Trump Can Win

From time to time, I set aside some time from my full-time career of advocating for identity and tradition to do some casual moonlighting as an analyst. I’m always open to feedback about my activism strategy, but one woefully repetitive angle relies on an appeal to authority that I’m supposedly some clueless maverick who would be doing things differently if I only understood marketing strategy, analytics, and samesuch nerd stuff. These types usually explain that our angle can “never work” because too many Americans are loyal to the Constitution, triggered by our symbolism, and in need of an especially polished angle.

Everything we’re doing is informed by analytics. I have generated hundreds of charts and reports over the years and what I feel that I’ve confirmed quantitatively is that the youth demographic we’re targeting simply isn’t going for soft angles, compromising language, and entryist “implicit whiteness” or “compassionate conservative” pablum. Millennials are starved for authenticity, masculinity, and full-throated radicalism…at least the ones which are plausibly accessible at this juncture.
You may be targeting different audiences for which paleoconservative language and symbolism work, but we are not. Your audience may be frightened by the Jewish Question, but ours demands absolute honesty or it instinctively tunes out. Our problem at this point is that we’re failing to successfully manage our rapid growth, falling behind on communication, fundraising inconsistently, and making other mistakes that catch up with organizations that aren’t prepared to scale as fast as they’re growing. Daily Stormer, TradYouth, and other projects which unabashedly and irreverently defy the movement’s conventional wisdom about what’s supposedly is going to play well are connecting with our target audiences and our performance metrics confirm that.

I feel that this phenomenon within our marginal political scene mirrors what’s happening right now in the macro with Donald Trump’s insurgent campaign. Admittedly, I’ve firmly underestimated how much strident realism is capable of playing with mainstream middle-aged audiences. Donald Trump is like Andrew Anglin for old people.

There are thousands and thousands of careerist political “experts” who’ve amassed a body of “wisdom” about how politics is supposed to work, and their very livelihoods depend on Trump flaming out. Back in July, they insisted that Trump’s campaign would flame out shortly. With each nonsensical “gotcha” scandal, they all confirmed in one voice that he’s toast.

Even now, as his likelihood of winning the Presidency firmly outstrips every other candidate’s, the “experts” are sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, “Trump’s not happening! Trump’s not happening!”

Tom McCarthy explains how this is all supposed to work in his recent article, “Here’s why Donald Trump won’t Win.”

But can Donald Trump really win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination?

Knowledgable people think he might. They include some journalists, some former Republican consultants and operatives, talk show host Bill Maher and a contestant from season three of NBC’s The Apprentice, who now is co-chairperson of Trump’s Iowa operation.

But more-knowledgable people think he won’t. They include the quants and geeks, some Republican consultants and operatives, and lots of political scientists.

Quants are especially dangerous to listen to, as they’ve become our postmodern witch doctors, men who insist with little if any accountability or oversight that they can foretell future statistical trends from past statistical trends. The gift for grasping the overarching mechanism of trends and the gift for technical analysis are separate gifts, and they rarely converge on the same mind. These quants don’t grasp the mechanism, and are invariably caught with their pants down by an unanticipated black swan event which shifts their paradigms out from under them, leaving the investors and politicians holding the bag when their esoteric gambling schemes roll snake eyes.

Even a perfectly random trading algorithm is going to make you appear smart in a rising market, and even a perfectly asinine and formulaic political strategy is going to make you appear smart in a political arena where every other candidate is also relying on a perfectly asinine and formulaic political strategy. At the national political level, the hegemony of these “political analyst” hucksters is unchallenged. A brief review of the sixteen GOP candidates all flailing around and flopping in almost exactly the same way is a symptom of this disease, a disease which is analogous to the common stock crashes which are largely the product of massively distributed algorithmic miscalculations.

A trio of political data experts empanelled by FiveThirtyEight for a podcast earlier this month estimated Trump’s chances of snagging the nomination at 2%, 0% and minus-10%, respectively.

Yeah. And if you had empaneled them a couple months earlier, they would have put his odds of being where he’s at today in the negative digits. Why these wonky witch doctors retain their grip on the commentariat’s imaginations while hoisting themselves on their own petards of statistical validation is beyond me. Some meta-analysis of the analysts is in order, where we carefully evaluate how predictive these professional predictors have proven to be. In doomer circles, Gerald Celente and Sebastian Ronin seem to get unlimited do-overs on re-winding their doomsday clocks, and these mainstream quants enjoy unlimited do-overs from the press and the politicians who pay top dollar for their modern mythologizing.

