-We begin today’s rattle with an interesting story about an Indian-or Muslim, depending upon PR needs of the open borders squad-athlete who was ushered into this country by our very own Senator Chuck Schumer. Unfortunately, this gifted sportsman is also a sex offender. Perhaps this isn’t quite as bad as having an alien interning for your office who is also a registered sex offender, but it does make you question the collective wisdom of our Democratic friends in Congress. Maybe we shouldn’t be taking their advice, vis-a-vis, controversial immigration decisions made by the Executive branch.

-In a reminder that there are actually rational people living in The People’s Republic of Vermont, the voters of Rutland have just turned out their incumbent mayor, Chris Louras, after he attempted to deluge their town with Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq. While ignoring the public’s deep discontent with our government’s refugee resettlement programs-when not imputing racism and bigotry to Americans who express reservations about these schemes-is the norm, even the alternative weekly was forced to concede the enormous political consequences of this decision.

-For those of you who were wondering whatever happened to the thousands of unaccompanied minors who were allowed to enter into this country, wonder no more. According to an in-depth backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, our government has absolutely no clue what it’s doing. While over 80 percent of their sponsors are illegal aliens, 44 percent of the UACs in question were ordered deported. Have the vast majority of these children been deported? Of course not, silly!

-You may ask yourself, “Why is this important?” It’s a good question. After all, it’s not as if these individuals will bring brutal Central American inter-gang warfare to the placidity of our nation’s suburbs, right? Well, I have some bad news for you on that score. It turns out that Latin American gangs, including MS-13, one of the most prolific and ruthless criminal networks in the Western Hemisphere, has actually established a pretty firm beachhead in our own backyard. Naturally, almost all of these gangbangers are criminal aliens. In an ironic twist, the moniker of the man who made an abortive attempt to unify the Mara Salvatrucha within the United States is, you guessed it, Dreamer.

-For those of you who think Europe’s approach to immigration is any less self-defeating and preposterous than the United States, I give you France. A nation where municipal authorities in Calais are attempting to prevent thousands of migrants from recreating the notorious refugee camp known as The Jungle. The biggest proponents of turning The Camp of the Saints into reality are, of course, other Europeans who believe Western civilization is uniquely evil. The ostensible plight of migrants from the third world is simply a cudgel with which the Gramscian left-with the help of corporate bean counters-can beat native Europeans into submission.

-After all, what are a few dozen, or a few hundred, honor killings in the grand scheme of things? Is the systemic dehumanization and murder of girls in nations which were responsible for the idea of religious toleration and freedom of conscience too high a price to pay for erecting the beautiful mosaic? When bad whites are saying intemperate, obnoxious things about people who are off-white, doesn’t that negate their entire philosophical worldview?  Even if that perspective is confirmed multiple times every single day?

-Everyone knows that the real reason millions of Muslims across the world support ISIS, Al Qaeda, and similar jihadist networks is because there isn’t enough inclusion in Hollywood casting decisions. See, the real villain isn’t Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It’s those bastards who refused to green light an all-Muslim reboot of Star Trek!

-The cognitive dissonance at work in the mind of an an open borders leftist must be overpowering. They want to live in a high-trust, quasi-collectivist techno-utopia-along the lines of something created by Gene Roddenberry-yet simultaneously support policies which make this already far-fetched goal virtually impossible. The mentality of a social justice warrior in high dudgeon can be found in this VICE piece, which laments the role homeless shelters have been playing in the deportation of migrants. The traditional liberal concern for the working class and the poor is discarded when it conflicts with the categorical imperative, i.e. preserving diversity. The spiritual hollowness and intellectual vapidity of this type of leftist ‘thinking’ was brilliantly and caustically skewered by George Orwell nearly a century ago. It’s good to know that some things haven’t changed all that much.

-I’d like to leave you on a good note, so here’s some refreshing news to come out of Austria. 8 Iraqi men have been convicted of the gang rape of a tourist. Unlike the Middle Eastern cab driver in Halifax who was, to all intents and purposes, high-fived by a Nova Scotia judge for raping an unconscious passenger, these rapists were actually given (relatively) stiff prison sentences. What’s more, we’ve discovered that these horrific incidents actually constitute an anomaly within the Islamic immigrant community.

