Update: The incomparable Mark Steyn has returned with a brilliant column laying out the stakes. 

At the risk of self-plagiarism, I’ll repeat a status update I posted the other day to my Facebook profile in relation to the attempted massacre of innocent Americans taking part in a Constitutionally protected assembly earlier this week in Garland, Texas. I think it encapsulates the feelings of many towards the Fourth Estate as it’s currently constituted.

I really can’t think of a more undeservedly self-satisfied, useless collection of human beings than contemporary journalists. If this were Golgrafrincham, they would be sent out into the void of space on the B ark, along with parking enforcement agents and professional landscapers.

If anything, I think I’m underestimating the cravenness and solipsism of a class of people who have bastardized their vocation to the point where it not only refuses to perform its assumed role-namely, provide an accurate and reliable account of news events-but has actually mutated into a vehicle for the mass diffusion of blatant lies. Incapable of actually reporting the news, these ostensible reporters have now decided to craft narratives that exonerate themselves from their failures of duty and nerve. The apogee of cowardice, naturally, took the form of an editorial in the New York Times, a publication whose pusillanimity and rigid devotion to multiculturalist dogma has evolved beyond parody by this point.

To get a broader, if not comprehensive, look at how this country’s intrepid journalists treated a domestic terror assault against our nation’s first freedom, I would recommend reading James Taranto’s brilliant fisking of the news media’s treatment of the abortive Garland massacre in his Best of the Web column. These moral and intellectual eunuchs expose themselves with each public word, but we still need to call them to account and point out just how despicable their actions are. How inimical they are to their chosen profession, and how at odds their warped world view is with this nation’s legal and political cornerstones. For that, Mr. Taranto deserves our gratitude.

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.

Our good friend Mark Krikorian stepped into the lions’ den a few weeks ago, confronting open borders sophist Bryan Caplan-as well as Cato’s sub par immigration analyst-in a Reason Magazine-sponsored debate. Well worth watching in its entirety. 

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.

While kvetching about the State of the Union-its vacuity, its interminable length, or its simple inability to compel the attention of most Americans, despite being  broadcast simultaneously on every major television network-is ubiquitous among Washington observers, I don’t think most people comprehend the malignant influence this ritualistic exercise has upon the body politic.  The SOTU is the embodiment of the modern imperial presidency, from its regal trappings to its very structure, which brooks no dissent from pesky congressmen-with a few welcome, notable exceptions.

Listening to a president who not only regularly flouts the Constitution but boasts of how he will do so in the future only adds to the frustration conscientious Americans experience during this annual exercise in statolatry. Thankfully, the inestimable John Derbyshire has taken the time to not only digest the presidential blather, but to explain its larger political/historical significance. His analysis is well worth reading, and certainly worth pondering more than any of the dreary proposals outlined by Barack Obama last night. For what it’s worth, I agree with Mr. Derbyshire that Senator Sessions would have been an ideal sparring partner for the President. Unfortunately, considering the views of Republican leaders regarding immigration patriots, I don’t think that prospect was in the offing at any point leading up to yesterday’s presidential address.

One thing we learned from the online ‘chat’ organized by the White House regarding its plans for immigration reform is that it will extend the constitutionally dubious program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not seem to take substantive critiques of its abuse of power very seriously, even if they come from very liberal, well-respected legal scholars.

The only path forward, therefore, is to resist the impulse on the part of Congress to enact wholesale legislative amnesty, which is still very much a threat, especially in wake of the recent budget agreement.

Hang in there, folks. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride. 

Update: You can also read coverage of the event by the Staten Island Advance.

The events of the past week have prevented us from discussing an issue dear to the hearts of many of our followers. Namely, the continuing, deliberate assault by public officials upon the intrinsic liberties of Americans. Specifically, the right to defend our lives and property from unprovoked aggression. We know what happens when citizens surrender their individual rights to the state; the burning fields in Mexico and the  inferno in Sweden illustrate why entrusting your security to the guardianship of the state-which in many cases is responsible for placing you in peril in the first place-is such a monumentally foolish idea.  

