The graphic above is taken from the brilliant Cognitive Bias Parade, which is one of many online venues that have chosen to show their solidarity with the 12 martyrs of Charlie Hebdo by embracing the satirical defiance which so aggrieves the soldiers of Allah. The insincere protestations of America’s intellectual gatekeepers notwithstanding, the reaction of the American press corps has been depressingly familiar. Of particular note was the petulant, disingenuous, and yet not altogether surprising outburst from New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet. You can read the very illuminating-as well as entertaining-Facebook thread which sparked this contretemps here. 

For an analysis of the choices made by the Canadian counterparts of  chickenshit American editors like Mr. Baquet, check out the superb interview of Jen Gerson on the Canadaland podcast. Even as editorial cartoonists in the Arab Middle East, a region filled with homicidal Islamic lunatics, have expressed sympathy for the latest victims of the The Religion of Peace, and those living in a brutal Islamic theocracy have engaged in the journalism the Daily News eschews, the most appropriate response to the events of this horrific week has come from one of the surviving members of Charlie Hebdo’s staff.

For an index of artistic depictions-ranging from reverent to blasphemous-of the media’s favorite bloodthirsty warlord, I recommend Zombietime’s Mohammed Image Archive, which is an invaluable resource in a time when even the images we see must come with a halal certification.

10 Years Later: The 9/11 Commission Report’s Findings on Immigration 

As the nation prepares for the thirteenth anniversary of the most destructive foreign attack upon American soil, we need to remember what our government hasn’t done to ensure the security of our nation. Namely, secure our borders from infiltration by those who would do us harm. From the 6,000 foreigners here ostensibly as students whom the Department of Homeland Security cannot account for, to the global jihadist networks which have established beachheads on our southern border, our federal government has been completely unable and unwilling to implement the prophylactic measures necessary to prevent another terrorist assault on the scale of the 9/11 attacks.

What’s more, it has discontinued programs, such as the immigrant registration program known as NSEERS, which actually accomplished some of the goals outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report. That’s why the words of those directly impacted by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the family members of those we lost on that day, should be heeded. To that end, I am linking to a poignant essay by Peter Gadiel published in the wake of Seal Team Six’s targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden, the man who ordered those attacks. As president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, he has spent the better part of a decade lobbying and fighting to make sure that no American citizen experiences the same fate as his son, who perished in the flames of 9/11.

We need to remember that the best offense against international terrorism is a sound defense of the American homeland, which entails not TSA security theater or the encroachment upon Americans’ civil liberties, but the reassessment of the disastrous open borders policies that have led to so many unnecessary deaths since 2001. The best way to honor the memory of the nearly 3,000 men and women who perished on 9/11/01 is to fight unceasingly to make sure that no more Americans have to suffer the same fate in the future.

 h/t Federation for American Immigration Reform

If you needed a reminder of why resettling scores of refugees from the Middle East in the United States is a monumentally bad idea, look no further than what  I would term, for lack of a better phrase, the Kill the Yahud rallies which have taken place throughout this country over the past month. One of the most virulent was held in our fair city last week in commemoration of Quds Day, a charming event instituted by the Khomeinist sociopaths who seized control of Iran over three and a  half decades ago. Held annually during Ramadan, it calls for the destruction of the Jewish State and is a favorite holiday for Islamo-fascists and anti-Semites the world over.

The conflict between Israel and the terror statelet run by Iranian proxy Hamas, temporarily on hold, served as the perfect platform for the City’s perpetually hateful and morally selective to vent their spleens under the protection of New York’s Finest. Thankfully, The Silent Majority No More was on the scene to document the pathetic, hypocritical display.

Check it out for yourselves. 

Last week I had the pleasure of witnessing a panel discussion at the Rush Arts Gallery moderated by Julie Ashcraft, who is currently curating an exhibition entitled The Grand Cypher: Hip Hop, Iran & Syria. You can see the multi-media exhibit through May 24th, but I decided to take in the works of art and poetry last week in order to listen to a riveting conversation about the nature of hip hop within a global context, the opening of which you can view for yourself. In addition to acclaimed independent rapper Immortal Technique and New York attorney Jenny Poupa Marashi, who was born in Iran, there were two artists who participated in the panel via Livestream, Ehsan Ziya (Atour)-who hosted the first hip hop podcast in the nation of Iran-and Francis A. Willey, a composer and artist known not only for an iconic image appropriated by freedom activists in the Middle East but for an innovative, less toxic method of processing photographs. 

What struck me about this event was the way it embodied was the transcendent nature of art. Many of the artists whose works were displayed in this exhibition had experienced indescribable hardships-including war and imprisonment-in order to have their voices heard. The fact that they are able to recognize the importance of art-and how essential it is to life-in the face of threats to their own livelihood and security demonstrates its universality to the human condition. In a society where artists clamor for subsidies from unwilling taxpayers, it was refreshing to experience artwork which was created  at great personal sacrifice, often in defiance of government censorship.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the panel discussion was a debate over the role of the hip hop community in fostering public debate over critical domestic and foreign policy issues. Immortal Technique-the Peruvian-born, Harlem raised rap artist Felipe Andres Coronel-was arguably the ideal person to address this subject, being at the forefront of independent, conscious hip hop. Even though I was familiar with some of his views prior to this discussion, I was nonetheless wowed by the breadth of knowledge on display by Coronel, whose commentary ranged over the role the Sykes-Picot Agreement played in the current, sanguinary problems in the Levant, to the extent of white slavery within an empire of oppression dominated by Arab-Muslim armies of conquest in the past. Regardless of what you think of his personal political philosophy, it’s difficult to argue that Immortal Technique brings a sagacity and historical knowledge to his work that is sadly lacking  in the contemporary rap world.

