The national media campaign against Donald Trump is unprecedented.  All pretense to “objectivity” has been thrown out the window in an effort to keep the populist wing of the GOP out of the White House.  Nary a day goes by that the Washington Post or the New York Times doesn’t run a hit piece targeting the candidate’s alleged sins.  And foreign countries have weighed in, with the Ukrainian government releasing a “secret ledger” linking Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to cash payments made by the Party of Regions—kicked out of power by the U.S.-supported “revolution.”  Manafort resigned, his place taken by Stephen K. Bannon, the publisher of

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s scandals are kept out of the headlines, including the Clinton Foundation’s shameless cash-for-favors operation, in which major donors like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and a host of European countries poured money into the foundation while being granted favored treatment by the Clinton State Department.  Her outright lying to the American people about sending and receiving classified information on her unsecured email server is also pointedly ignored.  And her apparently significant health issues, as she totters through campaign appearances, are derided by the media as just another right-wing conspiracy theory.

Imagine how the media will cover her if she wins the White House!  And imagine how they will cover her wars, which are sure to be numerous.  If you thought the Fourth Estate was complicit in the run-up to the Iraq war, “reporting” the ginned-up “intelligence” justifying the invasion, then you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Remember, Hillary was the main mover of the Libya invasion, which ended in disaster.  She was also the biggest cheerleader for U.S. intervention on behalf of Islamic “rebels” in Syria, who defected in droves to ISIS and now form the military backbone of the Caliphate.  Saudi petrodollars like those that poured into the Clinton Foundation’s coffers have funded the Islamic insurgency in Syria—and if she takes the Oval Office, the U.S. will lead a joint Saudi-Israeli effort to crush Bashar al-Assad and confront the Russians in the region.

A Clinton Restoration will be the signal that Cold War II is beginning.  The Clintons have always been Russophobic: Recall the Kosovo war, where Clintonian Gen. Wesley Clark almost started World War III by trying to launch an attack on Russian troops at the Pristina airport.  Bill Clinton sought to insert American power deep in the steppes of Central Asia: In the summer of 1998, he set up a new office, the Secretary for Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy, the purpose of which was to facilitate the building of the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline in order to bring oil to European markets, bypassing the Russians.  Richard Morningstar, a high-priced corporate lawyer, was appointed to the position.  The pipeline was complete in 2005, and the first oil was pumped in 2006.  Morningstar later went to work for Madeleine Albright at the Albright Stonebridge Group, which makes investments in countries that have experienced Washington-backed regime change.

The migration of the neoconservatives to Camp Hillary has been quite a sight to see: Robert Kagan, one of their chief theoreticians, threw a fundraiser for her.  Max Boot, infamous for once bemoaning the lack of American casualties in the first months of the Iraq war, and author of a Weekly Standard piece making the case for an “American empire,” has endorsed her, and spends hours on Twitter attacking Trump and pushing her candidacy.  And the Clinton campaign has run an online video featuring Boot’s endorsement and has cited none other than Bill Kristol, the neocons’ little Lenin, in a fundraising email.  Meanwhile, those “liberals” who once denounced Boot and his ilk as “warmongers” have nothing to say about this odd alliance.

Not that there is really anything all that odd about it.  Neocons are not real conservatives.  They endorse the “progressive” domestic agenda, with only a few modifications.  Their concept of America as a “universal nation,” a “nation of immigrants”—an idea rather than an actual place—is certainly compatible with the multiculturalist dogma of the left.  And when it comes to foreign policy, it is Hillary Clinton, and certainly not Trump, who embodies the militant interventionism that is the hallmark of the neoconservative faction.

What we are seeing with the Trump versus Clinton battle is the long-awaited realignment of American politics.  The Republican Party will never return to the neoconservative prison in which it has been ensconced since 2001: While the neocons may try to force the prisoner back into his cage, their efforts to recapture the GOP will end in failure.  The neocons’ future is in the Democratic Party, where their natural inclinations toward Big Government and “humanitarian” invasions (which wind up destroying entire countries) have landed them this election season.