Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Immigration

Did Donald Trump win Hispanic vote in West Texas?

Published

on

A post-Super Tuesday article from the Laredo (Texas) Morning Times is making the rounds on the internet. According to those posting the article, Donald Trump’s primary election victory in Webb County Texas proves that Trump can win Hispanic voters in spite of his immigration policies, which include deportation of all illegal immigrants and a 40-foot tall wall along the Mexican border. Critics have argued that Trump’s proposals, along with rhetoric calling illegal immigrants “criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.” will drive Latino voters to the Democratic Party. Did Donald Trump win Hispanic vote majorities in Webb County?

 

Webb County is a west Texas county that includes the border city of Laredo. The county is 95 percent Latino according to the US Census so when Donald Trump won the Republican primary there on March 1, many took it as a sign that warnings about Trump’s harsh immigration rhetoric were off base.

The headline of the Laredo Morning Times on March 2 asked the question, “How did Trump win Webb County?” The article went on to note that Webb County was one of only six in the State of Texas that were won by Trump. The British newspaper, The Guardian, picked up the story with the headline, “Trump dominates in Texas border town where proposed wall would be built.”

 

The vote in Webb County was close. According to the Morning Times, “Ted Cruz won 1,155 votes in Webb County and Marco Rubio won 1,163, an eight-vote difference ― a true split.” Trump edged out the two Hispanic senators with 1,427 votes leading Webb County Republican Party Chairman Randy Blair to speculate, “I really think the main reason he won in Webb is because the two [candidates] behind him split the Hispanic vote.”

 

While this theory may be true, the most important aspect of Trump’s victory in Webb County is missing from both the Morning Times and the Guardian. The obvious questions for inquiring minds are what percentage of Republican voters in Webb County were Hispanic and how did Donald Trump and his immigration proposals stack up against Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders?

 

The first question is unanswerable. Exit polls were not taken for Webb County. The closest we can come is to look at statewide exit polls for Texas from the New York Times. These show that, even though Latinos make up 40 percent of the population of Texas according to the Texas Department of State Health Services, only 10 percent of Republican primary voters were Hispanic. In contrast, 28 percent of voters in the Democratic primary were Hispanic.

 

If this holds true for Webb County, it would mean that Hispanic voters were drastically underrepresented in the county’s vote for Donald Trump. It would also explode the myth that Webb County Hispanics were rallying behind Donald Trump and his wall.

 

The answer to the second question can help to answer the first. The Morning Times also published full primary election results for both parties. Comparing Democratic and Republican primary results can help determine how excited Webb County Hispanics are about both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

 

The Republican primary results were [results for candidates who have withdrawn are not shown]:

Donald Trump 1,427 votes 34.90 percent
Marco Rubio 1,163 votes 28.44 percent
Ted Cruz 1,155 votes 28.25 percent
John Kasich 61 votes 1.49 percent

 

 

Looking to the Democratic primary, the results were:

Hillary Clinton 18,559 votes 71.86 percent
Bernie Sanders 6,177 votes 23.92 percent

 

 

When the two primary elections are compared, Trump’s miraculous victory among Hispanics evaporates quickly. There were 4,063 Republican votes compared to 25,826 votes for Democrats. To put that into perspective, the Democratic runner-up received more votes than the top three Republican candidates combined. This is not an encouraging sign for Republicans.

 

Looking at the numbers a little more deeply, we can see that Trump’s share of the total vote was roughly equivalent to the white share of Webb County’s total population. His Webb County victory required Trump to win few, if any, Hispanic votes.

 

Where some Trump supporters are lauding the Webb County results, they actually show a major weakness that could prevent both Trump and Cruz from beating Hillary Clinton in November. Previous polling has indicated that most Americans favor a pathway to citizenship and oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants. These numbers are even stronger in the Hispanic community. In many of the must-win swing states, Hispanic voters may be the deciding factor. Based on the results so far, it appears that Hispanic swing voters would break heavily for the Democratic candidate.

 

The Webb County results should not surprising. The southwest corner of Texas is the most Democratic part of the state. Historic election results from 2008 and 2012 show that Webb County voted for Barack Obama in both elections. In fact, the 13 percent of votes garnered by all Republicans is markedly worse than the 22 percent won by Mitt Romney in 2012.

