Once again, the words of Enoch Powell appear prescient, although perhaps in not quite the way the late British parliamentarian and classicist intended. In the same week that Swedes have been besieged by aggrieved jihadists imported by their own government, Londoners experienced yet another subsidiary benefit of multiculturalism. This time, in the form of a Nigerian convert to Islam ritualistically slaughtering a member of the British Army.

Drummer Lee Rigby, of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was methodically  dismembered by an adherent to the Religion of Peace as he walked to his barracks yesterday. The loving father, who had served in Afghanistan, was the latest victim of an alien ideology which has already killed or attempted to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of Britons on their own soil. The perpetrators of this particular atrocity-which echoed an earlier attempt to murder and behead a British soldier in the streets of London-were emulating their countrymen in Nigeria, where Boko Haram, which in Hausa translates to “Western education is a sin,”has turned the northern portion of the country into a charnel house, slaughtering Christians,  security forces, women, and anyone else who does not submit to the imperatives of sharia. The Nigerian government has responded ambiguously, besieging three northern states even as it releases detained members of the ultra-violent, Islamic terror network.

How the UK will respond to this atrocity remains to be seen, although the signals emanating from the ruling class-which is in large measure culpable for this sort of barbarity-are not encouraging. The widely ridiculed British security apparatus responded with undue alacrity. The ahistorical, insipid pabulum put forward by the current empty suit occupying 10 Downing Street was to be expected. Mr. Cameron was simply following the example of our President, who won’t let  the premeditated vivisection of a British citizen sully the good name of Islam. Better not to mention it at all. Of course, most of the large media organs-with a few notable exceptions-sedulously elided the unpleasant fact that these Muslim youths grounded their butchery in Koranic injunctions. The current mayor of London, who once distinguished himself from his Islamophile predecessor, “Red” Ken Livingstone, issued a similar appeal to his constituents not to form a hasty, negative opinion of the perpetrator’s religion simply because of the actions of a few misguided Muslim jihadists who had just assassinated an infidel in the name of Islam.

After all, this is just an isolated incident, most likely the work of a lone wolf-or wolves-which won’t be repeated in the future. It’s not like London is the European hub for pan-Islamic, jihadist terror,  to the point of earning its own delightful sobriquet reflecting the dramatically altered demographics of this international capital of commerce. Despite the feigned expressions of shock and disbelief by the usual suspects, the biography of the soldier of allah seen in video footage is anything but surprising. A follower of the protean jihadist movement known as Al-Muhajiroun, which serves as a finishing school of sorts for would-be Islamic terrorists, he spent recent months exhorting his fellow Muslims to join the Syrian jihad, which I’m sure would have met with the approval of Secretary of State Kerry and much of Congress.

Although we don’t know what precipitated his conversion to Islam, the opportunities presented to him in this new England are ubiquitous. In addition to numerous mosques-both of the mega and storefront variety-Islamic bookshops whose offerings range from Mein Kampf to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there is the Islamic community itself, where anti-Semitism and hatred of the West proliferates, at least according to British Muslims. There are even committed jihadists willing to instruct young pupils in the tenets of Islam. That is why the words of Cameron, Johnson, and the worse than useless talking heads in the media ring so hollow today.

The message sent by this jihadist’s ostensible mentor, Anjem Choudary, reveals more than any of the lies or willful delusions being promoted by the usual suspects. His testimony to the character of the bestial creature who disemboweled Lee Rigby is illuminating in its own warped way. Islam is a peaceful religion, and Muslims are without sin, because submission is peace and killing infidels is not sinful. According to this belief system, what took place yesterday is commendable and should be emulated, just as the deeds of Mohammed-the model for all proper conduct and behavior-should serve as a model for true Muslims.

In some respects, the philosophy of apocalyptic, jihadist Islam is in perfect harmony with that espoused by the unreconstructed, revolutionary left, which has aided its rise throughout the West. Both are governed by situational ethics, where the ends-if achieved-are justified by the means. Specific actions are judged to be right only insofar as they facilitate a certain outcome. The growth of Islam and sharia in the case of the former, the ideal collectivist state for the latter. Both buttress each other, but the foundation stone is the left, which has constructed the meta-narrative that there are no reasons to oppose mass immigration from the third world-or the customs and beliefs these newcomers hew to-which aren’t invidious and racist in origin, and that the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Europeans and Americans constitute a form of mass psychosis.

