At The April 28 Trump Rally: Mexico Attacks

One of my sons attended the April 28 Trump rally in Costa Mesa, California. Below I provide his account of the event. I, of course, provide some commentary at the end.

Begin Dan's Account:

My buddy, Jake, his girlfriend Lindsey, and I went to the Trump rally at the Orange County Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa. Jake is from Wisconsin and a Trump supporters since the beginning.  He's the one who convinced me to go. We parked our cars about two miles from the rally site; there was no way we were going to risk our cars there. We expected trouble. We took an Uber to the rally.  The Uber driver was Asian, and told us that his cousin is a big Trump guy.  I had an extra ticket, so I gave it to him.  He told us he would think about it but, he was concerned with parking.  We gave him our phone numbers, and told him he was welcome to join us if he changed his mind.

At the rally, the security presence was strong and visible. I've never seen so much law enforcement.  There were protestors, some with Anarchist flags and others with Mexican flags, but not too many, not yet, and most of the "anarchists" were of the pajama boy variety--the really nasty thugs came later. The cops were trying to keep the protestors away from people waiting in line to get in. The first thing I noticed about those people in line was that it was majority women. I thought, it would be mainly white guys, but no, it was mainly women. Lots of minorities, as well; I was quite surprised. 

While we waited in line, the protestors yelled cuss words, and the "usual" insults, such as calling everyone a racist and a bigot. Some of the protestors would get through the police line and run up to the people waiting, and start yelling at them. Initially the protest remained peaceful, other, of course, than the chant of wanting Trump dead.

As noted, the most interesting part of the rally proved the demographics: it was probably 60% women. Lots of minorities as well, plenty of people holding "Latinos for Trump" signs. It was a good mix of African-American, Asian, White, and Hispanic--everybody got along well. Over the loudspeaker, we kept hearing somebody saying over and over that if we saw protestors in the crowd, please do not touch them or say anything to them, just alert security by yelling "Trump! Trump! Trump!" Initially, I thought this was ridiculous, but it worked. Random protestors would get in with the rally crowd and start yelling, and folks would shout, "Trump! Trump! Trump!" The very efficient security personnel would escort the protestors out. No violence.  

Trump showed up about 45 minutes late, actually sooner than I expected. He started talking about parents who had lost children to illegal immigrants. He eventually moved on to other topics such as jobs and foreign policy. He had no note pad or teleprompter. He never had any pauses or 'ums' or anything like that. He went on for about an hour and could have probably gone on longer, but it was starting to get late. 

He has an interesting way of engaging people. The casualness of the way he speaks, makes it seem he is talking directly to you; almost as if he were in your living room and we were all just having a beer and talking politics. He knows how to hype up the crowd and get them energized. Every now and then he would go off on a tangent on how "awesome he is" and start to lose the crowd. Once he started losing the crowd, he would immediately get back to talking about the issues. He has a sense of humor as well. Some funny jabs at the media, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich. The crowd was on their feet the whole time.

At the end, when we left, we were slightly concerned about what was waiting outside. While inside, we could smell burning tires, which can't be a good thing. There was also a hovering police helicopter shining its light on the parking lot outside the arena. When we went outside, the police had managed to move some of the protestors, many waving Mexican flags, away from the entrance and towards the street. Other protestors were vandalizing cars, slashing tires, throwing bottles at the cops. We tried to get closer to the protestors until people starting running the opposite direction; our curiosity ended and we began to leave. There were cops and protestors everywhere. We walked by some guys in a car with a Mexican flag trying to pick fights with anyone driving or walking by; they would yell insults and make threats. One maniac started pulling doughnuts in the parking lot with his car, putting people's lives at risk. We promptly walked away from all of it and booked it back to my car.  

Oh, by the way, the Uber driver? He texted us telling us he was in the rally. Maybe we converted him? 

End of Dan's Account.