As several doomsday prophets can attest, a miscalculated rapture or two or three is only a minor obstacle.

“If Trump is nominated, then everything we think we know about presidential nominations is wrong,” Larry Sabato, head of the center for politics at the University of Virginia, wrote last week.


Their first argument for why Trump Can’t win is hilariously off-base. It relies on Rudy Giuliani’s early polling lead, implying the bogus conclusion that polling well at this stage is inversely correlated with victory. While even a truly dramatic lead at any point in time leading up to the election is no guarantee of victory, I think it can be safely stated, without cracking open Excel, that at absolutely every point in time leading up to the election, polling ahead of one’s opponents is positively correlated with victory.

What happened to Giuliani? He is said to have made tactical errors such as bad hires and ad buys. But the real explanation, many analysts think, is that Giuliani’s lead was a phantom lead. He was just ahead in the polls in a race most people were mostly ignoring.

This logic is perfectly upside-down. What candidacy in living memory has been ignored less than Trump’s candidacy at this early stage in the race? Everybody’s paying attention, to an absurd paradigm-shattering degree. Hell, the Republican Presidential Debate broke the cable viewership records!

“The other candidates [Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul] were not that well known. Over the course of the campaign, voters got to know the others.”

According to this logic, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, both exceedingly well-known to Iowa voters, would be polling somewhere above frostbite. What else is there to know about Mike Huckabee? He’s also a media celebrity in his own right within the relevant circles, and if it weren’t for crickets, he’d have no buzz at all. If anything, Trump’s phenomenon is actually pulling in the other direction, with peoples’ early impression being that he’s a wealthy liberal reality television huckster who “can’t win.” Trump came in with stronger negatives than any other candidate, and is handily grappling over that obstacle to his electoral victory.

In the first 13 Republican primary and caucus elections in 2012, the winner garnered an average of 41.8% of the vote. Trump is polling nationally at around 25%. Where do the extra 17 points come from?

First off, there weren’t sixteen candidates splitting the vote back in 2012, so a guy can win with a dramatically smaller fraction of the vote. Accounting for this, Trump’s easily outperforming his rivals. The short answer to the question is that the seventeen unnecessary points can easily come from the marginal candidates whose campaigns are currently on life support. Rand has a senate seat to defend. Huckabee has a punditry career waiting on hold. Ben Carson’s got some brains out there which could benefit from his world-class surgical expertise. Carly Fiorina’s got some more multinational corporations to drive into the ground.

Do you know anyone who is undecided about Donald Trump? Neither do most Americans. That’s because Trump is one of the most famous people in the country and is currently benefitting from grossly disproportionate media coverage. Everybody’s heard of Trump. Problematically for him, familiarity has not bred affection.

The more people learn about Trump, the more they’re liking him. This is borne out in polls. His poll numbers are steadily rising the more he talks and the more people learn about him, and his unfavorables are declining. What’s going on here is that the establishment has successfully pushed a myth early on that he’s an unsavory and unelectable buffoon. The thing about convincing people that a man’s unelectable ass is that all those people who like Trump but are persuaded that he’s not a serious option will stampede to him as this illusion lifts.

Trump does not have the support he needs from the Republican party to win the Republican nomination.

Once again, this is the kind of error you run into when you’re dealing with quants. They can’t see the strategic reality for the analytical trees. The point being made here is that historically, strong support from the party elites has proven pivotal (if not decisive) in determining who can and cannot win. Donald Trump’s campaign comprises a black swan event for this statistical inference, as he’s a billionaire who doesn’t need (or even want) a nod from the billionaire oligarchs who pull the strings.

Donald Trump is a billionaire oligarch in his own right, who can nod at himself and pull his own strings.

Trump looks more like Pat Buchanan – a well-known, polarizing figure whose passionate backing in one wing of the GOP (the anti-immigrant wing, incidentally) failed to attract mainstream voters, much less establishment support.

