Bolshevic Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton 42-4 among Texas Gamers

SAN ANTONIO, Texas /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — NAVGTR CORP. — Young voters turned out in droves to support Bernie Sanders in San Antonio.  A mock Iowa caucus was held at the Penny Arcade Expo South (PAXS), a gaming festival drawing tens of thousands.

The caucus event was titled, “Decision 2016: Vote on Game ‘War of Awards’ or Donald Trump,” organized by the National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers (NAVGTR) for the Official PAXS panel schedule.

A 450-seat room was packed with 332 caucus-goers, clearly dominated by Democratic voters with only 24 self-declared Republican voters.  “All night there was a clear enthusiasm gap between those who were willing to climb over people in their rows of seats and those who chose to sit and watch impartially,” said academy president Thomas Allen.  “The plan was to clear half the room of chairs to have a large open space, but time was working against us.”

Among the caucus-goers, about 73 people voted publicly for the presidential candidates.  Forty-two Bernie Sanders supporters flooded the voting floor, while four and three people stood for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, respectively.

Among Republicans, Ted Cruz won with 8 votes.  Rand Paul was a close second with 7 votes.  Marco Rubio held in the top three with 5 votes.  Jeb Bush received two votes.  Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump received 1 vote each.

Game players also expressed who they thought should win the industry D.I.C.E. and Game Developers Choice Awards.  The crowd established fan-favorite front-runners such as “The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt” for Achievement in Character (DICE), “Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain” for Game Design (GDC), “Undertale” for Innovation (GDC), and “Ori and the Blind Forest” developer Moon Studios for Best Debut (GDC).

In the final vote, “Fallout 4” won Game of the Year with an estimated 32 votes.  Even among gamers, supporters were therefore more able to consolidate top-tier votes behind Bernie Sanders than any one video game:

Presenters included Larry Asberry Jr., Vanessa Fernandez, Colby Sites, Justen Andrews, Geoff Mendicino, and George Wood.

The National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers announces its own nominations February 9.  Entries have been extended to a February 1 deadline.  NAVGTR will caucus again at South by Southwest (SXSW) and the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) Networking Event on March 15, 2016.  Subscribe at for updates.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Four Types of Socialists

GOP Debate: Trump Was the Winner

Perhaps it was a first: a man winning a debate by not showing up. That’s my take, anyway, that Donald Trump prevailed at Thursday night’s GOP debate. Although, something curious did happen after the event that gives me pause for thought, but more on that later.

The debate served to draw a significant and sharp contrast on today’s top (or almost so) issue, immigration — between Trump and the rest of the field. When the Fox News moderators showed Marco Rubio on video repeatedly saying he wouldn’t support amnesty, even by another name, and then Megyn Kelly pointed out that he went on to be part of scamnesty group the Gang of Eight, it was a stake-through-the-heart moment. Even more amusingly, Jeb Bush chimed in and tag-teamed with Kelly; he emphasized that not only did Machiavellian Marco support the amnesty, but repeated at least twice that Rubio asked him to support it as well. Bush said that he did so and that what Rubio did was the right thing, but then castigated the Florida senator for cowardly retreating from his position. So there you had one guy trying to wriggle out of supporting stupidly disastrous policy being cornered by another guy who was proud of his stupidity. I guess it’s what happens when a wholly resistible force meets a thoroughly movable object. But three things occur to me:

  1. I now completely believe the reports about large non-indigenous snakes invading Florida.
  2. Oranges aren’t the only mandarins in the state.
  3. Trump should send Bush a check (if I didn’t know better, I’d think Bush signed on with the Trump campaign).

Video of Senator Ted Cruz supposedly supporting the Gang of Eight bill also was played, and, even though Cruz said he was manipulating the Democrats at the time, I suspect it didn’t help him with the voters. Cruz explained his position better in an interview with Kelly after the debate than he did during it, pointing out that he was exposing liberal hypocrisy. To wit: the Democrats claimed they just wanted to “bring people [illegals] out of the shadows,” so Cruz introduced an amendment that would remove the promise of citizenship from the bill but allow for “legalization.” The idea was, “Okay, if emigration from Shadowville is all you want, legalization will do it.” But the Democrats balked, said Cruz, saying they’d kill the bill if it had such an amendment. This put the lie to their claims, proving (again) that what they’re interested in is importing undocumented Democrats, as 70 to 90 percent of the illegals will vote Democrat upon being naturalized.

Nonetheless, understanding that kind of political maneuvering takes attentiveness and sophistication, so it’s hard to imagine the video of Cruz helping his cause.

Most striking, though, was the complete dislocation from reality exhibited by all the candidates on terrorism. The night was heavy with talk about building up the military and fighting Da’esh (ISIS), and securing our open back door to Mexico was mentioned. And rightly so. Yet not one candidate would second Trump’s call to suspend Muslim immigration, and some, such as Bush, criticized the idea. Of course, the phenomenon is understandable. Westerners are awash in immigrationism, multiculturalism, religious-equivalence doctrine and stupidity (but I repeat myself), and a fault common to man is that a building has to fall on him before he’s able to break free from established thinking patterns. But here’s the reality:

We suffer from a collective delusion.

FACT: Terrorism today is a Muslim phenomenon, meaning, virtually all the terrorists now bedeviling the West are Islamic jihadists. And it’s just a numbers game: if over time we admit one million Muslims and just one-tenth of one percent are terrorist-minded or will become so, that’s 1000 dangerous jihadists.

My figure is likely conservative. But the point is that if this were the 1970s, when the Weathermen were planting bombs, and we knew that a certain class of prospective immigrants shared their ideology, would we admit them? Look, here’s the reality:

We’re under no obligation to accept any class of immigrants — or any immigrants at all. Where is it written that the U.S. must be the flophouse, soup kitchen and doormat for the world? If immigration doesn’t benefit the host country, guess what?

It doesn’t happen.

Period. Full stop. We don’t have to explain it. We don’t have to apologize for it. We don’t have to feel bad about it. And if it’s questioned, our only response should be, “So when did you become a traitor?”