Ah, the lefties. They can't stand freedom of expression or assembly. Wonder who the great genius is who decided that the best way to undermine Trump's message on illegal aliens is to get a bunch of guys waving Mexican flags, threatening and punching people, trashing cars, and attacking cops. All that, of course, makes one feel all warm and fuzzy about letting in more illegal aliens . . . One has to wonder what would be the reaction if some Americans showed up at a Mexican political rally, waving American flags, trashing cars, punching people, and attacking cops? Hmmmm . . . 

Trump's Foreign Policy Address: Not Bad

I just read Donald Trump's April 27 address on his vision for America's foreign policy  (text as delivered here or as written here.) Not bad, not bad, at all.

I think he comes off as reasonable, coherent, and unafraid to say what needs to be said. Before I get into the speech, I would note that I was struck by how cleverly Trump was able to express his views with the sort of sophistication that appeals to the New York and Washington "elite" without backing off from or selling out the basic message that has so energized voters and has brought him to the verge of becoming the GOP 2016 presidential candidate.

It was the best foreign policy speech of the campaign by any candidate. Quite masterful. The man has to be taken seriously on foreign affairs.

His overriding theme is one which this humble blog has repeatedly raised,

America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.

But to chart our path forward, we must first briefly look back.

We have a lot to be proud of. In the 1940s we saved the world. The Greatest Generation beat back the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists.

Then we saved the world again, this time from totalitarian Communism. The Cold War lasted for decades, but we won.

Democrats and Republicans working together got Mr. Gorbachev to heed the words of President Reagan when he said: “tear down this wall.”

History will not forget what we did.

Unfortunately, after the Cold War, our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense.

Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, and this led to one foreign policy disaster after another.

We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.

It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy.

We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism; thousands of American lives, and many trillions of dollars, were lost as a result. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill the void, much to their unjust enrichment. 

Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.

He certainly starts at the right place, and goes on from there to make a pretty well structured argument for a more nationalist foreign policy (I have a few quibbles, see below.)  He understands the link between domestic and foreign policies, and how absurd policies in one arena can have dire consequences in the other. He also understands the importance of military power while being reluctant to use it needlessly. He advocates an overdue rebuilding of our nuclear and conventional forces. He skewers Obama's Iran deal, and mocks him, appropriately, for the shabby reception given Obama in Cuba and Saudi Arabia--citing them as examples of the contempt and disregard with which foreign leaders hold the current president. He does a good job of tying Hillary Clinton to the mast of the sinking Obama foreign policy ship, uttering the word that Romney would not, "Benghazi." He also has no problem naming the threat posed by "radical Islam." I, of course, think the problem is more fundamental than "radical Islam," but, nevertheless, it's a good start, especially his insistence that "moderate" Muslim nations have to prove their commitment to fighting the crazies.

He avoided the great EU mess, probably wisely at this juncture, but did a good job of taking on the "refugee" lovers. He rightly noted that there is no way to vet these refugees, to wit, we don't know who they are or where they come from--a little something this blog has gone on and on about from the start. He stuck to his guns on immigration and lousy trade deals, both of which can hurt working Americans

He was right to note that most NATO members are not honoring their commitments, and in asking that they do so if they expect us to help defend them. Good, as far as it goes, but I have a couple of issues here. If you're a great power and intend to remain one, there are times when you have to accept an unequal burden. While he was right to criticize defense slackers, he also should have mentioned that allies such as Australia and Britain have stepped up repeatedly to defend the West and to put their blood and treasure on the line.

Not bad. Not bad, at all, especially since Hillary has no way to respond. I look forward to his expanding on his foreign policy vision.

Thoughts On Brexit

I will emulate The One, and stick my nose into the middle of the "Brexit" debate.

