The very idea of a forum which caters to one demographic, race, or ethnic group is in itself very troubling. The idea goes against everything that this country represents, in which we are E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many One.
Men and women can come from many countries or hold diverse ethnic backgrounds, but we are Americans. Our interest, our political investment, our cultural identity is American, not Latino.
And yet, here is the forum which the public had to contend with.
The debate was presented as "The Moment of Truth."
The truth is that this debate was one of the most slanted, biased, and yet riveting in spite of the slant and the bias intended by the moderators, two reporters from the Spanish-Speaking press, including Jorge Ramos, an anti-American journalist more interested in profiting off this country's wealth but denying the civic, political, and moral culture which defines America.
Ramos has advertised himself specifically as part of the Resistance, quite offensive when one considers that that label belonged to the Allied Forces taking on Nazi Germany. There is no comparison between the racist, megalomaniacal hatred of Adolph Hitler and the pro-American goodness of President Trump. It is an immoral comparison, to say the least.
Ramos is not a journalist, but a Brown-Power propagandist.
The debate featured two moderators and a set of questions, but they did not ask the same question to all members of the forum. Pretty shocking, to say the least, but at least the participants went past those demands and pushed their views and their agenda out to the public.
Notice the set up of the debate scene:
Notice that the center stage focuses on the two reporters, but the only candidates who appear in the rest of the shot are Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa.
This is already a slanted joke. The media want to promote the failed mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco into the Top Two.
We cannot allow this to happen.
Again, how can any debate have any seriousness if they are intent on focusing on one voting demographic? This is racist! It was clear from the outset that the audience was stacked with Democrats, open border activists, and left-wing agitators for all kinds of other causes. Early in this forum, the announcers declared that this event was not a debate, but a forum, yet one of the scrolling texts informed the public that the candidates would debate key issues.
Is this a debate, or isn't it? The double talk and double standards of this present were already quite alarming.
The first question didn't even go to the candidates, but to the audience. The moderators asked them if anyone in the audience knew someone who was in the country illegally. Lots of people in the audience stood up, apparently. The emphasis throughout the forum stressed President Trump, President Trump, President Trump. Last time I checked, he was not on the ballot in California.
For the record, no one should blame President Trump for the difficulties of the California Republican Party. The long history of hispandering has done nothing good for either party. The United States of America is a rich country destined to be open to all citizens. The racism pushing forth from these left-wing agitators is very offensive.
The forum lasted for an hour and a half, and I could go over just about every minute outlining my outrage with what I read, heard, and thought.
1. I could not believe that anyone on that stage would defend a sanctuary city policy. Unreal, unacceptable, and unconscionable. Gavin Newsom stood up for the dangerous policy, anyway. He described Kate Steinle's death as "a tragedy."
One which could have been prevented if the elected officials in San Francisco respected the rule of law instead of their callous, self-serving virtue signaling. How many more lives must die at the hands of illegals because politicians refuse to honor our federal immigration laws?
2. Delaine Eastin promised nothing but dreams, opportunities, and every progressive fantasy available. I don't how this lady intends to gain any steam in the primary, since Gavin Newsom is sucking up all the left-wing enthusiasm in the race. She is a tired, old candidates with a long resume, but no discernible pedigree or name ID. She is touting her previous education credentials, but no one is really invested in making California a great state for Californians. Candidates like Villaraigosa, Chiang, and Newsom just wanted to feather their own nests and furnish their own higher ambitions.
If anyone isn't paying attention by now, anyone who becomes Governor will have Presidential potential for 2020 or 2024. Bet on it! Gavin Newsom is a relatively young hack, and he will do anything he can to promote himself and make himself the center of the attention.
The sheer arrogance of the former mayors, both Villaraigosa and Newsom, is just galling.
3. John Chiang had jumped into this race, hoping to make himself the more pragmatic progressive. Of course, at the debate he went out of his way to His-pander to the audience. "I think Trump should be deported!" to massive audience mockery and acclaim.
Not funny, and actually pretty pathetic. Chiang does not support single-payer, as he signals that the state cannot afford it. He had hoped to position himself as the Democrats which Republicans and mainstream or conservative Democrats could back. He still plays the pro-immigrant card, yet refuses to distinguish betweenche
In California, I doubt how many conservative Democrats remain. They have either switched over to become Independents, Republicans, or they have left the state entirely.
4. Antonio Villaraigosa's record as mayor of Los Angeles received very little attention in the Latino debate. Pretty sad, I think. Men and women should know that as mayor, he had tried to take over the worst schools in the city, but failed following the extended legislative wrangling in Sacramento. Tony was a union organizer, but then as mayor he tried to cross the very unions who had brought him to power. It was never going to work. Toward the end of his tenure, Los Angeles Magazine listed him as a failure.
Then he became a lobbyist for the questionable firm "Herbalife", which had to pay out a $200 million settlement. The back-and-forth between those two candidates was quite sad and unsettling. Will these two former, failed members be our choice going into the general election?
5. John Cox also engaged in a bad case of His-pandering. He has not been very eloquent when dealing with the illegal immigration issue, but has been trying to position himself as a moderate conservative who can compete in the general election. That is not an argument to get someone to vote for your in the general election. Primary elections, even jungle primaries, must engage voters on ideological and passion issues. That won't happen.
Cox has lots of money, but money cannot buy him love. In the last two full-candidate debates, he has been routinely derided for his inartful comments. At the USC debate, he said that we need immigrants to pick our lettuce. That comment was really condescending, and he had to go back and clarify those remarks. At the Latino forum at UCLA, people laughed at him when he mentioned that his mother was a Spanish Language professor, and that he loves "the Latin people."
Wow! Did this guy just step off the set of "Ozzie and Harriet?"
6. Travis Allen debated with firm conviction and vigor. He refused to take the bait on immigration issues. He refused to pander to the ethnically non-diverse audience. He stressed his commitment to end the sanctuary state legislation as well as end the gas tax and other costly programs imposed on California's hardest working and hardest hit.
Even though the crowd as a whole booed him loudly when he demanded enforcement of our immigration laws, as well as his opposition to single-payer health care. True leadership is all about speaking the truth without fear of the reaction from the audience. That commands so much respect with me.
7. I cannot believe how much the state of California has titled away from its Red State conservative roots to turning into a full-on shithole under Democratic destruction. Allen was the one candidate who has routinely hit this problem, unafraid to call out the Democratic Party, even if he needs to win Democratic voters. I have spoken with registered Democrats throughout the state, and they are fed up with the crappy, corrupt leadership of Sacramento progressives, including the Eco-Terrorists, the Rainbow Fascists, Big Labor, Big Business, La Raza, the illegal alien hordes, and the welfare queens of all stripes.
Will there be enough support in the voter base to put an end to this rampant political chaos in June?
Travis Allen is my choice, and he is following an incredible, aggressive schedule to get the word out throughout the state. He is hitting it right on all the right issues, and he is not afraid to stand tall for the United States Constitution, the rule of law, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit (not government-subsidized guarantee) of happiness.
John Cox needs to bow out, and we need to see Democrats showing themselves at their most corrupt, self-serving, and just plain evil.
Again, I have to ask: how did the state of California get so nuts so quickly? How could this have happened? It's time for all of us to make a clear-cut appeal to heaven.
Please Daddy God, open the eyes of our understanding. Give us a greater, growing revelation of your righteousness, that we may reign in life in the midst of the lawlessness overwhelming the state of California. I make this appeal in the name of Your Son Jesus Christ.
"But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." (Amos 5:24)