-We begin today’s rattle with an interesting story about an Indian-or Muslim, depending upon PR needs of the open borders squad-athlete who was ushered into this country by our very own Senator Chuck Schumer. Unfortunately, this gifted sportsman is also a sex offender. Perhaps this isn’t quite as bad as having an alien interning for your office who is also a registered sex offender, but it does make you question the collective wisdom of our Democratic friends in Congress. Maybe we shouldn’t be taking their advice, vis-a-vis, controversial immigration decisions made by the Executive branch.

-In a reminder that there are actually rational people living in The People’s Republic of Vermont, the voters of Rutland have just turned out their incumbent mayor, Chris Louras, after he attempted to deluge their town with Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq. While ignoring the public’s deep discontent with our government’s refugee resettlement programs-when not imputing racism and bigotry to Americans who express reservations about these schemes-is the norm, even the alternative weekly was forced to concede the enormous political consequences of this decision.

-For those of you who were wondering whatever happened to the thousands of unaccompanied minors who were allowed to enter into this country, wonder no more. According to an in-depth backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, our government has absolutely no clue what it’s doing. While over 80 percent of their sponsors are illegal aliens, 44 percent of the UACs in question were ordered deported. Have the vast majority of these children been deported? Of course not, silly!

-You may ask yourself, “Why is this important?” It’s a good question. After all, it’s not as if these individuals will bring brutal Central American inter-gang warfare to the placidity of our nation’s suburbs, right? Well, I have some bad news for you on that score. It turns out that Latin American gangs, including MS-13, one of the most prolific and ruthless criminal networks in the Western Hemisphere, has actually established a pretty firm beachhead in our own backyard. Naturally, almost all of these gangbangers are criminal aliens. In an ironic twist, the moniker of the man who made an abortive attempt to unify the Mara Salvatrucha within the United States is, you guessed it, Dreamer.

-For those of you who think Europe’s approach to immigration is any less self-defeating and preposterous than the United States, I give you France. A nation where municipal authorities in Calais are attempting to prevent thousands of migrants from recreating the notorious refugee camp known as The Jungle. The biggest proponents of turning The Camp of the Saints into reality are, of course, other Europeans who believe Western civilization is uniquely evil. The ostensible plight of migrants from the third world is simply a cudgel with which the Gramscian left-with the help of corporate bean counters-can beat native Europeans into submission.

-After all, what are a few dozen, or a few hundred, honor killings in the grand scheme of things? Is the systemic dehumanization and murder of girls in nations which were responsible for the idea of religious toleration and freedom of conscience too high a price to pay for erecting the beautiful mosaic? When bad whites are saying intemperate, obnoxious things about people who are off-white, doesn’t that negate their entire philosophical worldview?  Even if that perspective is confirmed multiple times every single day?

-Everyone knows that the real reason millions of Muslims across the world support ISIS, Al Qaeda, and similar jihadist networks is because there isn’t enough inclusion in Hollywood casting decisions. See, the real villain isn’t Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It’s those bastards who refused to green light an all-Muslim reboot of Star Trek!

-The cognitive dissonance at work in the mind of an an open borders leftist must be overpowering. They want to live in a high-trust, quasi-collectivist techno-utopia-along the lines of something created by Gene Roddenberry-yet simultaneously support policies which make this already far-fetched goal virtually impossible. The mentality of a social justice warrior in high dudgeon can be found in this VICE piece, which laments the role homeless shelters have been playing in the deportation of migrants. The traditional liberal concern for the working class and the poor is discarded when it conflicts with the categorical imperative, i.e. preserving diversity. The spiritual hollowness and intellectual vapidity of this type of leftist ‘thinking’ was brilliantly and caustically skewered by George Orwell nearly a century ago. It’s good to know that some things haven’t changed all that much.