 

Exit polls were not conducted in Texas in 2012, but Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally. Republicans must improve on this number if they want to win the White House.

 

While primary voters are not an accurate representation of the general electorate, these numbers should be alarming to Republicans. Hispanic primary voters in a deeply red state have roundly rejected both Republican frontrunners in favor of Hillary Clinton. This should be a wakeup call to the Trump and Cruz campaigns that they need to tone down their anti-immigrant and anti-Mexico rhetoric.

 

Interestingly, the presence of Marco Rubio, an immigration reform proponent, also did not bring Hispanic voters over to the GOP. There are several possible reasons for this. First, Texas Hispanics are primarily of Mexican descent, where both Cruz and Rubio are of Cuban descent. The two Hispanic Republicans might fare better in other states where the Hispanic population is more diverse. Second, there is the fact that Hispanic primary voters are skewed more to the Democratic Party and its track record of immigration amnesty. In any case, all three Republican candidates have work to do in reaching out to the Hispanic community.

 

To win the presidency, the Republican candidate must flip the states of Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia that were won by Obama twice. Many swing voters in these states are Hispanic or naturalized Americans. The Webb County results show that these voters are unlikely to abandon Hillary Clinton and the Democrats for Donald Trump and his wall.

 

David W. Thornton is a freelance writer and commercial pilot. He writes from the perspective of a conservative Christian and economic libertarian. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. A native of Georgia, he currently lives in Villa Rica with his wife and two children. An archive of his work can found at his syndicated blog, CaptainKudzu.com. David can be contacted at [email protected]

Crime

Trump Was RIGHT! Look Who Was Just BUSTED For Starting DEADLY Cali Fire That Killed 41 So Far – Here’s Why

This is Sick & they Have to pay!

Published

on

The California wildfires have been raging for quite some time which has caused unprecedented damage in the region.

Now, it is important to note that fires in the California area are not unheard of, but they typically occur in December and January, and not October.

These fires have forced thousands of residents to leave their homes in terror not knowing what they will return to when they are able.

Law enforcement officials have been working tirelessly to figure out who started these horrific wildfires and it appears they may have the culprits that prove President Trump was right yet again. 

On Monday, firefighters have been able to gain control of the raging wildfires in the northern California area.

However, even though these brave firefighters have been able to make headway in containing the fire the death toll has risen to 41.

Over the last week, these raging fires have scorched more than 200,000 acres, destroyed or damaged more than 5,500 homes, and displaced 100,000 people. Though by some miracle on Sunday, the winds changed and the firefighters were able to take advantage of that situation and contain some of the fires.

Now that the firefighters have been able to make some headway in these deadly fires, law enforcement has been focusing on what caused them, and what they found is shocking. As officials were studying the fires, they noticed a pattern of where the majority of them occurred. It seems that areas hardest hit by these fires were in areas within the legal marijuana business, and they are now suspecting foul play.

As it turns out the areas that are being hit the hardest happens to be pot farms.

CNN Money reported:

Deadly wildfires in Northern California are burning up marijuana farms in the so-called Emerald Triangle.

Blazes have destroyed a number of farms in Mendocino County right before legal recreational sales begin in California.

Cannabis business owners who lose their crops have little reprieve.

“Nobody right now has insurance,” said Nikki Lastreto, secretary of the Mendocino Cannabis Industry Association. “They might have insurance on their house, but not on their crop.”

Here is more from Got News:

The suspicious timing and sheer destruction of the fires have led them to believe the Mexican drug cartels – infamous for their ruthless tactics – had a hand in starting them. These cartels, which run a large share of the world’s multi-billion dollar illegal drug trade, certainly have the means to pull of an attack like this.

They also have an enormous incentive to drive up prices and hurt their competitors, and these fires are already accomplishing that. If Mexican drug lord involvement is confirmed, it will likely spark an international crisis between the United States and Mexico over the latter’s failure to rein in its criminal cartels.

