Update: New photos, and full video coverage, at  The Silent Majority.
 

Today I decided to return to my old stomping grounds at Brooklyn College in order to witness a lecture delivered by acclaimed polemicist, writer, political and human rights activist, and former leader of the new left, David Horowitz. Invited to speak by student leader Yosef Sobel, and sponsored by Professor  Langbert-both of whom can be seen below-Mr. Horowitz delivered an impassioned, but unerringly rational, defense of freedom of speech, pluralism, and diversity, all values under attack in the Middle East and on American campuses-the primary theme of the evening. 

He began by noting the extreme impediments he-and the people who attended his lecture-had to overcome in order to simply be in attendance. A particularly sarcastic Muslim student interrupted his introductory remarks-something that would recur approximately a dozen times during his hour long speech-to ask him why such security measures were necessary. His cogent response that these steps were “what checkpoints are about, making people feel safer,” brought a thunderous round of applause from the audience. I can attest to the thoroughness of the examination each person had to undergo before being admitted to the event. If only the federal government were as efficacious and watchful as the people providing security for David Horowitz, we wouldn’t even have to worry about potential domestic terror attacks. 

Mr. Horowitz noted the planned-but ultimately abandoned-attempt by the International Socialist Organization to thwart his speech, making the point that college campuses have now become “the political base of the fascist left in this country,” and asserting that they were imperiling the foundation of our freedoms, which is the “ability to disagree in a civil manner.” This fact was reinforced by the spectacle of repeated disruptions to his speech by Muslim students, possibly members of  a campus chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot known as the Muslim Students Association. The man seen below, who refused to condemn Hamas when confronted by Horowitz during the concluding part of his post-speech Q&A, is a perfect illustration of the intolerance pro-Israel, pro-American students face on a daily basis. 

He was assisted in his failed effort at sabotaging Brooklyn College’s guest speaker by several female Muslims seated at the back of the audience. 

Despite the adversarial nature of this segment of the audience, David Horowitz was able to continue with his presentation, the second part of which gave those willing to listen a brief history lesson in the contemporary Middle East, which he correctly pointed out was a colonial creation resulting from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a fact that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli radicals refuse to admit, even as they deny the historic ties of Jews to the Holy Land. 

Refuting the libelous accusation that Israel, a land where Arab-Muslims enjoy more rights and freedoms than anywhere else on the planet, is somehow an “apartheid state,” he proclaimed that the opposite is the case, and that “the whole Arab Middle East is apartheid,” bolstering his assertion by recounting the eviction of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip by Hamas, which destroyed their agricultural equipment-equipment that was responsible for providing Gaza with 10 percent of its Gross National Product. 

He linked the two strands of his argument together by describing the enormous obstacles he encountered when attempting to place an ad exploring the true nature of the Islamic Middle East in the UC Daily Bruin-the official campus newspaper of UCLA-whose editors labeled the proposed ad defamatory. He then questioned the Daily Bruin representative as to how delineating the actual stance of Hezbollah, Hamas, and  Palestinian and Egyptian clerics was beyond the pale, while the regular vituperation directed against Israel and Jews was halal. Of course, he never received a satisfactory answer to his question. However, you can visit the Palestinian Wall of Lies and judge for yourself the validity of the accusations routinely lodged by  ”Israeli apartheid” campaigners during their week of denunciation and vitriol. 

One of the chief laments of David Horowitz throughout his speech was the lack of support he receives from mainstream, institutionalized Judaism within the United States. He cited as a glaring example of this problem campus Hillels, which should be a defensive bulwark against pro-Islamic, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda, yet routinely refuse to engage in the war that’s being waged against them by radical leftists and organizations such as the Muslim Students Association. He also broadened his attack to include the “interfaith” organizations that attempt to reach out to radical Muslim organizations, notwithstanding their checkered history. 

The overall impression I had of the event, despite the repeated disruptions by anti-Horowitz, anti-Israel and anti-American agitators planted liberally throughout the auditorium, and a very pessimistic message delivered by the keynote speaker, was one of perseverance. David Horowitz reiterated the necessity of fighting for your beliefs, in spite of the long odds and remote chance of success, and standing up for classical liberalism and the ideals upon which our nation’s founding fathers established this country. I went away from the evening undeterred and hopeful that there remained a cadre of young students willing to engage in intellectual combat in order to see what they believe is right prevails, both on their own college campus and within the country as a whole. 

 Today I attended the counterprotest held by supporters of Representative Peter King’s investigation into Islamic radicalism. A rally that was held approximately three blocks away from an event staged by radical leftists and Islamic extremists opposed to the very notion of Rep. King’s proposed hearings. Sponsored by the Liberty Alliance-and co-sponsored by numerous anti-sharia organizations throughout the area-it attracted a wide variety of individuals, including many New Yorkers opposed to the construction of the Ground Zero mosque, such as the man pictured above.

The rally was in large part organized and emceed by Andy Sullivan from Blue Collar Corner, an indefatigable opponent of Islamic extremism and supporter of the men and women who sacrificed so much in the hours and days after the 9/11 attacks.

He was assisted by Beth Galinsky of the Jewish Action Alliance, an organization dedicated to fighting those who seek to demonize Israel and the United States and/or advance an agenda of stealth jihad.

There was also an impassioned plea by one of Andy Sullivan’s fellow construction workers, who urged the crowd gathered in the unrelenting rain to fight back against the media campaign engineered by individuals like Imam Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan.

There was also Anne from New Jersey, a last-minute speaker who voiced the concerns of many who are looking to Rep. King for answers about the extent of Islamic extremism in their country and plans for what they can do to address this unsettling development politically.

