Today is the federal holiday marking the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., a man whose surviving relatives continue to debate his legacy. So it’s only natural that the public would be curious about what MLK Jr. would think about one of the defining issues of our time, i.e. immigration. Thankfully, there is a great essay written by an immigration reform activist who tries to flesh out what is admittedly a murky subject. It should be noted that the late Coretta Scott King also opposed the cheap labor, open borders policies advocated by today’s ‘civil rights’ leadership.

While it’s safe to assume that Martin Luther King Jr. would have remained a liberal Democrat, unlike the recently departed Roy Innis-who evolved into a conservative libertarian-the notion that he would have embraced the open borders dogma of today’s black activists and elected officials is speculative, at best. Like many of the deceptions perpetrated by the open borders lobby, relying upon the reputation of someone who can no longer speak for himself is an an easy out. Instead of having to persuade the public that unfettered immigration is an unqualified good, simply distort the legacy of a popular liberal icon.

Don’t fall for it.

Update: Ken Blackwell explains the cultural genesis of media hatred for Senator Sessions. 

Roy Beck and Numbers USA make the case for Jeff Sessions assuming the role of  Attorney General.

Sen. Sessions’ commitment to the most vulnerable members of our national community is marked by the Career Grade of A+ that he has earned on our NumbersUSA Worker-Protection Immigration Gradecards. The data in the latest National Academy of Sciences report revealed that our un-reformed immigration policies are most costly to our country’s most vulnerable citizens, disproportionately Black and Hispanic Americans. In this regard, Sen. Sessions has been their protector.

Addendum: Albert Turner Jr., the son of the man prosecuted by Senator Sessions has endorsed his nomination. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, as the federal government commemorates the legacy of  one of the  transformative figures in 20th century public  life, it should not be forgotten that Martin Luther King struggled not only to achieve racial equality but also economic opportunity for disenfranchised citizens. One of the most dispiriting developments in the over four decades since Dr. King’s assassination has been the regression in labor force participation within this nation.  Although the unemployment rate among Black workers might seem particularly distressing, the truth is that there are large swathes of what should constitute the American workforce, encompassing every ethnicity and race, which are facing chronic, unrelenting joblessness. 

Although not the source of this nation’s lackluster economy, one of the contributing factors to prolonged unemployment among large numbers of Americans-particularly those who already face extreme hardships in finding gainful employment-is our government’s policy of sustained mass immigration, as well its tacit endorsement of employers who disregard federal and state immigration laws. While it would be presumptuous of me to claim insight into how Martin Luther King Jr. would view the current immigration debate-such as it is-it’s worth noting that as recently as 1991 his widow lobbied against congressional legislation that would have further hobbled American laborers.

So the notion that he would at least have expressed ambivalence over the political class’s exclusive catering to the interests of the Chamber of Commerce and Mark Zuckerberg, while ignoring the suffering of millions of economically and emotionally struggling Americans, is not that far-fetched. Neither is the condemnation of a President who has abandoned the community which made his election possible in favor of more promising constituencies. Is it too much to ask of a president who repeatedly and capriciously invokes the legacy of Martin Luther King to give some consideration to the misery his administration’s immigration policies have imposed upon the men and women whose futures King fought so valiantly for?

One of the more galling aspects of an otherwise unremarkable speech delivered by the President commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was the attempt to link the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement during the 20th century with the attempts by open borders demagogues to further erode the value of American citizenship. Although to most reasonable Americans the linkage between these two social-political movements would seem puzzling-if not patently offensive-it is one repeatedly made by the treason lobby, perhaps most bizarrely by the permanently deranged Frank Sharry, who compared the current plight of illegal aliens to the suffering of antebellum slaves in the United States.

Oddly enough, it wasn’t too long ago that seemingly principled liberals opposed legislation which would retard the economic progress of the poorest Americans while at the same time reinforcing entrenched stratification. And while some still oppose a bill that would handicap the most disadvantaged American workers-in spite of overwhelming pressure to capitulate to the prevailing  kultursmog-most have succumbed to the open borders ideology which animates most elite institutions.

That’s why the letter penned by Coretta Scott King-the widow of the man whose name is synonymous with the march President Obama honored a few days ago-and issued by the Black Leadership Forum in opposition to a law that also expanded the opportunities for immigrants while introducing the dreadful Diversity Lottery at the expense of working class Americans, is required reading. The fact that there was a point in the not so distant past where liberal Democrats opposed the machinations of the cheap labor lobby-rather than bragged about their alliance with the Chamber of Commerce-is information that needs to be impressed upon those who have not been paying attention to this momentous debate, which-like the March on Washington before it-will have an inalterable impact upon the future of this nation.

Martin Luther King Jr. is perhaps the most iconic symbol of this country’s struggle for civil rights during the latter half of the 20th century. He also symbolized the aspirations-social, economic, and spiritual-of black Americans. That’s why the official commemoration of his birth-marked by a federal holiday yesterday-is the perfect occasion to examine the parlous condition of Martin Luther King’s heirs.

The latest edition of  Jamiel’s Law examines the problems they currently face, including the concerted effort to ethnically cleanse them from the city of Los Angeles, a town which once served as a springboard to middle class prosperity for scores during the Great Migration. It also takes to task the shameful record of most-if not all-black elected officials in this country, who continue to pander to the Democratic Party’s most cosseted constituency, even if it means they wind up on the short end of the stick.

