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.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Marco Rubio has any ideological qualms about further enfeebling the Republican Party. In fact, some have suggested a change of enrollment and independent candidacy-like his old friend Charlie Crist-lie in his future. Even if he remains in the GOP, opposition to Rubio will maintain its intensity; the notion that this man has enough public credibility to retain the support of  genuine conservatives, let alone launch a plausible presidential candidacy, strains credulity. The fact that his press flack-who, along with Cesar Conda, is a full-fledged member of the treason lobby-regurgitates the same specious arguments on behalf of expanding the supply of cheap, foreign labor, merely serves to illustrate how far removed Senator Rubio is from the concerns and struggles of attentive, patriotic Americans.

Kudos to Ann Coulter for calling out the Chuck Schumer Republicans who are selling us up the river, as well as their unofficial spokesmen working under the auspices of the Fox News Channel. The veil has been ripped off, and the potentially catastrophic consequences of this bill-should it be enacted into law-revealed. This is not the time to indulge Potemkin conservatives or the  insipid pablum their handlers ask them to repeat.

Just say no!

Last week’s election results undoubtedly left many readers deeply disappointed, if not disaffected, including those of you who couldn’t bring yourselves to cast your ballot for Mitt Romney for any number of well documented reasons. The prospect of a president unencumbered by electoral consequences, whose administration has already shown itself to be flagrantly indifferent to-if not contemptuous of-the rule of law and quaint Constitutional notions like the separation of powers, seems daunting to ordinary, patriotic citizens.

What’s more, the same malleable, anemic species of Republican which has represented GOP voters for the past two years, and whose leadership has led not only to political defeat but unprecedented encroachments upon personal autonomy, has been returned to Congress. Not to stand up for the principles of the men and women who elected them, but with the intent of compromising with the  President and cementing his agenda into law, including the completion through congressional action of the vast amnesty Barack Obama has begun to implement through executive action.

Make no mistake, President Obama will attempt to fulfill his promise to repay the support he received from Latino voters this election cycle. The implementation of DACA and promulgation of administrative amnesty over the past two years was merely the down payment of a much larger loan floated by the Democratic Party’s most prized constituency. Repaid, of course, with citizenship for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in this country.

I doubt that either Barack Obama or John Boehner will wait for the next session of Congress to begin; certainly it doesn’t appear that members of Congress are hesitant to begin strip-mining what remains of American citizenship. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s rumblings about neutering the filibuster-which was the only legislative tool that prevented the DREAM Act from being enacted in the last lame duck session of Congress-don’t augur well for those of us who want to prevent this from happening. This upcoming session will see a reprise of the last lame duck session, only with fewer opportunities to obstruct whatever stalking horse for  amnesty is presented before Congress.

The fact that every credible exit poll, like every other measurable barometer of public opinion, demonstrated overwhelming voter opposition to amnesty will mean nothing to the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, much less the man who owes his office to individuals, unions, and corporations who will be the chief beneficiaries of any future negations of federal immigration law. The American people serve as an impediment which needs to be removed in a nation where too many old, white men exist, according to the despicable Al Cardenas, the current head of the curiously named American Conservative Union.

This meta-narrative, fostered by the usual suspects in the mainstream media and elsewhere among open borders dogmatists, will be emphasized in the weeks and months ahead. And just as in previous years with equally catastrophic amnesty proposals, this theme will be regurgitated by cretinous political apparatchiks, putative conservatives-such as Charles Krauthammer-and Republican Party lackies like Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity.

What makes this upcoming battle even more difficult is the seeming justification open borders enthusiasts have in pursuing their agenda by virtue of the latest electoral outcome. Almost to a man, they are touting the defeat of Mitt “Green Card Stapler” Romney-a man who endorsed the codification of DACA into federal law-as vindication of their mantra that the Republican Party needs to abandon any pretense  of  respect for our national borders, our language or our unique heritage as Americans.

While it’s easy to grasp why Democrats would want to enact legislation ensuring a spigot of reliable, straight ticket voters in future elections, it’s more difficult to discern why the Republican Party would want to legalize-and ultimately, enfranchise-millions upon millions of voters who will ultimately deprive its officeholders and political candidates of any decision-making authority. As poorly as Mitt Romney fared in capturing the Hispanic vote in aggregate terms, he performed even worse with specific sub-demographics within the Latino electorate. As the Pew Hispanic Center points out, Romney’s share of Hispanic voters who identified themselves as non-college graduates was thirteen points less than that among those who had graduated from college.

What better solution to the Republican Party’s demographic bind than to naturalize and enfranchise millions of future voters who have not only failed to attend college, but have not even progressed beyond high school? Makes perfect sense to me. Why even bother compromising your principles if Texas is going to become a blue state in a mere four years, as Jeb Bush-a potential presidential nominee to some of our country’s more sun-addled inhabitants-believes?

Furthermore, the notion that Hispanic voters-particularly, first and second generation immigrants-support the Democrats because of their support for unfettered immigration, or conversely, oppose Republicans due to their perceived opposition to such a policy, is empirically false. As Heather Mac Donald has pointed out repeatedly-including in the immediate aftermath of Mitt Romney’s loss-what binds this community to the Democratic Party, like past waves of immigrants who aligned with that party’s standard bearers, is support for and dependency upon a vast network of welfare programs, as well as wealth transfers which take the form of  confiscatory taxes levied upon high income earners.