[…] [J]udging by how many people have an unfavorable view of Trump. As bad as his figures are among Republicans, they are much worse with the population as a whole. The recent Quinnipiac poll found Trump with minus-14 favorability rating in Florida, a minus-22 rating in Ohio and a minus-21 rating in Pennsylvania.

Once again, Trump can’t be fed into this prefabricated political model, either. Trump and Pat may share some superficial similarities, but Trump’s neither a staunch conservative nor an intellectual. Trump absolutely can and absolutely will manage to pivot harder to the left if and when it’s appropriate for his campaign to do so. Pat neither could credibly pull off the kind of swift pivot to the center that Trump’s uniquely capable of, nor would he compromise his cherished intellectual principles.

Trump’s the penultimate strategist, and his staunch position on border control has absolutely nothing to do with conservative ideology and everything to do with managerial pragmatism. Contra what many in our circles are presuming and projecting, Donald Trump has no special love for White people. As an experienced manager of vast complex institutions, he sees our immigration situation for the objective managerial disaster that it is. I oppose both legal and illegal immigration out of identitarian concern for my people…White people. Both fellow identitarians and the liberal establishment assume falsely that Trump shares this motivation when there’s every indication that he’s coming at the illegal immigration problem from an entirely different perspective.

Illegal immigration has proven a great issue to make a splash with in the early stage of the Republican primary, but Trump can and will roll out other positions–and his pitch will prove persuasive–as his campaign approaches the general election. He’ll roll out proposals for infrastructure investment which will give paleolibertarians a stroke, social issue positions which will give Evangelicals the vapors, and outreach to minorities which will cause a good share of racial nationalists who currently favor him to destroy perfectly good laptops.

Personally, I’m still generally favorable toward his candidacy even as I foresee these betrayals, because sealing the border is of generational significance transcending all these disposable controversies like gay “marriage” and transgendered serviceman surgery, and because the Washington establishment, neocon hardliners, and Jewish commentariat are in a blind panic over his candidacy. I take a sadistic glee in inflicting Trump’s campaign on these oligarchs even if it doesn’t manage to prove beneficial for my own interest. At worst, a Trump victory will prove at least a Pyrrhic victory for my cause. It’s already done enough to shatter taboos relating to immigration issues to pay for itself.

Curiously, this confused disaster of an article entitled, “How Trump Can’t Win” concludes with a persuasive case for why he absolutely can win.

But Karol warned against writing Trump off.

“It’s hazardous to predict Trump’s trajectory,” Karol said. “He is unique. We’ve had candidates who could be compared to him in certain respects.

“There are other candidates who have been populist outsiders. There are other candidates who have been independently wealthy and able to self-finance. There are other candidates who have been very good at working the media. There’s been the businessman who enters into politics.

“There hasn’t been anybody, though, when you put it all together, who is quite like Trump.”


Matt Parrott

Some anti-White who thinks he can hold a candle to Bill White’s masterful insider satire of White Nationalism with his blog, took a swipe at me: The White Nationalist Buzz About Trump.

Who is stupid enough to do that? Who is stupid enough to wave around a Swastika on a coffee mug when you are trying to convince a reporter that you represent the average person? And then after Parrott obviously screws up royally, he whines like a little bitch about how he was portrayed.

FIrst off, it was an innocent oversight. And secondly, I’ve not attempted to convince anybody that I represent the average person for several years. That was the critical break between Hoosier Nation and TradYouth, rejecting the notion that we can or should reach people by incremental persuasion rather than by radical conversion. What we’re trying to do isn’t negatively impacted by a stray swastika mug.

He accuses me of anti-semitism, a charge which I’m not really capable of defending myself against. The fact that the guy thinks his blog has the slightest to do with and then accuses folks of anti-semitism for the rather benign crime of pointing out that the reporter is indeed a Jew who is actively policing discourse for anti-semitism is laughable.

He also calls me a “Trump Supporter.” What prominent folks in the movement have been more guarded about Trump than myself? My first article about him, “Don’t Be Trump’s Chump,” warned against putting our eggs in his basket. The article I just posted further underscored my point, predicting that he would compel racial nationalists to go into a blind rage when his campaign eagerly reaches out to minorities in the future.

And my article didn’t, as he claim, whine about Osnos’ sneers at us. It began with a frank admission that they all despise us and should be expected to sneer at us, then went on to explain how he’s actually the crazy one rather than ourselves. I didn’t whine at all.