The issue of Muslim immigration came up when the debate moderators played a video from the YouTube audience, from a “Muslim” young lady who lamented the rise in anti-Islamic feeling in America. I have her descriptive in quotation marks because she was quite Western, exhibiting a sartorial splendor that would inspire a beating by Da’esh and speaking perfect English. She said that the anti-Islamic sentiment would only encourage Muslims to become terrorists, and Bush chimed in and agreed.

This is lunacy. It’s this inane, projection-inspired idea that unless we’re truly, amazingly, unbelievably nice — bend over backwards and prove to the world what lovable, harmless little fuzz balls we are — well, these jihadists are really, really gonna’ get mean.

The truth is quite the opposite. Bush et al. should watch this interview with Dr. Nicolai Sennels on the “psychology of Islam and Muslims.” Dr. Sennels is a Danish psychologist who for years worked in prison with Muslim youth. Among other things, he points out that Islamic culture is radically different from what you’re used to: Muslims view displays of anger and violence as synonymous with manliness, and they respect shows of force.

And if you react to aggression with passivity and kindness, they view it as weakness and hold you in contempt. They not only will think you can be vanquished — but that you deserve to be.

One might also want to ponder this German study involving 45,000 young people; it found that while increasing religiosity among Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among Muslim youths actually made them more violent.

Wake up, you people in the Bushes; it’s later than you think.

Now we come to the curious post-debate happening. Pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group, and one question concerned their feelings on Rubio; you know, the guy not only proven via video to be completely dishonest, but who supported a culture-rending scamnesty bill. When Luntz asked how many in the group had planned on voting for Machiavellian Marco coming into the debate, about three people raised their hands. And after the debate?

Forty to fifty percent of those present did.

Beam me up, Scotty. It just renews my faith in my lack of faith in the average voter. But the explanation probably lies with a study some years back showing that if a person is articulate and eloquent, he’ll sway people regardless of what he actually says. It’s style over substance, and the slick-talking, eye-candy Florida python has the former in abundance.

Having said this, my guess is that Rubio only swayed some undecided low-info voters, and it certainly won’t be enough to change his fortunes. As for the biggest presence on stage Thursday night, it was a man who wasn’t even there.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to


Conservatism Isn’t Dead

Writing on the Wall for the GOP? Part II: A Post-GOP Future?

Progressivism Throws Money at Problems. Conservatism Solves Them.

U.S. Census Bureau: Demographic and Economic Profiles of Iowa’s Electorate

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In advance of the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, the Census Bureau presents a variety of statistics that give an overall profile of each state’s voting-age population and industries. This is the first in a series of such profiles for all the states holding primaries or caucuses. Statistics include:


SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau

Bloomberg for President?

Amid reports that the FBI is close to recommending that the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified materials, and that FBI Director James Comey and other agency personnel investigating Clinton may resign if the DOJ refuses to do so, sources close to Michael Bloomberg say the billionaire former mayor of New York City may run for president if Clinton appears unable to win the Democratic Party’s nomination.

CBS New York reports, “[t]hey say Bloomberg would strongly consider running if the general election looked like it would be a contest between Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republicans Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.” Bloomberg, who has let on that he would be willing to spend 1 billion dollars on a campaign, is expected to make his decision by March. Four states are holding their presidential primaries and caucuses in February, and another 14 will do so on Super Tuesday, March 1st.

Appearing unfazed by her troubles, Clinton insists “nothing that I did was wrong” and said of the Bloomberg news, “the way I read what he said was if I didn’t get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I’m going to relieve him of that and get the nomination, so he doesn’t have to.”

Unfortunately, from Clinton’s perspective, that may be a fairly big “if.” Polls show her being trounced by Sen. Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire and also losing Iowa, where the country’s first presidential primaries and caucuses will be held, and that her national figures are dropping. Other polls show that more Americans view her unfavorably than favorably.

Fox News reports, “[t]he FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.” Fox followed up on the story on Tuesday, saying, “The security investigation is now part and parcel with the criminal [public corruption] investigation.”

Bloomberg must theorize that he could appeal to voters on the basis of his success as a businessman and his time as the mayor of the nation’s most populous city. But he faces a difficult “if” of his own. Clinton been casting herself as the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history, a distinction Bloomberg would certainly want to challenge if he threw his hat into the ring. Also, and perhaps for the same reason, a Morning Consult poll released this week found Bloomberg at 13% in a hypothetical three-way race against Donald Trump and Clinton, 11% when the Republican candidate is Sen. Ted Cruz, and down to 10% when the Republican is Sen. Marco Rubio.

Bloomberg might be able to bump those numbers up among Democrats a bit, if he promised to pardon Clinton on the first day of his presidency. That would not only endear him to Clinton’s most fanatical supporters, it would wipe the slate clean, at least legally-speaking, for someone who shares his deep antipathy for guns. With public opinion trending steadily against gun control, a President Bloomberg couldn’t afford to have one of his strongest anti-gun allies in court or in prison.

Hillary Adjusts Her Gun Control Message and Volume for Different Audiences

Hillary Clinton is not known for her sincerity and forthrightness.

In fact, a poll conducted last September by Suffolk University/USA Today demonstrated that more than one in five voters associate some term of deceitfulness with Clinton, including “liar,” “dishonest,” “untrustworthy,” and “fake.” This followed an earlier Quinnipiac University poll that found, “’Liar’ is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton.” And that one followed similar findings from CNN/ORC International. Et cetera.

Like Abraham Lincoln said, “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

But you can’t fault Hillary Clinton for trying her level best to do just that.

Regular observers of Hillary Clinton know for a fact she is no fan of the Second Amendment. We know, for example, she thinks the Supreme Court was “wrong” to declare that it’s an individual right, that self-defense is its “core” purpose, and that it prohibits the government at all levels from banning handguns. We also know that she is open to the idea of a mandatory, nationwide surrender of firearms, along the lines of what Australia did.

