Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Elizabeth Warren hypocrisy. She was a real estate profiteer. Lent money to family members to do the same. She was paid $35K to teach one class at Harvard. isn't that profiteering.

Posted By Watchdog Staff On May 27, 2015 @ 4:00 am

AP Photo / Michael Dwyer, File[1]
UNREAL ESTATE: Before the crash that she blamed on speculators, Senator Elizabeth Warren made a bundle by flipping houses.

By Jillian Kay Melchior and Eliana Johnson | Special to Watchdog.org
Nearly two years after Veo Vessels died, her daughter, 70-year-old Mary Frances Hickman, decided to sell the home her mother had left to her. A sprawling brick house in Oklahoma City’s historic Highland Park neighborhood, it was built in 1924, just a year after Mary’s birth.
Even now, decades later, one of Vessels’ great-grandchildren fondly recalls the wood and tile floors, the fish pond, the butler’s quarters, and the multi-car garage where children played house.
“It was really, really nice,” says Hickman’s granddaughter, Andrea Martin. That’s part of the reason she’s so surprised her grandmother sold the home in 1993 for a mere $30,000. Despite a debilitating stroke, Martin says Hickman remained sharp, and she had always been business-savvy. As an Avon saleswoman, she had at times ranked among the top ten in the country. “So I don’t know why,” Martin says. “Maybe she just wanted out from underneath it, but to sell it for such a low number — I don’t know. Maybe she got bad advice, maybe she was just tired.”
The home’s new owner: Elizabeth Warren, today a Massachusetts senator who has built a political career on denouncing the sort of banking titans and financial sophisticates who make a buck off the little guy. Five months after purchasing Veo Vessels’ old home, Warren flipped the property, selling it for $115,000 more than she’d paid, according to Oklahoma County Property Assessor records.
Warren rose to political prominence in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis as a crusader against big banks and a dispenser of common-sense economic advice. She campaigned for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, intended to shield people from the predations of the mortgage and credit-card industries, among others. In her 2006 book All Your Worth, co-authored with her daughter, Amelia, Warren lists as a top myth [2] the idea that “you can make big money buying houses and flipping them quickly.” She has made a career out of telling people how to behave in financially responsible ways, and out of creating laws that will make it illegal for them to do otherwise.
But Warren bought and sold at least five properties for profit at a different time in her life, before the cratering economy and a political career made her a star. Her life story has been the subject of much interest, and her 2014 memoir, A Fighting Chance [3], chronicled her rise from humble beginnings in small-town Oklahoma and her struggle to make ends meet. It didn’t much mention, though, the early 1990s, years when her children were teenagers and she was once again happily married. These are years when she wasn’t yet the multimillionaire she is today, and, she has said, she was voting Republican.
As a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, and later as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, she was doing well for herself, building both her professional profile and her wealth. She owes at least part of her considerable financial success, it seems, to snapping up these properties in her native Oklahoma and turning them for a profit – though today that’s not a practice she endorses for the many people looking to emulate her success.
(By our deadline, Warren’s office did not respond to our request for an interview with the senator or for a request for comment from the senator’s spokesperson for Warren about the home sales.)
Hickman’s granddaughter Martin says of the home flip: “I don’t think it’s right, but I don’t really know much about it …. You flip houses to make a profit, so I can’t really fault [Warren] much. I think my grandmother made a mistake by selling it for so cheap …. She had worked hard all her life and was a self-made woman.”
Don Vessels — a grandson of Veo Vessels, and the nephew of Mary Frances Hickman — said he had not known that Warren had purchased the family home, but “my reaction is that it’s kind of par for the course.” He added: “What’s said and what’s done in politics are two different things. Mary Hickman, being the executor of the estate, should have sold it for the highest price on the market, which I’m not sure she did. But the house was not in fantastic shape, I can tell you that. It was a very nice house when it was purchased, but my grandmother kind of let it fall into disrepair.”