That is why the Democratic Party-including Barack Obama and Harry Reid, among others-is so eager to legalize millions of illegal aliens, over sixty percent of whom come from Mexico. It sees these individuals as part of its immutable political base and a gateway to power, just as leaders of public sector and service employees’ unions see them as potential dues-paying members, i.e. a gateway to the accumulation of wealth, most of it extracted at the expense of American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, unlike past waves of immigrants, there are very few incentives for these newcomers to assimilate our language, much less adopt the free market ethos that open borders fetishists at places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Cato Institute ostensibly venerate. Add to this the reality that there is no time for these newcomers to assimilate-even if they had the inclination to do so-as successive waves of immigration further dilute their attenuated connection to this country, and we are left stranded at the current impasse where our nation, along with much of Europe, is functionally bankrupt.

There is no sugarcoating the challenge we face in the days ahead, but face it we must. Amnesty is not the answer.

The first gathering of the Stop Islamization of Nations Congress took place on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the city-and nation-targeted by pan-Islamic jihadists on that clear September day. Considering the deeply-rooted religious and ideological convictions that were  to serve as the fulcrum of those massacres, it was only fitting that any discussion of Islam’s predatory relationship to the inalienable rights of Americans take place on that day and in this city. However, the scope of this discussion extended well beyond the borders of America, because the ambitions of Islamic jihad go well beyond the geography of the United States.

That’s why men and women from across the globe came to New York City last week to attend the Stop Islamization of Nations Congress. Oppressed people throughout the world, from non-Malay second class citizens living in a “moderate” Muslim country, to indigenous Burmese threatened by Southeast Asian jihadists standing up for their illegal alien Islamic brethren the Rohingyas-even as they labor under the despotic reign of a military junta-to Iranian exiles forced to flee from the terror that is Khomeinism, came to stand in solidarity with their fellow freedom activists inside of the Millennium Plaza Hotel.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer deserve credit for having the tenacity and courage to make such an event possible, regardless of the personal costs and risks that attend to launching a campaign as déclassé as standing up for free inquiry and open debate. Even as every major organ in this country’s cadaverous media complex refuses to show the satirical cartoons published by French magazine Charlie Hebdo-sketches approved by my namesake, a man with more courage than the entire editorial staffs of the Washington Post and New York Times combined-the individuals responsible for the SION conference continue to stand up for the inalienable rights which are imperiled by global jihadism in its various manifestations.

The actions of Charlie Hebdo echo the bravery exhibited by the editors of Jyllands Posten and cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, so it was only fitting that the final panel of last week’s SION conference should include Anders Gravers of Stop the Islamization of Europe, which was created during the manufactured Jyllands Posten conflagration in order to defend European values from jihadist incursions. Hailing from Denmark, home to Jyllands Posten, Gravers has a unique perspective on what it means to live in a nation that’s been subjected to a carefully orchestrated, meticulously planned, global campaign of hatred and intimidation initiated by the adherents of Islam, who-at one point in our collective history-were more accurately characterized as Mohammedans.

The attempt by totalitarian Islamic states to intimidate the Danish people into passively acquiescing to sharia law-including its absolute prohibition of criticism of Mohammed and Islamic dogma-along with the internal assault by an Islamic fifth column within Europe’s borders, prompted Mr. Gravers to found an organization based upon the premise that the seemingly inexorable Islamization and dhimmification of his country and continent could be reversed.

In order to stand up for what had heretofore been regarded as inviolable human rights, he had to withstand an unceasing barrage of criticism from what he charitably calls the misleadia, a vast network of increasingly obsolescent press outlets that, rather than conducting intrepid, investigative journalism, concentrate their energies upon demonizing and denigrating ordinary individuals who pose simple questions about the direction in which Europe is headed.

Much like his fellow countryman, Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society has withstood intense political pressure to renounce his beliefs and truckle to the transformation of his country into something completely alien to most Danes who grew up in the aftermath of post-war Europe. His prosecution by the government  for “hate speech” was, in its essence, a heresy trial where he was prosecuted for having the temerity to openly question a system where unfettered immigration of Muslims from third world nations is coupled with a revocation of fundamental natural rights, foremost among them being the liberty to speak and write without fear of reprisals from agents of the state.

Although Mr. Hedegaard emerged from this state-sponsored debasement more or less intact, and-in a sense-triumphant, this ritual of state-driven, Islamist-supported intimidation established a precedent which will be followed in the future. Europe’s modern witch hunters will, henceforth, find new victims to burn at the stake, because the capacity of bien pensant elites to punish speech deemed insensitive to the feelings of Muslims-like the capacity for (selective) Muslim outrage-is boundless. Just like officials in the United States, Eurocrats need something to deflect attention from the real problem facing Europe.

However, the persecution of these individuals is merely a shadow of the threat posed  by the growth of an imported ideology which seeks to extend its dominion over all human affairs-an all-encompassing religion wherein the personal is political, and vice-versa. Those who aren’t patient enough to wait for the state to punish anti-Islamic speech often try to take matters into their own hands, as the man speaking in the video above, acclaimed Swedish artist and iconoclast Lars Vilks, well knows.

Mr. Vilks was not well known outside of Europe, or artistic circles, before he created the satirical drawing that you see above. Mohammed as a roundabout dog-an installation art movement begun in Sweden-was meant to test the limits of artistic expression within the confines of today’s stultifying political correctness and reluctance to gainsay left wing shibboleths.

The reason we know about this drawing today is precisely because the fear, timidity, and groveling solicitude regularly shown towards The Religion of Peace-and its warped conception of free speech-forced art directors who were initially willing to host his artwork to beg off, which in turn prompted a newspaper to publish the drawing that has-for better or worse-become inextricably linked with Mr. Vilks’s identity as an artist. The caricature of Mohammed as half-canine would go on to be displayed in a Scandinavian art exhibition-complete with a cautionary curatorial note that would normally precede an exhibit devoted to examining war crimes. However, it “went viral” because a single news editor had the temerity to make a choice all too many editors, publishers, publishing houses, academics, and ostensible journalists blanche at making.