-I’d like to leave you on a good note, so here’s some refreshing news to come out of Austria. 8 Iraqi men have been convicted of the gang rape of a tourist. Unlike the Middle Eastern cab driver in Halifax who was, to all intents and purposes, high-fived by a Nova Scotia judge for raping an unconscious passenger, these rapists were actually given (relatively) stiff prison sentences. What’s more, we’ve discovered that these horrific incidents actually constitute an anomaly within the Islamic immigrant community.

Migrants and refugees from other countries expressed concern that the crime will make Austrians hostile toward all newcomers.

“Eight people raping a woman — that’s honor-less! Such a thing doesn’t exist in our religion,” Burhan Akbas, a migrant from Turkey, said.

“When such people come here and screw up like that, then everybody will think that Chechens, Afghans, all refugees from war areas are all the same,” Mansur Salamou, an asylum-seeker from Chechnya, said. “But it’s not like that. For example, the majority of us — we also cause problems, commit crimes. But no rape! Only criminal assaults and robberies.”

See, Europeans?! You only have to worry about being assaulted and robbed by the millions of North African and Middle Eastern refugees and migrants making their way towards Europe. What a relief.

It would appear that  a car packed with explosives was just found outside of Notre Dame cathedral. Hasn’t someone told the owner of this vehicle that attempting to perpetrate a mass atrocity is not in keeping with the tenets of true Islam? Where do people get these crazy notions that trying to murder hundreds of innocent people with explosives is somehow sanctioned by the Koran, or that Islam is not a religion of peace?

You don’t get to be the fastest growing religion through violent coercion and terror plots, after all. Someone needs to send this poor, deluded individual a copy of Reza Aslan’s latest work before the rest of us begin to get the wrong impression of our new Muslim neighbors.

As if we needed a reminder that the Augean Stables of our federal government need to be cleansed from top to bottom, this week brought news of an FBI agent encouraging a would-be Muslim assassin in the days leading up to the jihadist assault on Garland, Texas. I’m not one prone to conspiracy theories, but combined with the acknowledgement that Pamela Geller, the primary target of this assassination attempt, has not been contacted by law enforcement authorities in the wake of this latest development, you have to wonder what exactly is going on in Quantico.

We have a Justice Department which refuses to indict a woman who’s probably committed grievous crimes simply because she is the wife of a former President and the current nominee of the Democratic Party. An individual whose negligence-or malfeasance, if we’re being less frank-not only compromised national security, but may have led to the execution of an Iranian nuclear scientist. We have an FBI which believes it did its job by closing the file on Omar Mateen after concluding that his contacts with a suicide bomber had been minimal.  We all remember what that brilliant casework led to, don’t we?

Of course, we also have an Attorney General who believes that the solution to domestic jihadist networks and terrorists-which we have in every single state, for those of you who are keeping track-is to prosecute those who have the audacity to hurt Muslim feelz. We have a Department of Homeland Security which views right wingers, i.e. anyone to the right of Andrea Mitchell, as a greater domestic threat than ISIS, even as our government welcomes scores of refugees who might turn out to be actual terrorists.  Now it turns out that there are FBI agents who believe it’s within their purview to incite those whose sole job is plotting the deaths of critics of Islam.

I have some unpleasant news for the people reading this. Barring a monumental change, this is not going to get any better. In fact, contra The Weekly Standard’s stable of pro-Hillary shills, it will likely get much, much worse. The rancid corruption you’ve seen from the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign is merely a foretaste of what’s to come if the American public doesn’t wake up very soon. The Democratic Party nominee embraces the imposition of blasphemy laws-protecting only one religion, naturally-upon free men and women in the United States. She blatantly and persistently lied about who was responsible for the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and endangered the life of the filmmaker who committed the crime of not genuflecting before the most intolerant religion on the planet.

If you thought the Obama administration was corrupt, hostile to free speech, and unable to come to grips with the threat posed to our civilization by Islamic ideology, then you’re not going to like what the next 4 years have in store for this nation. America needs to wake up and realize that there are bigger threats to our future than a candidate who makes uncharitable comments about sleazy Muslim immigration lawyers with whom the media is enamored. Otherwise, we have some unpleasant years ahead of us.