So we can at least credit her for being honest about that.

Well, sort of, anyway.

Those statements are now part of the public record, and we’ll gladly remind the public of them every chance we get.

But not everybody follows politics closely … not even everybody who votes.

So Hillary Clinton is counting on Americans to have short memories and limited awareness during the general election this year.

For now, she is willing to pander to her base and try to position herself to the left of primary challenger Bernie Sanders by harping on gun control … at least some of the time. She believes that message will resonate with the much smaller and more ideologically-oriented segment of the population that chooses a candidate in the primary election. But will she be singing the same tune if (and likely when) she faces the general electorate in a bid for the White House?

Not if a recent Associated Press (AP) analysis of her primary political ads is any indication. As an article in the D.C. Caller put it, “The Hillary Clinton campaign wants to both highlight her staunch support of gun control laws, but also obscure those views in places where it may hurt her at the polls.”

According to the AP, 1 of every 4 of her televised political ads in New Hampshire touts her support for tougher gun control. Meanwhile, in Iowa, only in 1 in 17 ads mention Clinton’s support for stronger gun control and in a less strident way. As University of Iowa Professor Tim Hagle opined to the AP, “It may have to do with the polls and that the hunting tradition is stronger here in Iowa.”

In other words, Hillary is being what is commonly called – in the world of normal human interaction, where people don’t routinely misrepresent themselves to each other wherever it might offer a perceived advantage – “two-faced.”

Remember that when Hillary Clinton is talking to the nation as a whole (and not just her party’s most ideologically-motivated base) about what she supposedly believes and what she supposedly would do as president.

Even if certain primary voters support Hillary’s gun control agenda, America at large does not. That being so, you can count on Clinton to be more muted about her radical designs to disarm the populace when she’s trying to bamboozle her way back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Rest assured, we do not intend to let her pull the wool over America’s eyes on this point.

PODCAST: Why I am voting Donald Trump for President

Wayne Dupree™ posted a video and the following commentary on why he is voting for Donald Trump.

I got a chance to talk to my big brother Sean Hannity on his radio show and I thought it was time for me to make my decision on who I was going to endorse for POTUS.

I cover news on a daily basis and I’ve talked to Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Gov Mike Huckabee during my show interviews.

To me the clear choice is Trump for this time in history. He’s not beholden to the D.C. establishment or political donors. He’s not perfect but he connects with the people.


Professors claim Trump could be 1st to win all 50 states

Donald Trump throws a grand old party

Trump Support Growing Among Black Voters

The National Black Republican Association’s endorsement of Donald Trump for President of the United States has been very well received by other Republican black leaders across the country. The response has been overwhelming, with other leaders contacting us to add their support of the NBRA’s endorsement of Mr. Trump.

Highlighted below are the leaders who gave us their permission to release their names to the public. Our subsequent press releases during the general election will include the names of other leaders who endorse Mr. Trump when he has become our party’s presidential nominee, which we expect will be the decision of the majority of Republican Party primary voters.

In our view, Mr. Trump’s nomination will be well-deserved, since we believe he is the only candidate who can both unify our party and attract new, independent and conservative black voters.

Bill Calhoun

Bill Calhoun

As Chairman of the Texas Federation for Republican Outreach (TFRO), Bill Calhoun has this to say regarding his endorsement of Donald Trump: “Our members are dedicated to identifying and engaging independent, black voters with two issues that hit closest to home: jobs and school choice.  Despite the fact that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrat candidates, the economic conditions for far too many African Americans is marginal.

The Republican Party has a positive message and we have been  talking to voters about it.  We share information with them on two critical issues – how to increase their income in this new economy that the Democrats have created and the new strategies they must adopt to save and accumulate wealth to pass on to their families. It’s time for Republican candidates to help us by engaging black voters early in the primary season with an economic message that puts the blame for these conditions where it belongs, squarely in the hands of the Democrats and their public policy programs.  Donald Trump seems to be the only candidate for President willing to do this.”

mason weaver

Mason Weaver

Mason Weaver

Mason Weaver’s impressive biography shows that he is changing the way people think about how they do business; how they interact with their families, friends and the world. He has been training, educating, teaching and reaching thousands with his messages of hope for the future and empowering individuals with the tools they need to become the driving forces for positive change.

Mr. Weaver stated that his YouTube endorsement of Donald Trump is based on Mr. Trump’s business success and his focus on “making America great again.”  In a YouTube video, Mr. Weaver explains the Trump phenomenon: “no matter who he attacks or who attacks him, his polling numbers claim higher.”

deborah honeycutt

Dr. Deborah Honeycutt

Dr. Deborah Honeycutt

Deborah Travis Honeycutt is a Conservative Political Activist, Public Speaker and family medicine physician. In 2004 Dr. Honeycutt was President of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians and in 2005 served as Chairman of the Board of Directors. On the national level she has served on many committees as well as a five-year appointment to the American Academy of Family Physicians’ Commission on Education.

She was twice the Minority Constituency Delegate and twice the Georgia State Delegate to the American Academy of Family Physicians. While providing her endorsement of Donald Trump as our next president, Dr. Honeycutt stated: “Mr. Trump is the only candidate strong enough to withstand the media backlash when he begins to repeal Obamacare and unravel what the Democrats have done to put our national security and economy in jeopardy.”

ken and brenda jordan

Ken and Brenda Jordan

Ken Jordan and Brenda Battle Jordan

Ken Jordan and Brenda Battle Jordon are on the Genesee County Republican Executive Committee in Michigan, as well as the Flint Right To Life Board. Brenda is the former Director of Black Americans of Genesee County and is currently a member of the Westwood Heights School Board. The Jordans said they are sadden by how our school system is designed to benefit teachers’ unions – major donors to the Democratic Party – at the expense of black children trapped in failing urban schools.