Oh Bill White haven’t heard that name in awhile, he used to harass a black real estate agent here in Roanoke awhile back, because he also had the name Bill White. The guy actually a friend of mines address to his website, and he was in a fued with this said friend.

Thomas Buhls

We all know by now that my prediction about Trump didn’t pan out. That’s probably because I, too, made the mistake of thinking that he was just another politician. I honestly didn’t think he would be doing this well right now.

He has, so far, had the luxury of being able to dominate the microphone and shout-down or eject people who want to compete for his mic time. I still believe that Trump’s numbers are going to take a hit (more than a small one) at the next big debate, because he won’t have the option of dodging or shouting-down his opponent. However, it also looks like Trump’s supporters won’t care about the tight spot that Trump will find himself in for the next debate.

Matt Parrott

Trump’s actually at least as sharp as the rest of the pack on policy details, he’s a natural and experienced showman, and he knows how to strut around like a banty rooster and act like he said something coherent even when he’s stumped, …so I wouldn’t bet against him in the debates.

That’s his home turf, in my opinion.

What I think could end up hurting Trump is pivoting to the left too soon. Even though it’s helping him in the polls with republican caucus-goers at the moment to be pigeonholed as a radical right-winger, he’s got to walk a tightrope between maintaining his right-wing cred in order to maintain his lead in the early caucus states and avoiding being so typecast as a right-winger that he can’t credibly pivot toward the center when the general election comes into view.

If he does it too early, he’ll spin out, and if he does it too late, he’ll burn out.


Interesting analysis. Lots of time left in this election cycle and anything can happen.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say, don’t be surprised when Trump gets the Repub nomination, blows it, and we end up with Hillary.

Call it a hunch.

Matt Parrott

My haters are always falling back on my supposedly being fat and goofy looking.

1. According to this chart, I’m at about the 80th percentile for weight relative to my height. This is perhaps less than ideal, but I don’t feel that it merits the attention it receives.

2. I’ve never disputed being goofy looking. Nigel Farage has trailblazed the radical notion that a guy can be downright goofy looking and not resign himself to abstaining from political work and retreating from public life.

3. Perhaps I’m more fat ‘n goofy than I realize. The guy with that sort of problem is often the last to know. Perhaps I should objectively resolve this, and agree to resign in shame if I score below a 3.0 at if that site’s still going.

4. The one the IronMensch edgelords prefer is that I’m “autistic.” Maybe I am and maybe I’m not, but I socialize more than most (despite a disinclination, perhaps), am a fully functioning independent adult, and I try my best not to spill my spaghetti.

5. The uncomfortably personal nature of the vast majority of the attacks on me and my work imply that either the point of them is to get under my skin or that my work is above reproach that they’re left with no option but to go all middle school cafeteria on me.

6. I fully concur that the cause could certainly benefit from the presence of more thin and handsome fellows like Scott Terry.


Not to get all serious, but every time someone tells me I don’t have an impressive physique or that I’m not intelligent enough for my ambitions, or any such petty criticisms, I’m reminded that God delights in using the weak among us to shame the strong….the unwise to frustrate the wise…those who are not, to nullify those who are.


I don’t either Shotgun but I’m not fat, I woke up asked my boyfriend in bed today, and asked if I was fat he said no. I have an moderate athletic build as a woman from playing sports and working out, if you aren’t obese you’re still in good health. I’m sure you look you both look pretty good, but I haven’t seen a pic of either you or Matt to judge. If you guys are nice smart fellows, any women of right wing viewpoints would be happy to date either of you.


Ok, but what’s the elites’ agenda with him? Is he part of the agenda, and if not are they going to let him win and try to neutralize him or prevent him from winning or what?

Matt Parrott

Personally, I think he’s more of an existential threat to the mid-range elites than he is to the more esoteric elites. He doesn’t answer to K Street, but there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t be intimidated by and/or willing to “negotiate” with the J Street elites.