Unfortunately, that is precisely what public servants-who almost never serve the interests of the public-across the nation have embraced as a response to the most recent, horrific mass shootings. The most widely publicized attempt to circumscribe our right to self defense has been New York’s SAFE Act, a hastily-written, arbitrary, and capricious bill that was stampeded into law under the most questionable of circumstances and with virtually no debate.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that resistance to implementation around this state is widespread and growing. In addition to district attorneys who refuse to prosecute individuals who have run afoul of this unconstitutional, ex post facto law, there are numerous counties which have called for its repeal. In addition to these tangible demonstrations of opposition to Governor Cuomo and the legislature, there have been mass rallies, demonstrations and marches staged across the state rejecting the notion that New Yorkers who choose to exercise their constitutional rights are no better than common criminals.

One such protest was held in Eltingville, Staten Island this past weekend by Gun Rights Across America and the Richmond County Tea Party Patriots, a local counterweight to the drearily statist political forces that dominate both the borough and city.

As you can see, the rally took place in the midst of a monsoon. Nevertheless, the inclement weather was not an impediment for the several dozen Second Amendment supporters in attendance, nor the Tea Party leaders who took the platform in order to describe why the SAFE Act must be repealed.

Bobby Zahn, president of the Tea Party Patriots, was the first to address the crowd. He began his speech by describing the application process his organization went through in order to obtain a permit to gather that day. Unsurprisingly, they were initially denied by city bureaucrats, whose superiors have repeatedly attempted to thwart New Yorkers from exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Notwithstanding the fact that we live in a city that was once the nation’s capital, there is probably no city or town in this nation whose elected officials and bureaucrats are more implacably hostile to expressive speech.

A perfect illustration of this antipathy to one of the most indelible aspects of our constitutional republic can be seen in Governor Cuomo’s reaction to law enforcement officers and county sheriffs who pointed out the impracticality and unenforceable nature of the SAFE Act. Instead of meeting with them and asking for suggestions on how to modify this law, he told them to shut up. This is why resistance to Cuomo and the legislature’s actions is so vital; once we’ve yielded to assaults upon one of our inalienable rights the entire covenant of liberties is imperiled. The reason the Bill of Rights exists in its current form, a charter of enumerated rights, is to prevent our freedom from being litigated in the court of public opinion, or subjected to curtailment and/or revocation by a democratic majority.

While Mr. Zahn rightly condemned the pusillanimity of our representatives-who, with one exception, voted to send this bill to Andrew Cuomo’s desk-his speech left me questioning the viability of his strategy in seeking redress for this gross violation of our rights. Yes, we are law-abiding citizens, but that doesn’t mean that we are compelled to submit to laws that are clearly violative of the Constitution. After all, what is a law? If it’s simply a decree that we must submit to-regardless of whether or not it’s consonant with basic Constitutional principles-then what’s the point of political participation of any kind?

As Edmund Burke declared, All human laws are, properly speaking, only declaratory; they have no power over the substance of original justice.

As part of its mission statement, the Tea Party Patriots pointedly reject the notion of majoritarian rule; which is good, because as Mr. Zahn declared throughout his speech, people who share our beliefs are in the distinct minority in this state. As welcome as Andrew Cuomo leaving office might be-and as necessary as building opposition to his policies is-that doesn’t mean we should abdicate responsibility for defending our innate rights. Launching legal challenges to blatant encroachments upon our Constitutional rights is an important safeguard of our rights, as civil rights attorney Alan Gura has demonstrated  repeatedly, and needs to be part of any movement intent on thwarting statutes like the Safe Act.

However, nullification-whether on a statewide or city and county level-can’t be taken off the table. To the contrary, moves to nullify these laws-like the anti-SAFE Act resolutions passed by many counties in upstate New York-should occupy a prominent place in any political strategy designed to thwart their implementation. Fundamentally, this is a debate over whether the state is able to deprive you of your natural rights; whether these inerrant rights are subject to rescission by a majority of legislators.

It comes down to the question of whether we should yield to laws that are unjust and unconstitutional by their very nature.

That’s why the speech by Louis Adimando-who is arguably more knowledgeable of the law than those responsible for drafting the SAFE Act-was so refreshing. He contextualized Governor Cuomo’s attack upon the Second Amendment into the broader assault upon civil liberties and rights we’re currently enduring. The attempts by the Obama administration to undermine the 1st Amendment, including  freedom of the press, as well as its sustained assault on the 4th Amendment, pose no less of a threat than efforts by Cuomo and his fellow governors to deny individuals the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

That is what the debate, such as it is, over the SAFE Act boils down to. There are rights enjoyed by mankind which predate the creation of governments, and which were incorporated into the text of this nation’s founding documents because they are inalienable, i.e. incapable of being surrendered. Regardless of  how politicians interpret the Constitution, the words of that document represent real rights, not artificial constructs that are only intended to diminish the scope of our freedoms. These are rights that are universal, not delimited to uniformed officers, be they active duty or retired.

