Yesterday saw yet another series of attacks upon peaceful Donald Trump supporters by violent, open borders Marxists. Predominately, although not exclusively Mexican. Naturally, this prompted the news media-with a few notable exceptions-to castigate the people who were peaceably assembling and/or dissemble about who was responsible for this violence. Hats off to the cretinous lackwits at Vox though, for actually endorsing Robespierrean political terror. Remind me again why building a wall is a bad thing?

Hopefully, Newt will address this subject, among others, in his periodic Facebook live chat. You can watch Newt Live here.

Newt discusses Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Republican Party. He’ll also answer questions from Facebook users.

Watch it here.

As  a Facebook friend remarked when posting a link to this story, “what morons are running this godforsaken idiot party?” Good question, my friend. The answer, apparently, is liberal open borders, multimillionaire  Sheldon Adelson. Leaving aside the dubious provenance of Mr. Adelson’s wealth,  you have to wonder why Republican presidential aspirants would be so eager to court an benefactor who has a nearly unblemished record of bankrolling losing candidates.

The answer, of course, is that the leaders of the current Republican Party  are beholden to corporate donors and are willing to do their bidding, especially when it coincides with their own deeply-held beliefs. Jeb Bush is merely the most pliant instrument of the open borders lobby, but his views, unfortunately, are shared by many of the front-runners in the 2016 GOP presidential sweepstakes. Including pre-Bridgegate media darling, Governor Chris Christie.

The battle has been joined, it’s time patriotic Americans weighed in, don’t you think?

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. 

-As we predicted, the Senate passed the Gang of Eight amnesty yesterday, setting the stage for the final battle in the House of Representatives, which is ostensibly controlled by Republicans. You can view the roll call vote, which will serve as a handy reminder of which cringing Republicans need to be removed from office the next time they come up for reelection.

-The Senate debate over disassembling our republic was a thoroughly unedifying spectacle, from the senescent tirades of the Republican Party’s chief open borders pom pom twirler to the irrefragable idiocy that we’ve come to expect from his mini-me, Lindsey Graham. The only consolation is that some of us will be able to elect a new Senate before Congress elects a new people.

-You would think the threat of a bitterly fought, expensive primary-endorsed by no less than a former GOP Vice-presidential nominee-would cause skittish representatives to think twice before enacting a politically and economically ruinous amnesty. The promise by Rep. Steve King to depose Speaker Boehner if he moves forward on S.744-a move supported by powerful members of the House Republican caucus-seems to have instilled a measure of fear into La Raza enthusiast Luis Gutierrez’s BFF.

-Then again, the Republican leadership has never been known for its sagacity or political intuition. A fact demonstrated by comments made by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus after Senate passage of the Gang of Eight monstrosity. The elites have an entirely different conception of the public interest than that of most Americans, who tend to prioritize things like job security, safety, and upward mobility over the concerns of large corporate donors such as Big Agra and Silicon Valley lobbyists pleading for the importation of more high tech serfs.

-I tend to agree with Mark Levin, who believes that if amnesty is stopped in this session of Congress it will be in spite of John Boehner, not because of him. This man wants amnesty to be the law of the land, and the only thing preventing his wish from being fulfilled is the unified opposition of conservative Republican voters. The leadership of the Republican Party in the House needs to be reminded that they do not work for either Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama, but for their constituents, i.e. patriotic  citizens who believe in American sovereignty and real border security. Even if the demise of the GOP as a national political entity is meaningless to them, these people should be reminded that they are placing their own political careers in jeopardy.

-With the abdication of leadership and abandonment of principle by so many Republicans, it’s reassuring to find a small glimmer of light in the struggle over amnesty in one of the least likely places. I refer to a fantastic piece published by The New Republic written by self-described liberal, opposing immigration reform. Much like Ted Rall, T.A. Frank sees the peril in naturalizing millions of workers-in addition to the hundreds of thousands who will imported over the same period-that will compete-at a decided advantage thanks to Obamacare regulations-with unemployed Americans who are already on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. The plight of American workers is something that the left cared about a scant two decades ago, but I suppose times have changed.

-We end today’s Rattle on a slightly humorous note. It appears that the Obama administration is not pleased with the way Hong Kong immigration officials  handled the departure of former NSA contractor turned leaker Edward Snowden, whose whereabouts have yet to be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Although this subject raises themes of constitutionality, privacy, foreign policy and other issues of grave import, what tickles the funny bone is the White House’s reaction to Mr. Snowden’s tour of the Eastern Hemisphere. In particular, the comments of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

The White House, which is typically much more restrained in its public remarks about the PRC, expressed a similar sentiment.

