Offering PhD’s in pussy grabbing.

After being under unrelenting assault by kike lawyers and Mexican terrorist judge Curiel over his Trump University project, it seems the Glorious Leader has opted to allocate his energies to more important things.

Which is to say, making America great again.

New York Times:

Donald J. Trump has reversed course and agreed on Friday to pay $25 million to settle a series of lawsuits stemming from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University, finally putting to rest fraud allegations by former students, which have dogged him for years and hampered his presidential campaign.

The settlement was announced by the New York attorney general just 10 days before one of the cases, a federal class-action lawsuit in San Diego, was set to be heard by a jury. The deal averts a potentially embarrassing and highly unusual predicament: a president-elect on trial, and possibly even taking the stand in his own defense, while scrambling to build his incoming administration.

It was a remarkable concession from a real estate mogul who derides legal settlements and has mocked fellow businessmen who agree to them.

What are you proposing, New York Times? That the Donald interrupt his preparation for the presidency in order to attend some dumb trial?

What your angle, here, exactly?

At a hearing on the case in San Diego on Friday, Mr. Petrocelli said Mr. Trump had settled the case“without an acknowledgment of fault or liability.”

The judge overseeing the two California cases, Gonzalo Curiel, was thrust into the limelight of the campaign in May when Mr. Trump spent several minutes at a rally denouncing the judge’s decisions in the case, calling him a “hater” and questioning his impartiality because of his Mexican heritage.

Not just because of his “Mexican heritage,” you lying Jews. Curiel was a part of the Latino bar association and had sympathies for “La Raza,” a Beaner-supremacy movement. Only an idiot (or a NYT writer) could pretend like it would be possible for such a judge to be fair and objective.

La Raza is a Mexican terrorist organization.

In any case, it’s essential for Trump to toss aside all distractions and put all his energy on the task at hand.

The future of America rest on his shoulders. The Glorious Leader has stepped on his pride in order to do the responsible thing. Of course, that doesn’t prevent the Jews from gloating.

They won’t be gloating much longer.

At the time of writing this, when visiting La Raza’s webpage, and navigating to the ‘about us’ section, you will be met with the following words:

LATINOS ARE VITAL TO AMERICA’S FUTURE

Is this really the case? The answer is obvious to those of us who are in the alt-right–no, of course not. We have survived without Latinos, and in fact, we would be better off without Latinos in this country.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, of ‘native’ Hispanic households without children, native meaning Hispanics who have been born in this country, approximately 54% are on welfare. Hispanic households that have children: 76% of these households are on welfare. That’s a lot of tax money that could be better spent on a myriad of things. Also, this does not take into account the stress illegal immigrants put on public services.

The presumption that we need ‘Latinos’ to survive as a nation, the one that La Raza seems to be presenting to the American public, has no basis in reality.

America functioned just fine when Hispanic people were an insignificant part of this country. In 1970 the Hispanic population was roughly 4.5%, and before this, the number of Hispanics was even smaller. America was able to survive both world wars, without Latinos. We struggled through the great depression, without Latinos. If America was to go to war, how many Latinos would be running to the conscription centers? Let’s say America went to war with Mexico, how would Mexican-Americans respond to this?

We all know the answer.

Let’s face reality: the USA is a White country, it has always been a White country. Mestizos, Latinos–whatever you wish to call them, will never have the same loyalty to America as whites do. Why? They did not create America, they have no attachment to America. The only thing they have an attachment to is the welfare check that comes through the postal service every month. How many founding fathers spoke Spanish? How many of them were Mestizo? When you answer these questions, you will realize that Latinos as an ethnic group have no reason to support America, or the constitution, because it’s not theirs, it will never be theirs.

La Raza is only concerned with the interests of their ingroup; they are Mestizo supremacists. La Raza knows full well that Latinos are not a benefit to America. The only reason they exist is to turn southern America into a Mestizo ethnostate, essentially a new Mexico.

To close, I will simply quote José Angel Gutiérrez, one of the founding members of La Raza. You may draw your own conclusions on what La Raza is from there.

“We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population … I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it.”

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?

Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge’s bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent.

Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific?

Just this. First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.

On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.

And who is Curiel?

An appointee of President Obama, he has for years been associated with the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which supports pro-illegal immigrant organizations.

Set aside the folly of letting Clinton surrogates like the Post distract him from the message he should be delivering, what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?

He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.

But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.

Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.

The conservative movement was propelled by attacks on the Warren Court. In the ’50s and ’60s, “Impeach Earl Warren!” was plastered on billboards and bumper stickers all across God’s country.

The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.

Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.

But Trump’s real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge’s ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision’s Jorge Ramos.

Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.

But these things matter.

Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?

Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums.

Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.

All of us are products of our family, faith, race and ethnic group. And the suggestion in these attacks on Trump that judges and justices always rise about such irrelevant considerations, and decide solely on the merits, is naive nonsense.

There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”

When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?

Pressed by John Dickerson on CBS, Trump said it’s “possible” a Muslim judge might be biased against him as well.

Another “inexcusable” outrage.

But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?

When Richard Nixon appointed Judge Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, it was partly because he was a distinguished jurist of South Carolina ancestry. And the Democrats who tore Haynsworth to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.

To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.

Republican nominee and deportation enthusiast Donald J. Trump’s recent remarks about an ethnically Mexican judge—and member of mestizo racialist organization La Raza—being likely to judge him unfairly in the ‘Trump University’ lawsuit have drawn widespread condemnation from the left and right, and usual charges of racism. Reflecting the current-year presentism that pervades American political discourse, anti-Trump commentators, especially on the right, are aghast that someone could suggest: 1.) identity influences a civil servant’s decisions, and 2.) someone born in Indiana to Mexican parents is a Mexican. Pat Buchanan offers an excellent rebuttal.