Facebook photos provided to GotNews show the wildfires have caused staggering damage, with several before-and-after pictures revealing the extent of the devastation:

Before the fire. (Photo Credit Facebook)

After the devastating California fires. (Photo Credit Facebook)

The New York Times reported yesterday that tens of thousands of marijuana growers live in this area, the vast majority of whom have no insurance. Furthermore, since marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Controlled Substances Act, the industry still uses cash.

GotNews can confirm that millions of dollars in cash has already been lost to the fires, in addition to tens of millions more in property damage.

According to NBC News, thousands of acres of marijuana have already been burned, and the fires have also wiped out “recent investments in infrastructure to comply with licensing regulations in preparation for recreational marijuana legalization next year.”

The total damage caused by these fires will be unclear for a while, as many of them are still burning.

So, what does this all mean and how does this prove that President Trump was right?

As stated previously law enforcement officials are suspecting that Mexican cartels started these devastating fires. The cartel does not like competition especially when it comes to making drug money and if California is now legalizing marijuana you can bet that the drug lords are not happy.

These ruthless individuals will continue on their path of destruction unless there is something to stop them. What that something is would be a wall between the Mexican border and the United States to prevent these people from entering our country. There is no reason that these criminals should be allowed to sneak into America and create havoc on innocent people.

These fires appear to be a message sent from the cartels to scare the legal marijuana farmers from continuing to grow their crop. Now, whether you agree with marijuana or not is not the issue considering that these farmers have the right to grow it, and no illegals should be able to prevent it from happening.

SHARE IF YOU WANT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S WALL BUILT TO PREVENT ILLEGALS FROM ENTERING AMERICA!

H/T [The Gateway Pundit]

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Featured

BREAKING: 15 Dead, 400 Hospitalized in San Diego After Illegals’ Disturbing Surprise

Published

on

Officials in the liberal southern California city of San Diego, have declared a state of emergency during the popular vacation weekend for the tourist town. Prior to admitting the problem believed to have been caused by illegal aliens in the area, fifteen people died and a whopping 400 are hospitalized.

California is one state which has led the charge against President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration, by deliberately giving illegals a “sanctuary” to escape to after crossing the southern border into the United States.

With that as their priority, they inadvertently invited in much more than a flood of new residents, which Trump had warned about. San Diego did things their way and now are suffering the horrific cost of that detrimental decision.

As many Americans were packing up for the long weekend to celebrate the final holiday of the summer, officials in SanDiegoo were dealing with a devastating issue. Rather than heading to the beach or other relaxing location, residents were flooding hospitals in droves, suffering from what quickly became a complete health crisis in the area.

A public health emergency was declared Friday over an outbreak of ‘hepatitis A’ that has been linked to at least 15 deaths and 400 hospitalizations, America’s Freedom Fighters reported.

According to Fox News, “The liver disease outbreak started last November, with the homeless population affected most. The emergency declaration will help the city access state funds and provide legal protection for new sanitation measures, the Union-Tribune reported.”

“Areas with high concentrations of homeless people will receive roughly 40 portable hand-washing stations to help combat the disease, which can spread through fecal matter when people fail to thoroughly clean their hands after using the restroom.”

“Crews also plan to use bleach-spiked water for high-pressure washing to remove “all feces, blood, bodily fluids or contaminated surfaces,” according to a sanitation plan outlined in a letter Thursday.”

The massive sanitization efforts could soon be imposed in surrounding areas to control the situation that’s spreading out of control.

“After previous vaccination and educational programs failed to significantly reduce the infection rate, and with death reports spiking in recent weeks, San Diego decided to mimic a campaign used in Los Angeles, which is home to tens of thousands of homeless, in an attempt to curb the outbreak,” Fox News explained.

While they are stating specifically who or which group of people started this, outbreaks of this kind are par for the course when unvaccinated people from other countries come in and bring diseases with them. It’s not a matter of being racist or bigoted to want to control immigration, it’s a health concern which could be prevented if people go about this process the correct way.

The backup efforts to the curb the problem as previously explained was too little and too late. The outbreak was already in San Diego and trying to stop it is far more difficult that preventing it in the first place.