I have to commend Dino Longueira for not only urging people to join the National Rifle Association-which has a well-deserved reputation as a lobbying powerhouse on Capitol Hill-but smaller, grassroots gun rights organizations like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and Gun Owners of America. These organizations, although underfunded, are the first line of defense in the war to preserve our civil liberties and civil rights. These groups constitute the hemoglobin of a thriving republic’s bloodstream, and to the extent that the NRA resists temporizing its principles, they are responsible.

The right to defend your life, property, and liberty is a fundamental right, and it’s not simply a matter of keeping your guns. As long as tyrannical governments have existed, there have been attempts to disarm the population. The same arbitrary distinctions between ordinary citizens and those deputized by the state were invoked in past weapons bans having nothing to do with firearms. Even today, restrictions imposed upon the possession of defensive weapons can be found in nations across the globe, including the United Kingdom, which has some of the most draconian penalties for violating these restrictions on the planet, although I doubt the Lee Rigby’s family finds much solace in that.

The man who drafted the Declaration of Independence was correct when he wrote, 

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground.

However, that does not mean we can not and should not resist the impulse by the Cuomos and the Malloys to arrogate more power to the state even as they attempt to strip us of our liberties. The widespread and spontaneous resistance to the SAFE Act, as well as other attempts to erode the protections of the Second Amendment, is a sign that Americans are not as pliant as our authoritarian leaders and their political apparatchiks believe us to be.

For a transcript of the remarks at this rally by the Tea Party Patriots, Molon Labe by Legal, Political Processes, and to see a few of the (much better) photos taken by my friend Virginia Ross, check out this thread on Free Republic.

In summary, DUMP CUOMO and stick to your guns!

 Most of you are probably aware of Gregory Buckley Sr.’s story, which reveals the negligence, ill intent, ideological blindness and contempt for any sort of oversight that has marked this administration’s foreign policy in countries like Afghanistan. It cost Mr. Buckley the life of his son, Gregory Buckley Jr., as well as the lives of two of his fellow Marines, who were murdered by a jihadist that was immediately released by his Afghan superior. The speech by Mr. Buckley is worth listening to in its entirety, because it illustrates the consequences of submitting to an unaccountable presidency and its ideologically blinkered policy prescriptions. 

The Silent Majority No More has more videos from the event at Chabad House, the focal point of which was a speech by Pamela Geller that had initially been squelched by a group of Islamists and their leftist apologists, including Habeeb Ahmed of the Nassau County Commission on Human Rights. They’re also worth viewing, if only to see what freedom looks like, and why it is so vital that we defend it at every turn. It can happen here. 

One of the hallmarks of the Obama administration throughout its first term has been deception. The compulsion of the President and his surrogates to deny, obfuscate, and blatantly deceive the press corps, their political opponents-even, on occasion, their political allies-and the American public is beyond dispute. That Barack Obama is willing to stand behind his attorney general, despite the fact that he has dissembled repeatedly before Congress and the public, in some cases about deliberate actions which have led to the murder of hundreds of innocent Mexican civilians and several American immigration and Border Patrol agents, testifies to how little he values accountability or transparency in government.

For those who might have thought this tendency would dissipate in the President’s second term, you need only look at the criminal coverup involving one of Barack Obama’s close political allies, Senator Robert Menendez, to be disabused of this hope. It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that an administration which has no respect for the rule of law would abet lawlessness on Capitol Hill as well as in the White House. The non-enforcement of immigration law is now being applied to criminal aliens who are sex offenders, at least if they happen to work in the office of one of President Obama’s political allies. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security’s protection of sex offenders extends beyond the TSA.

As this New York Daily News article illustrates, the chief response of Robert Menendez to the arrest of his unpaid, illegal, sex criminal intern was, naturally, to bang the drum for a further expansion of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional evasions of immigration law such as DACA and administrative amnesty. Unfortunately,  Senator Menendez can’t be deported, having been born in New York City. Therefore, New Jerseyans will be stuck with him for the next six years.

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.