“We are just not buying that this was a technical decision by a Hong Kong immigration official,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said to reporters at a daily news briefing on June 24. “This was a deliberate choice by the government to release a fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant, and that decision unquestionably has a negative impact on the U.S.-China relationship.”

I completely agree, Mr. Carney. The notion that career bureaucrats would be responsible for momentous decisions that could have potentially grave consequences for national security is simply preposterous! I have no idea why someone would even consider deceiving the public with such an implausible scenario. People get the daftest notions sometimes.

One of the great things about Libertyfest-regardless of its faults-is that it brings together people who are willing to disagree with each other over substantive issues of political philosophy. It’s not a stage-managed affair crafted by its participants with the intent of obscuring differences and evading questions such as whence do rights derive, and how do we secure those rights? In other words, it’s reality, not a simulacrum of reality.  

Perhaps the main cleavage within the liberty movement is the divide between those who feel that engagement with traditional politics, e.g. registration, voting, party-building, is worthwhile and those who believe that it is a diversion of time and energy that can be put towards more useful endeavors. This dichotomy was on display throughout Libertyfest, particularly with respect to the presidential campaign of  former New Mexico governor, and current Libertarian Party presidential nominee, Gary Johnson.

While his running-mate, Orange County Superior Court judge Jim Gray, attempted to make the case that Gary Johnson’s campaign was merely an extension of the Ron Paul Revolution-and therefore should be embraced by liberty activists-other speakers were just as vociferous in their disavowal of electoral politics as it is currently practiced.

John Bush, the current head of Texans for Accountable Government and co-host of Live Free Now Radio, rejected the premise that liberty activists should be beholden to any party, especially the Libertarian Party, which has been utterly useless in both practice and principle since its inception. He highlighted the most recent Libertarian Party presidential nominee-who would go on to endorse the candidacy of Newt Gingrich under the mystifying notion that his presidency would help advance libertarianism-as an example of what happens when libertarians compromise their principles in pursuit of electoral gains.

He cautioned the audience that the LP was heading in a similar direction this year, as it rallied behind Governor Gary Johnson-an ostensibly popular ex-governor whose bid for the Republican nomination failed-in the elusive hope that the party would finally cross the threshold of national credibility. The fact that Governor Johnson is not consistent in his espousal of libertarian principle, as critics of his foreign and national security policy views, as well as his views on monetary and fiscal policy, have pointed out,  plays into the worst assumptions that his nomination is a result of his celebritarian status. Bush advised charting a Rothbardian path, i.e. allying with political figures on specific issues where government encroachment can be rolled back, opposing those figures-and the parties they represent-when they attempt to enhance the state at the expense of  individual liberties, but always holding firm to fixed principles which have guided rational individuals since the Enlightenment.

By contrast,  Darcy Van Orden Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Utah and co-founder of the Austrian Economics Club in that state, advocated taking over the Republican Party from within. Much like Senator Rand Paul, who has criticized the Republican nominee and tried to change the dismal Republican establishment, even as he’s worked with institutional forces in the GOP, she has tried to alter the internal dynamics of the Republican Party and seize it from the Boehners, McConnells, and Huntsmans, emulating the example of Barry Goldwater and his followers.

In fairness to her, this approach has yielded some victories, such as a grassroots movement to nullify Obamacare, ousting Bob Bennett, as well as a nearly successful campaign to do the same to Senator Orrin Hatch. Political pressure does work, as illustrated by Hatch’s reversal on SOPA, one of the most comprehensive attempts on the part of the federal government to limit online speech, illustrates. It works not only here, but  in Europe, as well as in the Philippines. Although, as subsequent actions by Hatch demonstrate, it is no panacea.

Sheriff Mack also spoke, although not nearly as persuasively, judging by the reaction he elicited from the crowd. In addition to a lackluster speech, Richard Mack also has the baggage of an endorsement of Mitt Romney, which was not as persuasive as Rand Paul’s endorsement of the same candidate, or Murray Rothbard’s layered recommendation for libertarian voters during the 1992 presidential election. Even so, Mack must be commended for being largely responsible for the Supreme Court’s negation of a significant portion of the Brady Act, a decision which reaffirmed the concepts of dual sovereignty and federalism. Coming two years after United States v. Lopez, which represented the first significant limitation of the Interstate Commerce Clause since Wickard vs. Filburn, this decision should have represented a shift in how the federal government deals with the states and individuals.

We’ll examine why that wasn’t to be in our final post on LibertyFest.

With a little under a month remaining until Election Day, the Obama campaign has transitioned into full-blown hispandering mode. This week’s symbolically potent, yet empty, exercise in  gestural politics entailed President Obama designating the home of former California labor leader Cesar Chavez a national monument. The ostensible purpose of this decision is to rally support among one of his party’s most reliable voting blocs, i.e. Hispanic Americans. Because even though they still decisively support the President’s reelection, that support does not always translate into votes, as other analysts have trenchantly observed.