You don’t achieve his power-level without having a pretty good grasp of Jewish Power and its invisible perimeter fence around political discourse and action. If he ends up “negotiating a better deal” with Organized Jewry on behalf of his civic national agenda instead of quixotically attempting to defeat or ignore them, I reckon that’d be pretty nifty…

Jack Spratt

Trump absolutely can and absolutely will manage to pivot harder to the left if and when it’s appropriate for his campaign to do so

Why should Trump pivot to the left? A poll from August 2015 found birthright citizenship is a +16 issue with the general electorate:

The poll also found 54 percent of Americans oppose “birthright citizenship” when children born to illegal immigrants automatically become United States citizens, which is now the case. Thirty-eight percent favor the current policy of automatic citizenship for these children.

Another poll from July 2015 from that +20 of the general electorate agree with Trump that illegal immigration increases serious crime:

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just five percent (5%) think illegal immigration decreases the level of serious crime in this country, while 33% say it has no impact on crime.

The general electorate is a lot further to the right on immigration than is generally understood or acknowledged. The real difference between Trump and Buchanan is that Buchanan’s anti-Zionism made the charges of anti-semitism by the media stick with the Israel loving Republican base, especially in heavily evangelical South Carolina.

Trump can and should triangulate against the libertarian corporate whores who spend all their time sniffing the stock-straps of CEOs and Hedge Fund managers. In a general he should say he wants to cut taxes on the middle class but increase taxes on the rich. He should also do basically what he’s doing now in terms of putting very little emphasis on social issues.

But he needs to stay hard right on immigration. That’s the key to victory against the Democrat: That the White working class is angry at the Democratic Party’s support of illegal immigration and would love to vote for a guy like Trump who is pretty hardline on immigration but who isn’t an anti-working class corporate whore like Scott Walker and his type.

Matt Parrott

I heartily agree with your analysis, here.

His trajectory will be decided by whether he pivots to the left intelligently (anti-corporate, populist, etc…) or clumsily (watering down on immigration).


I think you are absolutely right in comparing Trump to Anglin.

Both are charismatic figures who have, in a relatively short amount of time, jumped past many competitors to attract an almost unbelievably huge following.

And both are leading their followers absolutely nowhere. With the game they both play of highly selective intelligence they keep everyone guessing, is this a strange combination of genius and idiot? Or just more controlled opposition?

My take on both is the latter. We all know the best way to control the opposition is to lead it, and both are far to smart to play dumb on the things they do. Many distrust both men, and with good reason.

Many are searching for a real leader and not finding him anywhere. In either mainstream politics, or this seriously stalled “White Nationalist movement”.

Matt Parrott

And both are leading their followers absolutely nowhere.

Trump just literally started a few weeks ago, so it’s way too early to accuse him of having failed to deliver, yet.

As for Anglin, this Duke v. Jones thing was largely instigated by him and his minions, then publicized and popularized by him and his minions. That’s some pretty solidly quantifiable “good work.”

Is Anglin some messianic Hitler figure? That’s the wrong question to ask. He’s not claiming to be. If Anglin’s controlled opposition, then the short solution would be for somebody who’s not to do what he did, create a $100/year WordPress blog and outperform him at what he does.


It’s interesting how controlled opposition works. Controlled opposition does not sit back and do nothing; if they did that they would have zero credibility. Rather they do enough to gain people’s trust doing what looks good on the surface. But in the long run their efforts don’t amount to much if anything.

It’s a great tactic, used by the Communists since the beginning and still being used because it works.

It’s true it can be difficult telling who is controlled and who just has blind spots. But why should you trust people who exhibit insightful independent thinking is some areas, while refusing to consider clear facts in others? These individuals become even more questionable when the same blind spots are shared across the board (Jews are working to destroy us but clearly had no role in 9/11, or Jews are working to destroy us, let’s ignore all the Jewish actors used in obviously staged media hoaxes; how about the government is waging genocide on us, but would never use known weather modification technology against us, etc etc).

Different “pro-White” forums, same ideology across the board, it really is no different than how CNN and Fox promote the same basic ideology under the guise of offering viewers a “choice”, while clearly being controlled by the same foreign lobby.

For the record, the Duke/Jones debate happened because a caller (Fred?) called into Jones show and asked for it. And Dr. Duke wasted no time in making sure everyone knew he had accepted the offer. Anglin promoted it, but didn’t instigate it.

