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.

The despicable whitewashing of Hillary Clinton’s malfeasance continues to generate outrage in the unlikeliest places, including the usually ridiculous Huffington Post. The exoneration of the former Secretary of State at the hands of someone who has shown a penchant for overlooking the crimes of Clintonian public officials has raised the hackles of people across the political spectrum.

Some of these individuals have decided to make their displeasure known through protest, including an upcoming demonstration in front of the FBI office in Bedford, New Hampshire. While I can understand a reluctance to criticize an administration known for its persecution of perceived political opponents, there is also something to be said for standing up for  an important principle. Namely, equality under the law.

If there’s anyone willing to put their beliefs on the line, it’s residents of the Free State. So joint NHExit and others in calling for some accountability and honesty from a seemingly unaccountable government this Monday!

I think we’ve established that those who control new media, our primary means of collective communication and social interaction, share neither our beliefs nor goals. The decision by Internet behemoths to enforce draconian abrogations of speech at the behest of the European Union merely crystallizes what we’ve known for some time, i.e. Mark Zuckerberg and his colleagues are not our allies, or even politically disinterested capitalists seeking to maximize their profit margins. They are ideological enemies, although posing as neutral parties, who want to see our ideas, insofar as they  militate against egalitarianism, social democracy, open borders, multiculturalism, progressivism, feminism,  dawa, and social justice,  quarantined. If not eliminated altogether. 

We have an inkling of what the future of this cloistered Web will look like, and it’s not something I look forward to. It’s a place where a drawing of Mohammed potentially garnering thousands of dollars can be removed, albeit temporarily, from eBay, along with CSA flags-at the behest of journalists-yet paeans to the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century remain widely available. A place where peaceful critics of the mass importation of rapists and criminals from the third world have their Facebook accounts suspended, even as calls for the killing of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee remain in place.

The Internet has broken the stranglehold exercised by old media over the flow of information. It’s allowed free citizens to access and disseminate facts, even as traditional gatekeepers try to embargo information which intellectually destroys their narratives and reveals unpleasant truths. It’s leveled the playing field between us and them, which is why they repeatedly and openly attempt to seize control of this invaluable tool for global communication. While the Overton window shifts in our favor, we need to recognize and respond to this unprecedented challenge. This threat is so palpable that it’s even seeped into our popular culture, forming the basis of a plot-line to an episode of the popular Netflix series House of Cards. Naturally, reality was inverted, as it was a Republican candidate collaborating with an enormously influential website in order to acquire and retain limitless executive power.

This prompts the question, how should we respond? How do we fight NGOs, bureaucratic institutions, multinational corporations and Internet monopolies that have seemingly endless resources at their disposal, and which control the medium through which we hope to communicate? There are many proposals, but one of the more intriguing ones involves holding these new media giants to their word.  A pro-life musician sued Youtube after her incredibly popular video was removed without explanation. On a much broader scale, Professor Stephen Bainbridge has suggested that wealthy philanthropists bankroll a lawsuit against Twitter in order to put conservative proposals on its annual proxy statement. Although this tactic sounds rather innovative, it actually bears a striking resemblance to a suggestion made by Senator Jesse Helms during the mid-80s which entailed a hostile takeover of the habitually biased CBS by conservative shareholders of the network.

Another legal proposal floated by some right wing analysts concerned about this growing problem is to force the government to classify these social media giants as public utilities, thus affording access for dissenting, anti-leftist thought. There are a number of reasons why I think this path-like the shareholder revolt-would be an ultimately futile effort. Although I welcome the entrance of affluent right wingers into the cultural war-and have been heartened by the courageous actions of Peter Thiel, the right’s real-life version of Batman-I don’t believe that conservatives will be able to engineer a coup, in the best sense of the word, against Twitter. Similarly, I doubt the efficacy of any effort to compel these corporations to enforce access and equitable treatment through the judiciary.