Records show Warren bought the house Hickman inherited from her mother, located at 200 N.W. 16th Street, in August 1993 and quickly obtained permits to do plumbing and electrical work, selling it five months later for a 383 percent gain.
House flipping is commonly defined as the practice of buying and selling a home within six months, as the future senator did with the Hickman property. Warren held onto at least four other properties for longer periods, sometimes waiting a year before relinquishing ownership and, at other times, as long as seven years.
Warren bought two homes after they’d fallen into foreclosure. And though she spent money fixing up the Hickman home before selling it, records suggest she sold others at a significant profit without making any meaningful upgrades.
In 1993, Warren bought a foreclosed property on N.W. 14th Street in Oklahoma City for $4,000. National Review attempted to contact the couple who had owned it. No phone number or email could be found on record for them, and they did not respond to a letter mailed to their last known address, in Colorado. No public records could be found elaborating on the events that led to the foreclosure of their home.
In 2004, Warren transferred the home to her brother, John Herring, and his wife, who sold it for $30,000 in 2006, a 650 percent increase over what Warren initially paid for it. Neither Warren nor her brother filed any permits to make improvements.
In June 1993, Warren bought another foreclosed property in Oklahoma City, this one on West Wilshire Boulevard, for $61,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Because properties purchased from HUD are sold as is, and because foreclosed homes can have damage ranging from simple poor upkeep to stripped copper, “the only reason you do that is for profit,” says Steve Stout, residential field supervisor at the Oklahoma County Assessor’s Office.
On the national stage, Warren has been outspoken about the dangers of home foreclosure. In a 2002 book, The Fragile Middle Class, co-authored with Teresa Sullivan and Jay Lawrence Westerbrook, she wrote that foreclosures are “notorious for fetching low prices.” And as a professor at Harvard Law School, in the wake of the financial crisis, Warren served as a member of the congressional panel overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The panel produced, among other things, a report [4] on the foreclosures taking place across the country. It began with a paean to the place of the home in American life: “Foreclosures are about the home,” it said, which is “the physical and emotional nexus of many households as well as the centerpiece of many Americans’ finances.” Foreclosures, it concluded, “can harm other homeowners both by encouraging additional foreclosures and by reducing home sale prices, while decreased property values hurt local businesses and reduce state and local tax revenues.”
A year after buying the foreclosed property on West Wilshire Boulevard, Warren also bought the house next door for $72,000. Despite filing no building permits to renovate at either property, Warren pocketed $34,000 in profits when she sold the first house in December 1994, and she and her husband, Bruce Mann, made an additional $32,000 when they sold the one next door in 1998.
That same year, Warren sold another home she and Mann owned for a sizeable profit. The couple had purchased the property, at 4721 Dove Tree Lane, in 1991, filing permits for mechanical and plumbing repairs, according to Oklahoma County Assessor’s Office records.
“We’re talking about more than just painting or minor repairs,” says Stout, adding that it could add up to tens of thousands of dollars. “It’s serious work.” Still, the investment seems to have paid off: Warren and her husband paid only $50,000 for the house and sold it for $109,500, a 119 percent gain.
The profits from these flipped homes adds up. Even excluding the property sold by her brother, Warren and her husband have made at least $240,500 flipping homes, not counting the unknown sum they invested in remodeling. In her 2014 autobiography, Warren wrote of the events that precipitated the financial crisis that “everyone seemed to have a story about someone they knew who was getting rich by flipping houses.”
She omitted a crucial one.
This article first appeared in National Review. Eliana Johnson is Washington editor for National Review. Jillian Kay Melchior writes for National Review as a Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow for the Franklin Center, and she is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum.

