The big news to come out of the President’s first weeks in office is a federal judge enjoining his executive order blocking immigration from 7 nations of concern. The motion by the Trump administration for an emergency stay has been denied by the 9th Circuit, a decision which bodes ill for its ultimate fate, as Andrew McCarthy points out, although the court will hear the challenge later today. There are a number of troubling aspects to this ruling, foremost among them being the idea that a single judge can influence American foreign policy and national security based upon specious legal reasoning. This is a distressingly familiar sight for the patriotic immigration reform movement, which has seen a single judge thwart Proposition 187-consigning California to its current dismal fate-and another obstruct the implementation of SB 1070-the law which inspired this very website.

The biggest threat to President Trump’s immigration agenda, beyond the attempt by the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP to undermine it within Congress, is judicial obstruction. Immigration law is just one of many domains usurped by the federal judiciary over the past century, however it is one of the most vital to the survival of our republic. Notwithstanding the media-generated fog, this executive order is critically important, not least because it drastically reduces the number of refugees being resettled in the United States and, to the horror of the ACLU, targets criminal aliens.

The lack of reasoning that went into this decision is transparent. As Byron York points out, this injunction-relying upon a litany of unexamined open borders cliches-has been rebutted by the Justice Department, which described in painstaking detail the plenary power exercised by the Executive Branch with regard to the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. Contrary to the Obama administration, which attempted to confer a panoply of benefits upon illegal aliens without the consent of Congress, this is a measured attempt at maintaining the security of American citizens at minimal cost/inconvenience to foreigners. Even so, the same bureaucratic forces which enabled President Obama to flout the Constitution are intent upon thwarting that very reasonable aim of the current administration.

Josh Blackman has a thorough 2 part exploration of the injunction from a statutory perspective, which I highly recommend reading. These cases will set the precedent for how immigration is dealt with going forward. Therefore, we need to address and refute the myths and exaggerations which have already taken hold in large swathes of the media landscape. We cannot allow lies to dominate the narrative, because immigration is the defining issue of our era.

Tuesday saw Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address before Congress. Unsurprisingly, there was very little substantive discussion of the one subject Americans are preoccupied with at the moment, i.e. the complete evisceration of this nation’s immigration laws by the current administration. There was, however, a typically pompous denunciation of purportedly divisive voices whose chief crime seems to be opposing the generally unpopular, and legally dubious, immigration policies of the President.

However, in what is probably the first of its kind, the Republican response to this year’s SOTU echoed the same theme emphasized by Obama himself. You don’t have to be enamored of either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump to recognize the stupidity of directly and unambiguously insulting millions of loyal Republican voters. Unfortunately, this has become routine for the establishment GOP. The brilliant Mark Steyn has illustrated just what was wrong with Governor Haley’s ostensible rebuttal-in reality, explicit endorsement-of the President’s message.

You can read Steyn’s astute analysis of the flaccid Republican opposition here. For what it’s worth, being praised by NY Times columnists and RNC chairmen is a dubious distinction, although one I’m sure the leaders of the dwindling minority are reveling in at the moment.

One of the most useful methods for understanding our current immigration crisis is looking at the cumulative effect of our government’s endorsement, both tacit and explicit, of illegal immigration. The Center for Immigration Studies has developed a handy tool that helps individual citizens do this. Namely, their sanctuary cities map. It is a sobering portrayal of the lengths to which this country’s elected officials-particularly those in states like California and New York-have gone in order to placate a what is essentially a large cohort of criminals who are in this country without legal permission.

I urge you to check it out for yourselves, and to see where your locality fits into this problem. Hopefully, we’ll see significantly fewer in the years ahead.

As Oscar Brand pointed out to us many years ago-singing about another titanic global struggle against fascism-it never pays to underestimate the courage of American servicemen. The brave men of the U.S. Armed Forces came to the rescue once again this week-assisted by a brave American college student and plucky Brit-preventing a repeat of the type of jihadist massacre that has become a common occurrence in France. You can watch footage of the aftermath, courtesy of our good friend Pamela Geller, here.

When in doubt, shout ‘RACIST!’ The open borders lynch mob continues its uniformed, malicious smear of Jason Richwine, occasionally taking time to engage in subsidiary slanders against other scholars, such as Charles Murray, even after its campaign of defamation succeeded in forcing his resignation from the Heritage foundation. You can now read his  PhD thesis, instead of  relying upon the testimony of envenomed, doltish public relations hacks and ethnic spokespeople who long for the Bush Restoration. For those who can’t spare the time, I urge you to read Michelle Malkin’s spirited defense of someone who’s learned the danger of acting out the leftist nostrum and speaking truth to power.

Rush’s take is also worth reading, notwithstanding the unjustified-in my estimation-criticism leveled against him from some quarters. Finally, J. Christian Adams takes Potemkin conservatives to task for their eagerness to engage in racialized vilification-long thought to be the sole province of the left-in the cause of political opportunism. Put simply, our enemies are afraid. Their coalition is dissipating, both in Silicon Valley and among those who owe their election to the successful exploitation of race. Don’t let diversionary tactics about hate facts distract us from our chief goal, i.e. killing the bill!

