3313 The Truth About Trump University and Judge Gonzalo Curiel
In recent interviews, Donald Trump has expressed on his belief that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has treated him unfairly in the Trump University civil lawsuit. The Judge was born in the United States, had parents who immigrated from Mexico and has positively spoken of his Mexican heritage in the past. Trump commented that the Judge’s Mexican heritage may be a factor in some of the recent court decisions - given his own strong stance on illegal immigration and trade with Mexico. Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/trump-university-judgeFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
So recently, you've probably heard in the news that the Trump University lawsuits have come under controversy because Donald Trump has made comments that he believes Judge Gonzalo Curiel has treated him unfairly in the Trump University civil lawsuit. you've probably heard in the news that the Trump University And boy, that's been quite a reaction coming out of that.
So let's try and figure out exactly what's going on, why he has complaints, whether those complaints might even remotely be justified.
Now, this judge, Judge Curiel, was born in the United States, had parents who immigrated from Mexico and has positively spoken of his Mexican heritage in the past.
Which is fine, more power to him.
Trump has commented that the judge's Mexican heritage may be a factor in some of the recent court decisions, given Trump's own strong stances on illegal immigration and trade with Mexico.
Donald Trump said, I have had horrible rulings.
I have been treated very unfairly by this judge.
Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage.
I'm building a wall, okay?
I'm building a wall.
He is a member of a society where very pro-Mexico.
I have had lawyers come up to me, say, you are being treated so unfairly, it's unbelievable.
So that's his approach.
The response was swift and condemnatory.
So Hillary Clinton said, This is not just another outlandish insulting comment from Donald Trump, and it is not normal politics.
This is something much, much more dangerous.
I wonder how she would compare Donald Trump's comments about a judge to, say, destroying Libya and unleashing migrants on Europe, or, say, exposing decades' worth of top-secret information through a private server.
Well, I guess she's got her calibration down pat.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said, Strong words.
Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.
Hey, PR, also the same as public relations.
Quote, Okay, first of all, you can no more regret his comments than you can digest his food.
But anyway, to go on, he says, claiming a person can't do a job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment.
I think that should be absolutely disavowed.
It's absolutely unacceptable.
But do I believe that Hillary Clinton is the answer?
No, I don't.
So, okay, just everybody take a deep breath.
Breathe into a paper bag if you need to.
Here are some basic reminders.
Mexico is not a race.
Hispanic is not a race.
So if you have critical things to say about Mexico or Hispanics, you cannot rationally, empirically, or logically be called a racist.
And that's kind of important.
And as somebody who brings race into a non-racial issue...
It's almost the textbook definition of a racist.
So I just really wanted to point this out.
And frustration and exhaustion and, you know, peak social justice warrior, political correctness, Marxist dialectic exhaustion is why there is a Donald Trump.
People are sick and tired of the R word being pulled out whenever there's a cultural disagreement or any kind of disagreement at all.
So just wanted to point that out.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, I couldn't disagree more with what he had to say.
My advice to our nominee would be to start talking about the issues that the American people care about and to start doing it now.
In addition to that, it's time to quit attacking various people you competed with or various minority groups in the country and get on message.
Ah, yes.
The Republicans so excellent at figuring out what the American public really wants to talk about that they got vaulted over.
All of their presidential nominees got vaulted over by a guy with zero political experience.
That's how good they are at figuring out what the American public really cares about and really wants to talk about.
Senator John McCain said, I've said everything I can say about Trump.
I really have.
I'm running my own campaign, and I just really don't want to keep talking about Trump.
I just don't.
His comments are very harmful.
That's all I can say.
Jeb Bush, Donald Trump should retract his comments, not defend them.
There is no place for racism in the GOP or this country.
Senator Marco Rubio said, It's wrong, and I hope he stops.
I don't think it reflects well on the Republican Party.
I don't think it reflects well on us as a nation.
Now, where were these people when a largely Hispanic mob attacked a whole bunch of Donald Trump supporters recently in San Jose?
Where were they when Trump supporters were hit with bags with rocks in them, when a woman was pelted with eggs and another man was chased down and tackled?
Where were they?
Were these people with this outrage?
No, big problem is questioning a judge's impartiality.
So, good job reading the pulse of the American public.
Republicans.
Republican Newt Gingrich said, This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made.
I think it's inexcusable.
He has every right to criticize a judge.
He has every right to say certain decisions aren't right and his attorneys can file to move the venue from the judge.