Elizabeth Warren helped family flip wigwams for heap big wampum

Yes dear WizBang readers, it’s time to pick on Big Chief Paleface again.  The Boston Heraldis reporting:
Elizabeth Warren, who has railed against predatory banks and heartless foreclosures, took part in about a dozen Oklahoma real estate deals that netted her and her family hefty profits through maneuvers such as “flipping” properties, records show.
A Herald review has found that the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate rapidly bought and sold homes herself, loaned money at high interest rates to relatives and purchased foreclosed properties at bargain prices.
Land records from Warren’s native Oklahoma City show the Harvard professor was active in the often topsy-turvy real estate market in the 1990s, including:
• Purchasing a foreclosed home at 2725 West Wilshire Boulevard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for $61,000 in June 1993, then selling it in December 1994 for $95,000 — a 56 percent mark-up in just 18 months.
• Buying a house at 200 NW 16th St. for $30,000 in August 1993, then flipping it for $145,000 — a 383 percent gain after just five months.
• Lending one of her brothers money at 9.5 percent interest to buy a home at 1425 Classen Drive for $35,000 in August 2000. He sold the place three months later for $38,500 — a 10 percent gain in 75 days.
• Providing her brother with financing to buy a $25,000 house at 4301 NW 16th St. in 1994. He sold the property four years later for $42,000, a 68 percent increase.
… Herald columnist Howie Carr reported yesterday that Warren and her relatives also profited from two additional Oklahoma City foreclosures — in both cases showing triple-digit percentage gains.
Warren’s campaign issued a statement last night: “Elizabeth and (her husband) Bruce are fortunate to be in a position where they can help their family. They have been able to help relatives buy their homes and her nephew — a contractor — fix up houses.”
I’m not one to criticize someone for taking advantage of a good deal when they find it.  As a resident of Oklahoma City I can tell you that Warren and her family shrewdly bought bargain homes in parts of town that were popular transition areas (older/retired homeowners selling smaller 1950’s era homes to young first-time buyers) that saw a lot of market activity ten to twenty years ago.  And the house in Mesta Park (200 NW 16th), which is a neighborhood of stately two story WWI era homes that sell today in the $200 – $300k range, was an incredible find.  I’m also pretty certain that buying the house so cheaply meant it was in pretty bad shape, therefore a lot of the sales price went to cover the cost of renovation.
But there is something not quite right about an advocate for fair and affordable housing taking low-priced homes off the market and then reselling them at a substantially increased price.  This helps put thousands of dollars in Elizabeth Warren’s pocket, but it how does it help lower income first-time home buyers looking for an affordable property that they can buy, repair, and use as a means to invest and build equity wealth?  Likewise with foreclosure homes, which generally involve a significant financial loss for the foreclosed homeowner.  Should a critic of “predatory lending” and “dangerous mortgages” be profiting from the resale of foreclosure homes?
And look at the deal for 1425 Classen Drive.  It’s a two bedroom condo in a multi-unit townhouse style building.  The fact that the purchase and sales dates, and purchase and sales prices, of the property are so close together tells me that her brother was likely forced into a quick sale.  Probably the place was resold “as-is” or with little more than a new coat of paint.  If her brother enlisted the help of a licensed real estate agent, then he would have been responsible for paying their commission out of the sales proceeds.  If you factor in the 9.5% interest rate Warren charged her brother, it is very likely that he could have actually lost money on the deal.  But as a lender, Warren of course made money.
As I’ve said before, I have no doubt that Elizabeth Warren is genuinely concerned about the institutionalized or systemic disadvantages borne by America’s low income families.  But she has chosen to make her mark on the political world by attacking wealthy entrepreneurs and the financial industry.  That’s a rather tricky position for someone who has managed to earn a million-dollar fortune for herself, with much of it apparently derived from practices that she now preaches against on the campaign trail.
(Title shamelessly stolen from comments at The Blaze.com) 

So the kids would benefit from being taken from their parents and placed where? Foster care?

Smokers Should Lose Custody Of Their Kids, Says Nation’s Top Anti-Tobacco Lawyer

Parents who smoke around their kids should be challenged for custody, according to the country’s leading anti-tobacco lawyer.
John F. Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University Law School and founder of Action on Smoking and Health, touted the proposal at the North American Regional Conference of the International Society for Family Law Monday.
Banzhaf also proposed requiring doctors to file complaints of child abuse against parents whose kids turn up at the emergency room with respiratory problems as a result of their parents’ smoking.
The conference, which played host to the nation’s leading divorce and family lawyers, was urged to use legal means to ban smoking when foster children are in a house or car, and to “punish parents or others who smoke when children are in the car.”

“‘With great power comes great responsibility’ is more than a catch-phrase from a Spiderman movie,” Banzhaf told the conference.
Attendees were instructed how to inject parental smoking in custody proceedings and how to deny custody to parents who smoke. Banzhaf explained several cases where parents lost custody of their kids because they smoked.
Banzhaf argued doctors could be sued for medical malpractice if they don’t file complaints of suspected child abuse when parental smoking causes problems for their child.
“We, as attorneys, probably have greater power than other professionals to right wrongs, and to change society for the better, because we can use the tremendous power of law for the public good rather than just to benefit paying clients. And you, as family attorneys, can and should be using the great power of law to right serious wrongs being done to children,” Banzhaf told the conference.


The UN and junk climate science.

U.N. Chief's Message to Graduates: Don't Vote for Climate-Change Deniers

By Susan Jones | May 25, 2016 | 11:55 AM EDT 
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon visits the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva. (AP File Photo)
"Now that you're done with finals, help us meet the climate change test," United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told Columbia University graduates last week.

After receiving an honorary doctorate of laws from the university, Ban told the crowd that April marked the seventh straight month of the "hottest global temperatures on record," and he said students must help bring the Paris climate agreement to life:

"Don't vote for politicians who deny the problem," he said. "Don’t buy products that aren’t sustainable. And for heaven’s sake, turn off the lights!"

