In between its Fourth of July break and its month-long recess in August, the unyielding worker bees in Congress will try to shepherd one of the most ill-conceived, potentially disastrous pieces of legislation into law. I’m speaking, of course, about the Gang of Eight travesty. During the Senate’s abbreviated debate on the bill there was almost no discussion of the victims of our government’s open borders policies, despite the fact that a dozen Americans die every single day at the hands of illegal aliens.

That’s why Jamiel Shaw’s interview with The Blaze is essential viewing. Americans need to see for the themselves the horrific consequences of our government’s decision to give aid and succor to criminal aliens. As difficult as it is to listen to these stories, they must be told. We need to make our purported representatives realize that they serve at our behest, not the special interests representing criminals and scofflaws. I urge you to watch Jamiel Shaw Sr. explain in his own words how his government has failed his family, and the families of thousands of others who have been victimized by illegal aliens who’ve been given sanctuary.

There is no sanctuary for the families of those Americans whose lives have ended prematurely because of our government’s criminal irresponsibility.

The antidote to Chuck Schumer Republicanism can be found in a coalition of conservative activists opposing this bill that have created a site to voice their views, Stop The Gang Of Eight. You can add your name to the voices of opposition by signing their petition decrying S. 744. Let’s turn that voice in the wilderness into a raging clamor to defend the rights and interests of Americans.

Once again, the words of Enoch Powell appear prescient, although perhaps in not quite the way the late British parliamentarian and classicist intended. In the same week that Swedes have been besieged by aggrieved jihadists imported by their own government, Londoners experienced yet another subsidiary benefit of multiculturalism. This time, in the form of a Nigerian convert to Islam ritualistically slaughtering a member of the British Army.

Drummer Lee Rigby, of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was methodically  dismembered by an adherent to the Religion of Peace as he walked to his barracks yesterday. The loving father, who had served in Afghanistan, was the latest victim of an alien ideology which has already killed or attempted to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of Britons on their own soil. The perpetrators of this particular atrocity-which echoed an earlier attempt to murder and behead a British soldier in the streets of London-were emulating their countrymen in Nigeria, where Boko Haram, which in Hausa translates to “Western education is a sin,”has turned the northern portion of the country into a charnel house, slaughtering Christians,  security forces, women, and anyone else who does not submit to the imperatives of sharia. The Nigerian government has responded ambiguously, besieging three northern states even as it releases detained members of the ultra-violent, Islamic terror network.

How the UK will respond to this atrocity remains to be seen, although the signals emanating from the ruling class-which is in large measure culpable for this sort of barbarity-are not encouraging. The widely ridiculed British security apparatus responded with undue alacrity. The ahistorical, insipid pabulum put forward by the current empty suit occupying 10 Downing Street was to be expected. Mr. Cameron was simply following the example of our President, who won’t let  the premeditated vivisection of a British citizen sully the good name of Islam. Better not to mention it at all. Of course, most of the large media organs-with a few notable exceptions-sedulously elided the unpleasant fact that these Muslim youths grounded their butchery in Koranic injunctions. The current mayor of London, who once distinguished himself from his Islamophile predecessor, “Red” Ken Livingstone, issued a similar appeal to his constituents not to form a hasty, negative opinion of the perpetrator’s religion simply because of the actions of a few misguided Muslim jihadists who had just assassinated an infidel in the name of Islam.

After all, this is just an isolated incident, most likely the work of a lone wolf-or wolves-which won’t be repeated in the future. It’s not like London is the European hub for pan-Islamic, jihadist terror,  to the point of earning its own delightful sobriquet reflecting the dramatically altered demographics of this international capital of commerce. Despite the feigned expressions of shock and disbelief by the usual suspects, the biography of the soldier of allah seen in video footage is anything but surprising. A follower of the protean jihadist movement known as Al-Muhajiroun, which serves as a finishing school of sorts for would-be Islamic terrorists, he spent recent months exhorting his fellow Muslims to join the Syrian jihad, which I’m sure would have met with the approval of Secretary of State Kerry and much of Congress.

Although we don’t know what precipitated his conversion to Islam, the opportunities presented to him in this new England are ubiquitous. In addition to numerous mosques-both of the mega and storefront variety-Islamic bookshops whose offerings range from Mein Kampf to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there is the Islamic community itself, where anti-Semitism and hatred of the West proliferates, at least according to British Muslims. There are even committed jihadists willing to instruct young pupils in the tenets of Islam. That is why the words of Cameron, Johnson, and the worse than useless talking heads in the media ring so hollow today.

