Author: Ssolbergj

Update: The Local is covering the attack from the scene. 

The latest terrorist target to hit Europe has just taken place in the Swedish capital of Stockholm. The BBC has full coverage of the attack.

Rigidly defending the President’s precise formulations will always pose a problem for his supporters. I think even his staunchest backers will acknowledge that Donald Trump isn’t Churchillian in his eloquence. That said, nearly every time he is assailed by his pseudo-sophisticated, morally inverted critics in the culturally Marxist press, it turns out that he was correct.

The manufactured controversy surrounding his remarks about Sweden is simply the latest example of the media’s malicious lying and/or stupendous ignorance. No, President Trump wasn’t referring to a specific terrorist attack in Sweden, although there have been jihadist assaults in that nation, including suicide bombings, but rather to the degradation of that country-as well as others in Central and Northern Europe-occurring as a result of catastrophically wrongheaded immigration policies.

What happened last night, as well as many nights before in immigrant-heavy, Islam-friendly towns and cities in that country, is chaos. Rampant sex crime, tribal warfare, widespread rioting-some of which targets members of the liberal press which is so enamored of non-Swedes-and general lawlessness. In spite of the Swedish government’s refusal to acknowledge reality, censorship of hate facts, and systemic coverup of migrant rape of Swedes, the non-brainwashed know what is happening in Europe.

Despite forbidding the collection of statistics which would identify the ethnicity of those committing crimes in Sweden, we still have a very good idea of who is responsible for many of them. For example, 85% of those sentenced to at least 2 years in prison for rape by a Swedish court of appeals were foreign-born or second-generation immigrants. We have firsthand accounts from career law enforcement officers attesting to the culpability of foreign immigrants and refugees in the diverse array of problems Swedes currently face.

The idea that the state and its accomplices in the media can somehow indefinitely cover up the truth in a networked world, where we can read descriptions of what the multicultural boroughs of Europe are actually like, is the height of absurdity. The facts denied and buried by the mainstream media are at the fingertips of those who choose to obtain them. That is something that will not change any time in the near future, no matter how much our ruling class would like to suppress the truth.

Diversity is our strength, even when it’s our greatest weakness. The experience of Australia isn’t unique, something the ostracized  Frenchman, Swede, and Norwegian can attest to, when they’re given the opportunity. Contrary to popular, i.e. elite consensus, mass immigration has not been an economic boon to ordinary Australians, despite an emphasis upon skilled immigrants which doesn’t currently exist in American immigration policy, and would not be the norm even with the cosmetic reforms of the Gang of Eight bill.

Prime Minister Gillard was right to oppose the Big Australia policy, and her dramatic policy reversal will only spell more misery for the people who voted her party into power, as well as everyone else who doesn’t get to externalize the costs of open borders or depress the wages they would otherwise have to pay their employees. Multiculturalism might be a strength for those who get to use it as a cudgel against competitors and political opponents, but for the rest of us it amounts to a raw deal.

One of the most astute, prolific critics of the growing threat posed by Islamism to the United Kingdom-and the West in general-is Douglas Murray. Some of you might remember him from the Intelligence Squared debate where he teamed up with human rights activist and apostate from Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali to refute the proposition that Islam Is a Religion of Peace. Now he’s written a book that takes to task those-mostly on the left, but across the political spectrum-who would continue to defend the religious precepts animating the Woolwich butchers and those rampaging across Stockholm out of ideological solidarity. Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady is not only timely, but pivotal to understanding the incoherent thinking that is the ethos  of the illiberal consensus.

Read it, before it’s too late. 

Art Credit: Bosh Fawstin.

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!

Once again, the words of Enoch Powell appear prescient, although perhaps in not quite the way the late British parliamentarian and classicist intended. In the same week that Swedes have been besieged by aggrieved jihadists imported by their own government, Londoners experienced yet another subsidiary benefit of multiculturalism. This time, in the form of a Nigerian convert to Islam ritualistically slaughtering a member of the British Army.

Drummer Lee Rigby, of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was methodically  dismembered by an adherent to the Religion of Peace as he walked to his barracks yesterday. The loving father, who had served in Afghanistan, was the latest victim of an alien ideology which has already killed or attempted to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of Britons on their own soil. The perpetrators of this particular atrocity-which echoed an earlier attempt to murder and behead a British soldier in the streets of London-were emulating their countrymen in Nigeria, where Boko Haram, which in Hausa translates to “Western education is a sin,”has turned the northern portion of the country into a charnel house, slaughtering Christians,  security forces, women, and anyone else who does not submit to the imperatives of sharia. The Nigerian government has responded ambiguously, besieging three northern states even as it releases detained members of the ultra-violent, Islamic terror network.

How the UK will respond to this atrocity remains to be seen, although the signals emanating from the ruling class-which is in large measure culpable for this sort of barbarity-are not encouraging. The widely ridiculed British security apparatus responded with undue alacrity. The ahistorical, insipid pabulum put forward by the current empty suit occupying 10 Downing Street was to be expected. Mr. Cameron was simply following the example of our President, who won’t let  the premeditated vivisection of a British citizen sully the good name of Islam. Better not to mention it at all. Of course, most of the large media organs-with a few notable exceptions-sedulously elided the unpleasant fact that these Muslim youths grounded their butchery in Koranic injunctions. The current mayor of London, who once distinguished himself from his Islamophile predecessor, “Red” Ken Livingstone, issued a similar appeal to his constituents not to form a hasty, negative opinion of the perpetrator’s religion simply because of the actions of a few misguided Muslim jihadists who had just assassinated an infidel in the name of Islam.

