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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note:  Video footage, including a rousing speech made by the legendary Pamela Geller, as well as a moving speech by 9/11 mother Nelly Braginskaya, at Atlas Shrugs. Also, additional photos and footage provided by the indefatigable photo-blogger Urban Infidel. 

If  there was a single, overarching theme to the first Stop the Islamization of Nations Congress, it was just that. Freedom. The freedom exercised by Rifqa Bary-the courageous young woman who converted to Christianity despite the wishes of her Muslim parents, and whose portrait you see emblazoned upon the poster above-as well as the freedom to engage in critical inquiry regarding any and all subjects-including Islam-are one and the same. For fundamentally, they both come down to the exercise of free will. Individual choice is something that is not highly valued in authentic Islamic culture, as the plight of the recently freed Iranian Christian pastor  Yousef Nardakani, and the fate which befell Arab journalists who republished the famous Jyllands Posten Mohammed cartoons, demonstrate.

I traveled to the UN Millennium Plaza Hotel on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 massacres in order to listen to a roster of speakers who would illuminate just how precarious the freedom we enjoy is, why it is imperiled-not only in the United States, but across the globe-by whom, and how we can resist the encroachment of those who would circumscribe, and ultimately, eliminate it.

Notwithstanding the passel of amiably grouped American and United Nations flags in that photo, the  values of the United States and those undergirding the United Nations could not be further removed from one another. Anyone who has read the aptly titled The UN Gang by Pedro Sanjuan, a career diplomat and Foreign Service officer-a book that , ironically enough, was stolen while I attended the conference-would recognize just how different our nation is from the anti-American swamp in Turtle Bay. Unfortunately, those in power today-particularly within this administration-seemingly want to emulate the rogue’s gallery of Islamic theocracies, tinhorn military dictatorships, and third world socialist backwaters that currently comprise its membership. At least, with respect to the citizen’s relationship to the state.

Although the words from the Old Testament prophet are laudable-if a bit confusing when juxtaposed against the United Nations general opinion of Jews-they in stark contrast to most of the actions undertaken by the UN, which range from supplication before the preeminent state sponsor of terror, to deploying “peacekeepers” whose chief recreational activity consists of terrorizing the people they were putatively sent to protect. However, the most insidious threat posed by the United Nations is its attempt to nullify our natural rights in order to preserve the edifice of Islam as a great religion.

In decades past, the free world-led by the United States-would have led the fight against criminalizing dissent. However, the position espoused by the American government has been changed dramatically. The instinctive reflex on the part of government officials is exemplified by the craven tweet-since deleted-by the United States embassy in Cairo issued shortly before it was assaulted by a salafi mob. A mob which included, it should be noted, both the younger brother of Al Qaeda’s current emir and members of the terrorist organization whose leader is responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing. Of course, now that the Arab Spring is in full bloom, we should keep in mind that yesterday’s terrorist might very well be today’s democrat.

The most significant aspect of this transformation is the State Department’s active encouragement of a UN resolution, crafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which would criminalize any substantive criticism of Islam. As Robert Spencer pointed out during the conference, this treaty would have the force of law, and there’s no reason to believe that the United States Supreme Court-McConnell vs. FEC made its cavalier attitude towards expressive speech plain-to honor our First Amendment rights any more than it has recognized those enshrined within the Second Amendment, or, I would add, the Fifth.

The institutionalization of this dhimmification of our legal system is occurring in our own backyard. State Senator David Storobin, who-regardless of any other criticism that can be leveled against him-should be congratulated for having the temerity to attend this conference, explained why this is such a pernicious development. A man whose family escaped from the Soviet Union-the largest totalitarian empire in world history-and whose relatives were slaughtered by Islamic separatists-Senator Storobin is perhaps uniquely qualified to speak to this issue. He denounced hate speech laws, which he correctly described as penalizing thought rather than criminal action, and averred that he believed in the principles of the Founders. “The founding fathers of America, not the Soviet Union. Madison, not Lenin.”

It’s a quote worth keeping in mind when the vanguards of the left insist upon adopting a policy of prior restraint against the only religion of global breadth they seemingly venerate.  What makes matters even more grave is the fact that those whose sensitivities will be preserved at the expense of our liberty, unlike the victims of other thought crimes-or perceived thought crimes-the left has sought to give protected status, these individuals have the propensity to vent their displeasure in ways much more colorful than public protests or civil disobedience. This fact was brought home to the audience during the speech of the man you see below, David Yerushalmi, founder of the American Freedom Law Center and tireless advocate for American civil liberties.

Mr. Yarushalmi’s speech focused on the nexus between the application of sharia law within Western societies and the inexorable diminishment of civil rights and liberties of citizens living in those societies. Contrary to the anodyne picture of sharia which has been painted by the press, academe, and assorted lapdogs of CAIR touted by our intellectual betters, the facets of Islamic law-provided we ever agree on a school of Islam to impose-which many have no trouble with in principle are diametrically opposed to the values we cherish as American citizens. A perfect illustration of this conflict in practice occurred earlier this year during an Arab American festival held in the city of Dearborn, Michigan.

Exercising their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble and voice their opinions, several Christian missionaries decided to demonstrate their profession of faith in Christ-and disbelief in the assertions found within the pages of the Koran-during this event. Doubting the claims of Mohammed-or his adherents-is a criminal offense-in Islam, not in the United States-which led to these men to being stoned by a frenzied mob of “Arab Americans.” Despite the fact that it was the peaceful protesters who were attacked-to the point of bloodshed-they were the ones told to vacate the premises, lest they be arrested.

