The man you see (indistinctly) in the photo above is Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who spoke before a packed crowd at the Women’s National Republican Club last night on a variety of subjects. Although the invitation I responded to billed the evening as a discussion of sanctuary cities, Vance did not address the topic until prompted by an audience member during the question and answer session, approximately 40 minutes or so after he began speaking.

I can’t say I was surprised by his reluctance to address the subject, despite its topicality. The New York County District Attorney’s office is charged with the prosecution of those who violate the laws of New York State. Those who violate federal law are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York-a point Mr. Vance emphasized when I pressed him on a recent decision to release a violent, self-declared member of MS-13 who was in this country illegally from prison.

That said, his office does occasionally come into contact with illegal immigrants through their encounters with the New York Police Department, which he implicitly acknowledged when he spoke of protecting the status of those who had been victims of crimes while residing in this country illegally. Putting aside the circular logic of this argument, i.e. aren’t predatory criminal aliens, such as the illegal day laborer who murdered acclaimed actress and director Adrienne Shelly, protected under the same umbrella sheltering domestic abuse victims, there is another objection to be raised. Namely, there is already a federal program, known as the U Visa, which ostensibly protects these individuals.

The idea that New York City needs to codify policy which directly conflicts with federal law in order to protect the safety of those in this country illegally is the height of absurdity. To the contrary, these directives actually imperil the lives and safety of those they ostensibly seek to protect-as well as the lives of American citizens-as those criminal aliens who abuse and terrorize their partners and children are given blanket immunity for crimes which would otherwise place them in the deportation pipeline and out of the reach of those whose lives they have destroyed. In fact, after Mr. Vance’s talk had concluded, a (legal) immigrant shared a personal anecdote with me about a hairdresser whose husband had attempted to suffocate her to death, but was allowed to remain in this country-illegally, naturally-even after being brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.

It should be said in Mr. Vance’s defense that he stated categorically that illegal aliens who had committed violent crimes should be deported, which is a far cry from Mayor De Blasio’s stance. However, it’s worth noting that the Manhattan DA is a political post, which is dependent upon the will of the voters, which in this case happened to be a group of New York Republicans. Just as his avowal of support for stop and frisk might have been downplayed before more progressive venues, it’s possible that he might have temporized even more on this subject if speaking to a group like the National Council of La Raza, or the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic & Asian Legislative Caucus.

Overall, the audience was surprisingly receptive to DA Vance’s message, which in retrospect probably shouldn’t have been that surprising. The Republican Party of New York City, but particularly the desiccated husk of a party which still exists in Manhattan, is run primarily by the Rockefeller and Lindsay Republicans who once exercised real power in this city and state. Adele Malpass, who delivered some introductory remarks before Cyrus Vance stepped up to the podium, praised the District Attorney’s efforts to kill a bill which would have prevented the arrest of innocent New Yorkers carrying gravity knives. I’m sure the GOP mainstay who asked him later in the evening what he was doing to crack down on gun dealers appreciated this bold stance against individual rights, but I was left rather unimpressed.

For what it’s worth, I thought the event was worthwhile, despite my many disagreements with Mr. Vance, including his apparent belief that compulsory voting, along the lines of Australia, could serve as a civic inducement. Having a public official willing to submit himself to cross-examination, however circumscribed, by the public is increasingly rare and worthy of praise. Hopefully, the officials responsible for some of the problems we encounter in this city on a daily basis will embrace this willingness to engage the public, but I won’t be holding my breath.

The biggest news of the RNC thus far has been, without question, Ted Cruz’s magnanimous endorsement of Ted Cruz. It’s too early to predict whether using a national platform to demean the choice of 14 million Republican voters is a wise political strategy going forward, but one thing we can say is that it’s a very Cruzian maneuver, as former Bush spokesmen Ari Fleischer pointed out. Whatever you might think of the Bushes-and I’ve made it very clear that I feel their beliefs have been ultimately destructive to both the Republican Party and the country-they have a certain ethic. As dreadful as I believe Jeb’s policies would have been, he at least has the integrity not to pretend that he shares the same values with Donald Trump.

Last night’s performance encapsulates why so many people dislike Ted Cruz, even many of those who grudgingly voted for him during the Republican primaries. It was an unforced error on the part of the Trump campaign, but it was also an insight into the strange reasoning of the man he defeated. Someone who believes dissimulation is an honorable tactic and promises have an expiration date. It’s difficult to make Mitt Romney look like a straight shooter, but remarkably, that is something Senator Cruz accomplished last night.