The message sent by this jihadist’s ostensible mentor, Anjem Choudary, reveals more than any of the lies or willful delusions being promoted by the usual suspects. His testimony to the character of the bestial creature who disemboweled Lee Rigby is illuminating in its own warped way. Islam is a peaceful religion, and Muslims are without sin, because submission is peace and killing infidels is not sinful. According to this belief system, what took place yesterday is commendable and should be emulated, just as the deeds of Mohammed-the model for all proper conduct and behavior-should serve as a model for true Muslims.

In some respects, the philosophy of apocalyptic, jihadist Islam is in perfect harmony with that espoused by the unreconstructed, revolutionary left, which has aided its rise throughout the West. Both are governed by situational ethics, where the ends-if achieved-are justified by the means. Specific actions are judged to be right only insofar as they facilitate a certain outcome. The growth of Islam and sharia in the case of the former, the ideal collectivist state for the latter. Both buttress each other, but the foundation stone is the left, which has constructed the meta-narrative that there are no reasons to oppose mass immigration from the third world-or the customs and beliefs these newcomers hew to-which aren’t invidious and racist in origin, and that the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Europeans and Americans constitute a form of mass psychosis.

That is why western European cities are being sacked for the first time since the end of World War II, and why the president will not even utter the name of the religion which is responsible for the atrocity committed yesterday in Woolwich. If diversity is our strength, then any action-or even statement-which might diminish public support for this grand experiment of our political leadership is forbidden; or “haram,” if you will. The loving, caring family of Lee Rigby is experiencing a torment that defies description, yet the government of Great Britain refuses to look reality in the eye and identify the killer by its rightful name. In this respect, there is some truth to the words of the orc who murdered and desecrated the body of that courageous serviceman. David Cameron and Boris Johnson-Labour, the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats-do not care about English people.

That much is obvious.

If you thought Hilda Solis was bad for American workers-and she was-then wait until you see who Barack Obama has tapped to replace her as the next head of the Department of Labor. Oh-so-mainstream Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, a man that-as Katrina Trinko points out-has devoted a large portion of his career to empowering illegal aliens served by organizations like Casa De Maryland, a lavishly-funded, Marxist-oriented outfit which seeks to not only forcibly impose illegal day laborers upon Maryland taxpayers, but to  eradicate immigration enforcement altogether. 

To get an idea of how fanatical this organization and its leaders are, read this WorldNetDaily report on their activities during the last major national debate over immigration reform. This is an entity whose perverse goals Thomas Perez sacrificed his time and energy to help achieve, one which advocated for the interests of illegal aliens over and above those of taxpaying, American citizens-despite the fact that he was ostensibly elected to represent his fellow citizens on the Montgomery County Council. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to state that the upcoming debate over the Perez nomination is a battle between open borders dogmatists and the American public. Thankfully, there are still some members of the United States Senate in our corner; we’ll need them in order to thwart one of the President’s worst nominations to date. 

With the unfortunate news that Eric Holder is going to remain in his position as head of the Department of Justice for the second Obama term-at least for the foreseeable future-it’s only fitting that we take a cursory glance at the defining moment of his tenure as Attorney General. I refer, of course, to Operation Fast and Furious, which let high powered arms-of the sort demonized by anti-2nd Amendment demagogues and Holder apologists Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein-walk into the hands of ruthless Mexican drug cartels with the encouragement and under the leadership of Obama appointees in the ATF and Justice Department. 

One of those individuals is former Phoenix ATF Assistant Special Agent in Charge George T. Gillett, Jr., a man who was entrusted with overseeing Fast and Furious for over half a year, beginning in late 2009. It’s now been confirmed that a gun from this lethally stupid operation has been traced back to Mr. Gillett personally. Anyone who’s followed the fallout from perhaps the single most outrageous abuse of power by the Obama administration is familiar with the casualties which have resulted from this scheme, which are spread across the entire hemisphere.

The lack of accountability throughout this administration for those officials responsible for its implementation-including Mr. Gillette and others who have been promoted in spite of their criminality-should be astonishing, but is in fact reflective of the habitual blame-shifting and hypocrisy at the heart of Barack Obama’s presidency. What’s more, it reflects the inherent double standards that animate our government, which seeks to deny innocent American citizens their constitutional rights even as its leaders promulgate illegal policies that lead to the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians abroad.