The decision by  Nerikes Allehanda to publish roundabout Mohammed led to a chain reaction which might have been predicted by anyone who had followed the course of the first battle of the Cartoon Wars. One of Mr. Vilks’s aggrieved critics-seen above-decided to take matters into his own hands, and-along with other members of Somali militia/Al Qaeda affiliate Al Shabaab-plot his murder. What’s remarkable is that this was just one of nearly half a dozen major terrorist attempts on his life, including one undertaken by an American Muslim convert who went by the colorful moniker Jihad Jane. The incongruity of a blond woman from Pennsylvania leading an international plot aimed at his assassination was not lost on Vilks, who described it as something you would typically find in the plot to a suspense-thriller.

One of pleasant surprises of this fascinating speech was its brilliantly sardonic wit and lacerating humor, which I hadn’t expected when I first came to the SION Conference. Most people would have difficulty apprehending the humor of the harebrained schemes concocted with the ultimate goal-however unrealized-of facilitating that person’s death. However, Vilks was able to mine humor from what would ordinarily be seen as terrifying circumstances, even to lightheartedly mock the transparent illiteracy of some would-be Pakistani jihadists-seen above.

As well as their inability to acquire an actual Swedish flag to incinerate during their anti-Vilks hate rally. A problem that, perhaps unsurprisingly, does not bedevil Muslims seeking to vent their anti-American sentiments.

His sense of levity extended to those who satirized him as an artist-such as the cartoonist who created the deprecatory drawing seen above. In fact, he contrasted this peaceful, lawful critique of his artwork with the coercive violence that serves as the default reaction within large sections of the global community of Muslim worshippers. One manifestation of this tendency was the fire-bombing of his home in Sweden, the results of which you can see below.

Although not as imminent a threat to his life, the attacks upon Lars Vilks during lecture tours he conducted throughout his native Sweden demonstrate perhaps an even more disturbing phenomenon found within academic circles.

Whether he is being bombarded with eggs, paint-as seen above-or that old standby, closed fists, Vilks has been subjected to a systemic campaign of intimidation that passes for debate in the cloistered, intolerant halls of academe. The intellectually torpid environment, inflexible hostility to Western culture and lack of critical analysis found in most liberal arts universities only serves to reinforce the pre-existing obedience to authority and customs ingrained within Islam, a toxic interaction illustrated by the collegiate experience of the architect of 9/11.

This is yet another reason why I agree with other panelists from the SION conference, who reiterated the necessity of revising our disastrous federal immigration policy, which routinely confers residence-if not citzenship-upon people who are not only unassimilable and a burden upon taxpayers-but often present an potentially lethal security risk, to say nothing of the danger posed by those who enter this country illegally.

Yes, we must stand up for the essential liberties that differentiate our culture from their theirs. We must also rediscover the ability to mock our enemies and their myopic world view, which doesn’t recognize the inherent irony of violently marauding in opposition to a film depicting their prophet as an inveterately violent human being. And we must absolutely resist the urge to not write, draw or speak about this subject. However, as we affirm the necessity of preserving the values and culture of the Enlightenment, we must also acknowledge that the post-war experiment of creating a multicultural society built from the planks of unfettered immigration has failed. I hope to write about that failure, and how it can be addressed, in the days ahead.

Or your son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin… It happens to thousands of Americans every year-Jamiel Shaw’s son simply being one of the most famous victims of a criminal alien crime wave that afflicts every state in the union. The thoughts of Jamiel Shaw Sr. reflect the sentiments of someone whose life was torn apart by the willful negligence of his city’s public officials, who are more concerned with pandering to ethnic constituencies than enforcing the law.

Whether it’s a bright student-athlete in L.A. cut down by an illegal Mexican gangbanger, or a brilliant independent actress-filmmaker murdered by an Ecuadorian day laborer employed by Bradford General Contractors, the human carnage wreaked by this nation’s policy-makers is incalculable. So long as our politicians are intent upon electing a new people, events like the murder of Jamiel Shaw Jr. will continue, tragically.

One of the hallmarks of demonstrations organized by the left-as anyone who lives in this city can attest-is a consistently muddled message-or assemblage of messages-which often has little bearing on the theme ostensibly animating the protest movement in question. I’m not sure if the occupiers displaying the words of anti-USSR, Marxist Polish philosopher-turned anti-Marxist Solidarity activist-Leszek Kolakowski appreciate their import-considering the number of CCCP t-shirts and Soviet flags I saw displayed throughout May Day, I doubt most of them do. However, the Kolakowski quote did strike an ironic note when juxtaposed against the sea of slogans chanted by protesters this past Tuesday, some of them contradictory, some of them incoherent, and some of them not even leftist so much as anti-state.

Unlike in past years, the number of self-styled activists who were promoting mass legalization of illegal aliens was miniscule. There was the Aztec warrior you see below, who was wearing sneakers made of vulcanized rubber that I’m pretty certain was not part of pre-Columbian civilization.

There were also abandoned signs alluding to mass amnesty and opposition to immigration enforcement measures such as SB 1070:

However, the primary action was to be found among those agitating for a grab bag of legislative proposals, most consisting of the redistribution-some would say confiscation-of wealth from the “1 percent” and the transfer of said riches to the “99 percent.” The person below, for example, feels that “millionaires” should be taxed disproportionately. Leaving aside the fact that they already are in relation to the rest of the population, and that the phrase itself is incredibly misleading, insofar as the tax would be levied on those with six figure incomes, the idea that this proposal would reduce wealth stratification is completely erroneous.