At the time the Jordans announced their endorsement of Donald Trump, Brenda stated: “Mr. Trump is self-financed and will not be deterred by union money from returning control over our schools back to parents and local communities, such as the Westwood Heights School District in Flint, Michigan.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Black Voters Are Turning to Trump

RELATED VIDEO: Black Pastor’s reflections on Donald Trump at Cleveland Rally:

Open Letter to Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Fox News major Share holder


Prince Alwaleed bin Talal

Dear Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal,

As the Fox News-parent company News Corp’s second-largest shareholder you will lose a ton of money tomorrow night when Mr. Trump raises money for wounded veterans instead of pandering to the Fox News CEO’s.

Fox News has an agenda based on their biased reporting and support of GOPe (formerly knows as RINO) presidential candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Perhaps you are behind this?

Saudi money will not own Mr. Trump. The media conglomerates will not own Mr. Trump and I urge all Americans across this nation to not watch the GOPe biased Fox News diatribe but instead tune in tomorrow night and watch the veterans event hosted by Mr. Trump.



The Anti-Trump Network: Fox News Money Flows into Open Borders Group

Trump Just Revealed Details of What He’s Doing Instead of Fox News Debate, Many Will Love It

Is Ted Cruz the Answer?

Folks, my political activism is not rooted in winning elections at all cost. It is about preserving who I grew up thinking we were as a country; my corny love for my country, belief that good triumphs over evil and my sense of right and wrong. I know. I know. I sound like a bad Frank Capra movie. However, I will not apologize for who I am.

Numerous times, I have shared that my dad was among a handful of blacks who broke the color barrier becoming Baltimore City firefighters in the early 1950s. Despite humiliating, racist and unfair work conditions, Dad won Firefighter of the Year two times. Well I am sorry folks, but that made a huge impression on me. All my dad wanted was an opportunity to compete for the job; no lowered standards or special concessions due to his skin color. Dad’s example taught me not to run around thinking everyone owes me something.

Striving for excellence and doing things God’s way won Dad the respect of his white fellow firefighters who once resented him. One of Dad’s most vehement adversaries risked his life, going back into a burning building and saved Dad’s life. The incident birthed a lifelong friendship between the two men.

Employers hire employees to benefit their business. Period. The more you benefit my business via education and heightened skills, the more valuable you are to me, the more I increase your pay to keep you. Such reasoning is not evil or unfair. And yet, today in America, unskilled workers are demanding a starting hourly wage enough to raise a family with flat-screen TVs and cell phones. This mindset is arrogant, wrong and actually cost jobs when implemented. I do not care that some folks do not like me saying this. Demanding a minimum wage that is not rooted in economic sense reflects the new entitlement mindset; a deterioration of who we are as a country.

I also have a huge problem with people trashing achievers and thinking that they are entitled to what others have worked for. This mindset troubles me to my core. When you read the autobiographies of many achievers, the common thread is they paid a great price to become successful. While others were dating and partying, future achievers where studying, working long hours, two and three jobs, sacrificing relationships, risking and often losing their life savings. Then, when an entrepreneur finally makes it, everyone has their hand out demanding “their” portion; claiming the achiever is the beneficiary of white or some other absurd privilege. It turns my stomach folks. The owner of a small meat processing company told me his employees’ salaries were higher than his for the first ten years.

At my local gym, the dozen or so televisions in front of the aerobic exercise machines illustrates the relentless promotion of America’s cultural rot; everything from sexual deviancy to lie filled liberal bias news reporting and people celebrated for behaving badly.

Folks, I am so sick of various groups of Americans running to microphones to claim their victim status. It is so beneath the legacy of our founders. What has happened to backbone, self-reliance and true grit. If I hear one more wimpy millennial whine about not feeling “safe”, I will barf.

Every Oscar season, black actors now demand that black films, producers and actors receive Oscar nominations or Hollywood will be accused of racism. In essence, held hostage. Thus, mediocre black movies and performances must be awarded or else. Well Hollywood, you created this monster, relentlessly promoting the narrative that America is a hellhole of racism. Your chickens have come home to roost.

As I said folks, my political activism is all about restoring and preserving who we are as a people, a great nation.

Planned Parenthood does a little dance every time they score an intact dead baby head because it can be sold at a premium price. And yet, politicians kiss the baby killers’ derrieres and fund them annually to the tune of $500 million for political purposes. Who and what are we becoming folks?

These are the reasons why I disagree with those who say the social issues do not matter. “Let’s just elect a candidate who will get our economy in order and seal our border; someone who will compromise, negotiate and punt the social stuff.” Building on a foundation of the economy and border security alone is like building on sand. It “ain’t” enough folks.

Here I go sounding corny again. America is exceptional because it was founded/built on the rock (God) and the extraordinary unique idea of individual freedom and liberty. Government cannot tell you what to say, think and how to worship. And yet, such infringements are happening more and more in America today. We are losing our country and our morals and far too many Americans do not see it.

It is crucial that we elect a leader who is rooted in the Constitution and faith in God, just like our founding fathers. That presidential candidate is Ted Cruz.

GOP on Suicide Watch

Almost a year ago now, in early 2015, before anyone was officially in the GOP race for the White House, there was an organic frontrunner chosen by a half-million Drudge readers, the most conservative database in America today. That natural frontrunner was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who enjoyed a 47% position in the national Drudge poll of almost 500,000 of the most conservative voters in the country, with his closest competitor Sen. Ted Cruz, running a distant second at 11%…

What a difference a year can make…

Today, Walker is no longer in the race at all, Sen. Ted Cruz remains stuck in the lower double digits or single digits among conservative voters and the new frontrunner is the anti-politician business mogul Donald Trump at 36%, as we head into the Iowa caucuses with “natural born Citizen” on the front burner of the 2016 GOP nomination.

Meanwhile, the GOP leadership and their talking heads in the RNC establishment media, Levin, Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, are taking aim at Trump in an effort to derail his campaign by any means necessary.

Of all people, it is long time Democrat Party pollster and strategist Pat Caddell who calls it right by labeling the Trump campaign an anti-career politician “insurgency” against everyone who hails from inside the Washington DC beltway, in a recent interview with Breitbart. Where are all the brilliant GOP strategists who still have not figured this out yet?

