

The party hatchet-man who did so much to pave the way for Hillary Clinton’s disastrous candidacy, crafting the message which social justice warriors and feminists gleefully vomited at Bernie Sanders and his backers in the Democratic primary, is now in a position to run the Democratic Party. The former President who has done so much to divide his own party, which continues to be riven by the parallel political institutions he created, now has his own Machiavelli steering the course of the DNC.

This is not only a ratification of the open borders, corporatist, elitist vision which animated the Hillary Clinton campaign-progressives be damned-it is yet another slap in the face of African-Americans, i.e. the foundation of the contemporary Democratic Party. How do woke individuals continue to reconcile their support for Barack Obama with the concrete policies and decisions made by a man who, beyond empty gestural politics, has done absolutely nothing for the black community? To the contrary, the legacy of the 44th President is one of neglect and indifference towards the people most responsible for helping him make history.

We have just witnessed an elite cross-section of Democrats from around the country reject someone who is literally a black Muslim in favor of a Brown alum who’s whiter than Steve Bannon, and whose campaign manager would fit in perfectly at a Huffington Post editorial meeting. Don’t expect national Democrats to curtail their moral preening and sanctimony as we enter the Perez  Era. Just as we’re forced to endure lectures attacking this country from a smarmy talking head for The Reconquista whose fame and fortune were given to him by Americans, we will now experience four years of privileged leftists telling us why white people need to check their privilege. Apparently, the new head of the Dems seems to agree that white people are entitled to fewer rights based upon their skin color.

I can’t wait until 2020.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Charlotte riots-and despite media social conditioning, that’s precisely what they are-is how unsurprising this reaction is. Whether it’s a clear cut case of police brutality/excessive force against an innocent civilian, or an example of a law enforcement officer defending his life in the face of lethal aggression, this is what we as a society have come to expect after every police shooting. Regardless of the race of the officer, what quickly ensues is an anti-white pogrom, as well as press justifications for this atavistic savagery, despite reporters being targeted by the same individuals, sometimes on live television.

We’ve just come to accept the notion that rampaging across your city, targeting anyone and everyone who is non-white, even those reporters who’ve served as apologists for this sort of mindless destruction and racial hatred of white people, is an acceptable response to perceived political or social grievances. In fact, this sort of unreasoned wide scale violence is probably our fault, at least according to the former First Lady and current Democratic nominee for President.

I wouldn’t even call this the soft bigotry of low expectations-as the presenter in the video above describes it-because it presumes there exists a scale where these explosively violent criminal outbursts, which have already taken lives, is balanced against normative, lawful behavior. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. The national and local press corps have shaped a meta-narrative which posits that the African American community-at least, that part which feels that sowing terror and fear among their neighbors is a valid expression of political dissent-have no agency.  This even in places which-as the video above alludes to-have black police commissioners and where half of the city council is African American.

Just take a look at who is leading the central civil rights movement of this era, i.e. Black Lives Matter. A consortium of criminals and hucksters, whose crimes range from impersonating those whom they claim to despise, to the human trafficking of underage girls, to protecting your inalienable right to engage in petty theft.  This is a movement whose founder publicly touts the ethics of looting, when he’s not celebrating the riots his rhetoric and actions have inspired. These are individuals with absolutely no moral compass, yet they are lecturing us poor, benighted whites on how they can combat their inherent racism.

This is what is so remarkable about our current national dialogue on race. Whereas the pre-Black Power Civil Rights Movement, regardless of what some Americans thought of its goals, was led by people with honor and integrity, Black Lives Matter and its offshoots are directed by people who can only be described as degenerates. Whatever you thought of the politics espoused by Ella Baker, James Farmer Jr., Bayard Rustin, or their contemporaries in the Civil Rights Movement, you could not dispute their impeccable personal character. Watching interviews of Dorothy Height, you’re reminded of the little, old church lady who belongs to your grandmother’s sewing circle, albeit one of especially fierce eloquence.

Contrast that with the current leaders of America’s most prominent civil rights movement, which is known primarily for attracting individuals who like to go polar bear hunting, which, for the uninitiated, means specifically targeting defenseless white people for violent physical abuse. Kind of like what occurred in Stockton, California the other day. These are not aberrations, they are the norm. We are increasingly living in a society which resembles the dystopian world sketched out by Mike Judge in Idiocracy, which seemingly no one in the ruling class wishes to acknowledge.

Yesterday’s press conference was remarkable for a number of reasons, not least because it revealed the naked contempt this nation’s media has for the men and women who’ve served in the Armed Forces. A sneering condescension that they can’t mask, even as they bang the drums for more interventions in the quagmire of the Mid-East, i.e. more chaos, more refugees deluging Europe and North America, and more power for jihadists of every stripe and sect. You can just imagine the sulfuric rage these reporters had to suppress as they were forced to listen to a group of reactionary knuckle-draggers who had done nothing for their country, quite unlike the roster of exemplary Americans Hillary has assembled.