Today, it’s Hep A, but next, it could be something worse which is what President Trump is trying to be proactive about with all of his anti-illegal immigration efforts. We’ve already seen the introduction of ancient disease brought into America with the influx of the Muslim refugee program that former President Barack Obama was adamant about.

Prodcons reported:

Seven refugees with active tuberculosis (TB) were diagnosed shortly after their resettlement in Idaho between 2011 and 2015, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.

This makes Idaho the seventh state to confirm to Breitbart News that recently arrived refugees have been diagnosed with active TB.

The other states in which recently arrived refugees have been diagnosed with active TB include: Louisiana (twenty-one), Florida (eleven), Colorado, (ten), Indiana (four), Kentucky (where nine were diagnosed in one county), and North Dakota (where four refugees who resided in the United States for less than five years were diagnosed in one county).

Idaho is one of fourteen states that have withdrawn from the federal refugee resettlement program where the federal government has hired a voluntary agency (VOLAG) to resettle refugees under the statutorily questionable Wilson Fish alternative program.

In Idaho, the federal government has contracted the Idaho Office for Refugees (IOR), a division of the large non-profit known as Janus, to run the program. Janus is one of the largest organizations within the lucrative and politically connected refugee resettlement industry, which is paid more than $1 billion per year by the federal government.

There is no valid argument for allowing contagious disease such as these to run rampant in the name of political correctness. Immigration laws were never about being racist or insensitive, they were created for a reason and the control of a potential outbreak is just part of it. What San Diego is experiencing this holiday weekend could have potentially been avoided if laws were followed and immigrants were stropped from crossing into America at will.

Continue Reading

Immigration

Libs Sweating Bullets After Supreme Court Just Handed Trump The Best News Of His Entire Presidency

This will make you cheer!

Published

on

Winning, Winning and more Winning! Late last night President Trump won yet another legal battle against the American left wing and their bought and paid for activist judges and lackeys.

As expected, the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday night dismissed one of two cases over the President’s ban on visitors from majority Muslim nations. The court dismissed the case that originated in Maryland and involved a ban that has now expired and been replaced by a new version. But sadly the justices failed to take action on a separate case from Hawaii which was originated by Obama friend and lackey, Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin, who has been battling President Donald Trump over travel bans since February.

The one-page order states that the justices were unanimous in deciding against ruling in the Maryland case, although of course one of the liberal “Barry Soetoro” justices, Sonia Sotomayor, did note that she would not have wiped out the appeals court ruling in its entirety. The expired travel ban had included people from terrorist hotbeds such as Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan.

The new “open-ended” ban, scheduled to take effect on Oct. 18, removed Sudan from the list while blocking people from Chad and North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela from entering the United States. Because we are all aware how dangerous starving people from North Korea and Venezuela are, but that’s what you have to do to satisfy the liberal mindset. Wonder why they didn’t add Ireland to the mix, I hear those Irish are really dangerous to our nation’s security.

The New American Reports:

Trump Travel Ban Unconstitutional? But Obama, Bush, Carter Travel Bans Constitutional?

Other presidents have suspended immigration without having their orders derailed by the courts. Why is Trump’s executive order being treated differently?

On Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals kept to its activist ways by refusing to allow President Trump’s executive order suspending the controversial U.S. refugee program to be in effect as it continues to wind its way through the courts. The three-judge panel that denied the administration’s request to lift the temporary restraining order on the executive order was unanimous in its decision.

The judges — William Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee — wrote in their decision that the executive order likely violates “what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.” The decision also says the “it is the Government’s burden to make ‘a strong showing that [it] is likely to’ prevail against the States’ procedural due process claims” and that the court is “not persuaded that the Government has carried its burden for a staying appeal.”

In plain English, that means that the three-judge panel decided that the restraining order against Trump’s executive order is unlikely to be overturned by a higher court, so it sees no reason to lift the restraining order as this case works its way through the labyrinth of legal red tape it faces.

Of course, the point that is largely overlooked in all of this is that each of these judges was appointed by presidents who also had policies “restricting an individual’s ability to travel.” Let’s just spend a few minutes unpacking that as we work our way backward through the timeline.