But first of all, this judge was born in Indiana.
He is an American, period.
This is no longer the primaries.
He's no longer an interesting contender.
He is now the potential leader of the United States, and he's got to move his game up to the level of being a potential leader.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, quote, I've said that I do think Donald Trump understands that his tone and rhetoric is going to have to evolve.
In regard to how we're communicating to Hispanics across the country.
I think he gets that.
I wouldn't invoke race into any sort of attack or commentary.
Boy, if there's one group that knows how to get through to Hispanics, it's not the Republican Party.
Senator Ben Sasse said, quote, Public service announcement.
Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of racism.
Hey, Ben Zese, I wonder if he's actually got round to disavowing his legally questionable mentor.
Senator Jeff Snowflake, sorry, Senator Jeff Flake, quote, his statements this week on the judge, that's a new level, because it's not just ill-informed or ignorant statements, but they suggest that when he's president, you know, after November, that perhaps he ought to go after that judge.
That's a whole new level, so it's very disturbing.
Mmm, don't you love concerned trolls?
Joe Scarborough, television personality, said, You have to start calling him out today.
This is not where you can do the slow boil.
Say you'll retract your endorsement of him today or the United States Senate is in danger.
The House of Representatives is in danger.
Republicans, call him out.
Make him back down on the Muslim ban.
Make him back down on this racist statement he's made about a man, the judge in a Trump University case, born in Indiana.
Or else you lose the Senate.
You lose the House.
You lose the presidency.
You will lose your standing as a national party.
It's that simple.
He's going backwards.
He appears to be spontaneously combusting over a civil lawsuit.
Most times what people accuse other people of is what they're manifesting.
It's called projection.
And I think there is a certain amount of spontaneous combustion going on here.
I just don't think it's coming from Trump.
And Coulter said, Hey, has the left ever criticized the jury for having a racial composition that was all white?
Does anyone know of any examples of liberals being skeptical of a verdict because the jury was all white?
Would liberals accept a white judge under any circumstances who was a member of a white race organization?
This is important.
Black man convicted by all white jury?
Well, so race matters when it comes to legal verdicts when it comes to liberals.
But if any situation is reversed, well, I think you know how that goes.
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said, If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as being impartial, the public will quickly lose confidence in the rule of law upon which our nation is based.
For this reason, ethics codes for judges, including the Federal Code of Conduct regarding Curiel, require not only that judges actually be impartial, but that they avoid even the appearance of That appearance typically is measured from the standpoint of a reasonable litigant.
The test is whether there is an appearance of impropriety under the facts as they reasonably appear to a litigant in Trump's position.
And we're going to hit this point hard because it's really, really important to understand.
The appearance of impropriety.
So, if I hold a whole bunch of stock in some company, I'm a financial writer and I write very positively about that company, nobody has to prove that I profited and so on.
It's a conflict of interest.
It is the appearance of impropriety that is the standard by which judges can recuse themselves.
The appearance doesn't have to be proven, just the appearance.
So...
What are the potential conflicts of interest with regards to Judge Curiel?
Remember, I'm no lawyer, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but we've got all the sources below.
On November 11, 2011, Judge Gonzalo Curiel filled out a questionnaire for judicial nominees, which included his response to questions about what he would do in the event of a potential conflict of interest.
Judge Gonzalo Curiel said, quote, On a case-by-case basis, I will remain vigilant of my obligation to be fair and neutral and to avoid conflicts and the appearance of impropriety.
If a potential conflict of interest arises, I will review the Judicial Code of Conduct and the rules under 28 U.S.C. sections 144 and 445a.
After reviewing...
The applicable rules, I will consult as appropriate colleagues on the bench or representatives with the administrative office of the United States courts.
So, has this happened?
Has this occurred?
Has he noted that there may be an appearance of impropriety?
And has he done this review?
Has he been asked?
Can he talk about it?
I don't know.
Judge Gonzalo Curiel also listed many cases in this document where he has recused himself due to a conflict, including...
When a close friend's law firm represented one of the parties, mother of a close friend of my child's represented one of the parties, fellow board member was identified as a witness, and when one of the parties was a bank officer he had contact with when working as a trustee for a charter school.
So these are all areas where he has recused himself because of a potential appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest.
And that's a pretty wide net.
One of the parties was a bank officer he had contact with when working as a trustee for a charter school.
So let's look at the recusal law.