Regardless of the message intended, there were several thousand of these people dispersed throughout the city Tuesday. Hence, the seemingly endless stream NYPD vehicles parked on the street opposite Bryant Park.

And signs denouncing the occupants of said vehicles. For what it’s worth, the application process for acquiring a sound permit in this city is incredibly difficult, although to be fair, the serpentine bureaucracy governing nearly everything in this city-including constitutionally protected activities-is probably more at fault than any individual police officer.

I spotted the gigantic sign bearing that singular, capitalized verb as I was entering Bryant Park from the west. I wasn’t able to discern its precise meaning. Then again, neither were the women walking beside me, who asked the seemingly obvious question, “rise against what?”

Some of the other signs on display were just as cryptic, such as the one above, which as a generic exhortation to creativity and industry is not such a bad suggestion. However, one wonders how much reinvention-or invention, for that matter-will occur once the optimal ratio of regulation and taxation envisioned by OWS is achieved. Some signs, of course, were even more inscrutable:

The somewhat contradictory ambitions of the movement could be found if one looked hard enough. For example, these two signs juxtaposed below, one urging an American spring-presumably with a concomitant flowering of individual freedom-while the one directly above it calls for the abrogation of freedom of speech.

The 1st Amendment, it should be noted, even enshrines freedom of speech and assembly for the fairer sex, a fact that I’m not sure the person who crafted this sign is fully cognizant of.

Many of the participants in May Day rallies used the opportunity to speak out against  perceived injustices, including what they viewed as misguided American foreign policy. The interesting aspect of this segment of protest, from my perspective, was how often president George W. Bush was singled out for criticism, notwithstanding the fact that it’s been nearly four years since Barack Obama was elected to succeed him as POTUS.

The quietude of the anti-war left during the Obama administration has been much remarked upon, and the fact that there weren’t many protesters focusing on these issues-with a few exceptions, such as the man seen below-proves more than anything else that the anti-war movement was largely based upon partisan differences rather than any sincere philosophical attachment to pacifism and non-interventionism.

Although I wasn’t able to spot the Wikileaks truck, which was stationed across the street from Zuccotti Park during the first iteration of Occupy Wall Street, I did see one sign highlighting the prosecution of Bradley Manning, the Army private charged with handing over classified material to Julian Assange.

There was a surprisingly potent anti-government sentiment to be found at the gatherings I observed, although how far such expressions extend is open to question. Whether the critique of anti-terrorist surveillance  techniques deployed by the federal government,

Will be broadened to include criticism of the state’s interpolation of itself into an individual’s working life is something that remains to be seen. Considering the litany of economic demands being made by OWS, it appears doubtful.

Even so, there were more than a few elements of Tuesday’s day of action that struck an almost Tea Partyish note, including a flag of Benjamin Franklin’s iconic woodcut urging resistance to British tyranny.

There was even a lone Ron Paul supporter standing amongst the throngs of occupiers who massed in Union Square, although I’m not sure he found much common ground with the scores of labor activists who traveled to Manhattan.

Which brings us to the main subject of this photo-essay. Namely, the public sector unions that have largely subsumed the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Kerry Picket, of the Washington Times, has analogized the labor unions that have taken over OWS to the Muslim Brotherhood, which exploited the unexpected success of mass demonstrations in Tahrir Square-which were initially led by students and nonsectarian anti-Mubarak forces-to achieve permanent political power within Egypt. As Picket has pointed out, while the unfocused, disorganized protests of OWS often result in reprisals by law enforcement, the disciplined militancy of Big Labor ensure that its followers-whose jobs depend upon political largesse more often than collective bargaining-are spared any harsh nights in Riker’s Island.

The main beneficiary of this uneasy coalition is the Service Employees International Union, which flooded Union Square with bodies during the May Day “strike.”

In addition to the SEIU, which served as the spearhead of President Obama’s initial presidential campaign, members of the American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees-the single largest contributor to national political campaigns in the country-were there to demand their “fair share” of the public treasury, i.e. private wealth confiscated by agents of the government through taxation. Apparently, the portion that their employees in the legislature are giving them now isn’t quite enough to satisfy their wants.

For the most part, the interests of OWS and their union allies coincide. The fact the latter-and at least a large portion of the former-want to live off of the taxpayer ensure that they find many points of agreement, illustrated by the sign below, which enunciated the chief proposals outlined by the organizers of the May day strike.

In addition to the soft socialism pedaled by most of the attendees, there was also a much more explicit, hard communism endorsed by pockets within the crowd.

Despite the PRC flag-and copies of The China Daily-this man was not among them. In fact, he is what some would call a professional troll; he shows up at virtually every demonstration of any size that takes place in the City-you may even recognize him from the anti-police surveillance, CAIR-endorsed rally I covered earlier this year. There were, however, genuine Marxists and Communists participating in May Day, which shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the contemporary interpretation of May 1st.

The quote above is taken from Theodore Adorno, the German sociologist who was one of the chief theorists of the Frankfurt School, a branch of cultural Marxism that was transplanted to the United States from Western Europe after Adolf Hitler’s NSDAP seized power. Of course, there were those who didn’t feel the need to qualify their Marxism.

Or, if Marx is not to your liking, there’s always the ideology responsible for more unnecessary deaths than any other in the 20th century.

For the fashionable, historically and morally illiterate:

And no Occupy Wall Street convocation would be complete without a gaggle of neo-hippies ineptly copying what they perceive to be Eastern religious rites.

Pascal Bruckner would no doubt have a field day with some of the modern primitives that made their way to Bryant Park last week, although personally I don’t think they’re any more interesting than the Hare Krishnas I occasionally run into as I make my way through the Times Square 42nd St. station.