Ehsan Ziya, his Iranian counterpart, contributed his own fascinating observations to this discussion, which also delved into the necessity of maintaining creative and financial control over the work you produce. As an artist in an Islamic theocracy which exercises complete control over what artistic expression and information is allowed to be consumed by the general public, he experiences life very differently than artists living in North America or Europe. The plight of  those seeking to create independent cinema, music and art within Iran is well known in the west, however very few people are aware of the struggles of the underground rap scene. One of the chief obstacles rappers like Ziya must overcome is the Catch-22 facing musicians who seek to turn their passion into a vocation. Namely, that in order to monetize their art these rap artists need to be widely known among the Iranian public, but once they become well known, the authorities rapidly crush them.

Even though he is not explicitly political, Ziya faces persecution because of the incipient threat that any large group of individuals-even those who merely share a common interest in a particular musical genre-pose in the wake of the Green Revolution. Unsurprisingly, artists who do not challenge the existing political status quo-even in an oblique manner-receive the full support of the regime-a point validated by the approval of a rap LP devoted to the devastating 2003 earthquake in Bam, which was produced by a group of musicians who had the full-throated endorsement of the IRI and its state institutions. The chasm that exists between those artists who are unencumbered by the desire to please authority-and as a result, are persecuted by the powers that be-and those who insist upon kowtowing to power, was thrown into stark relief by The Grand Cypher.

Therefore, I highly recommend visiting this exhibition, which will be on display through next week.

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.

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.

The image you see above is a flow chart describing the process by which the bodies of illegal aliens, or in the parlance of the presenter, “undocumented border crossers,” found in the United States are identified and returned to their families. Or, in the case of those whose identities can not be verified, disposed of. It was part of a presentation by Luis Torrens, a student pursuing a Master’s in Public Health, who was invited to address a day-long seminar hosted by the CUNY Graduate Center and the Immigration Working Group which I attended yesterday. I attended the final session of the event, which was billed as a discussion of “immigration Policy and Undocumented Immigrants” and focused exclusively upon the lives of illegal aliens living-and dying-within the United States. 

Notwithstanding the ideologically blinkered nature of the discussion-of all the discussions, to be frank-I did glean some valuable insights from most of the presentations, which consisted of  original research by professors and graduate students seeking grants for further exploration of the subject of their studies. In the case of Mr. Torrens, that entailed devising a better method for the identification and recovery of the bodies of illegal border crossers from Mexico into the United States. He has pursued this goal by interviewing medical examiners and coroners from 44 border counties located in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. One of the most interesting findings from his study was the discovery that although the number of illegal border crossers apprehended has decreased in recent years, a 35 % decline from 2008-2009, the number of border crossers who have died has increased significantly, rising from 125 in the last decade of the 20th century to 802 in the years from 2000-2005. According to the General Accounting Office, most of these deaths are a result of the extreme heat and severe climatic conditions found in the desert along the Mexican-American border. 

Torrens suggested that this increase in heat-related deaths is a logical consequence of three border enforcement measures pursued during the Clinton administration, which he described as having a “funnel effect” intended to push illegal Mexican border crossers into the most inhospitable of environments. These three border enforcement tools were Operation Hold the Line, a 1994 initiative in El Paso involving the forward deployment of Border Patrol agents to remote stretches of the border, Operation Gatekeeper, which focused on preventing illegal entry from the San Diego-Tijuana portion of the border, and Operation Safeguard, an operation by the Border Patrol in Nogales, Arizona with similar aims. Unfortunately, the question of whether these measures were effective in deterring illegal entry in the first place-and therefore preventing unneeded deaths in the Southwest borderlands-was never broached by the speaker at any point during his presentation. 

Another interesting fact referred to by Torrens during his presentation is the sheer number of human bodies that are not able to be identified at a all, which comprise over 60 percent of the total found by American immigration officials and law enforcement officers. The bulk of his presentation focused on “best practices,” i.e. procedures that would allow American authorities to successfully identify and return the remains of border crossers whose bodies are found in the deserts of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico. His suggestion was the implementation of a medical examiner program in border counties where these deaths frequently occur, and the replacement of coroners with medical examiners when possible. Torrens asserted that medical examiners are trained pathologists, unlike coroners, and that counties with MEs, such as Bernalillo County in New Mexico, Pinal County in Arizona, and San Diego County in California, all have a more successful rate of identification than counties that merely have coroners investigating human deaths, such as Bernalillo County in New Mexico. Although not often remarked upon when debating issues like border security, the varying skills of forensic examiners has been documented by some media, such as the award-winning PBS series Frontline. 