Update: The State Department has no records of a meeting with the father of the shahid. 

The killer’s slightly less insane father visited Congress and the State Department. So perhaps they are assimilating after all. 

A horror for one woman, via text. 

Despite her SIOA Facebook page being restored, Pamela Geller has been banned from Facebook for a month. Reddit also seems to be under the impression that if you don’t mention Islamic terrorism, its victims are still alive. 

An exceptional essay by Bruce Bawar on the hard truths our leaders categorically reject. 

John Schindler examines our country’s most pressing epidemic, Jihad Denial Syndrome.

Today it’s worth remembering those who were the first to expose the deep connections  Islamic immigrants living in central and southern Florida had to international jihadism. Adnan Shukrijumah was not the first, and unfortunately, Omar Mateen will probably not be the last.

A co-worker complained that the guy who just murdered 50 people had threatened to kill people. Sound familiar? It should. 

Obama’s America, isn’t it grand? 

As a bonus, Mateen’s firm provided security to federal buildings. 

The first victims have been identified. 

What’s Facebook’s response to a Muslim jihadist murdering 40 innocent people in a gay night club? Banning a page critical of Islam, natch! Looks like the Merkelization of the Internet has begun. 

Proud Afghan immigrant and Taliban supporter Seddique Mateen.

Watch the live press conference held by local officials. 

A word of caution from Rita Katz of the SITE Intelligence Group. 

Through the looking glass.

Heckuva job, FBI!

Mateen was a licensed security officer who claimed ties to international jihadist groups. Unsurprisingly, his wife was the victim of spousal abuse. 

Some of the mosques surrounding Pulse Orlando. I wonder how many vigils they’re going to hold in the week ahead? 

The official news wire of ISIS has taken credit for today’s jihadist attack. 

The perpetrator allegedly recited Islamic prayers during the attack. 

The Daily Beast has published an exclusive on  Omar Mateen, the son of Afghan immigrants-previously investigated by the FBI-who was responsible for the Orlando massacre earlier today. Read it in full.

Father Mir Mateen told NBC News that the sight of two men kissing angered his son.

“We are saying we are apologizing for the whole incident,” the father added. “We weren’t aware of any action he is taking. We are in shock like the whole country.”

The attack, he said, “has nothing to do with religion.”

A Twitter user raises an interesting point about how gay-friendly Orlando truly is, at least within its Islamic precincts.

Most of you familiar with the work of Michael Mukasey probably remember him as the federal judge who granted Jose Padilla, an Al Qaeda agent designated an enemy combatant by the Bush administration, access to counsel during his detention in a U.S. military brig. Others might recall his refusal to declare waterboarding synonymous with torture during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings prior to his confirmation as Attorney General. However, the defining moment of his legal career was his oversight of the trial of the 1st World Trade Center bombing conspirators, led by The Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman.

It was this historic trial, as well as its implications for American society, which was the primary focus of Judge Mukasey’s speech to the Gertrude and Morrison Parker West Side Republican Club this past Tuesday. As he explained to a standing room only audience, this criminal conspiracy case was a milestone in our nation’s history, because it marked the first time that we learned of a jihadist cell bent on sowing terror, fear and destruction on American soil. Unfortunately, the lessons gleaned from that trial were largely lost on the immense federal bureaucracy ostensibly charged with protecting the lives and security of American citizens.

While the FBI ignored the ties Egyptian-born El Sayyid Nosair, the assassin of Rabbi Meir Kahane, had to jihadists both domestically and internationally-2 of the conspirators in the 1st World Trade Center bombing were present at Kahane’s murder-it likewise disregarded the links between the ’93 conspirators and Islamic terrorist networks abroad. Just as the failure of imagination and lack of moral clarity in Nosair’s prosecution set the stage for the 1993 WTC bombing, so too did the trial of these jihadists allow the 9/11 plotters, specifically the mastermind of the 9/11 massacre and cousin of Ramzi Yousef, breathing room to plot future acts of spectacular terror.

