Update: Matt Bruenig explains what happened this weekend. 

Michael Tracey raises an interesting question. 

Keith Ellison’s loss is noteworthy for a number of reasons, many of them unrelated to the fact that his victorious opponent will be the first self-identifying Hispanic to preside over the Democratic National Committee. Yes, ethnicity/race did play a pivotal role in this intra-party election, but not in the way that the mainstream media and Democratic shills would have you believe. Perez’s victory is not so much a case of Democrats implicitly rebuking President Trump and his purportedly anti-latino immigration policies as Barack Obama’s man on the inside once again stepping on the Bernie Bros.

The party hatchet-man who did so much to pave the way for Hillary Clinton’s disastrous candidacy, crafting the message which social justice warriors and feminists gleefully vomited at Bernie Sanders and his backers in the Democratic primary, is now in a position to run the Democratic Party. The former President who has done so much to divide his own party, which continues to be riven by the parallel political institutions he created, now has his own Machiavelli steering the course of the DNC.

This is not only a ratification of the open borders, corporatist, elitist vision which animated the Hillary Clinton campaign-progressives be damned-it is yet another slap in the face of African-Americans, i.e. the foundation of the contemporary Democratic Party. How do woke individuals continue to reconcile their support for Barack Obama with the concrete policies and decisions made by a man who, beyond empty gestural politics, has done absolutely nothing for the black community? To the contrary, the legacy of the 44th President is one of neglect and indifference towards the people most responsible for helping him make history.

We have just witnessed an elite cross-section of Democrats from around the country reject someone who is literally a black Muslim in favor of a Brown alum who’s whiter than Steve Bannon, and whose campaign manager would fit in perfectly at a Huffington Post editorial meeting. Don’t expect national Democrats to curtail their moral preening and sanctimony as we enter the Perez  Era. Just as we’re forced to endure lectures attacking this country from a smarmy talking head for The Reconquista whose fame and fortune were given to him by Americans, we will now experience four years of privileged leftists telling us why white people need to check their privilege. Apparently, the new head of the Dems seems to agree that white people are entitled to fewer rights based upon their skin color.

I can’t wait until 2020.

To the surprise of no one, the reporters, editors and publishers whose revolting fealty to Hillary Clinton, exposed in excruciating detail through Wikileaks, resulted in an historic loss for the Democratic Party have learned nothing from Tuesday’s Trumpslide. Instead of reflecting upon how media institutions rigging the primary process against Bernie Sanders, then conducting an embarrassing, 9 month-long editorial jihad against Donald Trump, might have led voters to reject the chosen one, they have spent the past 2 days regurgitating stories about fake SJW-created hate crimes.

Sadly, even the seeming exit of Hillary and Bill Clinton from public life has not prevented Clinton cronies from exacting their revenge upon the few courageous dissenters within the mainstream press. The most recent infuriating example being VICE’s termination of Michael Tracey, a genuine journalist, who was fired for daring to question Lena Dunham and acknowledging the electorate’s universal distaste for Hillary Clinton as a public figure.

You can read the forbidden piece in its entirety here, but more importantly, you can support Michael and his ongoing efforts to bring us factual reporting by contributing to his Gofundme page.The effort by our deeply crooked media institutions to suppress truthful, vital journalism, as well as continued attempts by the Clintons and their cronies to exact revenge upon their enemies, will not end with the conclusion of the 2016 presidential election. We need to ensure reporters like Michael Tracey have the resources necessary to bring us the information our paternalistic media wants to drop into the memory hole.

It turns out that the violent Marxist riots targeting Donald Trump and his supporters weren’t the spontaneous upwelling of progressive rage we had been led by the media-those paragons of transparency and fairness-to believe. They were actually carefully orchestrated by people on Hillary Clinton’s payroll. Don’t worry. I’m sure she’s just as aghast as you are right now. After all, I’m sure a woman of her character wouldn’t countenance such dirty pool. Never.

P.S. For more illuminating videos produced by James O’Keefe, visit Project Veritas Action. At least, while it’s still legal to do so. I would also recommend reading this piece, which explores Hillary’s complex relationship to the professional agitator Saul Alinsky. 

One of the more brilliant political remixes I’ve seen, courtesy of Placeboing. If only Hillary’s opponents were this creative.

P.S. Here’s a preview of what’s to come, courtesy of Hillary’s heretofore MIA running mate. 

A couple of news items before tonight’s VP debate:

-The Department of Homeland Security has scotched an investigation into the Clinton family’s bagman, Governor Terry McAuliffe, as well as Hillary’s younger brother, ex repo man/current parasite Tony Rodham. Both men were involved in a scheme to fast-track visa applications under the E-5 investor visa program, which is riddled with corruption and fraud. Of course, when the man accused of facilitating these potentially illegal acts is now the Deputy Secretary of DHS, what more can one expect?