Overall, the presentation of Mr. Torrens contained some valuable insights and recommendations, although he oversimplified the attitude found among some Border Patrol officers and law enforcement officials who come into contact with border crossers who have died in the course of their illegal entry into the United States. He invoked the case of two men on patrol who allegedly encountered the skeletal remains of a Mexican border crosser in the desert, subsequent to which the remains were dumped into their patrol vehicle. Notwithstanding the seeming callousness of this incident, I don’t think it reflects an indifference on the part of the United States Border Patrol, which is often the first and only means of rescuing distressed illegal aliens who find their lives endangered by heartless, venal criminals known as coyotes. 

Leaving aside the reservations expressed above, I did find the talk to be informative, well-researched, and cogent, which is more than I can say for the presentation prepared by Kelly James, an M.A. candidate in Middle Eastern Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center. Her study ostensibly traced the trends in immigration to this country from the Middle East and North Africa since 2001, using the 9/11 massacres undertaken by 19 Arab-Muslim terrorists as a starting point for an examination of immigration to the United States from these two geopolitical regions. Her hypothesis was that increased scrutiny of Arab-Muslims in the wake of the 9/11 attacks would be reflected in the number of Arab-Muslims seeking to enter the United States. Her sample selection included the nations of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, and Yemen, and relied upon data derived from the Department of Homeland Security’s annual Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. 

She divided her study into two distinct categories: immigrants per year, which included new arrivals to this country with visas, as well as adjustments of status, i.e. legal residents, and Nonimmigrants, which included students, visitors, and others who did not intend to permanently reside in the United States. She then traced the number of individuals from both groups who came to America from the nations listed above, attempting to to determine if post-9/11 Homeland Security, diplomatic, and/or national security policies had a discernible impact on the inflow to this country of predominantly Muslim-Arab newcomers. She asserted that while there had been a sharp decline in Middle Eastern immigrants admitted in 2001, the number surged back to its pre-2001 levels in 2003. While the number of nonimmigrants admitted has fallen from 2001 and not recovered to the same degree, the number of nonimmigrants from the rest of the world has exceeded the pre-9/11 level. 

 Ms. James postulated that most of the temporary decline in admissions could be attributed what she views as overly zealous screening and security procedures implemented by the federal government in the wake of the September 11th atrocities committed by Al Qaeda, particularly with respect to the newly created Transportation and Security Administration, whose excesses have also drawn the criticism of many American citizens as well. While this theory might very well be a valid interpretation of the DHS figures, it does not explain why individuals from non-Arab and non-Muslim countries-and even Muslim countries located outside of the two studied regions-were not impacted similarly during 2001 and 2002. Furthermore, her assertion that security agents were trained to profile people entering this country based upon personal appearance and behavior is simply not accurate, and flatly contradicted by the outrageous, TSA-related incidents we’ve experienced time and time again.

Yet, this is not even the primary objection I have to the disturbingly shoddy presentation of Ms. James. My main complaint regarding her paper is the insistence-all facts to the contrary-that the now-defunct National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was both discriminatory and ineffective in achieving its ostensible objectives. This program was first implemented in September of 2002 by the Bush Administration in order to keep track of foreign nationals from 26 countries that have served as a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, among other global, Islamic terrorist organizations. Despite acknowledging that NSEERS replaced a notoriously anachronistic, inaccurate method of tracking the arrival and departure of foreign nationals, which involved the hand filing of paper I-94 forms, James refused to concede that it represented any sort of streamlining or improvement upon the normal, dilatory, incompetent process adhered to by the federal bureaucracy. She also did not even allude to the many defenders of NSEERs, including its chief architect in the Bush Department of Justice,  and the many valid, factual points they’ve made to demonstrate the program’s efficacy. Nor did she explain the rationale behind the Obama administration’s eventual termination of NSEERs, which occurred in May of this year. 

As weak as the presentation by Ms. James was, it wasn’t the only substandard research paper presented during Friday’s event. In my next post I’ll explore the flawed methodology and logic of two other speakers, as well as describe an impeccably researched, polished paper examining the approximate number of illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. 

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.

There are so many delicious aspects to this story, which reinforce so many pre-existing stereotypes, that it’s hard to unpack it all at first. Here you have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, an unabashed advocate for opening our borders and investing illegal aliens with all sorts of  rights and privileges-including citizenship and college education-hiring a woman of Latin American descent specifically for the purpose of exploiting identity group politics-a recurring theme during his campaign for re-election-who has now been fired for perhaps committing egregious criminal violations in order to sustain a sham marriage to a potential Middle Eastern terrorist!

Perhaps Senator Reid’s personnel choices would elicit a more negative reaction from his Democratic colleagues if he were to break ranks with the open borders caucus in Washington D.C., since criticizing our dysfunctional immigration system and offering concrete solutions to address the problem are grounds for public censure, as former Democrat and Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy discovered. Somehow, I doubt Ms. Tejada’s indiscretions will command denunciations on par with those directed at Mr. Levy for his apostasy on the immigration issue.

Then again, we can always hope.