As if watching these troglodytes, who obviously don’t live in the current year, prattle on about their support of Donald Trump weren’t bad enough, our esteemed press corps had to endure the humiliation of seeing their beloved narrative vanish into thin air. The utter gall of a candidate willing to reveal how a cudgel used to impute racism to the Republican Party actually originated within the Hillary Clinton campaign! The next thing you know he’ll be implying that Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary’s very own Rasputin, was going around telling journalists that Barack Obama, the future President, was born in Kenya. Or that the Clinton machine tried to smear him in order to win the 2008 Democratic primary. Or perhaps that the Clintons view the President with disdain? Can you believe the gall of this scoundrel?!

The biggest insight to be gleaned from yesterday’s media event, however, is the discovery of how self-deluded the media remain about their own ignorance. These are individuals and entities which believe themselves to be the height of enlightened, progressive, cosmopolitan thought. In fact, many pursued their vocation expressly because it gave them the opportunity to hector those benighted cretins living in flyover states who believe in antiquated concepts like borders. Yet here they were being humbled by a vulgarian who was gauche enough to become an entrepreneur rather than pursue a respectable career like news editor of Buzzfeed or professional Hispanic activist masquerading as journalist. Even as they publicly conceded being duped by Donald Trump, acting like petulant little children who had their favorite toy taken away, they cloaked this admission in an aura of insufferable condescension, the one area in which they excel.

The reaction to the MSM’s Austerlitz on social media is equally revealing. I’m thinking specifically of this comment, which encapsulates the ethos of Twitter political commentary, i.e. an inapt pop culture reference about a  TV show which was cutting-edge 2 decades ago. No, Donald Trump is not Homer Simpson, and journalists are not Frank Grimes. He is the Roadrunner, while his hapless inquisitors are variants of Wile E. Coyote, i.e. characters who vastly overestimate their own intelligence. Yes, they hate him because his values, primarily his emphasis on American exceptionalism and distinctness-with its corresponding acceptance of national borders-are anathema to them. But that is not the reason why he drives them into rage spirals and the depths of despair-and compels them to publicly dissect their own psychological trauma in print and on television.

Trump derangement syndrome results from the fact that he not only knows how to play the game, but how to win it. On some subconscious level, the media recognize something that their acolytes refuse to even consider. Namely, that Trump-unlike any other Republican politician or conservative public figure in recent memory-understands what motivates the drive-by media and is using that knowledge to meticulously demolish them. Trump is the anti-Romney, and it drives the left, neo-Buckleyites and  the targets of his precision-guided missiles absolutely batty.

As for the rest of us, we’re delighted.

The biggest news of the RNC thus far has been, without question, Ted Cruz’s magnanimous endorsement of Ted Cruz. It’s too early to predict whether using a national platform to demean the choice of 14 million Republican voters is a wise political strategy going forward, but one thing we can say is that it’s a very Cruzian maneuver, as former Bush spokesmen Ari Fleischer pointed out. Whatever you might think of the Bushes-and I’ve made it very clear that I feel their beliefs have been ultimately destructive to both the Republican Party and the country-they have a certain ethic. As dreadful as I believe Jeb’s policies would have been, he at least has the integrity not to pretend that he shares the same values with Donald Trump.

Last night’s performance encapsulates why so many people dislike Ted Cruz, even many of those who grudgingly voted for him during the Republican primaries. It was an unforced error on the part of the Trump campaign, but it was also an insight into the strange reasoning of the man he defeated. Someone who believes dissimulation is an honorable tactic and promises have an expiration date. It’s difficult to make Mitt Romney look like a straight shooter, but remarkably, that is something Senator Cruz accomplished last night.

Those of you who’d like to watch Donald Trump’s acceptance speech, as well as the national debut of Gawker’s bête noire, Peter Thiel, can view the proceedings live on Right Side Broadcasting’s Youtube channel.

If you wanted to view a cross-section of the individuals whom Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are trying to enlist in their cause, you could do worse than visit a Donald Trump rally, where the hatred and viciousness of revanchist Mexicans and Hispanic gang members-or Dreamers, as Hillary calls them-is on full display. The Gateway Pundit has a post about a non-Hispanic Muslim thug who decided to join in on the action.

All of this begs the question, where is the safe space for Americans?