As The New American reported in a previous article:

In 2015, Obama signed H.R. 158, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. That bill clarified “the grounds for ineligibility for travel to the United States regarding terrorism risk, to expand the criteria by which a country may be removed from the Visa Waiver Program, to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on strengthening the Electronic System for Travel Authorization to better secure the international borders of the United States and prevent terrorists and instruments of terrorism from entering the United States, and for other purposes.”

The Huffington Post reported at the time of that bill’s passage:

In what could be a sign the administration is moving away from a policy seen as discriminatory, the Obama administration announced Thursday that it is restricting visa-free travel to the U.S. for recent visitors to three additional countries — but not for dual nationals with those passports.

Under the new restrictions, citizens of the 38 countries that are part of the reciprocal visa-waiver program will lose their visa-free travel status if they have traveled to Libya, Somalia or Yemen within the past five years. Thursday’s announcement is an expansion of a law passed late last year, which revoked the visa-waiver status of people who had recently traveled to Iraq, Syria, Iran or Sudan, and who hold dual citizenship with any of those four countries.

Interestingly, not only did the liberal mainstream media celebrate those restrictions (as the example from the Huffington Post shows), but there were no legal challenges brought against H.R. 158, either. Also, to put in the for-what-its-worth-column, that bill — signed into law by Obama and allowed to stand without being issued a restraining order — is one part of the legal framework on which President Trump’s executive order rests.

Before that, though, in 2011, Obama’s State Department quietly halted all refugees from Iraq for a period of six months after it was discovered (to the surprise of no one paying attention) that terrorists who had actually fought against U.S. soldiers in Iraq had gained entry in the United States as “refugees” and were planning attacks here. It seemed that reason dictated a more stringent vetting process. Now where has this writer heard that recently?

Going a little further back, in 2002 — in the wake of 9/11 — both houses of Congress unamimously passed, and President Bush signed — H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. This legislation restricted travel to the United States “from countries that are state sponsors of international terrorism” and created a vetting process so extreme that any vetting process Trump comes up with would have difficulty appearing anything but moderate by comparison. Of course, it was reasonable then and it is reasonable now. But to those looking to attack Trump’s policy on this issue so critical to national security, reason is a stranger. Evidence of that can be seen in the fact that 73 Democrats who voted to pass that law in 2002 are still sitting in office and are among those decrying the suppposed evils of Trump’s executive order which rests as much on the legal framework of H.R. 3525 as it does on Obama’s H.R. 158.

H.R.3525 is still on the books and in effect, granting the president the authority to stop the issuance of non-immigrant visas from the very countries Trump’s executive order names. And as Conservative Review noted, Trump merely applied that law in conjunction with his authority under The Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) which grants the president plenary power to “by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.”

The next stop on our trip in the Wayback Machine is to April 7, 1980. America was in the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis. Five months into the 444-day-long ordeal, President Carter responded by issuing a series of proclamations under his executive authority. Here, in his own words, is the one that is germane to this issue:

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Now, here — in the present — three judges (appointed by presidents who not only did essentially the same thing Trump is doing, but laid the legal foundation and set the precedent for his actions) have the nerve to pretend that while it was fine and dandy when their presidents did it, it is somehow unconstitutional when Trump does it.

And there’s the rub. Constitutionality is not a matter of who (or which party) holds the office and issues the directives; it is a matter of what the Constitution allows and requires. In this case, Article IV, Sec. 4 of that Constitution seems apropos:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

President Trump’s executive order is a balanced attempt to secure the borders of this nation against a terrorist invasion under the guise of a refugee program. The alternative is an open-door policy that allowed Iraqi terrorists to enter this country in the wake of 9/11. President Obama blocked those “refugees” then and if his actions lacked prudence it was that they did not go far enough. The salient point, though, is that no one accused him of overstepping his Constitutional boundaries in taking the action he did. Or Bush before him. Or Carter before him. Why is this any different?

It’s really starting to look like no matter how hard the left tries they just can’t seem to get a leg up on President Trump. This particular case makes it even harder for them to win when you see how former President Barack Hussein Obama did the exact same thing. But with him it was OK because he’s black and has an Islamic name, let’s not kid ourselves here.

Share if you want a travel ban from all Islamic nations!

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Trending