This isn’t because I believe it would allow the left to squelch some of the few remaining outlets of public conservatism outside of the Internet-although I’m certain liberals will continue to cheerlead for the introduction of any measure that mutes non-leftist opinion. I’m of the opinion that the utility of talk radio and the Fox News Channel to the right has waned and will continue to decline in the years ahead-this election being merely  foretaste of things to come. No, I oppose this route because it relies upon a thoroughly misguided view of how our courts currently operate. Beyond the merits of this controversial idea, the notion  that jurists steeped in progressivism will rescue conservatives is absurd on its face. It’s the same misguided thinking which led many to believe that the Roberts Supreme Court would unilaterally abolish Obamacare, i.e. that an instrument of the state would begin to curtail the excesses of another branch of the state.

Another option is to create right wing analogs to existing Web-based resources. The dreary results of this experiment can be seen in QubeTV and Conservapedia, the latter a Christian fundamentalist response to Wikipedia’s perceived biases. Beyond the self-consciously limiting aspect of these projects, their creators are marginalizing a political philosophy which they  hope to spread to the widest possible audience-in effect, doing the very job of the websites they stand in opposition to. Creating a less professional, derivative, albeit conservative, version of a pre-existing Web platform is not the solution to the problems we’re facing. We’re not going to win the battle of ideas by diving into an ideological cul-de-sac. In my next essay, I’ll explore some strategies which might actually work.

Turkey’s historic brutality towards ethnic and religious minorities, particularly what was once a thriving, prosperous Armenian Christian community, is well known throughout the West. The notion that rational individuals with a basic historic awareness would be persuaded to accept Turkish revisionism and holocaust denial is absurd.  However, that hasn’t stopped the Turkish government from spending millions of dollars in an effort to cajole, coerce or bribe governments throughout the world, including our own, to ignore its complicity in one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century. Acclaimed scholars of the Middle East have repeated the lies spouted by fascistic Turkish demagogues as it relates to this subject, and we now have the Wall Street Journal running a full-page advertisement espousing the views of the men who orchestrated the virtual annihilation of the Armenian people.

That is why the Rally For Justice, to be held outside the Turkish Consulate in Los Angeles this Sunday, is necessary. It’s an opportunity to remind the the world that the descendants of those who survived the Armenian Golgotha have not forgotten the persecution of their ancestors, and will not remain silent while Turkey attempts to airbrush its crimes out of history, even as its current government commits monstrous new ones upon another demonized minority. I would urge all of this website’s followers who live in Southern California to attend, and those who cannot to spread the word. In the face of unspeakable lies, remaining silent is not an option.

We’ve come to expect dissimulation and manipulation from the news media in our country, especially major commercial and public broadcasting networks, national newspapers and prominent Web aggregators such as the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed. We’ve seen this repeatedly in foreign affairs coverage, which has led to a host of disastrous policy decisions in countries ranging from Somalia, to Kosovo, to Libya, and now Syria. Perhaps the most catastrophic result of media deception and obfuscation can be seen in Europe, which is in the process of being subsumed by a mass of Middle Eastern, North African, and Central Asian refugees with the full imprimatur of what our friend Pamela Geller rightly describes as the enemedia.

This phenomenon also shapes how we discuss and think about issues in the domestic sphere-to say nothing of which issues are even open to discussion-as my report from Monday’s GMA presidential town hall illustrates. It predates the Internet Era and will probably persist long after birdcage liner like the Boston Globe has, mercifully, disappeared. Media organs, by their absence or presence, shape the world we inhabit. However, conceding this reality does not mean that the American public-least of all those of us whose values are being anathematized-has to abide by the terms dictated to us by the information gatekeepers. Those of us who are aware of what’s occurring need to speak out and counter this propaganda with a counter-narrative grounded in facts, truth, and most importantly, a compelling vision. 