These are excerpts from recusal analysis of case law under 28 U.S.C. 455 and 144 by the Federal Judicial Center.
Litigants often move for trial judges to recuse themselves on grounds of partiality, or the appearance of partiality.
Improper denial of motions seeking recusal may have serious consequences.
So, it's a big deal.
First, it can deprive citizens of their right to a, quote, neutral and detached judge.
Second, it can diminish public trust in the judicial system, which requires confidence in the impartiality of judges.
Section 455 deals not only with actual bias as well as other specific conflicts of interest, but also with the appearance of partiality.
Excerpts from Section 455.
A. Any justice, judge, or magistrate from the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
B. He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances.
1.
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
So let's say he's pro-open borders and Donald Trump wants to build a wall.
Could that be a personal bias against the person involved in the litigation?
Let's say that he's a Democrat and Donald Trump is going to be the presidential nominee from the Republican Party.
Could that be a bias?
Five, he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person, three, is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
So this is used, of course, as a way to disparage Donald Trump and his candidacy for presidency of the United States.
So the outcome of the proceeding is important in terms of where the election may go.
As we peel back the onion, we get to the heart of the matter.
Judge Gonzalo Curiel was a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association 2014 Scholarship Selection Committee, which awarded scholarships to many Mexican-born Hispanics.
Many of the scholarship recipients were born outside the United States and won even comments about being in the country illegally.
Jasmine Ramirez, quote, wants to become a criminal defense attorney to help people of color who face life-changing circumstances, but also to show Latino youth that with perseverance and a dream injected with faith, anything is possible.
Patricia Machia, quote, was born in El Salvador and wants to become a criminal defense attorney to help people of color who face life-changing circumstances.
Guadalupe Alvarado Luna, quote, Born in Michoacan, Mexico, her recommender said, Ms.
Alvarado Luna has, quote, demonstrated a personal understanding of many of the issues Latino and other marginalized communities face and will be able to tie together her past experiences in order to enhance her contribution to the community.
Ms.
Alvarado Luna wishes to become an attorney to help immigrants and children.
Jessica Vasquez, Emigrated from Mexico.
Her parents worked in the strawberry fields of Oxnard and hopes to pursue a career in immigration law so that she can continue helping her community.
Ricardo Alorza, quote, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and wishes to someday tell any student struggling with higher education, look, a boy from Mexico who did not know English and is undocumented has now graduated from law school and is an attorney.
So, Judge Curiel, a member of the Scholarship Selection Committee, which awarded scholarship to an illegal immigrant, openly stated and self-reported as an undocumented or illegal immigrant.
What is his perspective on illegal immigration?
Could it have an effect on Donald Trump, who starts wishing to enforce laws against illegal immigration?
Could there be even the appearance of impropriety in this area?
Here's some excerpts from the cornerstones of the Hispanic National Bar Association's mission.
We are a non-profit, non-partisan national membership organization that represents the interests of Hispanic legal professionals in the United States and its territories.
We are also committed to advocacy on issues of importance to the 54-plus million people of Hispanic heritage living in the U.S. All right, sanity break here.
54-plus million people.
It includes, as a number, the 11 million illegal immigrants of Hispanic heritage living in the U.S. So they are openly, in their mission statements, say that they're advocating for the illegal immigrants.
So can a judge who's part of this group be objective about a candidate who's talking about deportation and building a wall, and enforcing Immigration law in the United States.
Is there even remotely the appearance of impropriety, as could be judged by a reasonable litigant?
Come on.
They also say they wish to enrich and diversify the legal profession, judiciary, and legislature through improved recruitment, retention, and promotion of Latinos, including targeted identification and endorsement and or promotion of highly qualified Latino candidates for legal positions, including, but not limited to, judicial and legislative openings at the state and federal level.
Empower the Latino community through legal, financial, and educational literacy initiatives.
Advocate for solutions on issues that affect the Latino community.
Now, I want you to imagine, just join me in a little thought experiment for a moment, if you'd be so very kind.
Imagine that Trump University solely focused on bringing white people into its seminars.
And focused on helping white people achieve financial success.
Advocated for white people to become real estate moguls.
Would people go a little mental?
But you see, in-group preference for non-whites is good.
It's pride.
In-group preference for whites, well, that's just stone Nazi evil.
If only we could get it down to a double standard, that'd be a massive improvement.
Hispanic National Bar Association on July 2, 2015.