That is why western European cities are being sacked for the first time since the end of World War II, and why the president will not even utter the name of the religion which is responsible for the atrocity committed yesterday in Woolwich. If diversity is our strength, then any action-or even statement-which might diminish public support for this grand experiment of our political leadership is forbidden; or “haram,” if you will. The loving, caring family of Lee Rigby is experiencing a torment that defies description, yet the government of Great Britain refuses to look reality in the eye and identify the killer by its rightful name. In this respect, there is some truth to the words of the orc who murdered and desecrated the body of that courageous serviceman. David Cameron and Boris Johnson-Labour, the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats-do not care about English people.

That much is obvious.

It’s nice to know that as our nation’s immigration enforcement mechanisms are being systematically dismantled, ICE has its priorities in order. Even as the latest iteration of an economically backbreaking, national security imperiling amnesty is cooked up by esteemed members of the United States Senate, John Morton is once again hard at work ordering his bureaucrats to act as Roger Goodell’s Pinkertons. It’s not as if  the nation’s immigration agents have any more pressing matters to address, right? Apparently not.

Read the official press release and weep. Then try to enjoy tonight’s match-up between the  San Francisco 49ers and the Baltimore Ravens. It will probably be less stressful than watching C-SPAN.

Civilization doesn’t see to be all it’s cracked up to be, does it? Perhaps these youths are merely the budding immigrant entrepreneurs of which Tamar Jacoby and her ilk wax poetic? Regardless, I’m sure they’ll make a lasting, positive contribution to American society.

h/t BlazingCatfur.

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.

One simple word which encapsulates the sum of the aspirations harbored by Iranians throughout the world, both those in exile and those living, and suffering, in the land of their birth. It was one of the demands invoked repeatedly throughout the pro-democracy demonstrations which took place last week at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza. These protests were held against the backdrop of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last speech before the United Nations General Assembly, evoking memories of the election he purloined in order to remain in power.

Although various factions within the Iranian freedom movement were present, the bulk of those in attendance came from the MEK, an organization led by the woman seen in the placard above, Maryam Rajavi.

The president of the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran-and wife of Massoud Rajavi, the leader of that group’s political arm, The National Council of Resistance in Iran-she controls what is arguably the most controversial, and undoubtedly the most personality-driven, group within the anti-IRI opposition movement which has taken root among the Iranian diaspora created by the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

The cloud surrounding the MEK exists for a number of reasons, one of the most prominent among them being its inclusion in a list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations created by the State Department, which includes such illustrious fraternal associations as Abu Sayyaf and Lashkar-e-Taiba. 

At first glance, it would appear that this designation is appropriate. After all, as this ABC News report about the recent removal of the MEK from proscribed terrorist organizations makes clear, it was responsible for the deaths of Americans-both civilian and military-abroad, much like northern California jihadi John Walker Lindh. It was given sanctuary for decades by Iraq-itself considered a state sponsor of terror until the removal of Saddam Hussein from power-much like the Palestinian Liberation Front, a terrorist group responsible for murdering American citizens in the most callous manner.

So if the terrorist designation is applied to any group which has the blood of Americans on its hands, then the State Department should not have even contemplated de-listing the MEK. However, if that is the policy, then what explanation is there for the federal government’s consistent policy of embracing, if not feting, PLO leaders? Men who  are directly implicated in the murder of American diplomats, and who represent an entity responsible  for the deaths of more Americans  any other terrorist organization in the contemporary era-and whose hands are stained with blood much fresher than that taken by the MKO-with the exceptions of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. The PLO might even outrank the latter in body count, if we consider that its chief operations planner was once a protege of Yasser Arafat.

If the criteria for inclusion is militarization and/or criminal activity, then it’s hard to explain why the Irish Republican Army has never been designated an FTO. After all, the IRA Army Council didn’t formally renounce its armed campaign until 2005, which marked the year it finally decommissioned its supply of arms. What’s more, members of the IRA have engaged not only in murder and obstruction of justice within the past decade-as well as other notorious criminal activities-but shared their bomb-making expertise with the most prolific terrorist group in the Western Hemisphere.