There were representatives of almost every major faith in attendance, including Judaism:

Hinduism:

And Christianity:

The testimony from Simon Deng, who was once enslaved by Arab-Muslim neighbors in his homeland of South Sudan but who is now a human rights activist who leads the annual Sudan Freedom Walk, was particularly inspiring. As were the many creative signs on display throughout the afternoon.

Overall, I’d say the event was a success, and hopefully achieved the goal of its organizers. Namely, to exert whatever influence we have upon Rep. Peter King to continue his pursuit of answers to questions that have yet to be fully resolved. Hopefully, his investigation will be a fair, thorough examination of what the Muslim commuity believes, and give us an inkling into how it has participated in the domestic front of our nation’s war against terror.

Occasionally, we at American Rattlesnake like to publish original work on issues of a topical nature. That is why I’m pleased to bring you a trenchant personal essay that touches upon one of the most disturbing issues recently dominating the news cycle. So without further ado, I present to you the words of my good friend, Marion Dreyfus:
 
by Marion DS Dreyfus 2010 (c)

Of the 98 countries I have now been to, no one objected to my gallivanting off to any of them–except for my plans to traipse to Yemen. At the time, I had accumulated about 80 countries in my life-cache of countries, pursuing the goal I have of setting foot on the soil of every one of the world’s 194 nation-states.
 
It took me several weeks to apply for and get a visa, paying $30.00 for the privilege, in an office notably bereft of competing visa applicants.
 
Earlier, I had arranged for a male Yemeni, friend of a friend, to accompany me, because even adventuresome as I am, I had read enough and seen enough to know that Yemen was not a place to bop around solo. And female…single…Jewish. Not to mention, American.
 
Not the brightest place to travel to without bodyguards.
 
He would accompany me to places I wanted to see in this somewhat backward, somewhat aggressive, somewhat violent, somewhat terrorist-aiding country. There were native synagogues and colorful Yemeni national raiment and jewelry from centuries of Jewish inhabitants, exotic customs and rituals that would make for great photographic keepsakes and attractive acquisitions and gifts.
 
My normally reticent and accepting Mother learnt of my plan. For the first and only time, after some 85 countries, she put her foot down. You are not going to Yemen, she told me; on the phone, by letter, Indian smoke signal and telepathic memo.
 
My visa languished in my passport. I thought long and hard about the usual violence and bruited terrorist acts perpetrated by this small Muslim country. I followed the incidents because I have long been in the activist role in regards the Middle East and their brewing, stewing fulminations, even when the rest of the news crowd was ignoring the developments and outcroppings of violence.  People vanished. Women were raped and disappeared. I decided it was not worth the risk of losing the ‘minder’ I had engaged, of being abducted-or worse-and of alienating my loving mother, just to get that new country stamp plume in my multi-feathered, visitation/habitation hats.
 
Subsequent events and up-to-the-minute news alerts have proven her advice and caution nothing short of prescient.
 
It may be that I never get that stamp in my crowded passport. But it may also be a continuation of my good health and well being not to push the parachuting-in business envelope beyond where it feels sane to go. It won’t be a grievous crime to get only 193, right? I won’t yield any metaphorical heft by valuing my life a tad more than an immigration red stamperino.
 
Sane is stay in sight in salubrious sites.
 
Insane might be setting off on a jumbo jet to Sanaa.
 
marion d s dreyfus ………2010(c)

One of the biggest misconceptions in the debate over our nation’s immigration policy is the notion that in order to be a good Christian or a decent Jew you need to support a policy of open borders in perpetuity. Although the link between a partisan political agenda and belief in the scriptural teachings of a given religion might be hard to discern for most neutral observers, the vast majority of the religious establishment in this country has nevertheless made this connection a focal point of their vocations.

Whether it’s a United Methodist Church in Chicago sheltering the noxious illegal alien Elvira Arellano,  the Roman Catholic Church’s seemingly implacable quest to foist amnesty upon a resistant American public, despite its utterly discredited leadership, or the Progress by Pesach campaign launched by liberal rabbinical leaders in this country, there would appear to be unanimity among America’s clerical and rabbinical hierarchy on the topic of immigration. 

I broach this subject now because of a fascinating discussion I recently had on Facebook with Professor Carol M. Swain, the brilliant conservative immigration enforcement activist and political science professor from Vanderbilt University. She obliquely alluded to some comments made by Richard D. Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission-whose logo is reproduced above-with which she vehemently disagreed. I could only assume that these comments were related to Mr. Land’s vocal support for amnesty legislation. 

Although the discrepancy between the views of religious leaders and their congregants, re: immigration, has been empirically demonstrated by respected pollsters, there is still a tendency among the public to defer to men and women of the cloth when they begin to expound upon our obligation to the “pilgrim” or “refugee.” This is an egregious error in judgment, in my opinion.

Despite the fact that the Lutheran Church is now often associated with liberal causes-such as the sanctuary movement revived by open borders advocates masquerading as pastors-this reverend makes one of the more compelling, persuasive Christian arguments in opposition to the movement aiding illegal aliens living in this country. And as hard as it may be to conceive of, there are other voices that dissent from the current orthodoxy, as this essay by Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, demonstrates.

The notion that Judaism or Christianity are synonymous with a specific immigration policy advocated by liberal political figures with religious facades is simply false. The more people expose the fallacies in this way of thinking the closer we’ll be to having a real examination of the problems that porous borders and weak interior immigration enforcement pose to our country. The leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are on the wrong track, and they need to be told so by their flock. Unfettered immigration and indifference to criminal behavior are not Christian values, and no one should be deceived into believing they are.