In my next post, I’ll scrutinize some of the artistic elements of OWS’s May Day “general strike.”

One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.

However, underlying the debate over whether immigration and settlement is a natural right is the assumption that all libertarians/anarcho-capitalists agree on the immigration issue, which is not as much of  a given as it would seem on the surface of things. One of the things that I’ve attempted to do with American Rattlesnake is debunk commonly held assumptions about immigration issues, and the assumption that libertarians all subscribe to Gary Johnson’s point of view is one that needs to be reexamined. There are many libertarians and  anarcho-capitalists who recognize both the practical difficulties and existential problems inherent in society based upon unfettered immigration, especially one with the vast social welfare apparatus of the United States. One of the chief exponents of the view that welfare programs need to be curtailed in order to solve the immigration problem is Gary Johnson’s opponent in the Republican presidential race, Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has repeatedly emphasized the need to do away with the generous, taxpayer subsidized social welfare programs that-while not serving as the initial magnet-provide incentives for illegal aliens to extend their stay in this country indefinitely. The population density of legal immigrants is also heavily correlated with the availability of welfare benefits. Even acclaimed economist Milton Friedman, who held a rather benign view of immigration in general, emphasized the incompatibility of a welfare state with unfettered immigration.

The same opinion is held by many libertarians today, including self-professed constitutionalist Andrew Napolitano, who views Arizona’s landmark immigration law primarily through the prism of the Constitution’s supremacy clause and potential violations of the 4th Amendment via racial or ethnic profiling by law enforcement officers. I’m not sure that the Constitutional objection to statewide laws is dispositive, because-as Andrew McCarthy has pointed out repeatedly in National Review-there is no precedent for prohibiting states from enforcing laws that are consistent with federal statutes. Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny. This is a concept that is seldom grasped by arm-chair commentators on immigration these days, whose default option is to repeat the platitudinous-not to mention, factually incorrect-bromide that we are a “nation of immigrants.” What they neglect to mention is that most this nation’s founding fathers would have been implacably opposed to the present lassez-faire system of immigration, a fact that Thomas Woods-as anti-statist an individual as you’ll find among academics-expertly limns in this Human Events column published during the height of the amnesty debate in Washington D.C.

Yet, even if we were to concede that there’s no firm historical or Constitutional foundation for this nation’s current open borders policies, can it not be argued that there is a compelling moral case for the views espoused by those at the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Cato Institute, Reasonoids, and other trendy, beltway cosmotarians? You would definitely think so if you took their arguments at face value. The notion that we have no moral basis for barring certain immigrants from entry into the United States is certainly widespread in certain libertarian circles, but I don’t believe that makes the idea, ipso facto, libertarian. Julian Simon, in a 1998 essay published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, articulated the perspective felt by many that individual autonomy takes precedence over other “public” goods, including our national borders. In an anarcho-capitalist reality, nation-states would not exist, therefore deciding who should or should not be admitted to your nation would be a moot point.

But while it might seem logical that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract-and at its most essential level, the individual him or herself-are all prioritized over the wishes and feelings of citizens who have a vested interested in preserving the character of their nation, there are those that don’t think these competing values are necessarily mutually exclusive. In a persuasive essay written for Lew Rockwell several years ago, N. Stephan Kinsella made a very compelling argument that while the disposition of property in our society is unjust-insofar as the state has no right to expropriate land that rightfully belongs to individuals-so long as that property is entrusted to the state it has a responsibility to act as caretaker for the rightful owners. In this case, it has the responsibility to prevent the ingress of people that citizens do not want to welcome into their country. While those who are opposed to communitarianism in even its most minimal form might reject Kinsella’s public pool analogy, I think he makes a convincing case that some prophylactic measures need to be enforced to prevent the exploitation of your property-even if it’s already been subjected to theft by the state.

There are many cogent arguments against the current trendy libertarian support for open borders, several of them outlined by the first presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, John Hospers, in paper published by the Journal of Libertarian Studies over a decade ago entitled A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders. The concluding paragraph of the essay is especially perceptive in its analysis of the problem:

Occasionally, we hear the phrase “limousine liberals” used to describe the members of the liberal establishment who send their children to expensive private schools while consigning all the others to the public school system, which educates these children so little that by the time they finish the eighth grade they can barely read and write or do simple arithmetic, or make correct change in a drug store. It would be equally appropriate, however, to describe some other people as ”limousine libertarians” —those who pontificate about open borders while remaining detached from the scenes that their “idealism” generates. They would do well to reflect, in their ivory towers, on whether the freedom they profess for those who are immigrants, if it occurs at all, is to be brought about at the expense of the freedom of those who are not.

This passage describes, in a nut shell, the quintessence of cosmotarianism, and why most Americans-and even some in the libertarian movement-continue to reject it. I could post the most meticulously researched George Borjas journal article, the most statistically devastating backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, or the most irrefutable essay by Mahattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. And although all of these sources are invaluable in the fight to define the terms of this debate, they wouldn’t hold a candle to the self-evident fact that none of the greatest exponents and defenders of open borders, be it Tamar Jacoby, or Jason Riley, or Nick Gillespie, abide by their own exhortations. None of these individuals partake of the glorious mosaic which their unyielding ideology has done so much to create.

You won’t find many Reason Magazine editors or Cato Institute scholars living in Bergenfield, New Jersey, Maywood, California, or Eagle Pass, Texas. Why, you might ask? Because they would rather pass off the tremendous costs of their bankrupt philosophy onto ordinary Americans than to admit that they might just be wrong. These people are insulated from unfettered immigration’s worst effects, including chronic unemployment, violent crime, and environmentally devasting pollution from Arizona to California and throughout the country. They have the luxury of ignoring the impact of this country’s changing demographic profile while promoting the patently absurd notion that our open borders are a boon to all but the small percentage of high school dropouts.