So what explains the MEK’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department? Although obviously a self-interested stance, I can’t help but agree with the MEK itself, which concludes that this decision was made in an attempt at currying favor with the Iranian regime. A regime whose presidency was held by the pseudo-reformist Mohammed Khatami, assiduously courted by the Clinton administration, at the time this list was formulated. As others have pointed out, this policy of engagement with the Islamic Republic of Iran has not returned much in the way of political or diplomatic dividends.

Even so, the MEK’s fiercest adversaries do pose some valid objections. The organization does have a very sordid past, a past which Kenneth Timmerman has extensively and eloquently limned over the years. And despite some exaggeration of the dangers it poses, there is an inexorably cultish quality to the organization created by Maryam and Massoud Rajavi, although it should be noted that there are numerous cults in this country which do not engage in terrorism. At least, as it is generally defined.

Another valid critique of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq  is the assertion that it is not a genuinely grassroots opposition movement. Anyone who has observed an MEK rally firsthand can’t escape the impression that the astroturf accusations are not completely devoid of merit. The man above didn’t seem to have much interest in the internal political dynamics of Iran, much less the MEK, although the fact that he was at a rally with fans of the Redskins and Giants did speak to a rare intra-divisional amity this NFL season.

Even protestors with more substantive concerns-such as these Cameroonian men-did not seem particularly interested in the issues that animated others at this rally.

Notwithstanding the occasional references to “Iranian freedom,” most of their chants focused exclusively upon the injustice of Paul Biya’s lengthy dictatorship over the people of Cameroon, and the persecution their countrymen endure for opposing it.

Finally, the allegation that the MEK bought its way off of the State Department’s list of proscribed terrorist groups must be addressed. The fact that the former head of the Department of Homeland Security is willing to speak to crowd of MKO supporters, and urge other nations to facilitate the resettlement of MEK members now living in Camp Liberty, speaks to the efficacy of their lobbying efforts.

As does the bipartisan nature of the support they receive. Which runs the gamut from avid motorist Patrick Kennedy,

to former New Mexico governor-and Clinton fixer-Bill Richardson,

to the far more reputable, and decidedly conservative, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Whatever motivates these public figures to support their cause-to a greater or lesser degree-it can’t be disputed that the  mobilization of the MEK within the halls of American power has played a significant role in their political rehabilitation.

That said, it strikes me as slightly hypocritical to bemoan the (legal) lobbying by an anti-IRI organization while ignoring the corresponding public relations campaign undertaken by friends of the mullahcracy. Even if you truly believe that the MEK is a monstrous organization, how much more bestial and inhumane is the regime it stands against?

Which isn’t to imply that the MEK is worthy of political support-either through taxpayer subsidies or individual donations-or a model which Iranian dissidents should emulate. Personally, I find the idea of it serving as “the government” of any future, post-Islamic Iranian republic fairly ludicrous. And of course, there already exist opposition activists with much compelling, forward-thinking platforms.

Nevertheless, the widespread efforts to demonize the MEK-for all its failures-seems to be profoundly misplaced. Even if we were to concede that this organization comprised the most detestable collection of rogues known to man, its continued existence is itself a byproduct of the brutal theocracy which has ruled Iran for the past three decades.

Their goals might be more ignoble than those of the Green Movement, and more incoherent than those of the constitutional monarchists and the left, but they exist within the context of opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. A regime which rules largely-ironically enough-because of their past actions. However, the past is the past. To use the actions a group took decades ago, however heinous, as a justification for arbitrary political decisions, even those that might be enjoy widespread popularity, would be mistaken.

One of the fascinating aspects of living in this city is that, for good or ill, you’re exposed to a whole raft of ideologies and political philosophies of which, but for location, you might have remained blissfully ignorant in perpetuity. Granted, some of us choose to remain mired in a state of ignorance notwithstanding the fact that we dwell in the cultural capital of the planet. Even so, those of us with a smidgen of intellectual curiosity find ourselves compelled to investigate  these esoteric political beliefs, if for no other reason than merely to satisfy the more quizzical side of our nature.