The Orwellian revision of the facts by local and national media outlets-where the victims and aggressors were inverted-was not surprising. However, the willingness of a large municipal police department to enforce the legal code that contradicts the 1st Amendment is what led Mr. Yarushalmi to pursue a lawsuit against the officials responsible for this outrage.

While this incident might be interpreted as speaking to the depressing lack of respect for constitutional rights by those entrusted with the use of deadly force by the state, the tenacity with which this lawyer is seeking redress is what stands out in my mind. This determination to protect the sacred right of free speech can also be seen in the legal battle between the American Freedom Defense Initiative/Stop the Islamization of America and the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority over the content of the subway ad you see presented in the powerpoint presentation below.

Questioning the rationale behind the construction of a mosque within sight of Ground Zero, the ad was initially deemed unacceptable by MTA executives before a lawsuit reminded them that freedom of speech trumps the tender sensibilities of a teflon-coated religion. The same MTA was forced to back down again after a federal judge chastised it for refusing to consent to the display of another AFDI/SIOA ad which supported the state of Israel.

However, the most intriguing recent legal victory of Mr. Yarushalmi’s was the decision by the corresponding public transportation governing authority in the city of Detroit.

The poster you see above is nearly identical in content to billboards commissioned by atheist activists exhorting non-Muslim believers to abjure their faith. The only difference being that a the consequence for individuals who answer the question posed here in the affirmative is death. As the tragic fates of Jessica Mokdad…

…and Aqsa Parvez make clear.

It is precisely the willingness among adherents to the Koran to inflict often lethal violence upon its critics which leads governments to attempt to circumscribe the actions, and police the expression of thoughts, of the people whom they ostensibly serve. However, the complicity of almost every major media organ-both in print and on television-in the whitewashing of Islam’s intolerance of dissent-among other less than admirable traits-has as much to do with affinity for the ends-if not always the means-of its followers, as it does any craven abdication of responsibility linked to fear. We’ll examine the responsibility of the press for the current state of affairs in Part II of our coverage.

 Earlier tonight I was watching a program called “Noticiero” on La Estrella, a Spanish-language, HD channel that airs on an affiliate station of WPIX in New York, whose chief topic was-suppress your shock for a moment–immigration! The show’s host-who I remember chiefly for hosting a news-magazine tabloid program, roughly analogous to A Current Affair, back in the late 90s-introduced the first story, which focused on the current furor surrounding the now-vitiated Arizona law known as SB 1070.

                   The piece, like most reports that run on English-language television news in this country about the issue of illegal aliens, focused on the plight of the undocumented workers, “trabajando,” who make the perilous journey into the United States from Mexico and various Central American nations. However, the producer of the segment’s chief interest seemed to be portraying all supporters of tougher immigration enforcement as not only “racista,” i.e. racist, but as card-carrying Nazis. The better part of that three minute-long segment was devoted to b-roll footage of the National Socialist Movement-a genuinely racist,  extremely small, cultish white supremacist movement-parading around in full Nazi regalia, presumably shouting anti-Hispanic slogans.

                  In other words, the hundreds of thousands of concerned  citizens who have lobbied their congressmen and women on behalf of  erecting an adequate border fence, who have rallied against amnesty in cities and towns across the nation, and who have expressed their discontent with the anarchic status quo in myriad democratic, peaceful, pluralistic ways… These people are essentially racist skinheads, at least according to the people who work at Noticiero.

               This is a very familiar argument, dating back to at least the debate about Proposition 187, a California initiative that would have denied illegal aliens access to most non-emergency social services. In fact, the tenor of their arguments in favor of open borders has an increasingly anachronistic, shopworn aspect to it that doesn’t bear any relation to the events occurring in border states and throughout Mexico and Central America. This was highlighted by the host of Noticiero himself, who proceeded to introduce a segment about the horrific violence-up to and including decapitations of law enforcement officials-flourishing in Ciudad Juarez. This is a city just across the river from El Paso, Texas, which rival drug cartels and their private armies are dismembering piece-by-piece in a bid for narco-supremacy.

              But that wasn’t all! This chilling news segment was followed by a report on two attacks by sicarios, i.e. hit-men, in the capital of El Salvador that resulted in the grisly deaths of 16 bus passengers, some of whom were gunned down mercilessly, while others were slowly immolated. In other words, we have a situation where our neighbors to the south can not control the rampant violence and terror that various drug-traffickers and their enforcers-many of them members of prison gangs that have deep tentacles inside of the United States, e.g. the Salva  Maratruchas-have spawned in their wake. 

                So open-borders supporters find themselves in a bit of a bind. Optimally, the public would be brow-beaten into accepting their definition of us as virulent racists who are only motivated by innate bigotry and xenophobia. This obviates the need for a real debate on the tangible problems that ensue from the lack of immigration enforcement in this country, plus it gives them the moral, although not intellectual, high ground. The only problem is that reality keeps intruding. You can’t pretend that the only people concerned about the inflow of illegal aliens are those motivated by racism, while at the same time admitting that many of these same “undocumented migrants” might in fact be dangerous, felonious criminals. It’s just not possible.