Note:  Video footage, including a rousing speech made by the legendary Pamela Geller, as well as a moving speech by 9/11 mother Nelly Braginskaya, at Atlas Shrugs. Also, additional photos and footage provided by the indefatigable photo-blogger Urban Infidel. 

If  there was a single, overarching theme to the first Stop the Islamization of Nations Congress, it was just that. Freedom. The freedom exercised by Rifqa Bary-the courageous young woman who converted to Christianity despite the wishes of her Muslim parents, and whose portrait you see emblazoned upon the poster above-as well as the freedom to engage in critical inquiry regarding any and all subjects-including Islam-are one and the same. For fundamentally, they both come down to the exercise of free will. Individual choice is something that is not highly valued in authentic Islamic culture, as the plight of the recently freed Iranian Christian pastor  Yousef Nardakani, and the fate which befell Arab journalists who republished the famous Jyllands Posten Mohammed cartoons, demonstrate.

I traveled to the UN Millennium Plaza Hotel on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 massacres in order to listen to a roster of speakers who would illuminate just how precarious the freedom we enjoy is, why it is imperiled-not only in the United States, but across the globe-by whom, and how we can resist the encroachment of those who would circumscribe, and ultimately, eliminate it.

Notwithstanding the passel of amiably grouped American and United Nations flags in that photo, the  values of the United States and those undergirding the United Nations could not be further removed from one another. Anyone who has read the aptly titled The UN Gang by Pedro Sanjuan, a career diplomat and Foreign Service officer-a book that , ironically enough, was stolen while I attended the conference-would recognize just how different our nation is from the anti-American swamp in Turtle Bay. Unfortunately, those in power today-particularly within this administration-seemingly want to emulate the rogue’s gallery of Islamic theocracies, tinhorn military dictatorships, and third world socialist backwaters that currently comprise its membership. At least, with respect to the citizen’s relationship to the state.

Although the words from the Old Testament prophet are laudable-if a bit confusing when juxtaposed against the United Nations general opinion of Jews-they in stark contrast to most of the actions undertaken by the UN, which range from supplication before the preeminent state sponsor of terror, to deploying “peacekeepers” whose chief recreational activity consists of terrorizing the people they were putatively sent to protect. However, the most insidious threat posed by the United Nations is its attempt to nullify our natural rights in order to preserve the edifice of Islam as a great religion.

In decades past, the free world-led by the United States-would have led the fight against criminalizing dissent. However, the position espoused by the American government has been changed dramatically. The instinctive reflex on the part of government officials is exemplified by the craven tweet-since deleted-by the United States embassy in Cairo issued shortly before it was assaulted by a salafi mob. A mob which included, it should be noted, both the younger brother of Al Qaeda’s current emir and members of the terrorist organization whose leader is responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing. Of course, now that the Arab Spring is in full bloom, we should keep in mind that yesterday’s terrorist might very well be today’s democrat.

The most significant aspect of this transformation is the State Department’s active encouragement of a UN resolution, crafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which would criminalize any substantive criticism of Islam. As Robert Spencer pointed out during the conference, this treaty would have the force of law, and there’s no reason to believe that the United States Supreme Court-McConnell vs. FEC made its cavalier attitude towards expressive speech plain-to honor our First Amendment rights any more than it has recognized those enshrined within the Second Amendment, or, I would add, the Fifth.

The institutionalization of this dhimmification of our legal system is occurring in our own backyard. State Senator David Storobin, who-regardless of any other criticism that can be leveled against him-should be congratulated for having the temerity to attend this conference, explained why this is such a pernicious development. A man whose family escaped from the Soviet Union-the largest totalitarian empire in world history-and whose relatives were slaughtered by Islamic separatists-Senator Storobin is perhaps uniquely qualified to speak to this issue. He denounced hate speech laws, which he correctly described as penalizing thought rather than criminal action, and averred that he believed in the principles of the Founders. “The founding fathers of America, not the Soviet Union. Madison, not Lenin.”

It’s a quote worth keeping in mind when the vanguards of the left insist upon adopting a policy of prior restraint against the only religion of global breadth they seemingly venerate.  What makes matters even more grave is the fact that those whose sensitivities will be preserved at the expense of our liberty, unlike the victims of other thought crimes-or perceived thought crimes-the left has sought to give protected status, these individuals have the propensity to vent their displeasure in ways much more colorful than public protests or civil disobedience. This fact was brought home to the audience during the speech of the man you see below, David Yerushalmi, founder of the American Freedom Law Center and tireless advocate for American civil liberties.