What makes Obama’s trip to California so fascinating though is not the seemingly transparent play for votes among an ethno-linguistic group already inclined to vote for his reelection, but the figure he chooses to honor in pursuit of this goal. It should be remembered that as head of the United Farm Workers, Cesar Chavez was militant in his efforts to increase the wage scale of California’s poorly-paid and exploited agricultural workers. And despite the fact that his legacy has been appropriated by radical open borders socialist Dolores Huerta-a co-founder of the UFW-Chavez was most militant in his actions against illegal aliens and the guest-workers from Mexico large growers relied upon in order to depress wages.

While today he is looked upon simply as a totemic figure for the left, to be utilized for whatever cause du jour-including comprehensive immigration reform-requires his unique biography, Cesar-or, as our President prefers to call him, (SEE-ZER)-Chavez began his labor activism in response to the federal government’s bracero program. His opinion regarding mass immigration-at least with regard to the agricultural sector-was the polar opposite of the contemporary Democratic Party. His views on illegal immigration were identical to that of today’s Minutemen, and expressed in a much more militant manner, it should be noted.

One of the chief reasons that farmworkers in California achieved parity with skilled workers in the manufacturing sector was precisely because of Chavez’s political efforts at restricting the inflow of unskilled, foreign workers to the state. Unsurprisingly, the steep decline in wages for this same cohort of workers-and the one that’s followed-tracked with the opening of our borders, including successive amnesties and manipulation of existing work visa programs by large agri-businesses. Agricultural concerns which still don’t believe there are enough foreign-born farmworkers in this country, despite the evidence that mechanization and innovation has actually improved farming techniques in the state of California.

You would learn none of this, however, if you relied upon the dominant media narrative for information about Cesar Chavez’s career, or gathered a fragmentary picture of  his life from vacuous, politically expedient gestures like this new national monument, or the christening of a warship in his name. However, my point isn’t that the mainstream media selectively omits certain facts and/or opinions when it suits their political purposes-which is something most of you already know-or that leftist, open borders advocates are willing to hijack the legacy of an iconic figure in order to see their ideological beliefs into law.

I raise this issue because it speaks to a gaping hole in this nation’s historical memory. The fact that craven politicians-of every stripe-will lie with impunity in order to advance their agendas is nothing new. However, the notion that they can so easily manipulate the public in an age where access to information is quite literally at the fingertips of each and every American, should be profoundly disturbing to anyone who values our republican form of government.

If the philosophy of such an historic figure-who was alive less than two decades ago-can be willfully distorted-despite the abundance of evidence clearly establishing his views on this subject-in pursuit of a tendentious agenda, then what hope is there for engaging in an honest, open debate during this most contentious of presidential elections? If the American public is not able to differentiate fact from fiction, then what hope is there that it will make an informed decision as our country casts its ballots this November? As the great Spanish philosopher, poet, and novelist George Santayana once wrote, those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.

The withdrawal of Rick Santorum from the battle for the GOP nomination brings with it new speculation over the path ahead for conservatives. Santorum’s exit from the Republican presidential sweepstakes dashes the hopes some may have harbored of casting their ballots for a Gingrich-Santorum ticket this November. On the other hand,  Congressman Ron Paul’s supporters have seized upon this development in order to argue on behalf of their candidate as the only conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

Whatever comes to pass, it will undoubtedly be an fascinating fall campaign. That’s why I urge all who are able to join me at the upcoming quarterly meeting of the New York City Indie Republicans in the Abe Lincoln Room of the 3 West Club. We’ll be discussing a host of issues-including, hopefully, the latest developments in the 2012 election-and you can ask me questions during what will likely be a lively Q&A session.

You can RSVP at the NYC Indie Republican Meetup page, where you’ll also find some information about a great liberty-oriented, independent-minded Republican organization which exists in the depths of Manhattan. Who would believe it?

Hope to see you all there!

One of the more obnoxious political phenomena this election cycle is the continued fixation of the media upon placing voters into specific taxonomic, ethnic boxes. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the press corps insist upon classifying all potential voters who hail from Spanish-speaking countries into the same amorphous, unitary bloc, regardless of the variant cultures and/or beliefs present within this “group.” A good antidote to this blinkered perspective is provided by Fausta Wertz, a respected blogger and writer who focuses primarily upon Latin American politics. She’s gone to the trouble of republishing her 2006 essay which illuminates the misconceptions that have gone into creating what she describes as the Hispanic mirage.

The only way to get past an illusion is to dispel it, and the best way to do so is by discovering the truth.

Turns out, not very.