The question is why this was allowed to happen, and Judge Mukasey’s unequivocal answer is that it occurred because the institutional powers tasked with confronting this threat decided to ignore the connection between the tactic of international terrorism and the religious ideology which it serves. There was, as the former prosecutor of Sheik Rahman puts it, a willful blindness to the practical consequences of Islamic dogma, which is drawn from Islam’s sanctified texts. Texts with which our government is not only ignorant-and thus, unprepared to combat-but which are antithetical to our public officials’ increasingly absurdist pronouncements about Islam, which they view as a religion of peace and love.

The logical conclusion to this bizarre inversion of reality can be found in an article published by The Atlantic, which posits that even without Islam the Islamic State would still exist! An article shaped, it should be noted, by a former consultant to the Obama administration who publicly justifies the oppression of women that have had the misfortune of being born into Islam. Is it any wonder that when this same organization calls for the destruction of our nation’s crops and eradication of its food supply the media make no connection between that fatwa and the words ostensibly uttered by Mohammed, the ideal man according to  Muslims, which justified the same type of war crime in 7th century Arabia?

The disconnect between the apprehension felt by ordinary citizens, and the increasing body count of infidels, and the rose-colored view of Islam painted by our government and its media courtiers has never been broader. Although this gap can be seen throughout the federal government, from the FBI and the Department of Justice to the White House itself, it is most acute within the State Department. A government agency charged with expediting the resettlement of 10,000 unverifiable Muslims from Syria, but which refuses to countenance the idea that the precepts of Islam might have anything to do with the thousands of terror attacks which occur every single year around the globe. An agency which used the aftermath of the Brussels attack to remind Americans that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with the massacres committed explicitly and repeatedly in its name.

Even as the tangible  connection between Islam and global terrorism becomes inescapable for most observant human beings-even those, like Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who lead Islamic nations-the powers that be refuse to acknowledge the synergy between these two forces. All of the inexplicable actions taken by the Obama administration, from its brief flirtation with the idea of releasing The Blind Sheikh from incarceration, to its embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood as a negotiating partner-going so far as to host a Brotherhood leader at the White House-to Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s vow to punish anti-Islamic speech make sense when viewed within this context.

As Judge Mukasey pointed out throughout the course of his speech, the paradox of people who are considered to be dirty kuffar shaping our approach to Muslims, particularly those whose violent actions they are seeking to curb, is completely lost on our policy-makers. Hence, the proper Islamic burial of Osama Bin Laden. The folly of entrusting our national security to those who hold purportedly enlightened views of Islam can be seen most starkly in Europe, which is currently being devoured by Islamic refugees, many of whom were created by the presumptive Democratic nominee and Koranic expert, Hillary Clinton. Europeans are supposed to have faith in their leaders’ judgement, the same leaders who decided it would be a good idea to place Iranian refugees in charge of Arab-Muslim refugees, with predictable results.

As dispiriting as the current state of affairs is, Mr. Mukasey has a number of recommendations which might point us in the right direction, vis-a-vis defeating Islamic terrorism. For one, honestly and openly name the problem. Challenge elected officials, and to the extent possible, bureaucrats, who continue to deceive us about the connection between terrorist attacks by jihadists and the Islamic doctrine which inspired them, even if only indirectly. Obfuscation and denial will not get us any closer to resolving one of the most dire problems facing Western civilization. He also suggests building bridges to genuinely secular, liberal Muslims domestically, while encouraging diplomatic cooperation with anti-jihadist leaders abroad, such as President Sisi in Egypt.

Whether these steps will ultimately succeed is dependent upon our ability to influence those who wield power. Unfortunately, it looks bleak on that front, as our benevolent rulers continue to portray Islam as force for good in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, hope springs eternal. As long as there are ordinary American citizens, as well as distinguished officials such as Judge Mukasey, willing to speak the truth, I’m confident that the values inculcated by Western civilization will not pass from this earth.