Migrants and refugees from other countries expressed concern that the crime will make Austrians hostile toward all newcomers.

“Eight people raping a woman — that’s honor-less! Such a thing doesn’t exist in our religion,” Burhan Akbas, a migrant from Turkey, said.

“When such people come here and screw up like that, then everybody will think that Chechens, Afghans, all refugees from war areas are all the same,” Mansur Salamou, an asylum-seeker from Chechnya, said. “But it’s not like that. For example, the majority of us — we also cause problems, commit crimes. But no rape! Only criminal assaults and robberies.”

See, Europeans?! You only have to worry about being assaulted and robbed by the millions of North African and Middle Eastern refugees and migrants making their way towards Europe. What a relief.

Update: Mr. Rahami was a busy jihadi, it turns out. 

Rahami charged. 

It turns out that CNN is good for something after all. 

Surrender and think of diversity. 

The man who shot the now deceased jihadist in Minnesota was a competitive shooter. Perhaps, contra Maddow, guns aren’t the main culprit in Islamic terrorism? As an aside, in the past 3 years 9 Somali-Americans have been convicted of trying to join ISIS. 

Free radicals. 

Footage of the shootout in Linden before Rahami’s apprehension by police. 

The war on noticing proceeds apace. Lionel has the perfect solution. 

Ahmad Khan is now in custody, according to CNN. 

CAIR has its priorities in order. 

You can’t make this up. 

More Ahmad Khans on the way thanks to the clever folks in the federal government. 

Thieves cracked the Chelsea bombing case. 

Hillary’s boffo refugee resettlement plan. 

The woman who gave us Libya-and all its bitter fruits-explains why Donald Trump is the real terrorist. After all, there are literally millions of Muslims who aren’t trying to blow you up at the moment. 

 You can’t make this up. 

Governor Cuomo has deployed the National Guard. 

A suspect in the terror plots in New Jersey, as well as the Chelsea bombing, has been identified. Authorities are now seeking the whereabouts of Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized alien from Afghanistan. It would appear that this is the work of  a terror cell, not the ubiquitous lone wolf of so many prior jihadi assaults. After decades of thoughtless third world immigration, New Jersey finds itself with an entrenched Islam problem, as Chris Christie’s short-lived presidential campaign illustrated. The idea that this threat was erased with the conviction of the Blind Sheik is foolhardy, as this weekend’s attacks demonstrate.

Update: The full debate is now online.

One of the arguments which has preoccupied American journalists-and I’m being generous when I use that term-since Donald Trump’s nomination revolves around who is ultimately responsible for his political ascent. Likewise, conservative Never Trump pundits have spent the last few months assigning blame for his capture of the GOP-offering culprits which range from Barack Obama to the seemingly ubiquitous scapegoat, the social justice warrior.

The shared conceit among these two very different groups being that the rise of Trump is a regrettable, even horrifying, political development. While it’s perfectly understandable why someone who works for The Weekly Standard, Commentary or National Review-or online bastions of never cons like The Federalist and Red State-would believe this to be so, that doesn’t mean it’s a correct assumption. Beyond exposing the foregoing publications for the shallow, utterly worthless institutions they are, Trump has managed to accomplish some things which are equally admirable, regardless of what you may think of him as either a politician or person.

He’s decoupled, perhaps permanently, the Republican Party from the neoconservative/nation-building impulse which has brought discredit not only upon the GOP but the philosophy of conservatism, to say nothing of the cost in lives and treasure to the United States. If the only thing Trump’s campaign accomplished this election cycle was to consign the opinions of John McCain and Lindsey Graham to political irrelevancy, and to force the likes of Robert Kagan and Max Boot to become standard bearers for the Democratic Party, then I would count it a success.