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.

Staten Island Recovers has also set up a page for the victims of Hurricane Sandy in Richmond County. For those of you who are fortunate enough not to need direct assistance, I urge you to help out in any way you can. The Salvation Army is already on the job! Voluntarism is the heartbeat of American life, and I’m sure New Yorkers will prove that in the days and weeks ahead, regardless of what help our government does or does not provide.

As we’ve discussed in previous posts, the main draw for LibertyFest was not personalities. Although Ron Paul, ironically, has become an icon for many in the libertarian movement within the United States, that movement is a cult of ideas more than anything. In fact, one of the recurring themes throughout the day was the repeated emphasis upon how this was a leaderless movement. In a speech that was one part performance art, one part Jonathan Edwards spiritual jeremiad, and wholly Kokesh, Adam Kokesh, of  Adam vs. The Man, inveighed against the mentality which insists that there is a single person, or even a group of people, who are fit to “lead” other individuals.

Although made in typically histrionic fashion, his point about the logical inconsistency of fighting against the state by relinquishing your identity-or letting it be subsumed by someone else running for office under the liberty banner-resonated with the audience. Contra Dan Halloran, he declared that the Ron Paul campaign was the “compromise” made by sincere anarcho-capitalists. The fact that an elected official, however heterodox, is able to inspire people who believe voting to be an act of aggression is testament to the soundness of his ideas, almost all of which revolve around the simple principle of self-ownership.

This concept is never so explicit as during an encounter with an agent of the Transportation Security Administration, an horrific experience with which anyone who travels by air is intimately familiar. That’s why I was pleased to run into James Baab, of We Won’t Fly, while milling about the Libertyfest grounds. The campaign to eradicate an agency that is detested by large segments of the public, and whose abuses-unlike other government bodies-are in full view of the citizenry, has been led by individuals, not politicians, nor even political activists. To the contrary, the political heat generated by the TSA’s outrages-however evanescent-has been a direct result of individual travelers exposing the obscenely subservient nature of our relationship to the state which this arm of the government crystallizes for airline travelers every single day.

This sort of citizen-driven opposition is just one avenue libertarians can take when contemplating how best to disseminate their message to a broader swath of the American public, because you don’t have to be an agorist  or minarchist in order to grasp the violative nature of a TSA agent groping an elderly woman who simply wants to see her grandchildren.

One speaker who managed to capture the essence of this diversity of action was Chris Lawless, otherwise known as Ron Paul’s giant, who delivered a fantastic speech exploring how each person can contribute something useful to the battle for a freer civilization. One of his contributions, in addition to his work on the Paul campaign, was moving to the state of New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project, a nationwide endeavor to create an enclave of libertarian thinking and autonomous, decentralized decision-making within the United States.

Lawless emphasized that his choices would not necessarily be the choice of others, and perhaps shouldn’t be, and that the multitude of talents and ambitions within this movement ensured that each person had a role to play in advancing the cause of liberty. Historians and economists are two vocations that are amply represented within libertarianism, which I was reminded of when I saw Austrian Economist Robert Murphy chatting with some of my friends.

Murphy is perhaps best known as the hungry challenger in the ever-elusive Robert Murphy-Paul Krugman debate, a contest which-despite its seeming win-win outcome-is just as likely to occur as the much-hyped Floyd Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao boxing match. Although Krugman has postulated some interesting theories about why he’s thus far rejected Robert Murphy’s generous offer, some libertarians have given more convincing explanations as to why Krugman is wise to dodge this confrontation.

Tom Woods of Liberty Classroom discussed the Krugman-Murphy debate during his speech, which served as the capstone to Libertyfest. He also touched upon a lot of pressing issues facing the liberty movement as it tries to build upon the momentum of the Paul campaign. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign was unique in the sense that it was not about winning primaries or accumulating power. Rather, it served as a platform to educate the electorate on the principles of self-governance and interacting with others by means other than the coercion of state agents. He correctly pointed out that the supporters of Ron Paul’s primary opponents, e.g. Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, among others, had disappeared once their campaigns had run their course, whereas the Ron Paul revolution continues to thrive, despite the fact that he is not the Republican presidential nominee.

The truth is that the more the Paul campaign veered away from its principles-often at the behest of political strategists such as Jesse Benton-the less support it attracted among the Republican electorate. This dedication to core values was highlighted by an anecdote involving an appearance Tom Woods made on Dennis Prager’s nationally syndicated radio program earlier this year. After agreeing for much of their conversation, which focused primarily on domestic economic and fiscal matters, the discussion shifted to foreign policy; there’s the rub. The upshot is that Tom Woods is no longer welcome on Mr. Prager’s show.

Although he would, theoretically, be able to reach more people if he had elided the issue-or obscured his true beliefs regarding national security/foreign policy-it would have been at the expense of maintaining his integrity. The tradeoff, in his view, was not worth making this sacrifice. This was perhaps the most important part of his speech that day, because it illustrated what the liberty movement should keep in mind when it’s marketing itself to the broader public.