I think we’ve established that those who control new media, our primary means of collective communication and social interaction, share neither our beliefs nor goals. The decision by Internet behemoths to enforce draconian abrogations of speech at the behest of the European Union merely crystallizes what we’ve known for some time, i.e. Mark Zuckerberg and his colleagues are not our allies, or even politically disinterested capitalists seeking to maximize their profit margins. They are ideological enemies, although posing as neutral parties, who want to see our ideas, insofar as they  militate against egalitarianism, social democracy, open borders, multiculturalism, progressivism, feminism,  dawa, and social justice,  quarantined. If not eliminated altogether. 

We have an inkling of what the future of this cloistered Web will look like, and it’s not something I look forward to. It’s a place where a drawing of Mohammed potentially garnering thousands of dollars can be removed, albeit temporarily, from eBay, along with CSA flags-at the behest of journalists-yet paeans to the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century remain widely available. A place where peaceful critics of the mass importation of rapists and criminals from the third world have their Facebook accounts suspended, even as calls for the killing of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee remain in place.

The Internet has broken the stranglehold exercised by old media over the flow of information. It’s allowed free citizens to access and disseminate facts, even as traditional gatekeepers try to embargo information which intellectually destroys their narratives and reveals unpleasant truths. It’s leveled the playing field between us and them, which is why they repeatedly and openly attempt to seize control of this invaluable tool for global communication. While the Overton window shifts in our favor, we need to recognize and respond to this unprecedented challenge. This threat is so palpable that it’s even seeped into our popular culture, forming the basis of a plot-line to an episode of the popular Netflix series House of Cards. Naturally, reality was inverted, as it was a Republican candidate collaborating with an enormously influential website in order to acquire and retain limitless executive power.

This prompts the question, how should we respond? How do we fight NGOs, bureaucratic institutions, multinational corporations and Internet monopolies that have seemingly endless resources at their disposal, and which control the medium through which we hope to communicate? There are many proposals, but one of the more intriguing ones involves holding these new media giants to their word.  A pro-life musician sued Youtube after her incredibly popular video was removed without explanation. On a much broader scale, Professor Stephen Bainbridge has suggested that wealthy philanthropists bankroll a lawsuit against Twitter in order to put conservative proposals on its annual proxy statement. Although this tactic sounds rather innovative, it actually bears a striking resemblance to a suggestion made by Senator Jesse Helms during the mid-80s which entailed a hostile takeover of the habitually biased CBS by conservative shareholders of the network.

Another legal proposal floated by some right wing analysts concerned about this growing problem is to force the government to classify these social media giants as public utilities, thus affording access for dissenting, anti-leftist thought. There are a number of reasons why I think this path-like the shareholder revolt-would be an ultimately futile effort. Although I welcome the entrance of affluent right wingers into the cultural war-and have been heartened by the courageous actions of Peter Thiel, the right’s real-life version of Batman-I don’t believe that conservatives will be able to engineer a coup, in the best sense of the word, against Twitter. Similarly, I doubt the efficacy of any effort to compel these corporations to enforce access and equitable treatment through the judiciary.

This isn’t because I believe it would allow the left to squelch some of the few remaining outlets of public conservatism outside of the Internet-although I’m certain liberals will continue to cheerlead for the introduction of any measure that mutes non-leftist opinion. I’m of the opinion that the utility of talk radio and the Fox News Channel to the right has waned and will continue to decline in the years ahead-this election being merely  foretaste of things to come. No, I oppose this route because it relies upon a thoroughly misguided view of how our courts currently operate. Beyond the merits of this controversial idea, the notion  that jurists steeped in progressivism will rescue conservatives is absurd on its face. It’s the same misguided thinking which led many to believe that the Roberts Supreme Court would unilaterally abolish Obamacare, i.e. that an instrument of the state would begin to curtail the excesses of another branch of the state.

