Of European cities which have been irrevocably transformed by mass migration from the Muslim world, Paris does not rank at the top of the list. A quarter of its population isn’t Muslim, like the gang-infested, crime-ridden former port city of Marseille, nor a fifth, like the jihadist hotbed of Roubaix. However, the outraged reaction of Francois Hollande, the lame duck prime minister of France, to President Trump’s remarks at CPAC is laughable when you consider the fact that officials in Paris have had to erect an 8 ft. wall of reinforced glass in order to protect that city’s most recognizable symbol. Leaving aside the fact that Parisiens have to endure a police state that has no parallels in post-war France, a situation prompted by the threat posed by the 6 million Muslims who reside in that country-as well as the millions more who live in neighboring nations like Belgium and Germany-there is the inescapable difference between the Paris of today and the Paris of only a few decades ago.

Why would an ordinary American want to visit a city, however beautiful certain parts may be, where hundreds of Muslims are able to shut down entire blocks of pedestrian traffic-as well as local businesses-while they publicly pray? As gauche as this may be to say in the current year, people visit European capitals to discover the roots of Western civilization, not witness inter-tribal warfare or the Islamic conquest of a once great civilization. The fact that over three-quarters of the victims of terrorist attacks in France have fallen in the 21st century should give astute observers a clue as to the trajectory of that country’s future. Whatever you may think of President Trump, or the reliability of unsourced anecdotes, the notion that the Paris of today is the jewel of Europe, that the decades of unstinting Muslim migration from the third world haven’t permanently transformed France from the nation it once was, beggars belief. Perhaps undiluted multiculturalism, open borders in perpetuity, and the gradual erosion of natural rights in the name of accommodating the world’s “fastest-growing religion” is something that you favor, but don’t try to pretend that this is not what we’re witnessing.

Update: Neil Munro explores Speaker Paul Ryan’s bizarre Republican trinity.

I had the pleasure of attending an informal discussion held by writer/political pundit Fred Barnes recently, where the topics ranged from his biography of Jack Kemp-co-written with McLaughlin Group colleague Morton Kondracke-to his thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Taking place prior to the New York primary, and subsequent devastating losses by Ted Cruz to the now presumptive Republican nominee, it served as a fascinating overview of the internal divisions within the conservative establishment, which are even more pronounced now that the worst nightmare of many has come to fruition.

Even as Fred Barnes-like a handful of other Republican Party stalwarts-has maintained an anybody but Clinton posture-while delineating his many disagreements with Trump both tactically and strategically-the vast majority of thought leaders among formerly influential conservative think tanks, periodicals-as well as statesmen-seem to have taken the opposite tack. Some even going so far as to wholeheartedly embrace a woman who until relatively recently was seen as the bete noire of the establishment right. This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day that elapses.

A  Trump critic in the audience-who nonetheless came to the conclusion that he was infinitely preferable, given the options, to Hillary Clinton-asked a compelling question. Namely, from where does this deep-seated animus-and unrelenting energy to thwart Donald Trump’s election, to limited effect thus far-stem? Granted, he breaks from  Republican orthodoxy on a number of issues, but if that’s the crux of the problem, then why were there no comparable anti-Romney or anti-McCain movements by the conservative intelligentsia?

If it’s simply a matter of the support Trump has drawn from loathsome figures, then why was there no corresponding outrage when John McCain aligned himself with virulent Mexican chauvinist Juan Hernandez? I’ve never subscribed to the association fallacy, but it’s worth noting that Donald Trump has never enlisted the help of The Daily Stormer in order to cultivate his popularity among white ethnics. Is the galvanizing issue for the anti-Trump movement his use of vulgarity? As absurd as that seems, the chief complaint voiced by the Stop Trump Pac appears to be Donald Trump’s penchant for uttering naughty words.

In reality, I think their objection-and the animating reason for the existence of the Dump Trump movement-is a deeply rooted fear of their own increasing irrelevance. The idea that the bond between conservative intellectuals and successful Republican campaigns is largely illusory is something that those in the anti-Trump faction simply can’t countenance. Especially the ones who manage magazines which have exiled the few writers on their staffs with a modicum of talent and intellectual integrity from their pages.