That’s what brought me down to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, the site of multiple demonstrations against the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this past week. The largest faction of protesters came at the urging of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, otherwise known as the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran, otherwise known as the MKO, not to be confused with the National Council of Resistance in Iran, which serves as the MEK’s parliament-in-exile. Confused yet? Bear with me.

The banner you see above might look vaguely familiar, and that’s probably because you’ve seen it before-in New York City, no less! That’s right, it was part of the original Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park, which was eventually dispersed by the NYPD.

Despite its many permutations throughout the decades, one of the constants of the MEK has been its association, however attenuated, with the  left. So its decision to align itself with the staggeringly incoherent, yet incontestably leftist, OWS movement should not have come as a surprise. And just as you’ll find PMOI supporters at large gatherings of leftists, you’re more than likely to find a diverse array of leftists-with an interest in anti-IRI activism-at MEK rallies.

At the last MEK demonstration against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I observed an informational booth manned by a member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran-in exile, of course- who stood behind a crimson red banner that resembled this flag. The irony of denouncing the world’s leading state sponsor of terror while venerating-seemingly-Russia’s first mass terrorist apparently being lost on him.

Large sections of this rally weren’t any more intellectually coherent, unfortunately. Case in point, a group of Western feminists protesting the Iranian state’s deplorable treatment of women, including the not infrequent executions of those who run afoul of its clerical leadership’s capricious enforcement of Islamic law.

Although the Iranian regime’s periodic bloodletting of its citizenry is deserving of universal condemnation, I can’t help but think that doing so while wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the image of one of the Western Hemisphere’s most notorious executioners-and a totalitarian, to boot-is a decidedly mixed message.

Even so, it can’t be disputed that the Iranian system of justice-including its hellish penal institutions-is barbaric even by the most narrow definition of human rights. As the poster above indicates, Iran is one of the few countries that still routinely sentences juveniles to death, more often than not carrying out those verdicts. This tragedy is made all the more horrific by the complicity of Western suppliers of construction equipment; equipment that is regularly utilized in one of the Iranian regime’s preferred methods of execution.

Even though this facet of capital punishment in Iran is rapidly changing due to grassroots political pressure, there are other more traditional methods of murdering unsatisfied citizens, as the picture above-and the story of Soraya M.-demonstrate.

Death and imminent danger were recurring themes throughout the rally, along with the threat posed by a potentially nuclear-armed IRI. Those executed by the Iranian state, before, during, and after the 2009 Green Revolution were highlighted at different points throughout the day.

Another issue promoted-in keeping with the depressingly repetitive news coming across the news wires-is the anti-Assad revolution within Syria. In addition to spotting some Syrians sporting hats with the logo of the Free Syrian Army-a group engaged in questionable  actions itself-there were dozens of men and women bearing the pre-Baathist flag of the Syrian Republic, which has become synonymous with the civil war which has ravaged Syria for the past year and a half.

The inextricable bond between that regime and its benefactors in the Iranian government was referenced throughout the rally. That the Syrian government would probably be unable to repulse its domestic opponents without the military assistance it receives from Iran is an inexorable truth.

So is, it would seem, the precarious nature of Bashar al-Assad’s decade-long reign, although making geopolitical predictions-as history tells us-is always a dicey proposition.

One of the intriguing elements of the anti-Assad faction within this demonstration was the attempt to cast a non-sectarian facade over their efforts. Even though the ecumenical sentiments of these opponents of Baathism were no doubt sincere, I’m not certain that Syrian Christians feel the same way, especially after witnessing the fate of their Assyrian and Catholic brethren in neighboring Iraq.

Though the Syrian regime’s persecution of religious and ethnic minorities is well documented, the prospect that Syria’s most imperiled minority will benefit from yet another Islamic awakening during this Arab Spring is doubtful. One need only look to the precedent established by the Islamic Revolution in Iran in order to see that non-Islamic faiths don’t always thrive in the aftermath of Middle Eastern regime change.