Ban also railed against the "racism and hatred" of politicians and "would-be leaders who have a duty to bring people together, not drive them apart."

As technology connects people, he said the challenge is to "be more united."

Labor unrest in France....



France labour unrest: Stakes rise as fuel runs low


nine motorbike riders queue at a petrol stationImage copyrightAP
Image captionAn estimated fifth of petrol stations have run low on fuel as a result of blockades across the country
Suddenly France is veering into one of those dramatic social conflicts to which it alone seems to know the secret.
After two months of rolling but unspectacular demonstrations against the government's contested labour law, in the space of a week the stakes have changed.
Now we have angry queues at petrol stations, citizens unable to drive to work, tyres burning at oil refineries, and the spectre of power cuts if nuclear workers join.
What has happened is that one particular trade union - the CGT - has made a strategic decision.
Two weeks ago Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls - after consultation with President Hollande - decided to push the unpopular labour law through the National Assembly without a vote.
It is a power that all governments have under the Fifth Republic constitution, and it has been used about 50 times since 1958.
The use of Article 49-3 (to use the jargon) was a sign that the government was determined to stand firm on its labour reform.
But the CGT - with the Force Ouvriere union and other hardline allies - came to a different conclusion.
They saw 49-3 as a mark of weakness. Why else would the government bypass parliament, unless it was unsure of its own ranks?

Go for broke

They took heart from opinion polls showing that a majority of the population is still opposed to the reform. 
And they calculated that President Hollande - an unpopular, unrespected politician whose instinct has always been to compromise - would never have the stomach for a fight. 
So they decided to go for broke.
big flames in foreground as workers wearing CGT high-vis jackets sit in the backgroundImage copyrightREUTERS
Image captionStriking members of the CGT union blockaded an entrance near the oil refinery of Donges on Wednesday
For the CGT, a union with historic links to the Communists, this means applying pressure at those strategic nodes where it has strength: petrochemicals, ports and railways.
The government may well bemoan an illegal abuse of the right to strike.
The CGT's Philippe Martinez retorts that it was the government that first ignored the will of the people: first by introducing pro-business reforms that were never in its manifesto, then by overriding the nation's elected representatives.
It is a highly precarious confrontation, in which the eventual loser stands to lose more than just the battle.
The CGT is engaged - as ever - in a power-struggle with the other union blocs.
French unions are weak in members (the CGT represents just 3% of the workforce), but strongly entrenched in France's institutional structures.
Being the biggest union bloc means more seats on public bodies like the social security authority, more jobs, and more public money.

Face-off with high stakes

Having taken the path of confrontation against a Socialist government, the CGT is now in open warfare against its main rival - the CFDT - which has decided to back the labour reform.
Union elections are due next year. Defeat in this face-off could spell a long period of decline for the CGT - a union regularly accused of being stuck ideologically several decades in the past.
But for the Hollande-Valls tandem, the stakes are even higher.
Two months ago the president was forced to abandon a previous piece of important legislation. This was the bid to change the constitution so that terrorists could be stripped of French citizenship.
Were he also to back down on the labour reform, it would be an admission of total incapacity. Manuel Valls would almost certainly resign, and for the last year of his mandate the president would be a cypher.
Surrender would also be an act of monumental betrayal against the moderate union bloc - the CFDT - which is currently the government's ally.
Today the CFDT is one of the fiercest critics of the CGT's policy of radicalisation. If the government gives in - and scraps or rewrites the labour reform - the CFDT will pay the price. 
So where will it end? 
The crunch will come in the next two or three weeks - probably around the time that the European football championships start on 10 June.
The hardline unions are banking that the government will do anything to avoid embarrassment over such an important sporting event - and so will back down.
The government is banking that the CGT does not have the troops it says it has and that public opinion will blame the protesters if there are protracted fuel shortages - especially if there is violence.
Ultimately the football may also help, simply by becoming the new national preoccupation.
Between now and then, though, the French are girding for another kind of showdown.