Mr. Yarushalmi’s speech focused on the nexus between the application of sharia law within Western societies and the inexorable diminishment of civil rights and liberties of citizens living in those societies. Contrary to the anodyne picture of sharia which has been painted by the press, academe, and assorted lapdogs of CAIR touted by our intellectual betters, the facets of Islamic law-provided we ever agree on a school of Islam to impose-which many have no trouble with in principle are diametrically opposed to the values we cherish as American citizens. A perfect illustration of this conflict in practice occurred earlier this year during an Arab American festival held in the city of Dearborn, Michigan.

Exercising their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and voice their opinions, several Christian missionaries decided to demonstrate their profession of faith in Christ-and disbelief in the assertions found within the pages of the Koran-during this event. Doubting the claims of Mohammed-or his adherents-is a criminal offense-in Islam, not in the United States-which led to these men to being stoned by a frenzied mob of “Arab Americans.” Despite the fact that it was the peaceful protesters who were attacked-to the point of bloodshed-they were the ones told to vacate the premises, lest they be arrested.

The Orwellian revision of the facts by local and national media outlets-where the victims and aggressors were inverted-was not surprising. However, the willingness of a large municipal police department to enforce the legal code that contradicts the 1st Amendment is what led Mr. Yarushalmi to pursue a lawsuit against the officials responsible for this outrage.

While this incident might be interpreted as speaking to the depressing lack of respect for constitutional rights by those entrusted with the use of deadly force by the state, the tenacity with which this lawyer is seeking redress is what stands out in my mind. This determination to protect the sacred right of free speech can also be seen in the legal battle between the American Freedom Defense Initiative/Stop the Islamization of America and the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority over the content of the subway ad you see presented in the powerpoint presentation below.

Questioning the rationale behind the construction of a mosque within sight of Ground Zero, the ad was initially deemed unacceptable by MTA executives before a lawsuit reminded them that freedom of speech trumps the tender sensibilities of a teflon-coated religion. The same MTA was forced to back down again after a federal judge chastised it for refusing to consent to the display of another AFDI/SIOA ad which supported the state of Israel.

However, the most intriguing recent legal victory of Mr. Yarushalmi’s was the decision by the corresponding public transportation governing authority in the city of Detroit.

The poster you see above is nearly identical in content to billboards commissioned by atheist activists exhorting non-Muslim believers to abjure their faith. The only difference being that a the consequence for individuals who answer the question posed here in the affirmative is death. As the tragic fates of Jessica Mokdad…

…and Aqsa Parvez make clear.

It is precisely the willingness among adherents to the Koran to inflict often lethal violence upon its critics which leads governments to attempt to circumscribe the actions, and police the expression of thoughts, of the people whom they ostensibly serve. However, the complicity of almost every major media organ-both in print and on television-in the whitewashing of Islam’s intolerance of dissent-among other less than admirable traits-has as much to do with affinity for the ends-if not always the means-of its followers, as it does any craven abdication of responsibility linked to fear. We’ll examine the responsibility of the press for the current state of affairs in Part II of our coverage.

A big tip of the figurative hat to our good friend Kathy Shaidle, owner of the refreshingly subversive Canadian blog Five Feet of Fury, for that link. I don’t think any hour-long speech on the virtues of an open border can withstand that three minute excoriation of the double standards employed in our application of laws by the brilliant Adam Carolla. For more on Los Angeles’s disaster of a mayor, check out this Newsmax column by Patrick Mallon from 2005.

Update: New photos, and full video coverage, at  The Silent Majority.
 

Today I decided to return to my old stomping grounds at Brooklyn College in order to witness a lecture delivered by acclaimed polemicist, writer, political and human rights activist, and former leader of the new left, David Horowitz. Invited to speak by student leader Yosef Sobel, and sponsored by Professor  Langbert-both of whom can be seen below-Mr. Horowitz delivered an impassioned, but unerringly rational, defense of freedom of speech, pluralism, and diversity, all values under attack in the Middle East and on American campuses-the primary theme of the evening. 

He began by noting the extreme impediments he-and the people who attended his lecture-had to overcome in order to simply be in attendance. A particularly sarcastic Muslim student interrupted his introductory remarks-something that would recur approximately a dozen times during his hour long speech-to ask him why such security measures were necessary. His cogent response that these steps were “what checkpoints are about, making people feel safer,” brought a thunderous round of applause from the audience. I can attest to the thoroughness of the examination each person had to undergo before being admitted to the event. If only the federal government were as efficacious and watchful as the people providing security for David Horowitz, we wouldn’t even have to worry about potential domestic terror attacks. 

Mr. Horowitz noted the planned-but ultimately abandoned-attempt by the International Socialist Organization to thwart his speech, making the point that college campuses have now become “the political base of the fascist left in this country,” and asserting that they were imperiling the foundation of our freedoms, which is the “ability to disagree in a civil manner.” This fact was reinforced by the spectacle of repeated disruptions to his speech by Muslim students, possibly members of  a campus chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot known as the Muslim Students Association. The man seen below, who refused to condemn Hamas when confronted by Horowitz during the concluding part of his post-speech Q&A, is a perfect illustration of the intolerance pro-Israel, pro-American students face on a daily basis. 