The same Capitol Hill gasbags eager to erode the 2nd Amendment in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, a campaign based upon non-existent facts, are the first to defend Eric Holder and Justice Department officials under whose purview Fast and Furious unfolded, and who have done everything in their power to obstruct congressional investigations into their actions.

Whether we will make any progress in achieving justice during the President’s second term is debatable. Will the media-with a few commendable exceptions-continue to cover up for the malicious actions of government officials? Will the senators who installed Eric Holder into his lofty position begin to question their unfailing loyalty to an Attorney General who has lost the confidence of the American public and, to a great degree, Congress?

We shall see. Something that this latest revelation confirms is that elections do have consequences, some of them fatal.

One of the chief distinctions between the anti-Israel rally and the slightly smaller, yet equally exuberant, pro-Israel counter-demonstration held in Times Square this weekend was the sentiments expressed by the participants. While the former vocalized their antipathy towards Israel and the United States and demanded ordinary Israelis be punished-through measures such as the BDS movement-and spent most of their time anathematizing Jews in the most historically inaccurate way possible, the latter concentrated mostly upon messages of solidarity with Israel.

There were, of course, expressions of hostility towards the jihadists who have instigated the current wave of bloodshed, and who continued to barrage terrified Israeli civilians with Iranian-designed missiles even as this was being written.

However, I saw no generalized contempt for the Palestinian people, or even the bellicose Islamist leaders of neighboring countries who exhorted those currently entrusted with power in the Gaza Strip to stand their ground.

The overwhelming sentiment was one of resilience, not hatred, and was expressed through chants like “Am Yisrael Chai,” the people of Israel live, and the singing of the Hatikvah, the national anthem of Israel.

As well as an attempt to convey, in concrete terms, the intensity of the terror ordinary civilians, especially those living in southern Israel, experience on a daily basis.

And to connect the coercive violence aimed at Israel to the jihadist attacks carried out against similar Western nations throughout the globe.

Specifically, the United States, which has endured jihadist attacks for the past several decades, including lethal assaults initiated by the men currently in charge of the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip.

Needless to say, there are legitimate critiques to be made of the methods Israel employed in responding to the rocket war waged by Hamas, as well as unaffiliated jihadist and Palestinian gangs. If nothing else, the fact that Hamas has been able to enchance its growing diplomatic standing in the Middle East-while preserving its vast, Iranian-supplied weapons arsenal-and was able to deter Israel from a ground invasion bodes ill for the security of Israeli citizens, to say nothing of those Palestinians who will be the unfortunate human shields in future military engagements.

Whether or not the result of this conflict constitutes a victory for Hamas, it is clear to all but the most deluded observers that it is a defeat for the adversaries of Hamas. Rather than Thing, a.k.a. Ben Grimm, Israel reacted to this assault in the dithering, indecisive manner of Shakespeare’s tragic hero, Hamlet. And as we all know, this strategy, if it can be called that, only leads to more bloodshed in the future.

Perhaps most disconcertingly, the inhumanity and barbarity of Islamic law was papered over by the persistently hostile mass media which reported on the Gaza conflict.

As these images from the public execution and dismemberment of suspected “collaborators,” which has drawn remarkably little attention from the fifth estate-with some notable exceptions-demonstrate.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the collective expression of support for Israel we’ve witnessed in New York City, whether from ordinary citizens or self-interested pols, is going to have much of an impact on public discourse. The sad truth is that the dominant media narrative, i.e. Palestinians as perpetual victim and Israel as eternal aggressor, is going to remain in place for the foreseeable future, and not even the most well crafted, factually accurate  publicity campaign is going to alter the status quo.

In fact, it could be argued that the appeal of the formulaic, anti-Israel meta narrative will only grow as those sympathetic to the Islamist cause gain an even surer foothold in the corporate world, within Congress and among influential media organs. The only way to counter this cresting tide is, to paraphrase the great Franz Kafka, take an axe to the frozen sea inside of us. Or in this case, the ice inside of those who willfully ignore the truth before them.