Quote, The Hispanic National Bar Association represents the interest of nearly 54 million Hispanics and Latinos in the United States, which is approximately 17% of the U.S. population.
See, there's that number again.
I guess that includes the illegals, and that's not unimportant.
By his recent derogatory remarks, they say, about Mexican immigrants, Donald Trump's disrespect of such a large segment of the population of America is not only unbelievable, but outright wrong.
His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino community.
Right, so this is an organization that the judge belongs to railing, as always falsely, against Donald Trump's comments.
What Donald Trump actually said, not that they're all rapists, I mean, nonsense, right?
He said, June 16, 2015, when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best.
They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems.
They're bringing drugs.
They're bringing crime.
They're rapists, and some I assume are good people.
But I speak to border guards, and they're telling us what we're getting.
So, does Mexico send its people?
Well, we've got a pamphlet from some years back about how Mexican government helped people to better navigate crossing the border.
And, yeah, 80% of the women who are on route from Mexico, illegally on route from Mexico to the US, are raped along the way.
Yeah, that seems like a lot of rapists.
Some are good people.
And those are the facts.
But again, you know, when it comes to this kind of narrative, generally, facts don't really matter.
Hispanic National Bar Association on July 2, 2015.
So they're very concerned about bias here.
We cannot stand silent and allow Trump to promote such racist and discriminatory behavior.
This is the time for all Americans to take a stand against his insensitive, offensive and untrue statements.
The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump's business ventures, including golf courses, hotels and restaurants.
We salute NBC, Universal, Univision and Macy's for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric.
Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC, Universal, Univision, and Macy's and take similar actions against Donald Trump's business interests.
We can and will make a difference.
This is the group that the judge is part of, calling for a boycott of Trump's business, calling him a racist, anti-Hispanic, a bigot.
This could be considered the appearance of impropriety.
Come on!
Why do I have to do the job?
Oh, that's right, because the media is on the left, the media is Democrat, and they want Hillary Clinton to get into power.
As to these people, because she seems to be quite pro-amnesty and no borders.
Judge Gonzalo Curiel was nominated by Barack Obama to serve on the U.S. District Court in Southern District of California.
Judge Curiel, at his federal appointment confirmation hearing, my parents came here from Mexico with a dream of providing their children opportunities, and they've been able to do that with the opportunities that this country has to offer.
In 2014, Judge Curiel appointed the Robbins-Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit against Trump University and Donald Trump.
Apparently this is quite common when you've got a bunch of lawyers who all want to represent the class-action lawsuit.
Judge Curiel appointed this Robbins-Geller law firm.
According to Rachel Stockman of Law News, quote, Robbins, Gellar, Rudman and Dowd paid the Clintons a total of $675,000 in fees for speeches since 2009.
Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech at the law firm as recently as September 4, 2014.
could that be considered a potential bias on the part of the law firm appointed by the judge to pursue the lawsuit?
Rachel Stockman also said, in fact, of the five law firms that paid for the Clintons to speak over the last few years, Robbins, Geller, Ruttman and Dowd paid out the most money.
She goes on to say, a review of the case's docket reveals that the Robbins, Geller attorneys have aggressively pursued the lawsuit, pushed for Trump to testify and for the trial to begin before the November 2016 election.
And as Trump has complained, this is a great way to have me not talk about the issues on my platform or what I plan to do, but keep getting cornered on this Trump U stuff.
So the law firm that paid a huge amount of money to Hillary Clinton is pushing for a trial against the Republican nominee to begin before the election.
San Diego Union Tribune on March 22, 2016, quote, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego found Tarla Makayev, quote, has undoubtedly suffered stress as a U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego found Tarla Makayev, quote, has undoubtedly suffered stress as a result of this litigation and said in an order filed late Monday that there are reasonable grounds for her to pull out as Thank you.
The Union Tribune goes on to say, Trump's lawyers had argued strongly against Mikhaev's withdrawal, saying the bulk of their defense has been built around her.
Trump's lawyers had intended to call two witnesses to testify about Mikhaev's positive experience at Trump University as well as her pattern of starting, but failing to complete, seminar programs.
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said...
Neither pundits, counsel, or the parties anticipated the media obsession that this case would create due to Defendant Trump becoming a candidate for President of the United States.
It is also plain that with every additional candidate's debate and state primary, the attention given to the case has grown.
While Mikhail's request to withdraw at the pretrial stage is unusual, so is the unforeseen degree of attention this case has engendered.