But given the history of diversity-proximity friction in this country and its subverted institutions, can anyone sincerely find any controversy in the idea that a judge’s background influences his decisions? Certainly, the case has been made that a person’s identity matters more than ever before in the last eight years. We know for example from progressive sermonizing that White males are unqualified to run a diverse America’s institutions because of their implicit biases, white privilege, male privilege, etc. In other words, liberals already believe that identity is relevant to one’s political positions, which is correct. Identity politics for everyone but Whites and criticism of Whiteness and masculinity as being anti-progress are part of their canon. Conservatives have no response to this than crying that identity politics is racism, but as the moral authority-setting left has also explained, people of color cannot be racist, only Whites. Who are conservatives siding with when they call Trump a racist? For voicing concern that a judge who belongs to an ethnic group that he plans to deport a sizable chunk of might be biased against him on the basis that he is part of said group? Sounds like common sense to me.

Identity has mattered in the judiciary for a long time. Justice Antonin Scalia (PBUH), a Silent Generation-born Italian-American Catholic and member of the Knights of Columbus, was an extremely conservative judge who stuck to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He also expressed concern that Protestants were not represented on the Sanhedrin (SCOTUS), which at the time of his death was and remains entirely benched by Jews and Catholics. Obama’s chosen liberal candidate to replace Scalia, (((Merrick Garland))), is a mischling and would be the second Jew appointed to the Sanhedrin by him. Trump’s current list of potential Court nominees is all White (and conservative). It matters who decides court cases; only liars dispute this.

People seem to have already forgotten about the most powerful mestizo judge in the country’s views on identity and the judiciary. One of Obama’s first-term Sanhedrin appointees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, made the case way back in 2001 at an academic networking event for mestizos that as a Spanish-speaking woman of color she was inherently a better judge than a White male. Speaking at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture and published a year later in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal as “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” the Senate-confirmed Sotomayor made her infamous “wise Latina” remark that only the alt-right seems to remember:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

There are plenty of other snippets throughout the speech which confirm what everyone who isn’t viciously delusional already knows, that collectivism is rampant among the constituent nations of any diverse empire and that tribal loyalties matter to people and their politics. What makes this empire truly bizarre is that identity politics is tolerated and actually encouraged among the supposedly oppressed minority groups:

I intend tonight to touch upon the themes [mestizo ethnic networking]  that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.

Well look at that! I guess it’s not e pluribus unum, it’s still many. Have another:

Who am I? I am a “Newyorkrican.” For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.

Puerto Rico is part of the United States. So is New York. But she considers herself an ethnic Puerto Rican who resides in New York, NY. Not a deracinated American. More:

Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge.

We. Our. Spoken like a collectivist taking over a soft and effete egalitarian society. Have another:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Again, a mestizo is saying being mestizo will change the way a judge does his or her job. Come on, get this through your heads:

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between “the melting pot and the salad bowl” — a recently popular metaphor used to described New York’s diversity – is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences.

Oh, so in other words, diversity makes the United States inherently unstable and leads to conflict over what it means to be an American. We need to both celebrate diversity and ignore it? All the while considering it desirable for people to “maintain and promote [non-white] cultural and ethnic identities,” an explicit form of factionalism—recognized in the Federalist Papers as a grave threat to the Republic—if there ever was one. No, what is quite clear is that this a collectivist speaker talking to an audience of co-ethnics. And it’s the future. Well actually, these words were spoken in 2001. It’s the present! None of these issues have been resolved; they have only accelerated.

Trump is right about the mestizo judge. So is Sotomayor. And she said it first. Republicans who deny the role of identity in politics are doing themselves a disservice in the long-run, assuming they aren’t just filthy liars being loyal to ((((an anti-conservative faction)))). They’re also cucking for the anti-gringo La Raza organization by not supporting the Republican nominee, who many of them pledged to support months ago. And as we already know, liberals calling Trump—or Whites broadly—racist for playing identity politics are pure distilled scum. They don’t even blink about doing it themselves.

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are in interesting company in denouncing The Donald’s position on the invasion of America by Mexico.

The Mexican terrorist organization “La Raza” which means “the race” – a group openly attempting a conquest of the United States in the name of the Mexican race – denounced The Donald in basically the exact same terms Hillary and Jeb (as well as all other candidates) have used.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “The Rundown with Jose Diaz-Balart,” Janet Murguia, President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, said:

Well, obviously, Donald Trump is being very divisive, inflammatory, and in many instances, using false information to talk about what is true, and that is a broken immigration system.

We do all agree we need to fix a broken immigration system, but we do not agree with Donald Trump that when he characterizes the numbers of people coming across the border. This is not true. The Pew Center has stated, quite clearly, that we’re at a low when it comes to migration from Mexico to the US, it’s a net zero that we’ve seen in the last three to five years.

So, for Donald Trump to be trying to stir emotions in a very negative way is not positive, it’s divisive, and it’s not going to create solutions. And all Americans, including Hispanic-Americans, want leadership, and they want solutions. And instead, he’s creating division, so for us, it is absolutely offensive to hear this kind of talk.

Meanwhile, both Hillary and Jew Bernie actually spoke at the conference for this group.

That isn’t particularly surprising. What is surprising is that Jeb Bush didn’t show up, since he has made it so clear that it is more important to him to cater to Latinos than Whites, no matter how alienating this may be to Whites.

He has also made it clear that he wants unlimited amounts of Mexican criminals in America, and believes America’s future should be brown.

So why did he snub The Race?