-There were no blockbuster revelations of DNC chicanery or HRC contempt for Bernie supporters at the press conference held by Julian Assange earlier today. However, there was a promise of more disclosures to come, including information bearing on the current presidential race and the machinations of Google, a new media monopoly which continues to use AI as means of manipulating what information is available to the public. In case you were wondering which candidate Google is supporting this election cycle, take a peek at what its former CEO is up to these days.

-Finally, in a bit of good news, the Supreme Court has rejected the Obama administration’s request to rehear a case that put a halt to its unconstitutional administrative amnesty. The 4-4 decision merely serves to reinforce how important the upcoming presidential election is, because the  winner will be able to decide how far he or she is able to abuse the office of the presidency. It’s something else to keep in mind as you watch tonight’s debate.

Just to give you a rough summary of what I thought of the first debate, here are a few rather lengthy observations:

Donald Trump dominated the first 20 minutes to half hour of the encounter. Focusing primarily upon trade, the one public policy he’s immersed himself in-and has a mastery of-played to his strong suit. It also highlighted the stunning hypocrisy at the core of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Trumpeting her opposition to CAFTA merely served to emphasize her political opportunism, as this stance was crafted expressly with the purpose of securing her left flank in any future Democratic contest. Supporting one of President Bush’s signature foreign policies would have made her path to victory in 2008 that much more difficult. We should recall that Barack Obama was not on her political radar at the time.

Likewise, her opposition to TTP-a pact she enthusiastically promoted as Secretary of State-was born of political opportunism, not genuine conviction. Even without the surprisingly successful Sanders campaign, endorsing a plan which was almost universally opposed by organized labor-the backbone of the Democratic Party even in its current corporatized, Clintonian shell-could have proved fatal to her presidential ambitions. Her labored attempt at triangulation, combined with Trump’s implicit appeal to disenchanted supporters of her primary opponent, was unquestionably the highlight of the debate from his perspective.

Unfortunately, the discipline and preparation Trump exhibited during the beginning of this debate was squandered over the course of the next hour. We needn’t rehash the explicitly stacked nature of this event, which might as well have been hosted by a Democratic partisan and has been explored in detail throughout the conservative blogosphere over the past 2 days. We all knew beforehand-as Trump should have known-that Lester Holt is not an impartial referee so much as an active participant in the media’s universal quest to install Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office-even as they attempt to delegitimize this self-evident fact.

Even so, Trump seemed at a loss as to how to combat this two-headed attack during the actual debate. Lester Holt’s contrived attempt at connecting the irrelevant Birther issue to the parlous state of American race relations is a perfect example of how Trump failed to seize the initiative. The correct response to this tendentious line of attack was to refuse to play a hand with the stacked deck given to him by the moderator. He should have pointed out this is simply a Democratic talking point crafted with the purpose of arresting his growing popularity among black voters, which has absolutely no relevance to any domestic policy even tangentially connected to race.

While Trump deserves credit for highlighting the grim body count piling up in the city where President Obama made his political bones, as well as the threat posed to African-Americans by our government’s lax immigration policies, he gave more substance to this inane discussion than was necessary, reliving his own involvement in a completely irrelevant issue which has no purpose other than its use as a cudgel against the 1 candidate despised by the fourth estate. Trump could have used this opportunity to simultaneously highlight the bleak prospects of African-American males-who have been shortchanged by our first black President-and the insularity of our wretched journalistic establishment.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton had very few unforced errors. While she didn’t do anything to change her public image, i.e. that of a viscerally unlikable, overly scripted, opportunistic career politician, she didn’t step on any land mines either. She came across as a technocratic, seemingly competent liberal Democrat. She managed to persuasively advance the argument that Donald Trump, the anti-thesis of Bushism and country club Republican virtues, was simply a reincarnation of George W. Bush on tax policy. And that she, a woman desperately trying to attach herself to the Bush family, is somehow an agent of change. Trump rightly pointed out the economic stagnation of the past 8 years, which has nothing to do with the Bush clan, but dropped the ball by not explicitly pointing out that the Bush and Clinton families are part of the same circle of elites which have run this country into the ground over the past 3 decades.

More importantly from Clinton’s perspective, she avoided casting herself as the the candidate of social justice fanatics, despite pandering to them relentlessly throughout this campaign-going so far as to write an open letter to Ella Dawson, otherwise known as herpes girl. The only departures from this appeal to normality were an aside where she accused our country of engaging in systemic racism and her Jezebelesque complaint that Donald Trump likes attractive women. While I’m sure the latter played well with her base of feminist, baby boomer female voters, it also highlighted the fact that she’s alienated from the concerns of anyone who doesn’t belong to the coalition of the fringes, particularly working class white men.

The Alicia Machado exchange is illuminating for other reasons, including its almost perfect distillation of the central flaw in the reasoning of open borders propagandists. Namely, that we need the millions of people who have been imported from the third world over the past half-century. We are told repeatedly that these immigrants or illegal aliens are essential to our functioning as a republic, yet the men and women who serve as poster children for this policy are without exception terrible people. Or, at the very least, not vital cogs in the machinery of American democracy.