This is where, unfortunately, I think Ted Cruz has dropped the ball. I should probably preface the following remarks by declaring that I’m not reflexively hostile to the senator from Texas, and don’t consider myself to be an enemy. Although I acknowledge his personality and policy shortcomings and understand some of the critical views of him, I don’t necessarily share them. According to the admittedly unscientific diagnostic tool ISideWith, Cruz is actually the candidate with whom I’m most politically compatible, albeit only slightly more than affable Libertarian doofus Gary Johnson. Even the off-putting aspects of his personality that have manifested during the primary debates don’t discomfit me-perhaps because of our shared appreciation for forensics. I’d venture to guess that I actually like Senator Cruz more than many of my friends who decided to support him in Tuesday’s Republican primary.

With that said, to describe his performance on Good Morning America as uninspired would be an understatement. After successfully deflecting Brother Dealer’s loaded question about gun trafficking, he went into cruise control-pun not intended-for the rest of the program. The question about bakery owners being coerced into baking specific cakes occasioned his now routine discourse on religious liberty, including a seeming non sequitur about atheism, which was problematic for two reasons. The first reason is that it played into the widespread public perception of him as a thinly veiled televangelist, the second-and much more important-being that it utterly obscured the real issue at stake, which is property rights, not the exercise of religious freedom. The fact that he is the sole candidate in this presidential race of either party who has an actual understanding of the Constitution makes his answer all the more disappointing.

When pressed to explain his flat tax proposal, he invoked the mantra of Congressman Dick Armey-from an election which took place over two and a half decades ago-but refused to provide any specifics, beyond the recitation of a few cliches about the importance of small businesses to the health of the American economy. When one of the news anchors asked him how he would tackle the monstrous national debt he mocked the bombastic claims of the Republican frontrunner but refused to provide an outline of his own debt reduction plan. Throughout it all he repeatedly emphasized the similarities between his campaign and that of Ronald Reagan-interestingly enough, his unsuccessful ’76 bid for the nomination, not his election to the White House-and promised his audience that he would change both the GOP and the course of the nation.

Even as Senator Cruz was attempting to paint himself as the heir to Ronald Reagan’s legacy I couldn’t help but think that the most essential lesson of President Reagan’s political career was lost on him. Reagan did not win over skeptical Americans because he was more conservative than his opponents-although his conservatism was pivotal to his ascendancy-or because he was Reagan, even though-as Lou Cannon has illustrated in his magisterial biographies of the 39th President-his personality was key to his electoral success. He convinced them that he was the right leader because they believed that he offered at least a partial solution to the misery they were experiencing during the 1970s which was better than the alternatives presented to them.

I cannot imagine the average voter watching Ted Cruz’s performance during that Good Morning America segment coming to the conclusion that he was the best alternative to the soul-crushing collectivism, mind-numbing identity politics, and relentless groupthink of Unite Blue. Which is a shame, because he does have some genuine political skills-although they are rarely on display these days-and some ideas that would be a departure from the past 8 years of Obama-Biden malaise. However, like Rand Paul, the talent that got him here seems to have deserted him-or been relinquished for some inexplicable reason. While he might have refined his ability to accumulate delegates, the rationale for his presidential candidacy becomes murkier with each day that elapses.

A veto-proof majority in the House has just told Barack Obama that, empty assurances notwithstanding, it doesn’t trust this administration to “vet” the 10,000+ Syrian refugees who it intends to resettle within the United States.  The Sith Lord himself, Harry Reid, intends to crush this before it makes its way to the President’s desk.

Contact Your Senators Now!

The graphic above is taken from the brilliant Cognitive Bias Parade, which is one of many online venues that have chosen to show their solidarity with the 12 martyrs of Charlie Hebdo by embracing the satirical defiance which so aggrieves the soldiers of Allah. The insincere protestations of America’s intellectual gatekeepers notwithstanding, the reaction of the American press corps has been depressingly familiar. Of particular note was the petulant, disingenuous, and yet not altogether surprising outburst from New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet. You can read the very illuminating-as well as entertaining-Facebook thread which sparked this contretemps here. 