Those of you who’d like to watch Donald Trump’s acceptance speech, as well as the national debut of Gawker’s bête noire, Peter Thiel, can view the proceedings live on Right Side Broadcasting’s Youtube channel.

Donald Trump has officially hit the magic number. Watch him discuss this topic, among many others, live!

Apologies for the delay, but the news cycle seems to have gotten the better of us. Without further adieu, here are some of the fantastic photographs taken by our good friend Pamela Hall-with whom we’ve collaborated in the past-outside of the GOP Gala held prior to last Tuesday’s Republican presidential primary. We urge you all to visit her website, The Silent Majority No More, which contains many more brilliant photo essays-as well as some great video footage-exploring some of the issues, e.g. stealth jihad, mass immigration, the pernicious hold of non-profit and public sector employees over the political process, which concern us all.

You’ll find the details below the fold.

The Donald J. Trump for President Meetup will be holding a counterprotest tomorrow, April 14, near the Grand Hyatt on 42nd Street at Lexington Avenue. Their present meeting place is just to the west of the Hyatt on the north side of 42nd Street, in front of the Bolton’s store, and the time is 5:30 p.m.

This is not an official campaign event, just a grassroots operation. Bring homemade signs and wear your Trump clothing if you have it. Small American flags are always good. The usual rules apply: No amplified sound, no signs or flags on hard sticks, stay in your assigned area . . . you know the drill.

Joanna has all of the details below the fold. 

Hi NY ICers,

New York City can often feel like an alien environment for those who prize rationality and individualism over collectivist groupthink and social justice campaigns designed to distract you from the fact that public section unions and non-profits exercise a stranglehold over the decision-making process. Our mayor is a Cold War Era relic who fetishizes policies that  the Vietnamese and Chinese Communists abandoned decades ago, while there are members of the New York City Council who are not able to communicate in the English language.

That’s why the upcoming We Are Breitbart Meetup in midtown Manhattan is a cause for celebration. To converse with individuals who are not completely and utterly delusional, and who have an actual understanding of how the free market works-rather than a set of regurgitated Paul Krugman talking points-is a rare opportunity for most New Yorkers. I invite you all to come to this week’s event, the details of which can be found below.

Where: Emmett O’ Lunney’s, 210 West 50th St. 

When: Wednesday, April 13, 2016, 6-8 PM 

Limited to the first 200 people 

The facile nature of the immigration debate within this country can be infuriating to those of us who’ve invested time and effort into gaining a fuller understanding of this complex, interconnected series of issues. It often seems like we’ve living in the dystopian future outlined in the Neil Postman classic, Amusing Ourselves to Death. A world where linear thinking and the gathering of empirical evidence in order to buttress your argument are considered inconsequential, if not a hindrance, while the refraction of charged images and exploitation of emotional triggers are paramount. In that sense, the photo of Aylan Kurdi’s corpse being carried from the Mediterranean shore is emblematic of the type of discussion this subject engenders. Rife with emotionalism and moral preening, devoid of introspection, and remarkably fact and logic-free.

That’s why the chat between Professor Glenn Loury and economist George Borjas featured on Bloggingheads TV is such a breath of fresh air. They not only engage in a substantive examination of this topic-along with its profound implications for American society-but discuss why the rational, cost-benefit analysis that usually factors into any domestic policy debate is completely discarded when the subject turns to immigration. They honestly explore why the elites who have benefited from unfettered immigration from the developing world have stigmatized criticism of their agenda to the point where it is almost never broached in national conversation, and is taboo among Democratic Party incumbents and aspiring political leaders.

It’s worth watching in its entirety. I’m looking forward to your feedback.

Update: Interesting model, along with county-by-county results, of the Republican primary from The Upshot. 

It’s an early night for political correspondents and news anchors, as Cruz and Sanders both win big.

Follow live coverage  of the primary results at Five Thirty Eight.

All too often the choices offered to the American public come down to differences of packaging. Would you rather vote for the interventionist, open borders, chubby white guy, or the interventionist, open borders, svelte Hispanic male? The media’s relentless denial of the facts and refusal to acknowledge alternative points of view only entrenches the failed policies that millions of Americans live with on a daily basis.

That’s why the question posed above-by one of the many victims of illegal alien crime-needs to be heard. You can listen to some of the other questions-none of which were broached during last night’s Republican presidential debate, it should be noted-by going to the website of the Center for Immigration Studies. It will give you a taste of what a debate might look like if we had media willing to be honest interrogators, instead of megaphones for their own preferred policy choices.