Donald Trump's statement on June 7, 2016.
Quote, Once the plaintiff's lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was,
they asked to have her removed from the case.
Over my lawyer's objections, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion, but allowed the case to continue.
On May 27, 2016, Judge Curiel ordered the release of 381 pages of previously sealed documents related to the Trump University lawsuit.
According to The Hill, Judge Curiel also added that Trump's station as the GOP standard bearer, as well as the fact that he's, quote, placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue, end quote, bolstered the argument to make the documents public.
On May 31, 2016, Judge Curiel then ordered many of the released documents resealed after realizing names, addresses, and contact information of both plaintiffs and witnesses were not redacted.
Access to this new information gave the media plenty of people to contact to continue propagating negative Donald Trump media coverage.
It also gave the angry mobs of anti-Donald Trump protesters information that could be used to target and harm them.
According to the Wall Street Journal, reporting on June 3, 2016, quote, The New York businessman also alleged the judge was a former colleague and friend of one of the Trump University plaintiff's lawyers.
The judge and the lawyer once worked together as federal prosecutors, but the lawyer, Jason Forge, in an interview said he had never seen the judge socially.
So remember back?
Potential conflicts of interest through which Judge Curiel had recused himself in the past.
Pretty tenuous stuff.
And here, at least according to Trump, he alleges the judge was a former colleague and friend of one of the Trump University plaintiffs.
Lawyers!
Appearance of impropriety, people!
Now, look at the immigration history.
history.
That's at the core of some of the criticisms of Trump.
According to the New York Times, quote, Judge Curiel's brother, Raul Curiel, said their father, Salvador, arrived in Arizona as a laborer in the 1920s, eventually receiving citizenship and becoming a steelworker.
Their parents were married in Mexico in 1946, and their mother, Francesca, became a citizen after joining her husband in the United States.
Records show that Judge Curiel's father, Salvador Curiel, originally entered the United States in 1923 and received a work permit, but questions have been raised as to if he ever became a U.S. citizen.
Salvador Curiel and Francesca Rodriguez Curiel married in 1946.
If Salvador was a U.S. citizen, Francesca would have received citizenship by marriage, regardless of her prior immigration status.
However, Judge Gonzalo Curiel was born in 1953 within the United States.
According to Charles C. Johnson of gotnews.com, uncovered records, quote, confirm that Judge Gonzalo Curiel's mother, Francesca, became a U.S. citizen in 1969.
So you understand, if the father was a U.S. citizen, he marries the mom, she becomes a U.S. citizen by marriage.
And if she gets U.S. citizenship many years after Judge Curiel was born, it would mean that Salvador Curiel, the judge's father, was not a U.S. citizen when he married Francesca in 1946.
And Asgard News reports, quote, Gonzalo Curiel was an anchor baby.
Is that going to have any effect on If it's true, on The Judge's view of Donald Trump's stance on immigration.
Trump said on June 7, 2016, He
goes on to say, Normally, legal issues in a civil case would be heard in a neutral environment.
However, given my unique circumstances as nominee of the Republican Party and the core issues of my campaign that focus on illegal immigration, jobs, and unfair trade, I have concerns as to my ability to receive a fair trial.
Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case, and the judges reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama-appointed judge's impartiality.
It is a fair question.
I hope it is not the case.
While this lawsuit should have been dismissed, it is now scheduled for trial in November.
I do not intend to comment on this matter any further.
With all the thousands of people who have given the courses such high marks and accolades, we will win this case.
So again, I'm no lawyer.
This is sort of my thought about it, that the analogy that sort of comes to my mind, it's a strong analogy, but I don't think it's out of place, fundamentally.
Some woman is on video, a sober woman is on video saying she really, really wants to have sex with you.
And then, afterwards, she says, boy, that was fantastic sex.
Let's do lots more of that.
Great, great stuff.
And then, years later, she claims she was raped.
Would that ever get to trial?
Seems unlikely.
Seems unlikely.
And so if you have a woman saying Trump University was a ripoff or a scam or whatever it was, right?
If she's saying, oh, it's fantastic at the time, she does it, she gives it great reports, great feedback, she gives it five stars, and then she says, oh, let's just keep doing more of these great courses, it's fantastic.
How can she then say it was a scam later?
It's just a question.
And that's, I think, why Trump's lawyers have made the case that it should have been dismissed.
There's no point in this going to trial.