How MLK Jr. would view today’s current crop of black politicians is unknowable, but the impact they’ve had upon their constituents has been inarguably malign, as their lockstep  resistance to SB 1070-style bills and deteriorating economic prospects demonstrate. If only the politicians we elected represented our interests as Americans. Alas, they do not, something the late Terry Anderson knew well. Black or white, the men and women who are sent to Albany and Washington D.C. only care about those who are bankrolling their campaigns and bolstering their efforts to retain power, which is increasingly built upon the maintenance of ethnic lobbying blocs.

As we head into the second term of the Obama administration, it’s important to remember that our current political dynamics rely upon balkanization, not unity of purpose, and the distribution of spoils, rather than the reductions of impediments to our pursuit of freedom. Notwithstanding the President’s vainglorious opinion of his administration’s achievements, some people know what’s really happening. Kudos to Jamiel Shaw Sr. and the Shaw family-among others-for daring to point out that the emperor-as well as his many servitors-have no clothes.

Update: Welcome to readers from Creeping Sharia. Thanks, once again, to Pamela for the link! We always love getting readers from Atlas Shrugs.

Earlier today I took it upon myself to journey to Foley Square in Manhattan, where an anti-NYPD, anti-intelligence agency gathering sponsored by CAIR, Al-Awda, and Desis Rising Up & Moving, among other Islamic activist organizations, was taking place. For a full recap of what occurred I suggest you check out my Twitter account, which I used to live-tweet the event as it was occurring. However, for now I’ll just lay out my impression of the gathering and thoughts about its message, then let the photographs speak for themselves. The question of whether American citizens should be surveilled, watched, and interrogated for potential terrorist conspiracies is always a touchy one. As Americans we have problems with the notion that domestic investigative and law enforcement agencies are monitoring our activities, regardless of the merits of the case they may be able to mount, and react viscerally to any perceived encroachment upon our privacy.

However, when you have organizations such as CAIR-which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in this nation’s history and whose antecedent organization, the Islamic Association of Palestine, was an offshoot of Hamas-operating inside of your country, to ask agencies charged with protecting us-such as the FBI-to lay off is a bit much. When a group such as the Muslim American Society-another co-sponsor of this rally-which all but admits that it’s a branch of the same tree as the Muslim Brotherhood, is allowed to operate on American soil the notion that Americans would not be interested in their activities is a bit preposterous.

That’s why I think the best solution to this unique dilemma of retaining our open society, yet preventing both terrorism and the loss of our freedoms, is to eliminate the chances of a fifth column developing on American soil. There’s no reason we should allow the mass migration of people who can or will not adapt to American cultural norms to our shores. However, that’s the solution today’s demonstrators rejected wholeheartedly. Now on to the photos.

There was a sparse crowd at the beginning of the rally:

But it began to fill up as the day progressed. I’d estimate that there were somewhere between 70 and 85 people at the height of the rally, including the ubiquitous, green-hatted members of the Marxist National Lawyers Guild.

As well as the self-consciously imposing Muslim “toughs” acting as security for the day’s speakers.

This is a banner from the Muslim Solidarity Committee, an organization founded in order to raise funds for the family members of Yassin Aref and others convicted of rendering support to the Pakistani terror organization Jaish-e-Mohammed.

There were scads of lawyers and law students present, including those from the City University of New York:

And lots of praying, including the adhan, which is not nearly as mellifluous as some people would have us believe.

I wasn’t keeping track, but I did count at least three separate prayers during the time I was there.

And where there’s Islam, there’s proselytization:

There was no love lost between those in attendance and the New York Police Department.

Not that the Central Intelligence Agency was a fan favorite either.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was a frequent target of enmity, with calls for his dismissal echoing from the speaker’s podium and the crowd.

There were a large number of East Indians in attendance:

Most speakers tried to draw a parallel between the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that had taken place only a few blocks away, at Zuccotti Park, and today’s festivities. To be fair to the Muslims, they at least had a semi-consistent message going for them.

Not that inveterate, elderly Marxists didn’t try to muddle things a bit.

Their incongruous ally:

Speaking of Marxists, I ran into this gentleman, who denounced “all religions” and talked over one of the many calls to prayer-for which he was chastised by a Muslim participant in the crowd. Perhaps the Red-Green alliance isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, as the Mujahadeen e-Khalq learned the hard way.

One of the more disconcerting images from the rally in Foley Square, aside from the representative of CAIR praising the Detroit imam who was shot by the FBI, was the presence of both the mother and father of three men who were part of the terror plot involving an attack upon Fort Dix. Even though they were not given prime speaking slots-as was the mother of one of the men convicted in the Herald Square bomb plot-the fact that their case was used as an illustration of law enforcement overreach led me to question the true motives of those behind this demonstration.

They knew who the real guilty ones were, i.e. the people assisting the prosecution of terrorist suspects:

Many of the speakers denounced the notion of government informants, evoking images of the more widespread stop snitchin’ campaign prevalent among many African-Americans living in urban communities. Overall, it was a slightly dispiriting experience, although it should be noted that there was at least one East Indian speaker who struck a distinctly conciliatory tone, and yet another speaker who went so far as to commemorate the massacres that occurred on September 11th, 2001, albeit only in the context of condemning other atrocities he saw as being of greater magnitude, e.g. the trans-Atlantic slave trade, expulsion of Native Americans from the interior of the country, and countless other sins we still haven’t atoned for as a nation, according to him.

I think that a lot of the issues raised would be resolved by a more sensible immigration policy, as opposed to the ad hoc, needlessly dangerous and stupid philosophy our government currently espouses, but that’s just my opinion. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.