That said, those looking to depose the mullahs in Iran have a compelling argument to make. One that I hope to examine in my third and final post on this subject, in which I’ll continue to explore the history-and perhaps the future-of one of the most vocal and controversial Iranian opposition groups, the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq.

In defiance of a state law, Villaraigosa has ordered the Los Angeles Police Department to cease impounding the cars of unlicensed-read illegal-drivers for up to thirty days. According to Chief Charlie Beck, this imposes an “unfair burden” upon the city’s illegal, unlicensed community. It’s good to know that L.A.’s elected officials are so concerned over the welfare of criminals in this country illegally, although I wish they would be as sympathetic to the plight of those killed by their callousness and indifference to American lives.

In a story that’s been covered extensively on this website, the nexus between Mexican narco-cartels and Iranian-backed, Islamic terror networks is once again demonstrated, this time through a story published by Pro Publica, which examines the link between the Lebanese banking system, cocaine users in the United States, and a powerful Mexican drug cartel. The story is worth reading in full, if only because it illustrates the growing global interdependency of American criminals, Mexican narco traffickers and Middle Eastern terrorists.

In gunwalking news, there has been a raft of new information released recently that further implicates the Justice Department in deception, obstruction, and retribution. In adition to using their own twisted scheme-which has resulted in the death of agents Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata and hundreds of Mexicans-to press for more laws attacking the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, it’s now been revealed that the Department of Justice sought to audit the e-mails of one of the journalists who first broke the Gunwalker scandal earlier this year. This comes even as FBI Director Robert Mueller publicly denies the existence of an agency coverup related to the investigation into the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. However, administration denials are not satisfying everyone, illustrated by the call for Eric Holder’s resignation by Arizona congressman Paul Gosar. In order to tell your congressman to support Rep. Gosar’s no-confidence motion in Attorney General Holder, visit Stand with Arizona’s website. Coming on the heels of yet another gunwalking plot uncovered in Houston, it’s the only sensible thing to do.

Demonstrating that, contrary to popular belief, not everyone coming across our border is a hardworking Mexican seeking to do jobs that Americans won’t, police officers cracked a human smuggling ring in the Rio Grande Valley that was bringing Sri Lankans into this country in the trunks of cars. Remember, OTMs account for over nine percent of the apprehensions in this country, which means over 40,000 individuals, many of whom come from decidedly unfriendly locales.

In an update to a story that’s been covered extensively on this site, we’ve now learned-courtesy of Andy Ramirez and the Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council-that imprisoned border patrol agent Jesus E. ‘Chito’ Diaz  Jr.  will not be able to return home or associate with any law enforcement officials-including his wife-because they are armed. Read about the mind-boggling decision by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for yourself at WorldNetDaily. The outrageousness of this decision is compounded by newly disclosed information which demonstrates that the judge involved the prosecution of Agent Diaz forbade the release of exculpatory evidence by his defense attorneys. Like Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, it looks like the prosecution of Agent Diaz was indeed a politically inspired vendetta against the brave men and women who try valiantly to secure this nation’s borders.

Speaking of law enforcement, Fausta’s Blog has an interesting take on the recent drop in arrests at the Mexican-American border, some of which can be traced to the militarization of the border imposed by ultra-violent drug cartels like the Zetas. However, the no apprehension policy instituted by the Obama administration has certainly helped to boost the misleading numbers. In either case, these statistics should not be used as an excuse to embrace amnesty, although this is probably a forlorn hope.

In political news, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano has broached the idea that illegal aliens-a core part of the mayor’s constituency-be allowed to vote. Followers of American Rattlesnake will remember Mayor DeStefano as the originator of the Elm City Resident Card, yet another means of embedding illegal aliens into the fabric of American society while erasing the distinction between American citizens and those lawbreakers who increasingly form the backbone of the national Democratic Party. By way of contrast, current presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has demonstrated his independence and courage by coming out in opposition to the American Catholic Church’s seditious stand on the issue of illegal immigration. Read the entire story on the Numbers USA blog.