However, if there are political motivations, then this explains why what has happened has happened.
So, is it fair to look at Hispanics and say, hmm, they act a little bit more as a group than one would expect by random distributions?
Well, that's an important question.
Because the theory, or a theory that's floating around, is that the Democrats can't win the war of ideas, don't have the facts and data behind them.
So what they want to do is stuff the ballot with illegal immigrants who tend to vote Democrat, and that's why they're sort of pro-Hispanic, pro-illegal immigration, pro-bringing Muslims in because Muslims vote Democrat.
A Democrat in general as well, and all of that sort of stuff.
And why, you know, some arguments have been made.
I had a great interview with two fine black ladies, Diamond and Silk, who referred to the Democratic plantation.
In other words, make blacks dependent on the Democratic Party and you'll get their votes from here to eternity, as was put rather coarsely by Lyndon Bain Johnson back in the day.
So let's look at Hispanic voting patterns, see if this is anything to do with it.
So here...
Hispanics voting Democrat in presidential elections.
The red line is the 50% line.
The Hispanic Democrat vote has consistently been significantly, in most cases, above the majority.
So in 2012, 71%.
71% of Hispanics...
Voted for Democrats.
This was 73% in 96.
In 76, 82%.
This is all very important stuff.
You can read these graphs if you're a Democrat and you want more and more Hispanics coming into the country because you want to have and keep political power.
That's the addiction.
So, do you want larger government or do you want smaller government?
Well, the general public, 41% want larger government and 48% want smaller government.
Whites, 37% want a larger government and 52% want a smaller government.
Among Asians, 55% want a larger government and only 36% want a smaller government.
Among native-born Hispanics, 66% want a larger government and 28% want a smaller government.
Among foreign-born Hispanics, 81% want a larger government and only 12% want a smaller government.
So if you are on the left and you want to offer larger government, well...
That's where you go, right?
You don't bring your barbecue cookout to the vegan festival.
You go to where the votes are.
So this is one of the reasons people argue for why the Democrats want open borders, why the Democrats want sanctuary cities, why the Democrats want...
Illegal immigrants flooding across the border because it gets them votes!
And yes, there are certain circumstances under which illegal immigrants can vote, and there are anchor babies and all this, right?
So it is a way for the Democrats to get votes without actually having to make a case based on reason and evidence, which often they seem allergic to.
So, 70%.
Of African Americans, of blacks, report that they want a bigger government and more services.
So foreign-born Hispanics want bigger government even more than American blacks.
All Hispanics, 75% want larger government, 19% want smaller government.
First generation Hispanics or immigrants, 81% want larger government, only 12% want smaller government.
Second generation, 72% want larger government, 22% want smaller government.
Among third generation Hispanics, 58% want larger government and 36% want smaller governments.
So, you know, 50-75 years or so, you still have a significant proportion, way outside the general public, more than a reverse of the general public, of third-generation Hispanics who want larger government.
So, if you want a smaller government, you're going to have a particular perspective on Hispanics who aren't with you in that particular goal in general.
Is that racist?
Well, no.
Hispanic is not a race.
If you are for smaller government, you have to be opposed to people who want bigger government because voting and democracy and you get how all of this works.
So if you don't want people who want bigger government to come into your country when you want smaller government, that's not racist.
That's called counting!
General public.
39%.
Lean Republican, 49% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
It's not broken out by gender, as you can imagine.
Among all Hispanics, 18% are Republican or lean Republican, and 66% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
First-generation Hispanics, 16% are Republican.
That's down from the average.
And 63% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
Second-generation Hispanics, 19% are Republican or lean Republican, and 71% are Democrat or lean Democrat.
So, the number of people who are pro-Democrat or Democrats goes up from first-generation to second-generation Hispanics.
So, I mean, this is important to understand.
The Republican Party, in general, wants smaller government.
And so, if they're skeptical of lots of illegal or illegal immigrants coming in from third world countries, or in particular, in this case, from Hispanic countries, it's because they want smaller government.
And the Hispanics, in general, want bigger government.
This is not that complicated.
The Democrats like them because they vote Democrat.
The Republicans have a problem with them because Republicans want smaller government.
And these people vote for bigger government in general.
It's not that complicated.
It's nothing to do with race.
It's numbers.
If the Hispanic population of the electorate had not grown since 1980, Mitt Romney would have won the 2012 election, even if there wasn't a single non-white person who had voted for him.