Another option is to create right wing analogs to existing Web-based resources. The dreary results of this experiment can be seen in QubeTV and Conservapedia, the latter a Christian fundamentalist response to Wikipedia’s perceived biases. Beyond the self-consciously limiting aspect of these projects, their creators are marginalizing a political philosophy which they  hope to spread to the widest possible audience-in effect, doing the very job of the websites they stand in opposition to. Creating a less professional, derivative, albeit conservative, version of a pre-existing Web platform is not the solution to the problems we’re facing. We’re not going to win the battle of ideas by diving into an ideological cul-de-sac. In my next essay, I’ll explore some strategies which might actually work.

I distinctly remember taking part in an online discussion several years ago where one of the interlocutors warned me what would happen if Google ever became an evil monopoly. I couldn’t help but think to myself, have you not been paying attention? Leaving aside its extensive invasions of privacy, its intense cooperation with the largest dictatorship on the planet, as well as its agreements with more benighted countries which might or might not censor blasphemous search results, there is the pervasive ideological bias which infects this corporation and periodically makes itself known through heavy-handed editorial and advertising decisions.

However,  a corporation which finds itself even more powerful than Google in terms of shaping the public debate is Facebook. Thanks to Gizmodo, we now know that the militant opposition to Donald Trump among Mark Zuckerberg and his minions was simply the tip of the iceberg, and that Facebook employees had purposefully manipulated their site’s Trending Topics feature in order to suppress conservative views.  Discrimination against non-bien pensant views-including opposition to open borders, multiculturalism, firearms abolition, and using the Constitution as a leftist version of Mad Libs-is encoded in Facebook’s DNA.

In order to grasp just how pervasive this sort of viewpoint discrimination is, one need only look at the case of Lauren Southern, who was banned from Facebook for critiquing Facebook’s tendency to delete outspoken, non-leftist accounts. It’s interesting how liberals lament epistemic closure while simultaneously overlooking the stranglehold not only old but new media exercise over acceptable public debate, restricting the Overton Window to a range of issues that appeal to a small class of opinion-makers, even as forces that are transforming Western civilization are studiously ignored by the gatekeepers of permissible discourse.

Those on the left willing to admit that this is a problem are few and far between, which shouldn’t surprise you considering the fact that even ostensible conservatives can’t wait to grovel before power. Milo, as usual, has a great write-up of the Potemkin conservatives meeting with Zuck, which I recommend reading in its entirety. This is a multi-front war, where we face enemies both internally and externally, and the only way we’re going to begin to make progress is through relentless honesty, regardless of how limited our options for dissemination of the truth might be.

For those of you still laboring under the impression that Islam is not at war with the West-including the presumptive Democratic nominee for President-I have some shocking news. It turns out that the followers of Mohammed have other ideas. The plan to assassinate free speech, counterjihad activist Pamela Geller-which was, thankfully, thwarted through the work of the FBI and a tactically placed drone strike-was simply one of many plots devised by jihadist networks which have agents inside of the United States. Networks that have yet to be penetrated by American human intelligence and which now have a steady supply of recruits thanks to horrifically misguided immigration policies.

What should continue to infuriate those of you who have been paying attention is the way this issue is being framed by willfully ignorant and/or malicious hacks within the enemedia. A typical example of journalistic malpractice can be found in the Daily Mail, which-as Robert Spencer points out-has the strange distinction of being the newspaper most preoccupied with the Islamification of Europe while simultaneously denying that Islam itself is a problem. Apparently, the target of at least 2 known assassination plots provoked her would-be murderers by publicly dissenting from the dogma promulgated by the Fourth Estate’s favorite religion. A religion which is unique in enjoying blanket immunity from criticism.

Perhaps that has something to do with how adherents to the Religion of Peace deal with legitimate critiques of their faith. A pattern of violence and coercion that can be traced back to the founder of this religion, who himself didn’t countenance rational criticism. This campaign of brutality and intolerance has been so successful that it has silenced all but a few courageous voices in the West, which in turn makes it that much easier for jihadists to hunt down its intended targets, a reality which hasn’t been lost on Mark Steyn. It has also turned the mainstream media, ranging from commercial and public broadcasting networks-both radio and television-cable news, national and regional newspapers, and incredibly powerful websites into mouthpieces for the most retrograde, illiberal ideology known to man.