As for starting different websites, that’s not for everyone. You pretty much have to be in a position where that’s what you do for a living, or don’t need to make a living, and that’s going to exclude just about everyone of adult age who’s not in a position to retire very soon. And there are many other ways to contribute online. Youtube, Infowars, prepper forums and quality blogs, that’s where you can reach a wider audience anyway, other than endless preaching to the choir under an admin that has such a narrow range of what it considered acceptable conspiracy theory (Jews control the US gov’t) and what is not (media hoaxes, HAARP technology).

I think most who start yet another blog/forum are in it for the glory anyway; those who post Truth anonymously serve only Truth. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Some notable examples however, I’m very impressed with Michael Aydinian’s work.

As for Trump, we will see. We’ll know about him soon enough, only 15 months left in this election cycle.

Sorry about the length, probably tl;dr for most.

Fr. John+

Great avoidance of what Parrott asked of you, but we’re not buying it. You’re nothing but contolled opposition, both here and over at AA’s site.


Look at how “Wulfrick” is openly threatening vikaryan for exposing Jewish Supremacy on Stormfront. How does he get away with it?

The site is not run by those who truly oppose Jewish Supremacists. It’s controlled opposition.

As for you John, if you had actually ever read the Gospels you would know the consequences for damning another. Did you you ever show a shred of remorse for your action? Did you even stop for a minute to consider what you had done?

No, of course not. That’s chutzpah!

As well as complete unbelief in the teachings of Christ. You’re not fooling any true Christian.

I told you once already, take the Fr. off from your screen name.

Fr. John+

I don’t go to SF. Too many neo-pseudo pagans, and Fed agent poseurs.

Fr. John+

Mr. Parrott, I believe you completely miss what Trump is doing, who is is, and why he is succeeding. Your comment that Trump is AA for old people, I guess, applies to me, as a 50-plus veteran of this planet. However, I, as an oldster, read AA for his insights, and didn’t know of Trump except for ‘You’re fired,’ before his meteoric ascent. So, I’ve come to witness Trump first hand, from the mouths of you young punks, actually.

But waffle to the Left? Seriously?? Trump has a TOTALLY CLEAR FIELD with the right, and to even hint that he would throw true conservatives under the Meh-hee-coh bus, would turn his supporters off faster than you can say Obamacare. And your figures are off. I just read he’s now at 40%.

No, Trump needs to get a speechwriter, to appear less bumptious. He needs to stick to the script, and allow someone like Coulter to write in his jokes. That may be his downfall, if any. But become what he is not, at present? I don’t see it, unless Donald is just messing with us, and is himself, controlled opposition. And if ‘HHHHHHHeb’ becomes the candidate, I’m holding liturgies of malediction against the pseudo-American, and his munchkin mate. It would be sacreligious to have him besmirch the White House any more than it already has been, under the Antichrist from Indonesia. Take us home, Lord Jesus, before we perish. Deo Volente.


Trump now vowing to undo the Iran treaty, and is openly putting the interests of a foreign nation ahead of the one he intends to lead.

Nothing about opposition to the Iran treaty makes any sense. As has been pointed out elsewhere, why all this supposed concern for Iran “developing” nuclear weapons? They have enough money and connections with Russia to simply buy all the weapons they would want.

Answer – more territory and resources for Jew-Israel. At our expense.

Iran is huge and has close partnerships with both China and Russia. So who’s ready to sacrifice their sons, to fight and die for Nentanyahu?


The Iranians have offered exactly zero meaningful support for dissident whites in the West, not even moral support or lip service. Press TV promotes Jewish anti-white narratives. If setbacks for Iran and Russia are the cost of giving Trump a shot at power that he might use to help white Americans a little bit, I’ll take that deal.


Agreed on all points. Still, when the Jewish State is pushing us in any certain direction, my instinct is to avoid going there.


Donald Trump looks like a 90’s Radovan Karadzic, am I the only one that thinks this? Maybe he fought in the Bosnian War lol. Trump could win who knows, but mainstream American politics does nothing for me.


Trump is going to get his clock cleaned and it’s going to be hilarious. I cant wait for all you white power fools to have to cry your racist fat as$es to sleep. As long has trump bent over this far, he might as well ask for a free hernia check from bernie, hillary and the left wing.

I hope bernie get elected to some cabinet position so we can finally put a jew in high office. How else are we supposed to run the world.

Leave a Reply