In June, British voters decide whether the UK should begin the two-year process of getting completely out of the EU--the UK was never completely in the EU. Before, however, I begin to ruminate, let me say that I would love to see a debate between Barack Obama and Nigel Farage on Brexit. Nigel would cook a fine Barackburger before the debate went more than a few minutes. I doubt Obama, a very ignorant man, could or would make much of a case for Britain's staying except for condescending progressive platitudes about EU membership allowing Britain to "punch above its weight." Re Farage, judge for yourselves: go to YouTube and watch him in action at the European Parliament or on stage at home. Unlike most politicians in our sorry times, he has a clarity of vision, a mastery of facts, a quick and cutting wit, and a stunning erudition. You do not want this guy on your case! If only we could declare him a natural born citizen and get him to run for President  . . .

I won't go into the economic arguments over whether it's better or not for Britain to remain in the EU. You can go here for a pretty good and somewhat balanced explanation of the two sides' arguments. Let's put all that aside, however, and generously agree both sides have some valid economic and financial points.

One other little aside: I notice that polling shows the vote "too close to call." You know my view on "too close to call" when there is a progressive supported issue up against real world voters. Almost inevitably--note, almost--that means the progs are heading for a fall. Let us hope that while past performance is not a guarantee of future results, in this case, per the Bard, "what's past is prologue."

At the risk of being reprimanded and corrected by this blog's one or two British readers, I offer that the force driving the pro-Brexit movement is not solely or even mostly about economics, or finance, or currency exchange rates. It is about something much, much more important. It is about reclaiming the soul of Britain; preserving and restoring that which made Britain, notably England, one of the world's greatest countries, a nation of stunning consequence. It is about deciding whether the great British traditions and innovations that have made our modern world are worth saving or should be discarded.

Back in April 2014, I wrote a piece about the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada titled "One More Thing to Blame on England." I noted that in the stand-off between ranchers and arrogant federal bureaucrats, we saw the,

clash between two English traditions or tenets: the first, respect for the "Crown" and the law; the second, a demand for individual liberty. Where those two rub up against each other the resulting friction produces a lot of heat and, at times, even flame. On another April, this one in 1775, we saw those two English principles also come into conflict when Royal troops went into the Massachusetts countryside to retrieve guns and some powder defiantly stored by English farmers. The resulting clash, which began on April 19, 1775, saw the Royal troops retreat in the face of an armed countryside, and served as the spark for the American Revolution. Angry and armed English farmers should not be your enemy of first choice. That Revolution was a continuation of a great theme in the English Civil War, the battle over the nature of the individual's relationship to the Leviathan. The victors in the American Revolution were those Englishmen who held liberty above loyalty to the Crown. 

The cow "war" in the Nevada desert, perhaps, could provide the spark that lights a more widespread resistance to the increasing arrogance and stupidity of those who now operate in the name of our "Crown" . . . this event could well be the watershed in a new struggle to preserve our English liberties. 

Blame it on England. I do.

Our Revolution and Civil War echo with themes from the Magna Carta and the English Civil War, in particular, the nature of the individual's relationship to and with the "Crown." Now in Europe, as if things weren't bad enough for the individual thanks to the overwhelming and intrusive national governments, a huge supranational bureaucracy has been created and installed in Brussels. Every year it seems this Leviathan grows and grows, demanding more and more tribute. It erodes the sovereignty of the nation states of the EU and places ever greater demands on individuals via taxes, decrees and regulations of all sorts that govern the most major aspects of life, e.g., immigration, to the most minor, e.g., the percentage of cocoa in chocolate. This EU/EC bureaucracy is stuffed with extremely well-paid bureaucrats who grow evermore removed from their countries of origin, their national personas absorbed by the European Project body-snatching monster--a system of rule unaccountable to the people over which it presides.