French labour reform bill - main points

  • The 35-hour week remains in place, but as an average. Firms can negotiate with local trade unions on more or fewer hours from week to week, up to a maximum of 46 hours
  • Firms are given greater freedom to reduce pay
  • The law eases conditions for laying off workers, strongly regulated in France. It is hoped companies will take on more people if they know they can shed jobs in case of a downturn
  • Employers given more leeway to negotiate holidays and special leave, such as maternity or for getting married. These are currently also heavily regulated

Oberlin students who will hear "You're fired" a lot.


iStock
Students at Oberlin College are asking the school to put academics on the back burner so they can better turn their attention to activism. More than 1,300 students at the Midwestern liberal arts college have now signed a petition asking that the college get rid of any grade below a C for the semester, and some students are requesting alternatives to the standard written midterm examination, such as a conversation with a professor in lieu of an essay.
The students say that between their activism work and their heavy course load, finding success within the usual grading parameters is increasingly difficult. "A lot of us worked alongside community members in Cleveland who were protesting," Megan Bautista, a co-liaison in Oberlin's student government, said, referring to the protests surrounding the shooting death of 12-year-old Tamir Rice by a police officer in 2014. "But we needed to organize on campus as well — it wasn't sustainable to keep driving 40 minutes away. A lot of us started suffering academically."
The student activists' request doesn't come without precedence: In the 1970s, Oberlin adjusted its grading to accommodate student activists protesting the Vietnam War and the Kent State shootings, The New Yorker reports. But current students contend that same luxury was not granted to them even though the recent Rice protests were over a police shooting that took place just 30 miles east of campus.
"You know, we're paying for a service. We're paying for our attendance here. We need to be able to get what we need in a way that we can actually consume it," student Zakiya Acey told The New Yorker. "Because I'm dealing with having been arrested on campus, or having to deal with the things that my family are going through because of larger systems — having to deal with all of that, I can't produce the work that they want me to do. But I understand the material, and I can give it to you in different ways."
Read the full story on the ongoing battle at Oberlin over at The New YorkerBecca Stanek

The mindset of the Syrians and to what benefit is it to have them brought to America...Not worth one American soldier to liberate them


12:43 p.m. ET
Civilians awaiting rescue in Raqqa, the Islamic State's de facto capital, might not actually be that thrilled about their impending liberation. That's because, as CNN reports, given the choice between liberation by the predominantly Kurdish (and U.S.-backed) Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and rule under ISIS, Syrians in Raqqa may actually choose to "throw their lot" behind ISIS. One tweet put out by the activist group Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently says that the "strategy of taking Raqqa by SDF ... [may] push a lot of people to join ISIS."
While the inhabitants of Raqqa may not quite be enjoying life since ISIS seized the city 2013, they're also leery of their potential liberators:
Backed by the United States, the Syrian Democratic Forces are a coalition of Kurdish, Assyrian, Christian, Arab tribal and other forces. But they are dominated by the Kurdish YPG, the Popular Defense Units. In other words, it's a Kurdish armed force with a multi-ethnic façade, and the Arabs of Raqqa could well be worried about their intentions in a post-ISIS Syria. [CNN]
The conundrum is one deeply rooted in history. The Kurds have long been suspected of trying to create a separate state from Syria and Iraq, CNN notes, which has Raqqa residents wary; when they see a predominantly Kurdish force coming to clear the countryside north of the city, the question arises of whether they're truly coming to rescue them, or just to take their land. Thus far, the SDF has promised its efforts are not aimed at the city itself.
Head over to CNN for the full back story on the current situation in Raqqa. Becca Stanek

Another example of leftist/racialist violence

Exclusive: DePaul SJW Ringleader Says Milo ‘Threatens My Safety’, Could Cause Massacres