Most of you are probably aware of the MoveOn-inspired (stage-managed?) mob which disrupted Donald Trump’s speech at the University of Illinois at Chicago last night. In addition to wounding several officers, you can see a still image of their ultra-violence here, hurling projectiles at anti-Trump bloggers on-site, and destroying the handmade signs of Trump supporters, the scores of violent, racist Marxists, but I repeat myself, made their philosophical beliefs unambiguously clear.

Aside from garden variety thuggery, fully endorsed by progressive thought leader and sometime presidential pal Bill Ayers, the pro-Bernie-and perhaps Hillary-shock troops espoused views which run the gamut from Soviet Communism to Mexican chauvinism. The irony of the latter trying to disrupt a gathering supporting a candidate who’s predicated his presidential candidacy upon an appeal to nationalism seems to have been lost on most media outlets, which seem content to regurgitate DNC talking points for the time being. Another interesting bit of trivia which has gone largely unnoticed, but which anti-Trump Chicago resident Antonio Martinez astutely noted, is that the site of the Trump rally itself was constructed with an eye towards the venomous racial politics which animated Mayor Richard Daley’s Chicago.

I’ll have more thoughts on last night’s deeply troubling events in the future, but for now I’ll leave you with this tweet, which pretty much encapsulates the way the institutional left approaches political discourse.

With the United States Senate rushing headlong into its rendezvous with destiny, i.e. deconstructing what remains of this nation’s anemic and beleaguered economy, and the U.S. House following suit, it  seems appropriate to examine cui bono from these developments. Obviously not American citizens, beyond Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and the politicians who’ll be handsomely rewarded by his corporation as a result of  yet another mass amnesty. Undoubtedly the thousands of immigration attorneys who’ll be enriched through the passage of the Gang of Eight proposal-whose case was pleaded by Laura Lichter, the president of the AILA, in laughably skewed immigration hearings-will accrue some financial benefits after comprehensive immigration reform finally occurs.

Certainly, the individuals and institutions which have collectively spent over a billion dollars lobbying Congress over the past half-decade feel that they have a vested interest in altering this nation’s immigration laws. However, the more immediate beneficiaries will be the millions of illegal aliens who will have their status changed, with the resultant benefits, including those enjoyed by their immediate family members and relatives.

That part of this story is the ostensible focus of Two Americans, a documentary about Katherine Figueroa-whose beatific face you see juxtaposed against the snarling visage of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the print ad above-a nine year-old girl from Arizona whose Mexican parents were arrested and detained after an immigration sweep at their workplace.

I caught a screening of the film by directors Dan Devivo and Valeria Fernandez, which was sponsored by the Justice Action Center and Racial Justice Project of New York Law School, last week just as the debate-such as it is-about immigration reform was percolating within Congress. As you can tell by the names of these academic centers, the foremost concern among faculty members-and presumably, their students-is achieving a desired political outcome-in this case for preferred racial and ethnic groups-regardless of whether that result is consonant with basic Constitutional precepts, a broader conception of justice according to natural law, or a firm foundation in American history. One of the main problems I have with the legal  assault against immigration enforcement-and the left’s approach to the law in general-is that it relies upon this sort of results-based policy, which is predicated on achieving an outcome that is politically-not deontologically-correct.

In my estimation, this is the polar opposite of “justice,” whose definition has until recently-perhaps before the era when critical legal studies achieved a foothold in academe-meant the application of objective rules which applied equally to everyone, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Fortunately, the filmmakers behind Two Americans do grapple with the statutory and constitutional issues, such as habeas corpus, due process, and equal protection, that the enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona-specifically, the suppression sweeps launched by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County-raise. In fact, the film’s focus upon these enforcement actions-and the difficult questions of federalism and the criminal justice system-is arguably the most substantive aspect of this documentary. Personally, I wish the directors had chosen to focus exclusively on these issues, rather than attempt to create an ambitious, almost panoramic-yet not altogether successful-film that often feels like four or five separate documentaries stitched together.

While the film’s promotional materials bill it as an investigation of Joe Arpaio’s expenditure of state funds as head of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, as well as a portrayal of the struggles of young Katherine Figueroa, it actually touches upon at least half a dozen other subjects that could have constituted distinct cinematic projects. From the President’s implementation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an extension of his administration’s administrative amnesty, to the political struggle over Arizona’s landmark law SB 1070, to the issues of leadership raised by the activities of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, to the relationship between Arpaio and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, to the relentless effort by his critics, such as Randy Parraz,  to dislodge him from office, to the battle between Sheriff Joe and the President himself, this documentary seemingly attempts to cover every angle of the immigration debate within Arizona in its hour and a half running time.