I have had a lot of dealing with the EU and its executive and diplomatic arm, the EC. Not good, not good. Trying to get EU countries to move quickly and decisively on just about anything was an exercise in frustration. Before anything could be decided, the EU members would need to have long and, often, inconclusive meetings. The British found themselves often tied up by the EU and unable to joins us, the Canadians, and the Australians on key actions. I remember an Australian Deputy Head of Mission, muttering about the EU, "They're worthless, worthless, worthless." The British had to be mindful of the French, the Belgians, the Italians, and their resentment for the relationship between the US and the UK. The EC Ambassadors were almost inevitably cartoon characters of pompous Europeans. Often French, a few Germans and Belgians thrown in, EC reps were extremely anti-American and--surprise!--did not like the British all that much either. In fact, in nearly all my dealings with the EU/EC, I found a high degree of anti-British sentiment. They apparently saw the British essentially as Americans with "Upstairs, Downstairs" accents.

As I have noted before, the vision for the EU, apparently, was French politicians, using German money, and relying on British troops as a way of eliminating American influence in Europe. The euro would serve as the amulet that would ward off the evil dollar. It seems that the grand French dream, however, has gone by the wayside as France's economy has imploded, leaving France punching below its weight. Now Merkel sits in the captain's chair--of the Titanic?--apparently dreaming of doing what neither Kaiser nor Fuhrer could, a Germany-dominated region extending from Lisbon to Moscow.

How's that working out, Angela? Didn't quite. The collapse of Greece was just a trailer for the horror movie to follow. The EU is dead or at least mortally wounded. Already staggering from its absurd economic and fiscal policies, the EU was not ready for what came: Islam, the Muslim invasion of the past few years. Germany went mad in a progressive way and opened the floodgates to jihad. The EU has proven totally inept in confronting the Muslim threat, and, in fact, has adopted a sort of Petain/Vichy approach wherein they allow the invaders to occupy unopposed huge swathes of Europe and hope that by babbling on about love, welcome, tolerance, etc., the Muslim crocodile will allow the remainder of Europe to live--at least for a bit. Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, much of Scandinavia have become hotbeds of Islamic jihad, with parts of their cities "no-go" zones.

I think that the British, not known for welcoming invaders, have had enough. Well, those who are still British and appreciate their country and its history. Let us not forget that there was a deliberate Labour policy to alter irreversibly the social composition of Britain so as to make it much less British. As I wrote in May of 2013, Britain underwent,

a leftist attempt to alter radically the nature of British society by encouraging immigration from poor countries and have those immigrants become dependent on and vote for Labour. It appears from documents recently made available that this was a planned effort. The Labour politicians involved in altering Britain's immigration laws deliberately sought to change British society, and knew the country would see a rise in social pathologies such as crime as a result. A visitor to any major British city can testify that Labour's plan has succeeded, social pathologies and all. Some two to three million immigrants from the third world entered the UK in less than ten years. The Labour politicians understood that this radical attempt to alter British society would not have public approval, so they did what leftist politicians do best: lie and label as "racist" anybody opposed to this massive social engineering.

The same people who so strongly support Britain's membership in the EU seem the same who oppose halting the foreign invasion. Now we see the Muslim hordes gathering just across the channel, champing at the bit to get over and enjoy the land of "the white dudes," before they destroy it, to do what Hitler could never.

For me as an outsider, a person with zero British blood, and no family ties to the UK (although I do like British cheese), what's driving the anti-EU movement in Britain is the need to save the country, or what's left of it. Perhaps without the EU and its courts and mandates, British common sense can prevail, and the UK be saved, or at least England--and if the Scots want to stay in the EU, they should have another referendum and swap London's "rule" for that of Brussels, that'll teach 'em.

Those are my thoughts. Don't know if I am right or wrong. I retreat to my bunker.

A Little Nepotism about Nippon: See the Diaper Quote

Just being a blogging crony by plugging an article written by my son, Yonathan, over at Mises. It's a very well written and good explanation of how once-mighty Japan got into the horrid economic mess in which it now finds itself. He comes at it, admittedly, from a strong libertarian perspective.

I think the money quote is, "A country that consumes more adult diapers than baby diapers is a nation on its way to the dustbin of history." I would have added, "Well, it all Depends . . . "

Anyhow, read it. It's worth the time and it's free.