One wonders if the people asserting that Pamela Geller “provoked” these Islamic bombs-duds, fortunately, in this case-feel the same way about Gerard O’Neill and Dick Lehr. Did they provoke mobster James Bulger Jr. through their critical investigative reporting into his murderous criminal empire? What about controversial author and radio host Howie Carr? Was the grizzled Irish mobster nicknamed Whitey justified in his attempt to eliminate Carr for his insolence? Employing the logic used by the regressive left to slander Geller and her allies in the counter-jihad movement, one would come to that ineluctable conclusion.

What’s perplexing  is the implicit assumption that by blackening the name of  notorious “Islamophobes” and trying to preempt any public debate on the nature of Islam these journalists are assuring their own safety, which could not be further from the truth. The idea that you can somehow preserve the institutions of Western civilization  for yourself while eroding them for your perceived enemies-who actually believe in and exercise those values, unlike your reactionary Islamist allies-is a staggering form of cognitive dissonance. The brutal, globally shared execution of non-right wing, non-Islamophobic journalist Steven Sotloff should have demonstrated this, if the murder of dozens of other journalists, NGO workers, and even an Israel-hating, Italian Marxist did not. Somehow, the rather elementary notion that you can’t compromise with people who demand your complete and utter submission-up to and including your own death-hasn’t penetrated the minds of those who man North American and European news desks.

The collective amnesia these individuals must suffer from is astounding to contemplate. I would recommend reading The Camp of the Saints, a grim portrait of the future of the West, but I doubt it would change their minds, which seem predetermined to ignore any portions of reality which conflict with their surreal conception of human nature. Then again, there’s always the chance that some will come to their senses. If so, perhaps Pamela Geller won’t be our Cassandra. If not, we have a bleak future, and many regrets, ahead of us.

A small victory for freedom of thought in a nation which has gradually descended into the muck of fascism, aided in no small part by the wholesale importation of Islamic radicals. Paul Weston, himself a victim of political persecution for expressing wrong think, explains why Tommy Robinson is the #1 target of the British government in a disturbing essay for Gates of Vienna, which you can read here.

As frightening as what’s transpiring in the UK is to most rational human beings, the sad truth is that these anti-Western witch hunts could very well make there way to the United States, especially if a certain Democratic presidential candidate is elected. The stenographers for hate groups and jihad enablers like the SPLC and CAIR are already hard at work erecting a foundation to punish those who dare to voice reasoned criticism of the left’s favorite religion. Darkness has descended upon the West, and not simply in Europe; it’s time we woke up to that ineluctable truth. The time for dithering has ended; we need to stand up for our freedoms before they’re lost irrevocably.

It seems like the world’s most peaceful religion just can’t keep itself out of the headlines these days. On the heels of repeated attempts to assassinate artists and writers, the foot soldiers of Allah meticulously murdered over 60 infidels yesterday in a spate of terror that stretched from Kuwait to France. Although the attack outside of Lyon resulted in the fewest casualties, it’s probably the most relevant to the American public. The massacre on the Tunisian beach is in keeping with pan-Islamic terrorist networks policy of attacking economic interests-particularly those which rely upon Western tourism-in order to undermine local governments, while the explosion at a Shiite mosque in Kuwait is drearily predictable.

The attempted bombing in France, on the other hand, fits a pattern of  domestic terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims who were imported to the West from the Middle East and North Africa. The notion that resettling tens of thousands of Muslim refugees in the heart of Europe will decrease the likelihood of these events recurring in the future is lunacy, albeit of a kind distressingly familiar in the councils of Europe. This is why it’s imperative that free people tell the truth about Islam and the failures of multiculturalism and third world immigration while we still can.