The truth, like life, is not pretty, but it must be told. Israel, like most of the West,  faces an existential struggle. Its preservation does not hinge upon a slick media relations campaign, or a superficially persuasive viral video, but upon disabusing spectators of the fallacies that underlie much of received wisdom about this conflict. And the only way to accomplish that goal is by telling the truth about jihadist dogma and how it informs the actions of  organizations like Hamas.

Understand that America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries.

But you won’t be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you’ve come to – these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.

-The Melting Pot (1908)

The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy continues to inflict damage upon the Northeast, particularly the Tri-State Area. The communities of Breezy Point, and the Rockaways, as well as the coastal communities of the Jersey Shore bore the brunt of Sandy’s wrath-as we’ve detailed throughout this past week.. However, the devastation from this natural disaster, including the tragic deaths of nearly two dozen Staten Islanders and destruction of large parts of the barrier islands, has impacted the entire states of New York and New Jersey. Needless to say, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with those who suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of this unprecedented natural disaster.

One of the sights and sounds we’ve become inured to over the past week is the routine press conferences held by local public officials. Particularly, the current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, who has used the platform of his office to do everything from dispense information about power outages, to order NBA Commissioner David Stern to call off the inaugural game of the Barclays Center, home to the Brooklyn Nets.

Mayor Bloomberg has also dispensed Spanish-language synopses of each address before the customary Q&A session with members of New York City’s press corps. While there has been much mockery of his stilted attempts at bilingualism, including a trenchant parody of the Mayor written by someone who goes by the online pseudonym El Bloombito, I think there is a much more substantive issue at stake than the Michael Bloomberg’s fluency en Espanol. Namely, the sort of ethno-linguistic fracturing and polarization that today’s modern species of politician excels at.

Undoubtedly, some see Mayor Bloomberg’s nasally stabs at communicating with monolingual, Hispanic New Yorkers as a commendable form of outreach to this city’s burgeoning Latino community. As an overture of friendship to disenfranchised citizens, legal permanent residents, or illegal aliens-of whom he’s so fond-who cannot comprehend this nation’s lingua franca. However, the truth is much more unsavory, and reflects the real priorities of Michael Bloomberg’s mayoralty.

This is a man whose primary political ambitions have not been eliminating public graft, political corruption, or blatant cronyism, nor improving the efficacy of public services, nor addressing our city’s dismal public education system, and certainly not relieving the burden upon middle class taxpayers. Rather, his focus has been on suppressing Americans’ right to keep and bear arms-while some of his own police officers smuggle stolen weapons-as well as crusading for the complete abolition of any immigration controls which still exist, in spite of the crimes, often heinous-sometimes lethal-illegal aliens inflict upon ordinary New Yorkers, and other Americans, each and every day.

Minimizing our common language  is simply of a piece with Mayor Bloomberg’s campaign to negate the essential characteristics we once shared as Americans. Communicating in Spanish is a transparently political ploy, not a sincere attempt to transmit vital information. There are already many Spanish-language television networks and radio stations which broadcast each address the mayor delivers, in its entirety, in Spanish.

Furthermore, this city has had a large Spanish-speaking population for the better part of a century-from the Dominican immigrants who came here at the turn of the last century  to the Puerto Rican transplants who came here after  Operation Bootstrap-yet despite this linguistic diversity, and the well known tendency of New York politicians to pander to various ethnic constituencies, no previous occupant of Gracie Mansion felt compelled to provide real-time translations of his press conferences in any other language.

What’s even more intriguing is that he doesn’t provide a precis of his speeches in languages other than Spanish, despite the fact that-as multiculturalists who oppose assimilation never tire of telling us-this city is a beautiful mosaic-some would liken it to the Tower of Babel-of foreign languages. There is no summary delivered in Korean, or Tagalog, Hebrew or Russian, although the way things are going, that might soon change. No press conference is interrupted in order to deliver remarks in Creole or Russian, despite the fact that many New Yorkers communicate in those tongues.

This lays bare the hypocrisy at the heart of the multicultural mindset and open borders dogma, which does not seek diversity so much as conformity. The tortured Spanish transliterations of Mike Bloomberg, like the Spanish stump speeches of Mit Romney’s son Craig, are calculated to appeal to a target demographic which the mainstream media, ethnic grievance industry, as well as its benefactors in office, have extolled as the only important slice of the American nation, whether it be in entertainment, employment, or political spoils.