The relationship between the sheriff and Figueroa’s family is tenuous at best, as Dan Devivo readily conceded during a post-screening question and answer session, where he described how Joe Arpaio is merely a stand-in for all of the elected officials and law enforcement officers-however few in number-who are attempting to enforce immigration laws in a robust manner. I was genuinely surprised by the negligible amount of time devoted to Katherine’s dilemma-even the focus on the Figueroa family was divided between interviews of Katherine, her parents, and her custodial relatives. She is a very appealing personality for the anti-enforcement movement-lending credence to Mickey Kaus’s theory that the DREAM Act was merely a stalking horse for a much broader amnesty-and I had made the assumption going into the screening that she would be centerpiece of this film.

Admittedly, I wasn’t moved to tears-a reaction that Andrea Callan, the ACLU advocate who hosted this event, assured us would be forthcoming-at any point during Two Americans. Perhaps I’ve become inured to the barrage of sob stories and media puffery which deluge the American public on a daily basis regarding the plight of the undocumented. However, it’s hard to discount the notion that Katherine Figueroa’s story is tailor-made for a sympathetic human interest story which could have filled the plot of an anti-enforcement film in its own right. The directors chose to focus instead on the political nature of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s public persona, which is often overlooked in discussions about the utility, legality, and impact of his office’s enforcement campaigns.

In truth, Arpaio is, in addition to being the chief law enforcement officer in Maricopa County, a public official whose capacity as sheriff rests upon his popularity with Arizona voters. So it’s not surprising that his most hotly contested public stance generates scrutiny regarding his motives; the filmmakers asserted-both in the film and subsequent Q&A session-that his crusade against illegal immigration is driven solely by political opportunism. It’s a charge seemingly buttressed by the testimony of a former colleague-interviewed throughout this film-who claims that Joe Arpaio jumped on the anti-illegal alien bandwagon in order to prosper politically. However, I feel this critique wanting, not least because Dan Devivo, in response to an audience member’s (translated) question, averred that Arpaio’s support within Maricopa was dwindling with each subsequent election. One wonders why an extremely popular elected official would adopt a stance that would earn him scorn and political antagonism among open borders enthusiasts throughout the country-and certainly generate opposition within his home county-if it wasn’t based at least partially on personal conviction.

Furthermore, the same insinuation can be made of Arpaio’s political enemies, such as open borders socialist Raul Grijalva, whose political fortunes-and campaign bank account-haven’t suffered as a result of his dogged campaign against SB 1070 and the current sheriff of Maricopa County. And while  questions pertaining to Arpaio’s use of his investigatory authority-particularly with regard to his office’s MACE unit-are certainly valid, the misuse and exploitation of power by some of Arpaio’s most powerful opponents is a question never broached by Two Americans. Specifically, the highly politicized tenure of Thomas Perez-President Obama’s nominee to replace Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, but at the time of the administration’s lawsuit against Maricopa County the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights-is never raised, nor is his extensive history of open borders activism.

Given that this documentary is advocacy journalism, I don’t know how much balance on this subject the audience is entitled to expect. However, the narrative thread of this film continuously returned to the bad faith of people who support immigration enforcement, with the implicit accusation that their beliefs are responsible for the travails of Katherine Figuroa, rather than the actions of her two parents. I give the filmmakers credit for highlighting to a certain degree the fusillade of hatred open borders advocates have unleashed upon Arpaio-including the credible death threats he has received in office-yet the reasons why Arizona voters continue to support him are never seriously scrutinized, nor examined in anything but the most cursory manner.

The extensive and sustained public support for laws such as SB 1070 never arises at any point in this documentary, and the only footage of protestors who are critical of illegal immigration focuses, curiously enough, on members of the National Socialist Movement. The many peaceful, multi-ethnic, well-attended rallies supporting this law-which were covered by mainstream, liberal media outlets in Arizona at the time-completely escape the notice of the filmmakers, as do the public statements of  large, representative, reputable immigration reduction and anti-illegal immigration organizations and individuals in this country. In the end, I think that is the biggest shortcoming of Two Americans. Not the sprawling focus, but the refusal to honestly present the arguments made by the respective camps in the immigration debate. It’s a problem that will persist so long as one side refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of their opponents’ beliefs.

Those of you willing and able to help can donate to the Stephen Siller Hurricane Sandy Relief Fund. Occupy Sandy is still coordinating recovery efforts as well.  Even as New Yorkers-as well as people throughout the country-have contributed to relief efforts, the criminal, parasitic class has tried to exploit their good will. We’re made of better stuff. Here’s how you can help Christian Pentecostal Church provide much-needed supplies to those effected by Hurricane Sandy.

People on Long Island and Staten Island are still coping with the immense tragedy of Hurricane Sandy-it turns out that presidential photo ops are not that restorative after all-and learning how to survive in single digit temperatures. Do what you can to help out some people in desperate need. The national media may have lost focus, but the problems Sandy left behind remain.

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.