The Stop Trump crusade-if that word isn’t too offensive-is something to occupy the energies of writers and editors at The Federalist, Red State, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and virtually every other conservative publication of any consequence, through the remainder of this election cycle. It’s a raison d’être for those who would otherwise be preoccupied telling poor white people they need to die and explaining why you’re not a Christian because you happen to support a candidate they dislike, although I’m almost certain we’ll see similar broadsides in the months ahead from those who believe you’re an idiot is a persuasive riposte.

For the record, none of the aforesaid criticism means that Donald Trump is an ideal candidate, or that I believe sincere Trump critics are grievously mistaken for opposing his candidacy. The truth is that there are many objectionable aspects of Trump as a potential POTUS. Although I have several disagreements with him, I think his shockingly ignorant remarks about the attempted massacre of courageous American patriots-including my dear friend Pamela Geller-in Garland, Texas-which, to the best of my knowledge, he’s never retracted-raise the most important questions about his fitness for office.

However, it strains credibility to use this valid concern as an excuse for endorsing a woman who-lest we forget-fought to have a critic of Islam thrown into a dungeon after her own catastrophically bad foreign policy decisions led to the deaths of a United States ambassador, foreign service officer, and 2 CIA contractors.

The decision to enlist in Hillary Clinton’s unceasing quest to sink her talons into the White House is only explicable as a psychological exercise. Namely, as a means of salving the guilty consciences of those who had no meaningful impact in the fight against Obamacare, the successful grassroots campaign to derail legislative amnesty, or any of the myriad cultural wars which have embroiled our nation over the past 2 decades. It’s a way of ignoring the fact that the premiere conservative conference is a venue for selling snake oil rather than exploring the ideas which actual conservatives care about.

And the more true conservatives maintain that the primary concern of millions Americans is immaterial to true conservatism, the more irrelevant these high priests of conservative dogma will become. Just as real alpha females don’t need an inane listicle explaining how to be an alpha female, real conservatives don’t need a hackneyed blogger at Red State or contemptuous John Malkovich lookalike at National Review to explain to them why the unmaking of their country is less important than thwarting the political aspirations of the first Republican presidential candidate to intently listen to their plight and express their reservations about the direction in which this country is headed.

As a political and ideological ethos, Dump Trump is an empty vessel. However, as a case of deflection, it explains a hell of a lot.

Despite the pressure brought to bear upon House Republicans during the recent DHS funding debate-in spite of the patently unconstitutional actions of this administration-over fifty of them refused to submit to the will of Obama’s factotum in the House of Representatives. Unsurprisingly, there are now rumors of a push by conservative, constitutionalist members to depose Speaker Boehner, which has already inspired a wave of fear among his deputies. The sad truth is that the Republican leadership has not learned anything over these past two years, which makes the battle for control heading into next year’s presidential election all the more vital. 

Will the GOP become the party of immigration patriots like Senator Jeff Sessions, or will it consign itself to permanent minority status by supporting a Bush restoration? Next week’s actions will be telling in this regard. America’s future depends upon the decisions being made right now.

It turns out that the Coulter-Kaus debate was broadcast on one of  C-SPAN’s many outlets yesterday, despite the unofficial CPAC ban on discussion of the most important domestic political issue. You can watch the full debate here. In addition to covering the political costs of amnesty and the legally and constitutionally dubious nature of the Obama administration’s administrative amnesty, they also explore the Democratic and Republican presidential fields and the political and economic consequences of Obamacare, as well as entitlement reform. 

We’ll try to provide links to what should be a much more edifying debate, should video become available in the days ahead.

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.

Washington Watcher has a more detailed explanation of why Senator Marco Rubio would have been such an undesirable running-mate for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney-if the video of Mr. Rubio’s own words I posted several days ago is not sufficient. Undesirable, that is, from the perspective of those who favor patriotic immigration reform. If the Republican Party wanted to formulate a coherent, compelling argument regarding the issue of immigration-both legal and illegal-it could do worse than heeding the wisdom of former National Review Editor-in-Chief John O’Sullivan.

Unfortunately, this being the stupid party, it probably will.