By Lukas Mikelionis7:28 am, May 25, 2016
  • Yiannopoulos event was shut down last night
  • Heat Street interviewed unrepentant ringleader
  • Listen to audio of Edward Ward’s justification
The provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos (file)
The provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos (file)
The student who dramatically shut down Milo Yiannopolous’ speech at DePaul University last night has claimed the controversial speaker’s views on race and feminism are to blame for the Charleston shootings – and has vowed to continue halting “hate speech”.
Yiannopoulos’ talk was abruptly halted when a group of activists stormed the stage and allegedly threatened to punch the speaker in the face.
The protesters refused to leave the stage and snatched the microphone from the interviewer’s hand during the event about free speech.
Student and church minister Edward Ward (pictured top, and center in video below), along with a female accomplice, chanted against Donald Trump and screamed pro-Bernie Sanders statements in front of a crowd of hundreds.
Speaking exclusively to Heat Street, he said: “This is not a point of shutting down free speech, it’s the point of shutting down hate speech” and promised to “continue to do so long as there’s anything that’s happening that threatens my safety”.
He added: “When I went, I was open to listen to what was being said, I was open to listen and try to understand.
“But when it’s coming from a point of ignorance, when you make these blatant statements about feminists, when you make blatant statements about the LGBTQ community, when you make statements about black people – then it becomes a problem, because when you use this kind of hatred people like us end up dead.
“You get Charleston. These are what you get as a result of his type of speech and rhetoric.”
The political science graduate also claimed: “You have a bunch of white people who wanna actually say a bunch of racist s*** and that’s not okay.”
His as-yet unnamed female accomplice claimed on stage she had been silenced “for 200 years”.
But the audience were left shocked after university security guards partially paid for by Yiannopoulos allegedly failed to intervene and stayed at the back of the venue – prompting chants of “do your job”.
Heat Street has contacted DePaul University for comment.
He then led a crowd to the college principal’s office to protest the shutdown of his speech.
Yiannopoulous told the audience: “I suggest we walk to the president’s office and complain now.
“Let us go and express how you feel to the president about your safety.”
The chaos continued outside where the audience clashed with left-wing activists.
Yiannopoulos said to Breitbart: “Will DePaul have the courage to discipline Edward Ward for his behaviour?
“In a normal world they would, but there’s a nasty institutionalised habit of letting left-wing activists get away with the worst of offences.
“After all, despite forking out nearly a grand in security costs, they wouldn’t even stop the activists from storming the stage.”

The left encourages mob violence as a political tool: The Trump New Mexico event.

Anti-Trump protests turn violent outside New Mexico rally 



Autoplay:
 On | Off
10 photos 
Pepper spray is deployed at protestors of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump at the... Read moreALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — In one of the presidential campaign year's more grisly spectacles, protesters in New Mexico opposing Donald Trump's candidacy threw burning T-shirts, plastic bottles and other items at police officers, injuring several, and toppled trash cans and barricades.
Police responded by firing pepper spray and smoke grenades into the crowd outside the Albuquerque Convention Center.
During the rally, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was interrupted repeatedly by protesters, who shouted, held up banners and resisted removal by security officers.
The banners included the messages "Trump is Fascist" and "We've heard enough."

Trump lashed back at protesters, tweeting Wednesday: "The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!"
At one point, a female protester was physically dragged from the stands by security. Other protesters scuffled with security as they resisted removal from the convention center, which was packed with thousands of loud and cheering Trump supporters.
Trump responded with his usual bluster, instructing security to remove the protesters and mocking their actions by telling them to "Go home to mommy."
He responded to one demonstrator by asking, "How old is this kid?" Then he provided his own answer: "Still wearing diapers."
Trump's supporters responded with chants of "Build that wall!"
Trump later tweeted "Great rally in New Mexico, amazing crowd!"
The altercations left glass at the entrance of the convention center smashed.
Albuquerque attorney Doug Antoon said rocks were flying through the convention center windows as he was leaving Tuesday night. Glass was breaking and landing near his feet.
"This was not a protest, this was a riot. These are hate groups," he said of the demonstrators.
Albuquerque police said several officers were treated for injuries after getting hit by rocks thrown by protesters. At least one person was arrested from the riot, police said.
During the rally, protesters outside overran barricades and clashed with police in riot gear. They also burned T-shirts and other items labeled with Trump's catchphrase, "Make America Great Again."
Tuesday marked Trump's first stop in New Mexico, the nation's most Hispanic state. Gov. Susana Martinez, head of the Republican Governors Association and the nation's only Latina governor, has harshly criticized his remarks on immigrants and has attacked his proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The governor did not attend the rally and has yet to make an endorsement.
Trump read off a series of negative statistics about the state, including an increase in the number of people on food stamps.
"We have to get your governor to get going. She's got to do a better job, OK?" he said, adding: "Hey, maybe I'll run for governor of New Mexico. I'll get this place going."
The governor's office fired back, saying Martinez has fought for welfare reform.
"The potshots weren't about policy, they were about politics," said spokesman Michael Lonergan. "And the Governor will not be bullied into supporting a candidate until she is convinced that candidate will fight for New Mexicans, and she did not hear that today."
Trump supporters at the rally said they appreciated his stance on boosting border security and stemming the flow of people crossing the border illegally, but some said they were frightened by the violent protests outside.
Karla Molinar, a University of New Mexico student, said she participated in disrupting Trump's speech because she felt he was attacking members of her family who are living in the country illegally. She said she believes Trump is using them as scapegoats for the nation's problems.
___
Associated Press writer Susan Montoya Bryan contributed to this report from Albuquerque.