However, Trump has also given voice to the families of those victimized by our government’s malicious hospitality towards criminal aliens. Can anyone honestly tell me the rest of the nation would have known the name Jamiel Shaw if one of his vanquished primary opponents had become the GOP nominee? The fact that an insufferable hack like Josh Marshall is excoriating Trump for daring to highlight the forgotten lives of these Americans-scores of whom have been killed even as our government finds new ways to cater to illegal aliens-demonstrates how much he has fundamentally transformed the national Republican Party.

Is it even conceivable that another major candidate would dare to tell the truth about the dystopian hell-scape which half a century of multiculturalist, open borders policies have turned large swathes of Europe into? Or publicly imply that this might be our nation’s future if we continue to embrace the same disastrous philosophy which has cannibalized Germany?

For all these reasons, I think that blaming anyone for the Trump phenomenon-rather than awarding credit-is a bit misguided. That being said, I do want to alert you to a debate on this very subject which will be happening shortly in New York City. Tim Carney, author of the insightful and sadly prescient book Obamanomics, will be teaming up with Ben Domenech to debate the always wrong Jennifer Rubin and her fellow open borders fetishist Bret Stephens at the Kaufman Center. You can find all of the details-and purchase your tickets-on the Intelligence Squared website.

I have some thoughts on the Republican ticket, one of them slightly unconventional, but will save them for another day. It’s worthwhile spending a post on what’s occurring in the UK, which has important implications for the West going forward.

Peter Hitchens sums up the surreal political dynamics at work within post-Brexit Great Britain. A nation which voted decisively to sever its ties to the unnatural, dysfunctional European superstate, yet now finds itself led by someone who wouldn’t look out of place at the European Commission. In fact, the former chair of the EC, now holding a lucrative sinecure advising Goldman Sachs, could serve as the model for Ms. May once she retires from 10 Downing Street. It truly is remarkable that the Conservative Party is now led by a full-fledged social justice warrior, with a concomitant dedication to militant feminism, sharia compliance and utterly meaningless political cliches. Someone who believes there’s a direct correlation between a fire department’s efficacy and the percentage of its employees who aren’t white.

It seems fitting that someone without the courage to campaign on behalf of her professed beliefs has become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom without the consent of her party’s voters. As Hitchens and other genuine conservaties have pointed out in the past, the people who ostensibly represent the British public are merely ciphers for special interests who could care less about the welfare of their constituents, so it’s perfectly reasonable for them to cut out the middlemen, i.e. Britons. Even the decision to give ordinary voters a chance to determine their country’s future is anathema to these folks, as countless post-Brexit op-eds lamenting the stupidity of David Cameron’s decision to hold this referendum make clear. The contempt the British elites and their accomplices among the rabble have for any potentially negative feedback or resistance to their aims is simply astonishing.

Another illustration of the disconnect between the managerial elite and the individuals they presume to rule is the Pavlovian response of feminists, among others, to innocuous remarks made by Theresa May’s former opponent about motherhood, which were naturally taken out of context by the likes of The Guardian. Even if Andrea Leadsom had questioned the commitment of May to the future of Great Britain because of her family’s lack of children, so what? Why is this is an illegitimate question at a time when the childless ruler of Germany has become the matriarch to millions of Muslims that are rapidly effacing a country which has been free and united for less than 3 decades? This reaction is particularly ironic coming from people who have spent the last half-century investing  every personal choice with political consequences.

Whether or not Theresa May will put the final nail in the coffin of the European Project-and it should be noted that her initial cabinet choices have won praise from some genuine conservatives, including Nigel Farage-remains to be seen. However, even if Brexit means Brexit, there is a larger question: where is the West headed? Civilization is under threat on multiple fronts, but the biggest challenge is internal. The picture postcard French Riviera is a jihadist breeding ground. Bavaria no longer means beautiful women dressed in dirndls or the Maibaum but being policed by people who come from countries like Egypt and Syria. The lovely river Thames flows through a city which would be unrecognizable to its former inhabitants. BTW, it’s not racist to discuss this diaspora, no matter how much it offends the sensibilities of Guardianistas.

This is not reactionary, anti-immigrant demagoguery or outlandish conspiracy theory, it’s reality. Remaining on the same path, with one or two cosmetic changes, is not prudence or enlightenment, it’s collective suicide. Once we’ve recognized that as a culture, we will have begun the process to preserve our world.