What’s more, they make the equally ludicrous assertion-outlined in the Caplan speech above-that importing millions of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, who will be dependent upon costly government services, from quasi-socialist nations will expand this nation’s economic liberty. Forget the fact that we now enjoy less economic freedom than our northern neighbors, a development concurrent with the greatest expansion of immigration in this country’s history, the entire premise underlying this concept is flawed. You do not build a prosperous, 21st century, post-industrial society around foreigners from countries with low human capital. And the amount of time, energy and economic resources that need to be shifted in order to improve the educational prospects and earning potential of these immigrants, e.g. the billions funneled into ESL programs each year, is so cost prohibitive that it outweighs whatever benefits can be gleaned from such an arrangement.

Another seeming inconsistency in the archetypal libertarian solution to our immigration problem is the reluctance of most libertarians to support any sort of relief for American taxpayers who are tasked with paying for millions of illegal aliens and immigrants who are dependent upon costly social services. Particularly, public schooling and emergency health care. Invoking Friedman’s argument once again, we find that while many libertarians will concede that dependency upon welfare programs is a bad thing they will do nothing to limit access to these programs by illegal aliens or permanent residents. To the contrary, if any such bill-which is immigration neutral-is proffered, they will stalwartly oppose it. Just ask new Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who supports the DREAM Act, despite the fact that taxpayers would be subsidizing the in-state tuition discounts of its recipients. Paleolibertarian writer Ilana Mercer deftly skewers  purported libertarians who routinely call for the abolition of the welfare state while adding a proviso that excludes immigrants and illegal aliens from the fiscal demands of their libertopia.

True believers in liberty, like Mercer and the late Murray N. Rothbard, recognize the inherent contradiction in persuading your fellow Americans to reject the embrace of the state while simultaneously welcoming millions of non-Americans into the country who prefer a larger and more intrusive government in almost every respect into our society. They realize that the banal platitudes used to support unfettered immigration are grossly inaccurate, if not transparent lies. They also realize that the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the hospitality industry do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the free market, and that to a large extent our current immigration policy is another form of corporate welfare, which putative libertarians would be quick to denounce in any other context. The time-saving, productivity-increasing technological innovations that would normally be welcomed by these same individuals are rejected by those who apparently think pre-industrial stoop labor is the best method of improving  our agricultural production. Finally, they recognize that the  utopian, globalist conception of freedom-where people living in Gabon or the Hadhramaut have just as much say in how we are governed as American citizens living in New York-contravenes the distinctively American, Constitutional, federalist, representative republic designed by this nation’s founding fathers.

In short, the issue before the house is not whether it is an abandonment of principle for libertarians to embrace sensible immigration restrictions, it’s why institutional libertarians representing organizations like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation have stifled an honest, open intellectual debate about this subject. Even as the negative repercussions of our government’s devotion to open borders become harder to ignore for all but the most oblivious, the gatekeepers of respectable opinion on this subject continue to narrow the parameters of discussion to their own narrow, ahistorical perspective. I don’t expect that to change any time in the near future, but those of us who want an intellectually honest debate about the most important issue of our time can at least begin to clarify its terms, if for no other reason than to educate those novices interested in how mass immigration has impacted our society who are asking themselves how they should view these changes from a liberty-oriented perspective.

Update: Thank you 9/11 Families for a Secure America for highlighting this entry on your Facebook page. Peter Gadiel-who lost his son James in the September 11th massacre at the World Trade Center-serves as an inspiration to us all for continuing to hold politicians’ feet to the fire on border and national security issues. Thank you, Peter. 

Sunday, as most of you who’ve followed the past few updates probably know by now, was the day when Occupy Wall Street demonstrators decided to link up with open borders advocates a few blocks from City Hall. Of course, a number of  speakers invited to the event were themselves illegal aliens, including the young girl sporting a disfigured American flag fashioned into a graduation gown. She was entreated to deliver a ten minute-long speech which-if the consequences were not so grave-would have been jaw-droppingly hilarious.

In addition to lamenting the misfortune that has befallen her family merely for consciously and premeditatedly breaking the law, she decried the injustice that made her at times ingest dirt. Yes, that’s right. In order to elicit sympathy from her audience-which was unnecessary, considering the crowd-she recounted an anecdote about being forced to eat cakes made of dirt. However, unlike the Haitians forced to eat dirt cookies in Cite Soleil, I doubt the veracity of her tale, not least because it would mean she didn’t avail herself of the free school lunch program in this city, that her parents somehow missed the lavishly funded network of Catholic services intended specifically for the benefit of illegals, and that everyone in her immediate family-including those proficient in the English language-ignored the dozens of open borders advocacy groups-at least half a dozen of which participated in this event-located in the Tri-State Area. 

The political exploitation of children was a recurring theme, as was the deliberate obfuscation of the issues, which shouldn’t surprise anyone who followed last year’s debate over Congress’s possible approval of the DREAM Act. There was even a “family” that dragged itself to Foley Square, although the integrity of parents willing to subject their kids to sub-freezing temperatures in order to be propagandized is questionable.

Left unasked was the question, “why should families be separated?” Apparently, these adults graduated from the Elvira Arellano School of Parenting.

I’m not quite sure what the pink, artificial flowers signified, but they were ubiquitous at the demonstration, as plentiful as the palm fronds at a previous, equally absurd demonstration opposing the concept of enforcing immigration laws.