Even though our dissatisfaction with Mayor Bloomberg’s mangled Spanish might seem like a petty quibble at a time like this, the persistent failure of bilingual education, which has squandered millions of dollars in New York City since its inception, demonstrates that there are consequences to this misguided policy, the worst born of them born by its intended beneficiaries.

Something to consider the next time El Bloombito decides to address the city’s press corps.

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.

The disembodied, suspended rock face you see above is probably the only redeeming feature of Work in Progress, the dreadful night club where  Libertyfest was held. Thankfully, the day overshadowed the venue. Mike Salvi, the Master of Ceremonies, did a capable job overseeing the proceedings, despite the unusual nature of the event and sporadic disruptions, gently admonishing the crowd with a gentle “shh” and “shut the fuck up” as the occasion dictated. Although not yet a household name outside of the liberty movement, Salvi has a Joe Roganesque sensibility which added some some structure and comedic pacing to the event, similar to his hosting job at Philly Phreedom earlier this year. 

A former radio host/lawyer, Lionel was one of the first speakers of the afternoon. Even though most people now know him from his somewhat glib-yet entertaining and occasionally edifying-comentaries on WPIX, I remember him from his days as a talk radio host on 77-WABC. He was one of the first speakers to describe his conversion to libertarianism, which began with the presidential campaigns of Harry Browne. Like Lionel, Browne’s bete noire is this country’s draconian drug control laws, which have inexorably lead to the decimation of the Constitution and government tyranny, a view which Mr. Browne has expressed repeatedly.

In addition to contradicting the core principles under which our government is supposed to operate, the prohibitionist policies the federal government and states have pursued regarding narcotics have demonstrably failed, whereas nations that have followed an opposite course have seen a decrease in drug consumption and abuse. Even so, their path hasn’t been a complete success, and the state is still inserting itself into personal decisions in the sense of subsidizing methadone clinics, which as a policy decision is just as idiotic and harmful as imprisoning people for ingesting an arbitrarily proscribed drug.

The folly of the drug war was also discussed at length by Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center, who framed the issue within the context of states asserting their right to nullify patently unconstitutional federal laws and edicts. Although some witless analysts view the concept of federalism as obsolescent, his speech made it clear that this philosophy was just as vital today as it was when Patrick Henry defended the rights of his fellow Virginians during the debates surrounding ratification of the  U.S. Constitution.

Boldin focused specifically upon the Raich decision, and how its affirmation of the Supremacy Clause did not deter other states from enacting medical marijuana legislation, some as quickly as the day following the Supreme Court ruling. The fact that other states have sought to assert their rights under the Constitution, most frequently with respect to Obamacare, demonstrates that this is an effective restraint upon federal subversion of inalienable rights. Much more so than other stands of the liberty movement, which-whatever their merits-have not come remotely close to mobilizing vast numbers of the population, let alone achieving their desired ends.

Even so, there are some libertarians who still see federal politics as a means of effecting positive change, including Michael McDermott, a Libertarian candidate in the 3rd Congressional District of New York who’s running against Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Peter King. One of the chief obstacles facing him  is the monopoly exercised by the two major parties over access to things like presidential debates, which are often the sole means third party challengers have of disseminating their message to a large swath of the electorate, an impediment that Green Party nominee Jill Stein and LP standard bearer Gary Johnson know firsthand. As Mr. McDermott astutely pointed out, the problem is not so much public support for measures like the NDAA and SOPA as public ignorance of these affronts to the Constitution. The media complicity in news management by the established duopoly doesn’t help matters.

One of the few libertarian politicians who’s been able to carve out a niche in the public consciousness by exploiting an indifferent or outright hostile news media is  Dan Halloran, the Republican nominee running for Congress in an open seat in Queens against  Aseemblywoman Grace Meng  who’s been endorsed by the current occupant of Gracie Mansion. One of the chief themes of his speech was the attempt to integrate different strands of the libertarian movement into a cohesive whole.

One of the unique things about Councilman Halloran is his political success in a city straitjacketed by leftist groupthink. From his opposition to New York’s Tammany-inspired gun prohibition laws, to his rejection of Ayatollah Bloomberg’s food diktats, his brief political career has been marked by a willingness to challenge political orthodoxy. While most of his speech focused on the necessity of fusionism and disavowal of “purism” within the libertarian movement, the speakers who followed him identified this tendency as precisely where the liberty movement was led astray. I’ll discuss these consistent, or “purist,” libertarians in Part III of my recap of LibertyFest.

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!