Head Cruzbot cheerleader Glenn Beck recently went so far as to call on all Cruz supporters to “vote for Bernie Sanders” if Ted does not win the nomination, which he is not even eligible to seek. For the first time in decades, we even have Ivy League Law professors, a leftist group by profession these days, admitting that “natural born Citizen” is a “natural law term” wherein True Citizenship (aka natural born Citizen) passes from natural birth Father to their children, inalienable by any man-made law.

If the GOP could do any more to commit political suicide in the 2016 election cycle, I’m not sure what it would be… They whacked their first organic frontrunner, Walker and have spent the past several months trying to eliminate their second frontrunner, Trump…. Why?

It’s all about eliminating the natural born Citizen requirement of the Oval Office…. It is that simple!

The bi-partisan effort to eliminate the natural born Citizen (NBC) requirement for the Oval Office via constitutional means, failed eight times between 2003 and 2005. Despiteeight separate efforts by members of both political parties to erase the NBC clause from Article II, the requirement for the offices of President and Vice President remain… Unless, they can amend the Constitution by electing another unconstitutional usurper, this time from the GOP, Cruz or Rubio.

Despite the country believing that precedence is law, the fact that Barack Obama is serving out a second unconstitutional term as a foreign usurper to the office, does nothing to amend the US Constitution. It only demonstrates that the people have no more regard for the foundations of freedom than their corrupt politicians today.

Earlier this month, the RNC had an opportunity to stand with their voters and donors in support of an Impeachment Resolution that seeks to uphold and enforce the Rule of Constitutional Law, at the RNC winter meeting in Charleston. The nine member resolutions committee voted 9-0 against the resolution, preventing the full RNC body from even having a say on the matter. Talk about obstructing justice…!

Oddly enough, despite all of the suicidal behavior from both congressional Republicans and RNC members, they still can’t figure out why their base constituency is supporting an outsider like Trump… essentially thumbing their nose at RNC and GOP leadership which seems hell-bent upon committing party suicide in 2016.

The RNC is still raising campaign money, but only from big donor insiders, not from the common lifelong GOP voters. The conservative core of the GOP is looking to upset the RNC apple cart in 2016, running away from Senate insiders Rubio, Cruz and Graham, as well as former DC insiders like Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

The message from GOP faithful could not be any clearer…. They want new leadership willing to take the party and the country in a pro-American conservative pro-capitalist direction and they are sick and tired of the empty campaign promises of all who were already given a chance in congress, to stop Obama’s march to socialism, and failed…

Caddell is right… Trump supporters represent an open insurgency against ALL Washington, D.C. insiders on both sides of the aisle. GOP voters do not want any DC insiders, especially constitutionally ineligible candidates like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Even Allen West was forced to point out the insanity behind the Cruz crush demonstrated by Glenn Beck and many others.

Now, the Ivy League “experts” continue to run cover for Obama by tying NBC to “born on soil” (jus soli) alone, which eliminates Ted Cruz, but protects Barack Obama and Marco Rubio. However, one did get it almost right when he confirmed that natural born Citizen is a “natural law term” and that congress has no authority over “natural born,” but only “naturalized citizenship.”

As regular readers know, I am not in the business of endorsing candidates. But I am in the business of commenting on what is happening in the electorate today and what the truth is regarding every candidate, as well as the agenda of the political parties, even when my own party gets it horrifically wrong.

Indeed, all signs indicate that the national GOP leadership should be placed on suicide watch, because you couldn’t kill off a once powerful party any better than it is being destroyed by current party leadership today.

If Hillary Clinton or God forbid, Bernie Sanders, the proud open Marxist who is currently leading in the DNC Iowa polls, becomes the next U.S. President, it will be only because the GOP cannibalized itself to death…. For a change, Iowa may actually be an indicator of what is to come in the GOP nomination process this time… If even caucus goers run away from the DC insiders in search of new leadership, it will become impossible for anyone to stop Trump after that!

Is Trump the First ‘European-conservative’ American Presidential Candidate?

Ever since Donald Trump’s rise to 2016-contender prominence, the rap on him, and perhaps part of his broad appeal, has been that he’s not a conservative. And he’s not — he’s a nationalistic populist. Yet there’s another way to understand The Donald’s professed politics: as that of the first prominent “European-conservative” American presidential candidate. He’s not so much America’s next Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater, but her first Marine Le Pen.

A prerequisite for grasping this is understanding the true natures of liberalism and conservatism.

While many have their own definitions of the latter — and will stubbornly insist they’re correct — the truth is that both political terms are provisional, meaning different things in different times and places. The term “conservative” in the 1970s referred to a communist in the USSR and someone staunchly anti-communist in the U.S.; and a European conservative today, such as Britain’s David Cameron, is well to the “left” of our conservatives. Many other examples could be provided, but the point is this: liberalism and conservatism are not ideologies as much processes. Liberalism is the process of inexorably trying to change the status quo; conservatism is the process of trying to preserve the status quo. Thus, the actual positions the terms are seen as representing will vary depending on the status quo in question.

And when analyzing the Trump phenomenon, it’s clear that it’s roughly the same one evident in much of the West, the one fueling the fortunes of Le Pen in France, the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders (who has endorsed Trump), Britain’s Nigel Farage and Sweden’s Jimmie Åkesson. He also bears much in common with those figures.

Consider the qualities these European politicians share: they’re socially quite liberal. Their views on abortion range from indifference to tolerance to mild skepticism, on faux marriage they range from mild opposition to acceptance. In general, they say as little about these matters as they can and are willing to play to their audience. But then there’s their real passion, about which they generally seem sincere: nationalism, limiting im/migration, fighting Muslim terrorism and stopping Islamization. Sound at all familiar?