It took a while for the crowd to fill out-perhaps some would-be participants were scared off by La Migra-but eventually 70-80 illegals, their supporters, as well as Occupy Wall Street stragglers, made their way into the area the NYPD had cordoned off beforehand.

The folks in the red arm bands-one of the speakers described them as “orange,” so perhaps I’m color blind-were ostensibly there in order to provide security and protect their “community.” Evidently, the 100+ uniformed police officers did not constitute a sufficient force to deter a few dozen aging Communists and inept soccer players.

It wouldn’t be an unfocused, left wing demonstration without a number of platitudinous, seemingly incoherent placards, and this day was no exception. The one below would seem to imply that diversity is a necessary prerequisite for a functioning society, although as Adam Carolla has pointed out, true diversity seems to be the last thing on the minds of people agitating for unfettered immigration.

The artistic dimensions of this protest were manifold, although aside from the more ardent defenders of Roman Polanski, who’ve been taken to task elsewhere, I don’t know of many people who would consider obeying the law an esthetic choice.

There was also, perhaps unsurprisingly in a post-OWS world, a marching band.

We will not be silent. A call to arms, or-considering the talent level of the musicians in question-an implied threat?

Some of the demonstrators even brought their pets along, including this daschund. I don’t think I’m being presumptuous by taking it as a given that she was one of the few present with legal papers.

The only possible response to this sign? Too late, pal.

There was at least one activist who made a passing reference to the May 1st Coalition, a militantly open borders organization that stages anti-American protests each May Day. This website, as well as NY ICE, has tangled with them in the past.

Again, the signs on display expressed sentiments that ranged all the way from utterly vacuous, to incoherent, to utterly inaccurate and ahistorical. The one below is just one such example. Apparently, dignity isn’t a state that you earn through deeds your fellow man deems worthy of esteem, it’s something that you demand of the people you’re imposing youself upon-in this case, illegally. One wonders whether this person thinks about the dignity and self-worth of the millions of Americans rendered unemployable by our government’s deliberate actions, or the people who have to bear the costs associated with its inability to pursue a rational immigration policy that revolves around America’s interests. Somehow, I doubt he has.

Another trusty standby, immigrants pay taxes. There are only two problems with this one.

1. Illegal aliens are not immigrants.

2. The taxes paid by the cohort of immigrants this country currently absorbs are vastly outweighed by the amount of taxpayer funds they consume in the form of costly social welfare benefits.

Other than those two minor quibbles, she presents an irrefutable, logically airtight argument.

Ironically, many of the signs on display simply reinforced the arguments that this website and its supporters have been making for years. The ones decrying workplace exploitation of illegal alien workers, for example, did not convey any concept that Roy Beck hasn’t articulated quite vociferously and eloquently over the past two decades.

The generic nature of some of the signage began to get tiresome after a while. The banner below serving perhaps as the apotheosis of vapidity. Immigrants represent a better future for whom? The utterly superfluous nonprofits and advocacy organizations that suck up taxpayer subsidies in order to justify their existence? The political elite  that cultivates them in order to remain ensconced in office and wielding power over the rest of us indefinitely? The media gatekeepers who intentionally squelch an honest debate about this issue? The beneficiaries of our current open borders policies were never specified.

The most obnoxious-to say nothing of historically inaccurate-sentiment expressed at this rally was the notion that “we,” the collective noun in this case referring to nonwhite Hispanics or Amerindians, were here first. The incandescent stupidity of this assertion was illustrated by a brief conversation conducted with the woman holding the sign seen below.

When I asked her who the referent was in the statement “we were here first,” after stammering for a few seconds she replied that it was the North Americans who were here before the Europeans. She averred that she was a Puerto Rican and that they had been there forever. Not quite satisfied by her answer, I pressed and was told that we referred to “brown people.” When I brought up the counterexample of Kennewick Man, who most assuredly wasn’t brown-unless the Ainu are now conidered members of La Raza- she demurred.

Unfortunately, her mistaken belief was echoed by many others in the crowd, including this woman, who seems to be operating under the misconception that there really is a North American Union.

This startingly incoherent banner expressed similar sentiments:

After glancing at the back of his oak tag, I realized that he was referring to the realignment of political cartography that resulted from this nation’s military victory in the Mexican-American War. Although the origin of the war between Mexico and the United States is an extraordinarily complex topic, and the political boundary between the two nations has been questioned by many since Abraham Lincoln served as a Whig congressman from Illinois, I don’t remember the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo including any mention of New York, current demographic trends notwithstanding.

The demonstrators attempt to play on the heartstrings of the overly emotional and credulous was consistent, as evinced by the banner below. Not surprisingly, the families torn apart by illegal aliens did not merit any sympathy among those in attendance.

Of course, the legality of enforcing any immigration law was brought into question by the protestors. Although it’s possible that she was referring to something else, “double jeopardy” in the context below means trying and/or deporting an alien because he or she was charged with a crime for which the defendent has already been acquitted. What puzzles me is why she went through the trouble of devising such a specific sign when in all likelihood she doesn’t believe any illegal alien-even those who have been subjected to fair legal proceedings-should be deported.

Note for the unitiated: La Migra, not to be confused with the Mexican grupera artists of the same name, refers to any immigration enforcement agency within the federal government, including ICE, the  U.S. Border Patrol, and Customs and Border Protection. A popular staple of pro-immigration art, including a somewhat clever gloss on a Ramones’ classic, the anti-migra spirit was pretty abundant this weekend, although how much illegals have to fear from la migra is open to debate, especially in light of this administration’s rather lenient record with regard to these matters and this city’s lackluster record of cooperation with federal immigration agents.