After all, this is just an isolated incident, most likely the work of a lone wolf-or wolves-which won’t be repeated in the future. It’s not like London is the European hub for pan-Islamic, jihadist terror,  to the point of earning its own delightful sobriquet reflecting the dramatically altered demographics of this international capital of commerce. Despite the feigned expressions of shock and disbelief by the usual suspects, the biography of the soldier of allah seen in video footage is anything but surprising. A follower of the protean jihadist movement known as Al-Muhajiroun, which serves as a finishing school of sorts for would-be Islamic terrorists, he spent recent months exhorting his fellow Muslims to join the Syrian jihad, which I’m sure would have met with the approval of Secretary of State Kerry and much of Congress.

Although we don’t know what precipitated his conversion to Islam, the opportunities presented to him in this new England are ubiquitous. In addition to numerous mosques-both of the mega and storefront variety-Islamic bookshops whose offerings range from Mein Kampf to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there is the Islamic community itself, where anti-Semitism and hatred of the West proliferates, at least according to British Muslims. There are even committed jihadists willing to instruct young pupils in the tenets of Islam. That is why the words of Cameron, Johnson, and the worse than useless talking heads in the media ring so hollow today.

The message sent by this jihadist’s ostensible mentor, Anjem Choudary, reveals more than any of the lies or willful delusions being promoted by the usual suspects. His testimony to the character of the bestial creature who disemboweled Lee Rigby is illuminating in its own warped way. Islam is a peaceful religion, and Muslims are without sin, because submission is peace and killing infidels is not sinful. According to this belief system, what took place yesterday is commendable and should be emulated, just as the deeds of Mohammed-the model for all proper conduct and behavior-should serve as a model for true Muslims.

In some respects, the philosophy of apocalyptic, jihadist Islam is in perfect harmony with that espoused by the unreconstructed, revolutionary left, which has aided its rise throughout the West. Both are governed by situational ethics, where the ends-if achieved-are justified by the means. Specific actions are judged to be right only insofar as they facilitate a certain outcome. The growth of Islam and sharia in the case of the former, the ideal collectivist state for the latter. Both buttress each other, but the foundation stone is the left, which has constructed the meta-narrative that there are no reasons to oppose mass immigration from the third world-or the customs and beliefs these newcomers hew to-which aren’t invidious and racist in origin, and that the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Europeans and Americans constitute a form of mass psychosis.

That is why western European cities are being sacked for the first time since the end of World War II, and why the president will not even utter the name of the religion which is responsible for the atrocity committed yesterday in Woolwich. If diversity is our strength, then any action-or even statement-which might diminish public support for this grand experiment of our political leadership is forbidden; or “haram,” if you will. The loving, caring family of Lee Rigby is experiencing a torment that defies description, yet the government of Great Britain refuses to look reality in the eye and identify the killer by its rightful name. In this respect, there is some truth to the words of the orc who murdered and desecrated the body of that courageous serviceman. David Cameron and Boris Johnson-Labour, the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats-do not care about English people.

That much is obvious.

Today marks the eleventh anniversary of the catastrophic attacks upon the Pentagon and World Trade Center, as well as the thwarted assault aimed at the U.S. Capitol, which led to the loss of thousands of lives and introduced millions of Americans to the apocalyptic ideology of Al Qaeda and assorted Sunni jihadists.

As the democidal tyrants in Tehran inch ever-closer to acquiring the second Islamic bomb, one which will be at the disposal of adherents to an apocalyptic, Shia millenarianism, it’s worth noting that violence is merely the chosen expedient for people who want to impose their dogma upon the entire globe. A much more existential, and efficacious, threat to our civilization is the campaign to erode, and eventually abolish altogether, the fundamental natural rights we exercise every day of our lives and which we have taken for granted for far too long. The foremost right among them being the freedom to debate issues such as this one without the fear of coercion and reprisal from those who disagree with our opinions.

That’s why the SION Freedom Conference, organized by my dear friend Pamela Geller and slated to take place later today, is such a watershed moment. It will serve as the chief forum from which to illuminate the dire threat posed by an ideology that wishes to permanently redact, to criminalize, any critical observations about it inside of nations where speaking your mind is enshrined as a bedrock constitutional principle.

In addition to Atlas, there will be a roster of courageous dissidents from across the globe showcased this afternoon, including Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has experienced firsthand the animosity some Muslims feel towards those engaged in critical inquiries regarding the Religion of Peace. I will attempt to live-tweet both speeches-along with the rest of the proceedings-provided my not-so-smart phone doesn’t fail me-as it so often does.

You can follow my updates here, and ask questions of your own @OddLane. For those of you blessed to have some disposable income during the worst economic recession in recent memory, might I suggest putting some of it towards defraying the immense costs that events such as the SION Freedom Conference impose upon their sponsors?

Hopefully, tomorrow’s event will honor the memories of those thousands-from New York and elsewhere-who can no longer speak for themselves.