Correction: As the commenter below points out, Jason Richwine is a regular contributor to National Review Online. We regret the error. 

One of the benefits of the Trump campaign, regardless of one’s thoughts on the merits of a Trump presidency, is its exposure of the conservative establishment. The irony of an undisciplined and at times extremely uncouth candidate, whose grasp of policy is tenuous, to say the least, obliterating the intellectual veneer of a movement with hundreds of millions of dollars in endowments and countless scholars at its disposal is one which will be endlessly analyzed in the years to come. Professor George Hawley’s book, Right-Wing Critics Of American Conservatism, does not seek to analyze or deconstruct the Trump phenomenon, but it does hold some clues as to why Donald Trump has succeeded in dismantling a political infrastructure which has dominated the Republican Party for over half a century.

This book is a marvelous discovery for a number of reasons, not least because it provides a coherent, internally consistent definition of conservatism, as well as its ideological antipode, contemporary liberalism. After examining and rejecting several philosophical distinctions between the right and the left-including Thomas Sowell’s assertion that this divide reflects a difference in beliefs about the innate malleability of human nature-Hawley arrives at an intelligible cleavage between these two very broad political groupings. He asserts that the left/modern liberalism is an ideology which extols equality as the primary virtue above all others when considering how our society should be structured, whereas the right/conservatives view equality as a subsidiary or ancillary value within our society.

Although the goals of the left have shifted over the course of time, with campaigns to redistribute wealth and level economic inequalities being replaced by affinity groups emphasizing racial, sexual, and spiritual  identities-to the consternation of some traditional leftists-it has retained its emphasis on radical egalitarianism. Just as the right, with a  few exceptions, has always placed some other value above regimented equality. Professor Hawley is not the first scholar to make the observation that the modern conservative movement is largely a synthetic, artificial creation. The fact that it is a union of three widely disparate strands of right wing thought, i.e. foreign policy hawks, libertarians, and religious/traditionalist conservatives, is common knowledge.

However, he has broken new ground by exploring just how this tenuous marriage has made mainstream conservatism an ideology of such narrow public appeal, in a book which gives a respectful hearing to its most important right wing critics. In addition to examining the grievances voiced by paleoconservatives, Objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, among others who were drummed out of-or never invited in to-respectable conservatism, he also points up the hypocrisy of conservative icons such as William F. Buckley Jr., as well as his less impressive heirs, and asks some pointed questions. For example, why did a vociferous defender of Senator Joe McCarthy believe that the anti-Communism of the John Birch Society was beyond the pale? Also, why are the seemingly benign sociological observations of Jason Richwine worse than the anti-civil rights editorials from the early days of National Review?

While these stances could be chalked up to a natural Burkean evolution, a much more reasonable explanation is that the leaders of the conservative movement, or racket, as some would describe it, simply want to insulate themselves from any legitimate challenge from the right. While opponents of conservatives have always adhered to a policy of no enemies on the left, movement conservatism has taken precisely the opposite tack, making alliances of convenience with its ostensible enemies whenever popular right wing movements threaten its place within the political firmament. By imposing rigid constraints upon the range of  ideas which can be expressed, the conservative movement has simultaneously marginalized grassroots conservatism while emboldening and strengthening its theoretical enemies. Which explains why writers who enthusiastically support the dismemberment of unborn children up to the moment of birth remain well-respected members of the socially progressive commentariat, while conservative scholars who publish academically rigorous papers demonstrating the burden unskilled immigrants impose upon American taxpayers are ritualistically denounced and shunned by the likes of Rich Lowry and his peers.