This was one of the more unintentionally amusing signs I spotted:

Although the analogy between explicitly discriminatory and unconstitutional ordinances targeting African-Americans and laws intended to punish people who’ve disobeyed the law-and usually have no constitutional right to remain in this country-has been made many times  in the past, this fellow must be commended for actually going to the trouble of drawing and inking two menacing looking crows, as well as a jubilant Rich “Uncle” Pennybags. Why a wealthy oligarch would be in favor of immigration enforcement is not delineated; Mr. Monopoly would certainly be an anomaly in that regard. There is a relationship between the corporate world and federal immigration enforcement agencies, although not in the way implied by this wholly misleading sign.

The Occupy Wall Street movement operated as the hinge of this protest, and there were a number of attempts to tie it to the open borders advocacy which was the ostensible reason for this event. The linkage between the two was made explicit by several demonstrators.

Although sectarian leftists and assorted Marxists attempted to monopolize the conversation, as they are wont to do. There were the Wobblies-yes, they still exist.

As well as Trotskyists hoping for a Fourth International.

The unconsciously ironic hipsters of the Party of Socialism and Liberation were also there.

And it wouldn’t be a full-throated, left wing NYC demonstration without a contingent from the brutally Communist, hard-line Leninist Workers World Party.

Some of the participants seemed eager to relive the halcyon days of the Contra wars of the 1980s, which-given their age-probably shouldn’t have been that surprising. However, unlike in past May Day rallies, I didn’t spot anyone holding aloft FMLN banners.

Our good friend, who henceforth shall be known as Button Man,  seemed to combine the two predominant themes of the afternoon, espousing support for unrestricted immigration and an adherence to doctinaire Marxism.

His vest expressing support for the left’s favorite executioner, Ernesto Guevara Lynch…

In addition to Fidel Castro’s quintet of bumbling spies, whom El Jefe’s American fan club view as political prisoners.

The fervor seen earlier in the day seemed to die down as the crowd marched towards Zuccotti Park, but I did manage to snap a few interesting pictures before calling it a day. This banner proclaims that we will die on our feet before we will kneel. Those of you more proficient in Espanol, feel free to correct any errors in translation.

One of the last shots is a photograph of a duo representing the Ecuadorian Socialist Party of New Jersey. Yes, there is an Ecuadorian Socialist Party of New Jersey. Why there isn’t one in New York City is beyond my ken.

No more capitalism! We are constructing socialism. Isn’t that a sentiment that all Americans can get behind? No? Really?

Although the demonstration gradually dissipated, law enforcement remained.

Perhaps to keep an eye on Santa?

One of the biggest challenges to the future of Europe is the continued balkanization occurring as a result of massive immigration from predominantly Arab and Islamic nations, coupled with the inability and/or unwillingness of host countries to assimilate these men and women to Western culture. Even though the systemic problems associated with this phenomenon are most often associated with large, EU member states like France and Germany, it is a continental problem, as a recent post on Pajamas media illustrates. 

While the  parents ofAlgerians who burn down Parisian banlieues and the Moroccan and Turkish Al Qaeda cells  that hatch terror plots within Germany were invited into Europe for unique historical reasons-in the former case because of war, in the latter due to a failed guest worker program-the self-segregating Islamists living in Norway were taken in for humanitarian purposes. In this respect, Oslo serves as a stark warning for the United States, which also allows in thousands of Arab-Muslim refugees every single year. In fact, the FBI is now checking the backgrounds of over 50 thousand Iraqi refugees who have been allowed to settle in this country since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq War, at least one of whom has already been positively identified as a bomb maker who targeted American troops. If only the federal government had access to that wonderful resource known as the Internet. 

And the problem of assimilation-or lack thereof-isn’t one limited to European nations. The lack of integration among American Muslims-especially second and third generation families-is so pronounced that it’s been noted by no less an authority than the Washington Post. The huge numbers of immigrants from nations wholly different from the United States, combined with the cultural amnesia that’s become an ingrained aspect of American society, has created an explosive mixture that will almost certainly come back to haunt the policymakers who instituted these short-sighted immigration policies, if it hasn’t already.

Oslo today, Ohio tomorrow. 

I’ve been remiss in addressing this subject, but I think that the recent Supreme Court decision mandating the eventual release of thousands of prisoners currently incarcerated in California’s penal system is worth commenting upon for several reasons.

There is obviously the question of whether courts are excessively involved in micromanaging statewide corrections facilities, as well as a debate over whether the fiscal illiteracy and general profligacy of the California state legislature paved the way for this dramatic ultimatum from the Supreme Court. However, I’d like to address another aspect of this issue, which involves abiding by the Court’s decision without endangering the lives and security of Americans. 

I believe the Washington Times has stumbled upon a perfect solution-or as perfect as can be devised, given the exigent circumstances-to California’s dilemma. Namely, reach a memorandum of understanding with the federal government that would entail the deportation of an estimated 19,000 illegal aliens serving prison time in that state’s correctional facilities. Considering Governor Jerry Brown’s ambiguous record in opposing illegal immigration, it’s far from certain that he would embrace such a course of action. However, as the Times notes in the editorial above, less than two years ago the idea of alleviating California’s budget woes by repatriating foreign nationals imprisoned in California was openly discussed. 

Although deporting the sub-population of California inmates that consists of illegal aliens will not completely resolve the prison crisis, it will be a step in the right direction, not only in terms of satisfying the Court’s ruling, but in ensuring the security of ordinary Californians. As Heather Mac Donald pointed out in her congressional testimony several years ago, their state is the American epicenter of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13, the 18th Street Gang, and other predominately Mexican and Central American gangs that wreak havoc on a daily basis within Los Angeles. If California decides not to pursue this tack, it will be a decision born of political expediency and shameless pandering, not made with the best interests of California residents at heart.