It’s also common (though not universal) among such figures to talk about preserving their nation’s “Christian heritage.” Now, it’s unimaginable that Le Pen and Wilders spend much time at an altar rail, and were Christian piety the order of the day in Western Europe, it would be easy to see them taking up the cudgels for secularism. But with already sclerotic Christian culture further threatened by a confluence of secularization and Islamization — and with Muslim chauvinists providing stark reminders of a very unappealing alternative — they’re inspired to become Crusaders protecting their nation’s Christian veneer.

Likewise, Trump cannot be mistaken for a desert mystic; he stated last summer that he never sought forgiveness from God (doing so is a Christian tenet), and hasn’t demonstrated much acquaintance with the faith. Yet he has also said he’s proud to be a Presbyterian, sometimes attends church and has bemoaned how Christianity is under attack in America. And whether you believe this is piety or posturing, for certain is this: it’s no surprise coming from an apparent nationalist. For being so means defending your nation’s culture, as it is, which in the West includes superficial Christianity. It means wanting to see church steeples and not minarets, crosses and not the star and crescent, and to hear church bells and not the Adhan — even if you talk more about the Easter Bunny than Jesus.

So what accounts for the popularity in the U.S. of a “European conservative”? The same things accounting for it in across the pond. First, like Western Europe, we’re beset by a political establishment that encourages a culture-rending invasion by unassimilable peoples. And it’s just as with a “hot” invasion: all other problems are put on the back burner when barbarians are at the gate. Have you ever seen a guy wringing his hands about his daughter’s sleazy boyfriend while home invaders are busting down his door?

This helps explain why Trump is attracting support from groups most wouldn’t expect, such as evangelicals. Some find it inexplicable, but I think these believers’ attitude was reflected well by a devout Catholic man I know — a truly faithful fellow — who said some years back that he considered immigration an even bigger issue than abortion. His point was that all else is for naught if you’re subjected to demographic genocide and lose your nation.

Then there’s the second reason a European conservative would play well today: the US is becoming more like Europe. A not widely understood phenomenon is that the positions we generally associate with traditional American “conservatism” correlate with Christian belief. This is why church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting habits. Consider: in socialistic Western Europe, more than 50 percent of the population identifies as “irreligious.” Not surprisingly, this reaches a Richard Dawkins Award high in what’s perhaps the world’s most “liberal” country, Sweden, where 76 percent of the citizenry identifies as “not religious” or “atheist” (and how many of the rest are Muslim?). And in once-Marxist, now-fascist China, 90 percent thus label themselves.

The US isn’t yet that far gone, but we’re on the same road. According to Pew Research Center, Americans identifying as Christian declined from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent of the population in just 7 years (2007 to 2014), and the religiously “unaffiliated” now account for almost a quarter of our nation. This just reflects the increasingly secular nature of succeeding generations: Among those born 1928 through 1945, 85 percent identify as Christian. But there is a steady degeneration of the generations, with only 56 percent of “Younger Millennials” (born ‘90 through ’96) labeling themselves so.

Yet even this paints too optimistic a picture. As this must-read Barna Group research company study found in 2002 already, only 22 percent of adults believed in Absolute Moral Truth while 64 percent said matters were “always relative to the person and their [sic] situation.” And they were practically the “wise elders”: 83 percent of the teenagers subscribed to relativism — which is the antithesis of Christian belief — and only 6 percent believed in Truth.

And as Barna head George Barna put it, “[T]he alarmingly fast decline of moral foundations among our young people has culminated in a one-word worldview: ‘whatever.’ The result is a mentality that esteems pluralism, relativism, tolerance, and diversity without critical reflection of the implications of particular views and actions.” Put simply and as I’ve explained many times, the notion that there is no Truth means that, in essence, there are no moral rules governing man. It is then that everything boils down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

Thus does lacking the yardstick of Truth lead to, as Barna also found, people making decisions based on what “feels right.” And now we see the rise of relativistic moderns to whom nationalism and their own culture feel right, which is certainly preferable to the dominance of relativistic moderns to whom internationalism and multiculturalism feel right. Absent acquaintance with and adherence to Truth, however, a civilization will always descend into some kind of lie. So the most we can perhaps hope for is that, to quote Yogi Berra, we won’t one day have to say, “I think I made the wrong mistake.”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Notorious Pro-Bernie Sanders PAC Strikes Back with Political Satire Comic Series

bernie sanders comic book coverWASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ – Hands down Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders is leading in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, which may have Hillary Clinton’s team on the edge of their seat. Nonetheless, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) remains abundant with support from a political committee Americans Socially United that started this time a year ago before he announced his official candidacy for the presidential race.

Americans Socially United Director Cary Lee Peterson talks with PoliWatch about 2016 PAC activities leading to Primary Election.

The pro-Sanders PAC had scrutiny for its stance in September from a political journalist, which led to a convoluted state of opinion about the PAC and why it chose to support Bernie Sanders’ run for presidency. They’ve since restructured and are aiming back at the media with a political satire comic placed on a digital billboard in New York Times Square, a secondary jab since their first media billboard blitz in New York Times Square last April.

Americans Socially United chief director Cary Lee Peterson comments, “We were there this time a year ago. We’re still here now. You don’t like it, go start your own PAC or join a campaign committee of another candidate; we’re here and going nowhere.”

The billboard ad displays a character that portrays Bernie Sanders as a super hero flying into the scene amongst other 2016 presidential candidates with a caption that says ‘I see through you’. Ironically this billboard ad holds a handful of hidden messages that only the creators can describe.

PoliWatch spoke with pro-Bernie Sanders billboard comic artist Harrison Wood (41), currently a Las Vegas radio personality and freelancer of independent comic book series Thunder Frogs, who stated “I like what he [Bernie Sanders] stands for and I am happy to contribute to the 2016 presidential election campaigns. Every candidate out there deserves an opportunity to prove themselves and I’m glad I can use my talent to be involved in some way.”

ASU director Cary Peterson tells PoliWatch that the comic billboard ad is only the beginning of a series of political satire stokes at 2016 U.S. presidential candidates. At the end of the day the art of the pen is mightier than the sword.