These periodic purges of right wingers have real-world consequences, which Professor Hawley methodically illustrates in a book which those promoting a chimerical Ben Sasse candidacy, or the deus ex machina scenario envisioned by Bill Kristol, would benefit from reading. He demonstrates how unappealing mainstream conservatism has become to the  majority of the American electorate, despite the fact that conservatives still exert an outsized influence over American politics. There are a number of reasons for this, including the enormous and unrelenting demographic change imposed through mass immigration-a policy we’ve explored at length on this website-the increasing secularization of the American public, the lingering stigma of Bush administration failures both domestically and abroad, and finally, the almost complete cession of popular culture to the left. The investment that the conservative movement has made in politics over the past half-century has been complete, despite Andrew Breitbart’s trenchant observation that politics is downstream from culture.

It’s entirely possible that all of these developments collectively, or one of them in isolation, would have ultimately limited the appeal of mainstream conservatism to the American public. However, the epistemic closure within the conservative movement-and demonization of any intellectual on the right, whether it be Ayn Rand or Pat Buchanan, who defies its dogma-has created a situation where no one outside of the hermetically sealed world of Bucklyean conservatism is willing to seriously entertain its increasingly irrelevant arguments. The ossified nature of contemporary American conservatism, which, supply side economics aside, has changed remarkably little since the ascendancy of Goldwater Republicanism and the new right, is one of the main takeaways from this book.

Even as the cultural left has notched victory after victory-forcing mainstream conservatism to adopt  almost all of its central premises-the boundaries of acceptable discourse within the the respectable right have become more and more narrow. Thus, we have essays which could have been penned by Joan Walsh appearing in a magazine which describes itself as the most influential magazine and website for conservative news and opinion. The fact that there now exists an unbridgeable divide between conservative elites and their purported audience has been acknowledged by no less a conservative mandarin than Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal.

Whatever merit fusionism once held during the Cold War, its time has clearly passed. The splintering of the right-and consequent loss of power by its putative leaders-has opened up a long-suppressed discussion of what conservatism in its organic form means. Professor Hawley’s work is an invaluable starting point for that conversation.

Update: Neil Munro explores Speaker Paul Ryan’s bizarre Republican trinity.

I had the pleasure of attending an informal discussion held by writer/political pundit Fred Barnes recently, where the topics ranged from his biography of Jack Kemp-co-written with McLaughlin Group colleague Morton Kondracke-to his thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Taking place prior to the New York primary, and subsequent devastating losses by Ted Cruz to the now presumptive Republican nominee, it served as a fascinating overview of the internal divisions within the conservative establishment, which are even more pronounced now that the worst nightmare of many has come to fruition.

Even as Fred Barnes-like a handful of other Republican Party stalwarts-has maintained an anybody but Clinton posture-while delineating his many disagreements with Trump both tactically and strategically-the vast majority of thought leaders among formerly influential conservative think tanks, periodicals-as well as statesmen-seem to have taken the opposite tack. Some even going so far as to wholeheartedly embrace a woman who until relatively recently was seen as the bete noire of the establishment right. This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day that elapses.

A  Trump critic in the audience-who nonetheless came to the conclusion that he was infinitely preferable, given the options, to Hillary Clinton-asked a compelling question. Namely, from where does this deep-seated animus-and unrelenting energy to thwart Donald Trump’s election, to limited effect thus far-stem? Granted, he breaks from  Republican orthodoxy on a number of issues, but if that’s the crux of the problem, then why were there no comparable anti-Romney or anti-McCain movements by the conservative intelligentsia?

If it’s simply a matter of the support Trump has drawn from loathsome figures, then why was there no corresponding outrage when John McCain aligned himself with virulent Mexican chauvinist Juan Hernandez? I’ve never subscribed to the association fallacy, but it’s worth noting that Donald Trump has never enlisted the help of The Daily Stormer in order to cultivate his popularity among white ethnics. Is the galvanizing issue for the anti-Trump movement his use of vulgarity? As absurd as that seems, the chief complaint voiced by the Stop Trump Pac appears to be Donald Trump’s penchant for uttering naughty words.

In reality, I think their objection-and the animating reason for the existence of the Dump Trump movement-is a deeply rooted fear of their own increasing irrelevance. The idea that the bond between conservative intellectuals and successful Republican campaigns is largely illusory is something that those in the anti-Trump faction simply can’t countenance. Especially the ones who manage magazines which have exiled the few writers on their staffs with a modicum of talent and intellectual integrity from their pages.