Romney won 59% of the white vote, and if Hispanics were still 2% of the electorate, as they were in 1980, whites would be 85% of the electorate, which means the white vote alone would have given Romney 50.15% of the vote.
If we add on Romney's share of the Hispanic and Black vote, that number rises to 51.08% of the vote.
If we project our current racial demographics or ethnic demographics back onto past elections, the Republicans would have only won one presidential election in the last 27 years.
Thus, the racial demographics of the American electorate have already been altered enough to have profound election-changing effects on American democracy.
And this is important.
You know, if a particular ethnic group acts in a very consistent way, which is in this case is Democrat or lean Democrat, then yeah, Republicans are going to have a problem with them.
Not because of race or ethnicity.
If these numbers here, if 71% of second-generation Hispanics were Republican or lean Republican, the Republicans would love them.
It's nothing to do with racism.
It's just, if you don't want to be judged as a group, stop acting in general like a group.
So, this idea that ethnicity or race or culture has significant effects on jurisprudence, in 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, may and will make a difference in our judging.
Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, famously said, So apparently we're supposed to all live together, but we just can't understand each other.
Which is it?
President Obama remarked of his recent Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, Yeah, he's a white guy, but he's a really outstanding jurist.
Sorry.
So he has to apologize for nominating a white guy who apparently is so bad he can only be redeemed by being a really outstanding jurist.
Was he called racist for that, for thinking badly of white guys?
Hispanic is not a race.
Mexico is not a race.
Illegal immigrant is not a race.
Having opinions about these things has nothing to do with racism, and if you can count and follow the numbers, as we just talked about, you will understand why these issues are.
Screaming racism, screaming bigotry, oh my god, it's so boring.
It's so unbelievably boring.
What the hell is wrong with Donald Trump saying, I think I'm being treated unfairly?
And it may have something to do with ethnic allegiance.
The guys, the judge is full, it's joined six million different organizations, all of which pledge ethnic allegiance and sympathy for illegal immigration.
Saying that the judge has ethnic allegiances is reading his resume.
It's not being a racist.
If someone invokes racism in something that is not about race, if you want to talk about race south of the border, mestizo is the word you're looking for, not Hispanic.
Spanish people are Hispanic.
And they're white.
If someone screams racism in a category that is not about a race and not about race, that person is the racist.
That person, the first person to scream racism when something that's being discussed is not a race, like Hispanic, not a race, Mexican, not a race, illegal immigrant, not a race.
The first person who talks about racism screams racism.
That person is the only identified racist in the conversation.
And that's what the internet and the planet and any person with a decent conscience is getting really thoroughly sick and goddamn tired of.
Racism, racism, racism, racism, racism.
Okay, so we're all supposed to live together, but we can't criticize any other cultures because that's racist.
Oh, no, you can criticize white culture as racist because that's the same for many people as breathing.
We've got to stop viewing everything through the lens of race.
You can criticize numbers.
You can criticize math.
You can criticize the tendency for Hispanics to vote for Democrats.
You can criticize that.
It's not racism.
It's counting.
Now, the fact that Trump is holding on to his principles despite these cries of racism is kind of why there is Trump.
Why people like him.
We all, all people of good conscience, good character, We all want to have honest conversations about cultural differences, about ethnic differences, about potential racial differences.
We all need to have conversations about that so we can find a way to all get along and live together.
First, we've got to start with facts.
Then we've got to start with numbers.
Then we've got to have some data.
And then we've got to speak honestly about our thoughts and feelings.
This constant beatdown, this fascist censorship of racist, racist, racist, bigot, bigot, bigot.
I mean, this is really going to push things to a boiling point.
And that's not where we want to go as a culture and as a society.
Donald Trump has the right to say, hey, this guy has joined tons of organizations that are pro-Hispanic, pro-illegal immigration.
And I'm against illegal immigration.
There may be some conflict of interest here.
He appointed lawyers that seem to be very pro-Democrat.
There may be a conflict of interest here.
He allowed a bad witness...
Or a bad plaintiff to be removed from the lawsuit.
There may be a conflict of interest here.
Is there the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest?
In my amateur opinion, duh, of course there is!
And let's start dealing with the big problems in society as a whole.
You know, when you've got hordes of Trump supporters fleeing for their lives, being hit on the head with bags of rocks, when you've got a woman being pelted with eggs for pointing at a picture of Trump on her shirt, we have big problems when you have a young white man sprinting away from an attacking horde.