This is a fantastic interview of Congressman Steve King-conducted last month after the President’s unconstitutional administrative amnesty-which I urge you all to listen to. Rep. King is one of the few members of Congress willing to stand up to Barack Obama’s subversion of the legislative process. A dogged opponent of multiculturalism, King is exceptional in his willingness to resist the tide of political correctness in all its multifarious manifestations.

Show your support for a true patriot!

The Conservative Political Action Conference, usually referred to by its shorthand, CPAC, was a memorable occasion for a variety of reasons this year. This year’s event was held on the cusp of what will perhaps be the most pivotal election of our young century. An election in which the fate of the PPACA-otherwise known as Obamacare-arguably  the federal government’s greatest encroachment upon personal medical decisions, will ultimately be decided, most likely by voters’ reaction to  President Obama’s likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, whose own statewide health care reform served as the template for this broadly unpopular federal law.

The ambivalence conservative voters feel towards the GOP frontrunner was merely one of many important currents running through this year’s conference. Of course, there was the electric speech delivered by Andrew Breitbart, which-as always-was preceded by its share of controversy. But there was also a contentious debate over  immigration featuring our good friend, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. He, along with Roger Vandervoort, Executive Director of  ProEnglish, debated the merits of our current immigration policy-including the federal government’s lassitude with regard to illegal aliens-with two open borders apologists in a forum moderated by the head of the Congress of Racial Equality, Niger Innis.

High Fences, Wide Gates-the title of the panel, as well as a phrase that famed punk rock musician, entertainment lawyer, and conservative writer Joe Escalante  often employs to describe his own immigration philosophy-was perhaps destined to be overshadowed by other events taking place on the weekend of CPAC. However, this discussion bears watching in its entirety because it illustrates the sharp divide that exists between traditional, Kirkian conservatives and libertarians, corporate interests, and certain neoconservatives who anathematize immigration restrictions of any form.

That is why, although agreeing with others who assert that framing this issue as a debate constitutes an insult to conservatives-where is the comparable debate at CPAC between school choice advocates and public school proponents, pro-life activists and those who support abortion on demand, or flat tax supporters and those who want to institute a VAT-I nevertheless feel that it is a worthwhile exercise for a number of reasons.

1. It illustrates the timorous nature of the opposition. They are so insecure in their beliefs, or afraid that nonpartisans on the immigration question can be dissuaded from supporting unfettered immigration, that they need to contest any exposition of skepticism about our nation’s policy of open borders, regardless of the venue.

2. Conversely, it demonstrates that we are not hesitant to defend our philosophy, whether surrounded by opponents in the lion’s den of New York University, or speaking to a group of less overtly hostile conservatives.

3. Finally, and this is the most important point, the persuasiveness of our point of view-which is already shared by a sizable majority of the American public-is on full display. We should never be afraid to defend our views, especially when they are based upon empirical facts and concrete historical evidence. Although the false equivalency  organizers of this conference attempted to establish between both sides of the immigration questions is lamentable-although not surprising, considering who currently serves as the head of CPAC-it should not prompt us to abandon the public arena.

I urge you all to watch the immigration “debate” that took place at CPAC. The full video, as well as a host of other fantastic images and great footage taken by our good friend Pamela Hall can be found at The Silent Majority No More. She also covered Day 1 of CPAC, Friday’s festivities, as well as a moving tribute to Andrew Breitbart found in the exhibit hall of the hotel on CPAC’s final day. Read and watch it all.

A man dying in the prime of his life, even as he was ascending to the summit of his vocation, is something that rarely occurs in this country. Even my paternal grandfather, and his son, i.e. my own father, whose lives were tragically cut short by bad genes-as well some unwise personal decisions-lived long enough to see their children graduate from college, and in some cases, bear children. That was not the case, unfortunately, with respect to Andrew Breitbart, someone who was kind enough to inscribe my copy of Righteous Indignation-his stirring memoir cum polemical call to arms-and provide me with some useful advice on the art of political warfare during our sole meeting, which was chronicled on this website last year.