The Stop Trump crusade-if that word isn’t too offensive-is something to occupy the energies of writers and editors at The Federalist, Red State, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and virtually every other conservative publication of any consequence, through the remainder of this election cycle. It’s a raison d’être for those who would otherwise be preoccupied telling poor white people they need to die and explaining why you’re not a Christian because you happen to support a candidate they dislike, although I’m almost certain we’ll see similar broadsides in the months ahead from those who believe you’re an idiot is a persuasive riposte.

For the record, none of the aforesaid criticism means that Donald Trump is an ideal candidate, or that I believe sincere Trump critics are grievously mistaken for opposing his candidacy. The truth is that there are many objectionable aspects of Trump as a potential POTUS. Although I have several disagreements with him, I think his shockingly ignorant remarks about the attempted massacre of courageous American patriots-including my dear friend Pamela Geller-in Garland, Texas-which, to the best of my knowledge, he’s never retracted-raise the most important questions about his fitness for office.

However, it strains credibility to use this valid concern as an excuse for endorsing a woman who-lest we forget-fought to have a critic of Islam thrown into a dungeon after her own catastrophically bad foreign policy decisions led to the deaths of a United States ambassador, foreign service officer, and 2 CIA contractors.

The decision to enlist in Hillary Clinton’s unceasing quest to sink her talons into the White House is only explicable as a psychological exercise. Namely, as a means of salving the guilty consciences of those who had no meaningful impact in the fight against Obamacare, the successful grassroots campaign to derail legislative amnesty, or any of the myriad cultural wars which have embroiled our nation over the past 2 decades. It’s a way of ignoring the fact that the premiere conservative conference is a venue for selling snake oil rather than exploring the ideas which actual conservatives care about.

And the more true conservatives maintain that the primary concern of millions Americans is immaterial to true conservatism, the more irrelevant these high priests of conservative dogma will become. Just as real alpha females don’t need an inane listicle explaining how to be an alpha female, real conservatives don’t need a hackneyed blogger at Red State or contemptuous John Malkovich lookalike at National Review to explain to them why the unmaking of their country is less important than thwarting the political aspirations of the first Republican presidential candidate to intently listen to their plight and express their reservations about the direction in which this country is headed.

As a political and ideological ethos, Dump Trump is an empty vessel. However, as a case of deflection, it explains a hell of a lot.

For those of you still laboring under the impression that Islam is not at war with the West-including the presumptive Democratic nominee for President-I have some shocking news. It turns out that the followers of Mohammed have other ideas. The plan to assassinate free speech, counterjihad activist Pamela Geller-which was, thankfully, thwarted through the work of the FBI and a tactically placed drone strike-was simply one of many plots devised by jihadist networks which have agents inside of the United States. Networks that have yet to be penetrated by American human intelligence and which now have a steady supply of recruits thanks to horrifically misguided immigration policies.

What should continue to infuriate those of you who have been paying attention is the way this issue is being framed by willfully ignorant and/or malicious hacks within the enemedia. A typical example of journalistic malpractice can be found in the Daily Mail, which-as Robert Spencer points out-has the strange distinction of being the newspaper most preoccupied with the Islamification of Europe while simultaneously denying that Islam itself is a problem. Apparently, the target of at least 2 known assassination plots provoked her would-be murderers by publicly dissenting from the dogma promulgated by the Fourth Estate’s favorite religion. A religion which is unique in enjoying blanket immunity from criticism.

Perhaps that has something to do with how adherents to the Religion of Peace deal with legitimate critiques of their faith. A pattern of violence and coercion that can be traced back to the founder of this religion, who himself didn’t countenance rational criticism. This campaign of brutality and intolerance has been so successful that it has silenced all but a few courageous voices in the West, which in turn makes it that much easier for jihadists to hunt down its intended targets, a reality which hasn’t been lost on Mark Steyn. It has also turned the mainstream media, ranging from commercial and public broadcasting networks-both radio and television-cable news, national and regional newspapers, and incredibly powerful websites into mouthpieces for the most retrograde, illiberal ideology known to man.