For an analysis of the choices made by the Canadian counterparts of  chickenshit American editors like Mr. Baquet, check out the superb interview of Jen Gerson on the Canadaland podcast. Even as editorial cartoonists in the Arab Middle East, a region filled with homicidal Islamic lunatics, have expressed sympathy for the latest victims of the The Religion of Peace, and those living in a brutal Islamic theocracy have engaged in the journalism the Daily News eschews, the most appropriate response to the events of this horrific week has come from one of the surviving members of Charlie Hebdo’s staff.

For an index of artistic depictions-ranging from reverent to blasphemous-of the media’s favorite bloodthirsty warlord, I recommend Zombietime’s Mohammed Image Archive, which is an invaluable resource in a time when even the images we see must come with a halal certification.

The President’s abrupt announcement of an imminent détente with the tropical gulag run by the Castro Bros. has sent reporters and pundits scurrying to analyze the broader political implications of this seeming diplomatic breakthrough. On the economic front, the observation by former Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Castenda that the cutoff of Venezuela’s oil subsidies to the island nation has forced it to seek another benefactor is undoubtedly accurate. As is the conclusion drawn by the Washington Post’s editorial board that this new policy will in effect-if not in intent-serve as an American bailout of an economy entering the terminal stage of Marxist decline.

The reality of a first world, capitalist-for the time being-nation riding to the rescue of a regime which has turned what was once one of the most robust economies in the Western Hemisphere into a stagnant pool of human misery is something that El Jefe’s apologists are loathe to accept. A situation that Michael Moynihan deftly skewered in a Daily Beast post recounting some of the more imbecilic remarks tweeted by Castro sycophants, most of whom have probably never set foot inside a Cuban hospital. 

Steve Sailer, on the other hand, has mooted a fascinating and original point which I think most of our readers would be interested in contemplating. To wit, that the relaxation of diplomatic relations between our two nations could potentially lead to the export of scores of Cuban migrants who pose economic and political problems for a faltering Communist dictatorship. Although the analogy to the Marielitos is tempting for a number of reasons, it’s not necessary to consider a seaborne invasion in order to foresee how immigration could be dramatically impacted by this diplomatic thaw.

While drawing any firm conclusions as to what will happen in the future regarding Cuban-American relations is impossible at the moment, is it that outlandish to consider the possibility of thousands-or a possibly greater number-of Cuban refugees being admitted to the United States as a result of a bilateral agreement between this administration and the caudillo in Havana, with or without congressional input? Based upon recent history, I don’t believe it is. Only time will tell whether this démarche is the beginning of a new era in American foreign policy or something much more cynical and unromantic.

This past week saw the first American victim of the best and brightest Barack Obama has welcomed into the warm embrace of the United States. We now have confirmed reports that a Border Patrol officer has contracted scabies from the unaccompanied minors he was tending to, rather than performing his job, i.e. protecting the American public. If a contagious skin disease isn’t enough to sour you on the stream of Central Americans being distributed throughout the United States, how do you feel about a potential tuberculosis outbreak? Not deterred by the wasting disease? How about a nice influenza epidemic?

Yes, that’s right. There are now recorded cases of the H1N1 virus among our newest batch of undocumented citizens, much to the consternation of open borders demagogues like Ruben Navarette, who have been reassuring a skeptical public for the past month that fears of disease were merely the hyperbolic bogeymen of xenophobic, right wing racists. After all, who would have suspected that severely dehydrated, malnourished children traveling in large groups from third world countries which host a bevy of tropical illnesses, and which have poor public health systems, could be a vector for disease?! You would need to be a virtual Nostradamus to have predicted that this sort of untrammeled mass immigration from developing nations would have negative repercussions for the American public.

Rest assured though, there’s absolutely no chance that these isolated incidents will turn into a deadly pandemic. After all, when was the last time that a grand social experiment had catastrophically negative consequences?