Man’s Ego and Michael Bloomberg

The presidency had LBJ — now meet LBG. That’s another presidential aspirant, known to this writer as Little Big Gulp. You probably know him as ex-mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg.

Little Big Gulp is a very small man with a very big wallet and an even bigger ego, but who doesn’t like big sodas. He successfully pushed for a 2012 ban on pop larger than 16 ounces, applicable to most businesses, but which was overturned by the courts as “arbitrary and capricious.” It certainly was. Perhaps, as comedian-cum-commentator Dennis Miller put it, Little Big Gulp didn’t like Big Gulps because he had to look up at the rim. Whatever the case, LBG also has big ambitions: he’s now considering a third-party presidential run.

Because, you see, we live in an unprecedented political age. With Donald Trump running the tables on the GOP side and the Bolshevik Bern giving Bill Clinton’s 527th favorite woman heartburn, Little Big Gulp thinks his time may have come: he can give Americans that moderate, sane choice, is his thinking.

And what a choice Little Big Gulp would be. New York Values™ do exist, and if you want them, LBG has that trademark. As an Internet commenter put it Sunday (I’m paraphrasing), in what could be Comment of the Week, if you combined his words with NY governor Andrew Cuomo’s to create a campaign slogan, you’d have “You only need a 16-ounce soda to kill a deer!” Besides Little Big Gulp’s antipathy for large drinks, he’s staunchly pro-abortion, pro-faux marriage, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-amnesty and pro, pro, pro, pro, pro-gun control. But he’s not a pro at reading America outside the Big Apple, which, LBG may be surprised to learn, exists and does vote somewhat differently than Gotham.

Ego is a funny thing, though. Thousands of years ago we had pharaohs fancying themselves gods. Today we have scientists supposing they’re great philosophers or theologians (paging Richard Dawkins) and liberal billionaires who think big bank accounts equate to big ideas and big electoral chances. Of course, Little Big Gulp did buy the Big Apple mayorship, and it’s said he may drop one billion dollars on a presidential bid. But he’d do well to ponder that old commercial for a Wall Street brokerage house in which ex-NBA star Shaquille O’Neal clumsily tries performing ballet in a leotard. The voiceover goes “Just because you’re good at one thing doesn’t mean you’re good at everything.” Little Big Gulp knew how to make billions, there’s no denying. What some gifted people don’t grasp, however, generally owing to a lack of humility, is that they’re much like idiot savants. They’re as stupid in everything else as they’re stupendous in their bailiwick.

But, hey, LBG is a guy who actually said in 2014, “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to Heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in Heaven. It’s not even close.” Because, of course, God couldn’t possibly have a different standard for right and wrong than Little Big Gulp. And if there are a few minor areas of disagreement, I’m sure LBG will set the Lord straight.

Perhaps Little Big Gulp’s conception of Heaven, though, is a place just like NYC except without fat people, the need for LBG’s armed bodyguards, and with very, very, very small carbonated beverages. As for heaven on Earth, that’s been waiting for a Little Big Gulp presidency. And I’m sure Mr. and Mrs. Middle America — you know, those citizens who Obama said “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” — just can’t wait to elect a pro-abortion, pro-faux marriage, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, de facto atheist. Either that or he’ll draw a few votes away from the Democrat nominee as he makes Ralph Nader appear an electoral phenomenon and reality makes him feel about two-feet tall, which, it’s said, is about 50 percent less than his actual height.

But, by all means, share yourself and run, Little Big Gulp, run — your 32-ounce cup runneth over.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bloomberg doesn’t poll better against Sanders than Clinton

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Michael Bloomberg is by AFP. Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Hawaii Poll: Clinton, Trump Lead Races for Nomination by Andrew Walden

This is what democracy looks like?

The Star-Advertiser/Ward Poll released Sunday January 17, 2016 gives Hawaii a glimpse of what the presidential horse-race might look like if Hawaii conducted a State-run Presidential Primary as many other states do.

But Hawaii doesn’t.  Instead voters are invited to cast their ballots in the caucuses organized by the Republican and Democratic parties.  Party-organized caucuses normally attract only about 1-2% of the registered electorate—1/20th of the turnout for Hawaii’s State-run August, 2014 Primary which attracted 41.5% of registered voters.

The Hawaii Republican Presidential Caucus is to be held at 44 locations statewide Tuesday, March 8 from 6pm to 8pm.  The result will determine the allocation of 16 of Hawaii’s 19 delegates to the Republican National Convention to be held July 18-21 in Cleveland, Ohio.

Hawaii Democrats are set to caucus Saturday March 26 (locations not yet announced) and vote in a ‘Presidential Preference Poll’ which will determine the mandate of a few of Hawaii’s 34 delegates to the July 25-28 Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Hawaii lacks party-identification of registered voters, a circumstance which aids the maintenance of the one-party Democrat-controlled status quo.  If they were participating in the caucuses—which most respondents will not–self-described Democrats would vote:

  • 52%  — Clinton
  • 18% – Sanders
  • 6% – Trump
  • 8% — Other Republicans
  • 1% – Will not vote
  • 15% — Other/refused

Self-identified Republicans would vote:

  • 22% — Trump
  • 11% – Cruz
  • 11% — Clinton
  • 9% – Bush
  • 9% – Carson
  • 8% – Rubio
  • 4% – Christie
  • 4% — Sanders
  • 1% — Will not vote
  • 19% – Refused/Other

Because Caucus turnout is such a small percentage of the electorate—comprised of more highly motivated and partisan voters–refined numbers can be attained by stripping out party-crossing results and refusals.

The result among Democrats:

  • 74% – Clinton
  • 26% – Sanders

The result among Republicans:

  • 34% – Trump
  • 17% – Cruz
  • 14% – Bush
  • 14% – Carson
  • 13% – Rubio
  • 6% – Christie
  • 2% – Fiorina

Of course all of these numbers will shift dramatically as the results come in from Iowa, New Hampshire and other early states.