One wonders if the people asserting that Pamela Geller “provoked” these Islamic bombs-duds, fortunately, in this case-feel the same way about Gerard O’Neill and Dick Lehr. Did they provoke mobster James Bulger Jr. through their critical investigative reporting into his murderous criminal empire? What about controversial author and radio host Howie Carr? Was the grizzled Irish mobster nicknamed Whitey justified in his attempt to eliminate Carr for his insolence? Employing the logic used by the regressive left to slander Geller and her allies in the counter-jihad movement, one would come to that ineluctable conclusion.

What’s perplexing  is the implicit assumption that by blackening the name of  notorious “Islamophobes” and trying to preempt any public debate on the nature of Islam these journalists are assuring their own safety, which could not be further from the truth. The idea that you can somehow preserve the institutions of Western civilization  for yourself while eroding them for your perceived enemies-who actually believe in and exercise those values, unlike your reactionary Islamist allies-is a staggering form of cognitive dissonance. The brutal, globally shared execution of non-right wing, non-Islamophobic journalist Steven Sotloff should have demonstrated this, if the murder of dozens of other journalists, NGO workers, and even an Israel-hating, Italian Marxist did not. Somehow, the rather elementary notion that you can’t compromise with people who demand your complete and utter submission-up to and including your own death-hasn’t penetrated the minds of those who man North American and European news desks.

The collective amnesia these individuals must suffer from is astounding to contemplate. I would recommend reading The Camp of the Saints, a grim portrait of the future of the West, but I doubt it would change their minds, which seem predetermined to ignore any portions of reality which conflict with their surreal conception of human nature. Then again, there’s always the chance that some will come to their senses. If so, perhaps Pamela Geller won’t be our Cassandra. If not, we have a bleak future, and many regrets, ahead of us.

A small victory for freedom of thought in a nation which has gradually descended into the muck of fascism, aided in no small part by the wholesale importation of Islamic radicals. Paul Weston, himself a victim of political persecution for expressing wrong think, explains why Tommy Robinson is the #1 target of the British government in a disturbing essay for Gates of Vienna, which you can read here.

As frightening as what’s transpiring in the UK is to most rational human beings, the sad truth is that these anti-Western witch hunts could very well make there way to the United States, especially if a certain Democratic presidential candidate is elected. The stenographers for hate groups and jihad enablers like the SPLC and CAIR are already hard at work erecting a foundation to punish those who dare to voice reasoned criticism of the left’s favorite religion. Darkness has descended upon the West, and not simply in Europe; it’s time we woke up to that ineluctable truth. The time for dithering has ended; we need to stand up for our freedoms before they’re lost irrevocably.

Even though the political obituaries of the Clinton dynasty are already being written, it should be noted that due to the undemocratic nature of the Democratic Party primary process she is still ahead of her socialist opponent, Senator Sanders. So don’t expect Hillary to obligingly accept another unexpected defeat at the hands of a leftist insurgent, although trends do not augur in her favor.

An equally fascinating race is taking shape on the GOP side of the aisle, as the worried donor class tries to find a suitably pliant candidate to put forward as the anti-Cruz/Trump standard bearer. Daniel Larison has an astute analysis of this process-and why it is likely to fail-in The American Conservative.

Regardless of which candidates find themselves as the nominees in November, we are in all likelihood going to experience a very interesting presidential race in the months ahead. Buckle up, folks.

Although the upcoming presidential race occupies national media attention-to the exclusion of virtually every other political contest-one of the most exciting elections will be taking place in the state of Arizona later this year. Senator John McCain, who is singularly awful, is facing a remarkably strong challenge from Arizona state legislator Kelli Ward, a candidate who’s already garnered the endorsements of her fellow lawmakers. Whether or not she succeeds remains to be seen, however the fact that she’s challenging one of the worst members of the United States Senate-mull over that statement for a second-should earn the praise of any patriotic citizen.

To find out more about Kelli and her campaign, check out her official website! Hopefully, we’ll be seeing a lot more from her in the years to come.