Although Machado might not have been involved in an assassination plot, she is a confirmed philanderess and egregious hypocrite. However, because she intends on casting a ballot for the Democratic presidential candidate, like millions of other immigrants from Latin America, she is by definition an asset to this country. While I can understand why leftists and Democrats would believe that importing men and women who’ll increase the size of the state is good for this country, I fail to see how this is a good thing from an objective, patriotic standpoint. Trump could have challenged the assumption that what’s good for Democrats is good for the country, but conspicuously failed to do so. He could have also pointed out that the woman across the stage had spent decades slandering the reputation of women who had been victims of sexual assault at the hands of her husband.

The cumulative impact of these lost opportunities is hard to quantify, but it can’t be dismissed out of hand. For those of you looking for positives to take away from this debate, Donald Trump’s closing remarks emphasized a key point which could become part of a winning message if articulated in a coherent manner to the American people. The United States should not be the policeman of the world. Even if we were to concede the good intentions of those advocating continuous intervention in countries across the globe, the fact remains that this posture is counterproductive to America’s strategic interests. Our government’s sclerotic invade the world, invite the world foreign policy has been a catastrophic failure and needs to be abandoned.

That should be Donald Trump’s message going forward. Ignore media-generated talking points about personal tax returns and obese former beauty queens. Focus on the central issues of our time and communicate your ideas to the American public. We need to be debating the future of our country, not the trivialities that dominated the Hofstra debate.

If you’re a Democratic nominee with no charisma, a closet filled with potentially embarrassing skeletons, and a constituency which is largely fictive, having open borders shills in charge of the 3rd most popular website on the planet, which hundreds of millions people use as their daily news feed, doesn’t exactly hurt your cause. Especially when they suppress problematic news leaks.

Are you still feeling the Bern?

h/t The Rebel.

The Benghazi Report has finally been published, you can read it in its entirety here, which means we’ve been treated to some predictable political reactions, including this illuminating headline from the New York Times. Leaving aside the predictable spin from Hillary boosters in the fourth estate, one of my main problems with the national debate over Benghazi is its tunnel vision, especially as it relates to the former First Lady’s shortcomings as a political leader and decision-maker.

The intentionally deceptive narrative crafted by this administration in the aftermath of the Benghazi assault is simply one of many outrages to stem from this unprecedented attack upon one of our country’s diplomatic outposts. Leaving aside the despicable treatment of the survivors by then Secretary of State Clinton, the private and public treatment of this disaster by the Obama administration demonstrates their policy preferences clearly. Namely, to exculpate Islam from blame for any and all atrocities it’s responsible for, even if the link between the two is undeniable to any rational observer.

Beyond the Orwellian whitewashing of the world’s most violent ideology, the baleful consequences of the invasion which preceded the 2012 sack of America’s Libyan compound continue to be downplayed by its unintended authors. Both by this administration and its supporters, as well as neoconservative intellectuals and politicians who would have us believe that a foreign policy disaster was a brilliant geopolitical move. The fact that a global Sunni jihadist network was given yet another base of operations from which to operate, however attenuated, seems to have made no impression upon the people who charted this catastrophic path. The fact that the invasion of Libya led directly to ISIS atrocities within the heart of Europe, as well as permanently altering the very nature of European civilization, seems to have had no discernible impact on the very people who are responsible for these horrific outcomes.

To the contrary, Hillary Clinton has made the importation of tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from the Middle East-the same sort of refugees responsible for the rape pandemic enveloping Europe-a cornerstone of her campaign. Even as she seeks to displace blame for the fiascos in Syria and Libya onto her former boss, she continues to fully embrace the idiotic policies which have wrought havoc across the Middle East and threaten to devour the continent of Europe-to say nothing of the threat posed to American citizens. The grand policy of invade the world, invite the world will be continued under another Clinton administration, which threatens to make the horrific events currently unfolding around us pale by comparison.

The victims of the Benghazi stretch beyond Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty-and even their bereaved families-all the way across the globe. Anointing Hillary Clinton as the next Commander-in-Chief will not only be an insult to the memories of those victims, it will be an invitation for more chaos, bloodshed, and disasters which we cannot even envision at this point in time. Pandora’s box cannot be closed, but that doesn’t mean we should go searching for new demons and inviting them into our homes.

Update: Trump inches closer to the magic number with a romp in Nebraska. 

Well, that was quick. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hillary is not the most likable public figure. 

The exit polls paint an interesting portrait of the electorate, which is concerned about the anemic economy. It will be fascinating to see whether the object of Hillary’s antipathy reward Senator Sanders tonight. It’s funny to think that only a generation ago coalminers were the object of socialist admiration.

How times have changed.

Although the ferocity of the Never Trump protests has diminished-in tandem with the Great Red Hope’s impending demise-that doesn’t mean the regressive left has quietly retired from the public sphere. A slightly more sedate Communist rally was held last Sunday within Union Square to commemorate what I like to call fascist Christmas. As usual, Pamela Hall documented the annual parade of economic and historical illiteracy for The Silent Majority No More.

Read it and weep for the future.