While some believe that downplaying the essential tenets of this philosophy will spread its popularity, that belief is mistaken. Tom Woods’s own experience during the 2012 Paul campaign-where he was exposed to different strands of libertarianism he had never heard of, and forged lasting friendships with people he didn’t know existed a year ago-demonstrates that liberty brings people together.

Update: My full live-tweet of the debate between Andrew Schiff and Joe Weisenthal and Josh Barro is online! Coincidently, this month’s issue of The American Spectator has an expansive essay by investment banker, former NY gubernatorial candidate, and member of the 1981 Gold Commission-along with Congressman Ron Paul-Lew Lehrman, which advocates adopting to a modern gold standard. Coincidentally, the banner picture for that piece is the same one I used for this post. HOORAY FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN! If only everything were so simple. . 

Or a Judas Cradle of fiat money? Join me, my friend Ashok Chandra, and others as we learn about the history of the gold standard at Irish Exit, courtesy of Josh Barro of Bloomberg News and Joe Wiesenthal of the Business Insider in an event sponsored by the America’s Future Foundation. Perhaps there’ll be an advocate for bimetallism, the adoption of Bitcoin as a national currency, or some equally heterodox and fascinating idea. Regardless, I’ll be live-tweeting the proceedings at OddLane.

As someone who had never attended Liberty Fest-this was its third iteration, as the banner onto which the shadow of radio and television personality Lionel is projected indicates-I didn’t come into the event with any preconceived ideas or expectations. Even though I had been to events organized around similar principles, an eight hour-long seminar/concert/bull session on where the liberty movement is headed is something that has to be experienced in real-time. While Porcfest is the Woodstock of an  unplanned, voluntaristic economy envisioned by libertarians, Libertyfest is a strange amalgam of a national political convention-only with speakers who have genuine philosophical disagreements and, for the most part, some degree of intellectual integrity-a bazaar run by individuals who value not only the outcomes  but also the ethics of capitalism, and a Lollapalooza sans headliners whose presence necessitates highly paid entourages and absurd backstage riders.

As with any convention, tables were set aside for organizations and individuals selling things. The most popular item being the message of freedom, as Jordan Page might sing. The Ron Paul-inspired Campaign for Liberty, a fixture on the liberty circuit, was pushing its message of political action.

As was the  Manhattan Libertarian Party, whose table was manned by borough chairman Ron Moore. Regardless of your feelings towards the LP as an effective change agent, Ron has to be commended for his unwavering dedication to libertarianism, a devotion attested to by his lengthy conversations with anarcho-capitalists-some of whom, it must be disclosed, are personal friends-throughout the day. Although this is purely speculative on my part, I liken it to the dialogue that must  have occurred between Christopher Columbus’s  Spaniards and the Arawaks about the nature of faith.

One of the fascinating byproducts of the Ron Paul campaign is the effort to monetize intangible concepts like self governance and anarchism. In addition to fashion accessories-including some cleverly designed buttons sold some by my friend Jacqueline-there were other artistic and musical creations by people whose beliefs don’t quite sync with the mindset of the creative class. One of the tables at Liberty Fest sold copies of the Silver Circle Movie, which is a film/comic dramatization whose plot revolves around a clash between central bankers and advocates of an alternative currency, a fictionalized critique of the Federal Reserve system denounced so consistently and eloquently by Ron Paul.

An important element of Liberty Fest was music, which bracketed the first two-thirds of the speaker’s roster. Tracy Diaz of Liberty Chat belted out an amazing rendition of a Jewel classic, which doubled as a barbed commentary on Ron Paul’s former campaign manager, who is considered by many to be a Benedict Arnold of sorts, stripped of the historic traitor’s military valor in defense of country. His strategy of having the candidate downplay his foreign policy views, as others have noted, did not meet with much electoral success. He did, however, benefit handsomely when cashing out of the campaign. That said, Tracy’s singing-her first public performance in over a decade and a half-proved that beauty can be excavated from even something as odious as Jesse Benton.

I was not as impressed with the hip hop portion of the evening. Perhaps I’m spoiled by growing up in an era when Video Music Box actually aired music-videos worth watching, but the appeal of contemporary rap artists has waned considerably, especially since there are still some old school rappers creating powerfully creative works. None of the “underground” hip hop artists left an especially resonant impression on the audience, including the duo who evoked images of  Insane Clown Posse every time they shouted the refrain WHAT ABOUT MARS into their microphones. Indeed. What about Mars?

That said, the headline musical performers were exceptional, including Tatiana Moroz, who did an amazing cover of a Bob Dylan classic, as well as original material, and Jordan Page, who added some rock star credibility to the cast of musicians with an eight minute-long guitar riff.

Gigi Bowman of Liberty Candidates needs to be credited with assembling a compelling slate of speakers-more about them in a future post-and musicians, as well as a space where-whatever its demerits-a bunch of libertarians could argue for eight consecutive hours. After all, it’s the idea of freedom that matters. That, and proving everyone else wrong.