SA: Clinton enjoys large lead in Hawaii presidential poll

PDF: Hawaii Poll — Presidential Race

The Trump Love Affair Explained in Terms Even Beltway Pundits Can Understand

Donald Trump’s rise this election season has been historic, amounting to something heretofore unseen in the annals of American politics. Given this, it’s perhaps not surprising that many are still befuddled by the phenomenon. Pundit Charles Krauthammer is bewildered, saying that “for some reason” Trump “is immune to the laws of contradiction.” (In reality, Democrats get away with contradiction continually; the only difference is that the media actually report on Trump’s.) Also in the news recently is that some find his appeal among evangelicals “inexplicable.” Of course, it’s all quite explainable.

In an earlier piece — which I strongly urge you to read — I expanded on certain factors evident in the Trump phenomenon. Trump is:

  • tapping into anger against the Establishment and over immigration and is a plain-spoken breath of fresh air.
  • sounding a nationalistic note in an age where treason is the Establishment norm.
  • not campaigning as conservative but a populist, which, almost by definition, tends to make one popular in an era of mass discontent.
  • a crusader against hated political correctness, which has stifled tongues and killed careers nationwide. And in being the first prominent person to defeat the thought police (at least for now) — and by not cowering and apologizing to them — he has become a hero.

And as I wrote, “[W]hen you have a hero, leading the troops in the heat of battle against a despised oppressor, you don’t worry about his marriages, past ideological indiscretions or salty language. You charge right behind him.” This is largely why Trump’s contradictions don’t matter. Yet more can be said.

I often mention the fault of “mirroring,” which most everyone exhibits and is when you project your own ideals, values, priorities and mindset onto others. It’s particularly amusing when pundits and politicians comment on the electorate and speak as if everyone is a politics wonk who analyzes issues logically within the context of a broad knowledge base (pundits themselves often lack erudition and reason; of course, they’re blissfully unaware of it when thus guilty and nonetheless consider those qualities ideals). But man is not Mr. Spock, and logic and reason play less of a role in people’s decision-making than most of us care to think.

This brings us to what Trump now has. It’s something all successful politicians have to a degree and that every iconic one has in spades: an emotional bond with his supporters.

Trump has been criticized for speaking in vague generalities and not providing specifics on the campaign trail. This misses the point. If advertising a product on TV, do you willingly provide mundane details about its ingredients or describe the intricacies of its manufacturing process? That’s more the stuff of documentaries, and, insofar as the vendor goes, would only be found on an Internet product-information page (tantamount to a politician’s policy-position page) provided for those interested. No, you say “Look 15 years younger!” or “Lose 20 to 30 pounds in 6 weeks!” Or think of the circa 2000 Mazda commercial with the young boy whispering “Zoom, zoom!” It was advertising an expensive, hi-tech machine but was invoking the unbridled joy of childhood, thus endeavoring to pique people’s passions. And that’s the secret: capture your audience on an emotional level and they’re yours.

Or think about affairs of the heart. If you’re truly bonded and in love with your wife, it’s not because you first looked at her and, rendering a logical analysis, thought “Well, she’s vibrant and seems to have good genes, so we’d likely have healthy kids; and she’s a darn good cook, and I relish a fine pot roast.” Rather, a true romantic bond is somewhat inscrutable, an emotional phenomenon, not an intellectual one. And it’s powerful enough to cause a woman to follow a man into a life of faith or a life of crime (Bonnie and Clyde); it explains the enduring good marriages — and the bad ones.

Likewise, playing on emotion is not the sole province of morally bad or good politicians — only of successful ones. Hitler did it and Churchill did it; Huey Long did it and Reagan did it. When a candidate stands on a podium expounding upon policy nerd-like or has little to say beyond touting his “accomplishments” (John Kasich comes to mind), they’re proving they don’t get it. Create an emotional bond with the people, and they’re yours. And they will remain yours in the face of others’ intellectual appeals for their affections, for, to paraphrase Jonathan Swift, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Note that while this relates the futility of trying to shake a person from passionately embraced error, people can also have an emotional attachment to correct beliefs, for the right or wrong reasons and with or without an intellectual understanding (e.g., Plato spoke of inculcating children, who are too young to grasp abstract moral principles, with an “erotic [emotional] attachment” to virtue).

And this is what Trump does so masterfully. When he repeats his slogan “Make America Great Again,” says we’re going to “win” under his administration or speaks of building a border wall and getting “Mexico to pay for it,” it’s silly to wonder why it resonates despite the lack of detail. He’s marketing, not doing R&D; he’s not trying to appeal mainly to the intellect, but the emotions. And you do this with the slogan, not by reciting the list of ingredients. Again, this isn’t a commentary on the validity of his recipe, only on the principles of effective campaigning.

Having said this, if a candidate is the real McCoy, he’ll also have a quality product with a list of ingredients (again, a policy-position webpage) for the discriminating shopper. But if he’s smart he’ll understand that most people are impulse buyers with relatively short memories and recognize the importance of branding himself. Coca-Cola has “Coke is it!” Nike “Just do it!” and Barack Obama had “Yes, we can!” (no, he couldn’t — but it worked). Now, can you think of a GOP candidate other than Trump identifiable by way of a catchy and popular slogan? And it’s no coincidence that “Make America Great Again” was also Reagan’s slogan in 1980.

Of course, stating the obvious, to connect with people emotionally you must capitalize on something appealing to them emotionally. Trump’s bold nationalism does this. What do the others offer? Jeb Bush is associated with saying that illegal migration is “an act of love” and John “Can’t do” Kasich with “Think about the [illegals’] families, c’mon, folks!” which might appeal to illegal migrants if they could speak English. And none of the others will even support suspending Muslim immigration — despite deep and widespread fear of Muslim terrorism — which certainly will appeal to Da’esh (ISIS).

It’s as if Trump is courting Lady America with wine, roses and his alpha-male persona, while the Establishment candidates are lead-tongued nerds promising a tent with NSA surveillance, a bowl of soup and squatters on a burnt-out lawn.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to


Conservatives Should Back Trump

Writing on the Wall for the GOP? Part I: A Slow Train Coming