In addition to the remarkable photojournalist Tim Hetherington, he was the second person in his early forties I’ve met in the past year whose life has ended abruptly. And while it would be callous to say you ‘expect’ anyone that vibrant to die at such a premature age, I would be lying if I told you that the tragic killing of a photographer who routinely worked in war zones such as Iraq and Libya stunned me. Andrew’s passing, on the other hand, was inexplicable when juxtaposed against the frenetic, dynamic-albeit slightly jet-lagged-individual I met last April.

Like Tim Hetherington, however, Andrew Breitbart was a remarkable individual who left a mark upon our culture that’s impossible to quantify at this close remove. While most media obituaries have focused upon the instrumental role he played in exposing-figuratively speaking-disgraced ex-congressman Anthony Weiner, illustrated by this Radar headline, Andrew’s accomplishments in his brief time on earth eclipse the downfall of any one venal, supercilious politician. Yet the Weiner scandal, and Andrew’s ultimate vindication, epitomize the essence Breitbart’s mission.

What began with a seemingly prurient allegation against an arrogant Democratic member of Congress beloved by the D.C. and New York press corps rapidly turned into a media witch hunt against a conservative icon who embodied everything that the drive-by media viewed with disdain. His impromptu press conference  is a tour de force defense against media and government libel and manipulation, which will long outlive the petulant screeds penned by his most small-minded, ideologically hidebound critics.

So too will his struggle to defang the left’s most potent, and regrettably, effective, weapon against conservative ideas. Namely, racial stigmatization. Uncovering the Pigford scandal-an extensive scheme to defraud American taxpayers couched in terms of racial reparations and social justice-is probably the most impressive feat of Breitbart’s meteoric career as a muckraking journalist-activist, although you’ll struggle to find mention of this achievement in any obituary published by mainstream media organs. Instead, you’ll read a steady stream of misrepresentations about what is one of the most frivolous class action lawsuits-and pusillanimous abdications by Congress-in recent memory.  Luckily, Andrew was his most capable defender on this score.

As heartbreaking as the loss of Andrew Breitbart is-not least to his widow and their four children-we must not forget that his ideas and spirit will persist. James O’Keefe, the young man who singlehandedly dealt a body blow to the institutional left’s keystone organization, continues to crusade for accountability among taxpayer-bankrolled political arms of the Democratic Party. As does Lila Rose, who has done to Planned Parenthood what her colleague did to ACORN, i.e. expose the underlying corruption of an organization shielded by its benefactors in Congress and allies in the media.

Both owe a debt of gratitude to Breitbart, as do all Americans whose eyes were opened by investigations credentialed journalists were unwilling to initiate due to timidity and ideological affinity for Breitbart’s targets. The complaisant relationship  the press had with organizations and individuals it was ostensibly charged with covering was a recurring theme of his Andrew’s work, and highlighting the vast gulf between how the fourth estate views itself and what it actually does will ultimately be one of his most enduring legacies. The grassroots, investigative journalism that Breitbart encouraged is thriving-just look at who uncovered this administration’s coverup of Fast and Furious-even as media dinosaurs totter and topple.

That is the real bequest of Andrew Breitbart. He inspired-or should inspire-people to get off their asses and take charge of their country. To shake off the listless torpor our nation’s rulers and gatekeepers have conditioned us into complacently accepting and to effect real, lasting change in our communities. Not the sort  driven by Harvard Law School or the Columbia School of Journalism, but change designed to expand the sphere of individual choice and autonomous decision-making. To reject the pretensions of power by those with no moral authority and to expand the freedom to do what you want to, regardless of how bien pensant it might seem at the National Press Club or in Hollywood production meetings.

That’s why the best way you could honor the memory of Andrew Breitbart is to emulate him. Go out there and do what Breitbart has done. A great way to start is by buying Righteous Indignation, which in addition to being a very entertaining autobiography is a wonderful how-to manual for grassroots political activists and citizen-journalists. Go and see Hating Breitbart when it’s released later this year, and discover what made this man tick. You’ll probably discover that it’s the same things which drive you, i.e. family, loved ones, and an abiding love for this country. Even if our passions take a different form, or our temperament is slightly more even-keeled, we all have some animating force that drives us. The job in this life is to cultivate and exploit that passion while we’re here, and whatever his shortcomings that is something that Andrew Breitbart always did, and it’s an example we should all try to follow in the short time we’ve been allotted.