He was assisted in his failed effort at sabotaging Brooklyn College’s guest speaker by several female Muslims seated at the back of the audience. 

Despite the adversarial nature of this segment of the audience, David Horowitz was able to continue with his presentation, the second part of which gave those willing to listen a brief history lesson in the contemporary Middle East, which he correctly pointed out was a colonial creation resulting from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a fact that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli radicals refuse to admit, even as they deny the historic ties of Jews to the Holy Land. 

Refuting the libelous accusation that Israel, a land where Arab-Muslims enjoy more rights and freedoms than anywhere else on the planet, is somehow an “apartheid state,” he proclaimed that the opposite is the case, and that “the whole Arab Middle East is apartheid,” bolstering his assertion by recounting the eviction of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip by Hamas, which destroyed their agricultural equipment-equipment that was responsible for providing Gaza with 10 percent of its Gross National Product. 

He linked the two strands of his argument together by describing the enormous obstacles he encountered when attempting to place an ad exploring the true nature of the Islamic Middle East in the UC Daily Bruin-the official campus newspaper of UCLA-whose editors labeled the proposed ad defamatory. He then questioned the Daily Bruin representative as to how delineating the actual stance of Hezbollah, Hamas, and  Palestinian and Egyptian clerics was beyond the pale, while the regular vituperation directed against Israel and Jews was halal. Of course, he never received a satisfactory answer to his question. However, you can visit the Palestinian Wall of Lies and judge for yourself the validity of the accusations routinely lodged by  ”Israeli apartheid” campaigners during their week of denunciation and vitriol. 

One of the chief laments of David Horowitz throughout his speech was the lack of support he receives from mainstream, institutionalized Judaism within the United States. He cited as a glaring example of this problem campus Hillels, which should be a defensive bulwark against pro-Islamic, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda, yet routinely refuse to engage in the war that’s being waged against them by radical leftists and organizations such as the Muslim Students Association. He also broadened his attack to include the “interfaith” organizations that attempt to reach out to radical Muslim organizations, notwithstanding their checkered history. 

The overall impression I had of the event, despite the repeated disruptions by anti-Horowitz, anti-Israel and anti-American agitators planted liberally throughout the auditorium, and a very pessimistic message delivered by the keynote speaker, was one of perseverance. David Horowitz reiterated the necessity of fighting for your beliefs, in spite of the long odds and remote chance of success, and standing up for classical liberalism and the ideals upon which our nation’s founding fathers established this country. I went away from the evening undeterred and hopeful that there remained a cadre of young students willing to engage in intellectual combat in order to see what they believe is right prevails, both on their own college campus and within the country as a whole. 

More proof, as if more proof was needed, that The push for this latest installment in the amnesty layaway plan known as DREAM has been riddled with identity politics from the beginning. The only reason Harry Reid is demanding that the Senate pass this monstrosity in the first place is as a reward to Hispanic voters he views as having been instrumental to his latest re-election.

Read the entirety of Jerome Corsi’s column, it’s very clarifying. From Congressman Gutierrez’s threat to engage in civil disobedience and empty promise to split from the Democratic Party if it doesn’t railroad DREAM through Congress, to the explicit threats of political retaliation made by ethnic grievance groups such as LULAC and La Raza, this entire debate has been driven by people who put race and ethnicity above concern for country.

Whatever pro forma declarations of patriotism DREAM Act sponsors espouse are merely intended for public consumption. The claim that waves of illegal aliens will enlist in the United States Armed Forces once DREAM is enacted, an assertion that has been thoroughly demolished by Mark Krikorian in NRO, is simply a way of persuading the sensible middle portion of this country-which is rightly concerned about giving yet another amnesty to millions of illegals-that DREAM is as American as apple pie. Unfortunately, it isn’t. It’s race-based politics with a cute, cuddly, collegiate face.

The only way to unite our country is to reject this horrible bill, and to move beyond race-based politics. We’re better than that.

I don’t care if she ultimately wins the crown, to me Arianna Afsar represents this country beautifully.  She is a former American Idol contestant recently crowned Miss California.

Proof that there is intellectual heft to beauty pageant contestants, and that some of  the people who get what this country is about are the children of legal immigrants. Here are the money quotes from Miss California. First, about her view of amnesty proposals currently before Congress:

“I think that people who want to be a United States citizen need to come over here legally in order to get the privileges that every American receives,” said the 18 year-old, during a webcam interview with NBCLA.

And then, about the journey her parents took toward American citizenship:

“It ended up taking him 10 years, but he did it legally,” said Afsar. “I don’t think that if you are close to the border that you have the right to be given the rights of a United States citizen.”