Nevada Caucus Chaos

This is going to be interesting.

H/T: Weasel Zippers

Nevada: One-in-Five Children Have an Illegal Alien Parent

While we watch Nevadans caucus tonight over who their republican presidential nominee should be, let’s keep in mind the people who reside there:

“In Nevada, almost one-in-five students (18%) have at least one unauthorized [illegal] immigrant parent, the largest share in the nation,” Pew reports. This high percentage places Nevada well beyond California and Texas, where the figure is 13 percent.

 While Nevada has the one of the highest unemployment rates in the entire country, it also has the highest percentage of illegal workforce in the entire country — 10.2% of the state’s workforce is illegal.

We should also note Democrats had a turnout rate 30% lower than 2008 with a surprising little twist.

The Nevada State Democratic Party said Monday that there were about 84,000 caucus-goers in their Democratic nomination contest, which is the first in the West and third in the nation.

 About 14,000 of those voters registered the day of.

 But in 2008, there were 118,000 Democratic voters who caucused, with about 30,000 registering the same day.

State party officials also said 65 percent of Saturday's participants were first-time caucus-goers and 41 percent of them were minorities.

Now that’s interesting.

Source:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/report-1-in-5-nevadans-foreign-born-1-in-5-students-has-illegal-parent/

 http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/feb/22/nevada-democratic-caucus-turnout-lower-than-in-200/

Should We Expropriate Nevada's Statehood?

How can Nevada be considered a state when the federal government owns 80% it?  The answer is it can’t.  What’s even more astonishing is the history of how this territory got its statehood.  It was a fraud!  Nevada didn’t qualify!  It was done for political purposes!  The law in 1864 required a population of 60,000 for a territory to become a state.  Nevada only had about 40,000. On top of that, Nevada made a deal with the devil.  Martin Armstrong of Precious Metals wrote the following:

The votes at the end of the day demonstrate that they never needed Nevada. Nonetheless, within the provisions of the Statehood Act of March 21, 1864 that brought Nevada into the voting fold, we see the source of the problem today. This Statehood Act retained the ownership of the land as a territory for the federal government. In return for the Statehood that was really against the law, the new state surrendered any right, title, or claim to the unappropriated public lands lying within Nevada. Moreover, this cannot be altered without the consent of the Feds. Hence, the people of Nevada cannot claim any land whatsoever because politicians needed Nevada for the 1864 election but did not want to hand-over anything in return. This was a typical political one-sided deal.

How ironic is it that the U.S. Senate should be run by a man whose entire career has been devoted to expanding federal power by any means possible?  That’s how Nevada was created, and that’s why the rule of law means nothing to people like Harry Reid.

Mr. Armstrong goes into detail on why the federal government has no claims to public lands in Nevada.  You can read his article by clicking the link below. 

 However, I believe it would be poetic justice to expropriate statehood from Nevada and kick Senator Harry Reid out of Washington D.C.  Nothing would give me more pleasure than a footprint on his backside.

Source:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-20/martin-armstrong-asks-do-feds-really-own-land-nevada

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/19/do-the-feds-really-own-the-land-in-nevada-nope/

Hispanics Vote for Harry Reid

It is just a couple of days after the election and everyone is wondering how and why Nevadans chose the socialist Harry Reid over tea party candidate Sharon Angle. Was it voter fraud? There had been many reports of voting machines automatically picking Harry Reid when a straight line Republican ticket was pulled. Was it the usual corruption by the Democratic machine? We all know about the shenanigans of the likes of ACORN and SEIU. No, apparently it was the Hispanic vote that carried the day for Harry Reid, as per Newsweek:


According to election-eve polling and analysis by Latino Decisions, a surveying firm, Hispanics chose Reid over Angle 90 percent to 8 percent—an astounding margin. CNN’s exit polls showed a significantly smaller spread, with Reid winning 68 percent to Angle’s 30 percent. But Latino Decisions argues that exit-polling methodology is typically inaccurate at measuring voting by Hispanics and other subgroups. The firm also contends that exit polls tend to lowball Latino turnout. Still, CNN’s figures show that Hispanics constituted 15 percent of the Nevada electorate this year, a notable increase over the last midterm cycle, in 2006, when they made up 12 percent. “Latinos certainly saved Harry Reid,” says Gary Segura, a member of Latino Decisions and a professor at Stanford University.



We have to assume that all those Hispanics who voted in Nevada are Americans. In that case, why would they vote for a man whose voting record and policies are hostile to individual liberty and prosperity? Why would this subset of citizens vote for a man who has enslaved future generations of Americans to the yoke of a big federal government that is indebted to the Chinese?

Hispanics in Nevada obviously don’t care about the future of America. No, they are more concerned about their race and ethnicity. They chose their own special interest over everyone else. You would have thought that they too would be concerned about illegal immigration. Doesn’t an invasion of illegal immigrants that have the same rights and privileges as Americans demean their citizenship as much as the rest of us? Maybe American citizenship wasn’t what the Hispanics were concerned about, when they pulled the lever for Harry Reid.

Source:  http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/11/03/did-hispanics-save-harry-reid.html