Meanwhile the barbaric cultural and religious rites that are imported into our country daily-all the while going undocumented by our nation’s gatekeepers-is the subject of a great column by Ilana Mercer in WorldNetDaily. The owner of Barely a Blog debunks the misconception that East Indian H1-B visa-holders are merely industrious, high tech guest workers from the third world meant to improve the efficiency of data processing centers in the United States. Our nation’s lawmakers would do well to read the work of Ms. Mercer before passing bills that would expedite the aproval of green cards for these sorts of individuals.

In another sign of the times, the American Heritage Dictionary has knuckled under to the forces of political correctness  and decided to characterize the purely descriptive term “anchor baby” as a derogatory slur. If you want to tell these speech commissars what you think of the Orwellian Newspeak they’re trying to impose upon the American public, here’s your chance. Sound off to the people responsible for this campaign and tell them what you think of their manipulation of the English language.

On the lighter side of things, we’ll end today’s roundup by noting a campaign gaffe made by Mexico’s leading presidential candidate. Enrique Peña Nieto  isn’t the only politician to be caught flat-footed when asked which authors or books inspired him, even among current Mexican presidential contenders, but his faux pas has definitely been the most entertaining. Is Señor Nieto Mexico’s answer to Rick Perry? Only time will tell, but both will definitely keep us entertained for the foreseeable future.

I suppose I should have prefaced the title of this post with the qualifier “allegedly,” although for the sake of argument I’ll assume that the allegations contained in the Justice Department indictment are true.  There are a number of angles from which this story can be approached, and many of them have already been teased out by analysts, reporters, and foreign policy experts over the past day. These include conspiracy theories asserting that this development is merely a means of deflecting the widening fallout from Operation Fast and Furious, commentary on the regional power struggle between the House of Saud and the mullahs in Iran, and rumblings that this might be a prelude to hostilities between the United States and the IRI. 

What interests me about this story-aside from the fact that one of the purported plotters is a naturalized American citizen-is the rush by pundits to dismiss the idea that members of the Quds Force, a paramilitary, terrorist arm of Iran’s military-would collaborate with a Mexican drug cartel. Leaving aside the question of whether this plot was undertaken by actors within the Iranian regime, the notion that terrorists and Mexican narco-traffickers would cooperate is hardly outlandish. It’s been well established that Hezbollah, the cat’s paw of the ayatollahs in charge of Iran, has extensive operations in Latin America, including Mexico, so the means to effect a consequential terrorist assault certainly exists, as the Jewish community in Argentina knows all too well. And the nexus between drug lords and international terrorists has certainly been well documented, in countries ranging from Colombia to Afghanistan to other nations throughout the world.

Plus, the cooperation between Iran and anti-American regimes within Latin America, such as those of Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega, is an established fact. So the question is not whether this sort of terrorist collaboration is possible, but whether the Zetas and an arm of the Iranian regime worked together in this specific case. That’s something that federal prosecutors and policy-makers will have to contemplate in the days ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the subject of illegal Palestinians living inside of Israel is broached, we more often than not view it through the prism of  terrorism directed against the Jewish state. Considering the collaboration between Israeli Arabs and Islamic terrorist organizations in the region, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, that’s not an altogether baseless concern.

We’ve also been told countless times of the alleged plight of Palestinians working inside of Israel illegally, often within the context of a broader condemnation of Israel’s construction of homes for citizens living on the West Bank.

What’s less frequently discussed are the problems posed by the large sub-population of Palestinian illegal aliens living within Israel on a daily basis. The gravity of this problem though was made apparent recently when an eleven year-old Israeli boy was habitually raped and tortured at the hands of four Palestinian men. As gruesome as this crime is, it reflects the enormous problems you invite into your country when you sanction the presence of hundreds of thousands-or in our country’s case, millions-of illegal aliens. Peruse New York tabloids from the past decade and you will find hundreds of criminal incidents that illegal aliens lie at the heart of, including one of the most notable cases, the brutal murder of acclaimed actress/director Adrienne Shelly by a nineteen year-old IA from Ecuador.

Nations can continue to ignore this problem-in order to reap the dubious benefits of access to a cheap supply of labor-or they can grapple with the enormous human cost of illegal immigration. As last week’s horrific revelations in Israel demonstrate, this is a problem that all Western nations must face, even if they are reluctant to do so.