Gendermandering: No More Lumberjack Song

Some idle reflections about sex. Well, not that kind. More accurately I would have to say that I have been thinking about "gender," and how that apparently has become the defining progressive issue of our time. It seems to have replaced global warming, universal health care, Wall Street, Palestine, and Islamophobia on the progressive hit parade.

Not just gender, mind you, but TRANSGENDER has moved to the top of the list. Let me see if I can get this correctly. Let me know where I am wrong. By the way, you can go back and read a piece I wrote back in 2014 in which I look at some numbers associated with the great progressive concern over "sexual orientation."

We, however, no longer appear talking about the ancient "war between the sexes" which has been the concern of philosophers, novelists, poets, playwrights, screenwriters, and comic acts since, well, since forever. This ain't your grandparents Cary Grant vs. Rosalind Russell. I gather we have even begun to move on from the relentless feminist war on men. We no longer want to push for women gaining access to once all-male preserves be they careers, clubs, or schools. Nope. That's old think.

For all my life, feminists sought to make the argument that women were the equals of men in all endeavors. The progressives insisted on that and, as a result, we had a cultural and legal revolution that sought to "prove" it. The argument went beyond just intellectual pursuits, where I have no problem believing men and women are equal; we saw feminism and its Hollywood echo chamber pushing the notion that women were as "bad ass" as men. TV programming, for example, in Europe, Australia, and America is full of tough, very tough women cops and prosecutors using their fists, guns, and wits to take down the bad guys, almost inevitably rich Christian white guys--whom, of course, are what we all fear encountering on a dark night in a lonely parking lot. The military must now allow women into all its activities including core combat roles, this despite testing showing that all-male units consistently outperform "mixed-gender" units. No matter the facts: the military must comply with the progressive agenda, and while progressives assure us physical standards will not be lowered, they will, as they were for police and fire services. Perhaps we should do away with, say, separate male and female sporting events in tennis, golf, and the Olympics? Lets have everybody compete against everybody regardless of gender . . . NFL? Throw open your 100% male ranks! Boxing and cage fighting, too! Let's see how "bad ass" the ladies are in the real world.

At the same time, of course, that we are told that women should have access to maledom's sacred preserves, and that women can handle themselves as well as any man, we are also notified that university campuses are seething testosterone-fueled rape centers, and that women deserve special protections, including, apparently, the right to accuse men of sexual assaults--defined very loosely--and have normal legal processes waived. We are told--on what basis?--that over 20% of coeds will experience sexual assault--defined very loosely--on a college or university campus. Maybe we should go back to gender segregated education, then? No, you evil sexist, women can do anything men can . . . yeah, yeah.

Anyhow, all that male-female stuff seems old and stale now. Fresh off the destruction of the definition of traditional marriage, we are moving past male and female into the politics of transgender and gender self-identification. We are whatever we want to be, whatever we feel we are . . . sexist patriarchal biology be damned! The battle lines are now drawn at the doors of public restrooms. The progressives insist gender segregated restrooms are the moral equivalent of Jim Crow or apartheid. Why? Because, as noted, we are whatever we want to be. There is no male and female except in our minds . . .  I hope feminists will be happy having a big hairy pervert in the next stall . . . And, remember, if you don't want your wife, your sister, or your daughter sharing a restroom with Sasquatch, you're a sexist, a vile bigot, an all-around hater! You will be "punished" by not being able to hear some washed out musicians or watch a bad documentary by a porky has been!

Earlier this month, I wrote a little piece about the Triumph of Mental Illness. The insistence that biology does not matter or even exist is another manifestation of that triumph. We can no longer  use the word "crazy." In addition, we must have the Monty Python boys, er, whatever they are, arrested.

Obama Says Foreign Leaders Scared by Trump & Cruz: Let's Hope It's True

Well, well, well.

The One, The Healer of The Planet, is reportedly getting communications from "world leaders" expressing concern about foreign policy statements made by Republican candidates Ted Cruz and, most notably, Donald Trump. In addition, of course, "renowned analysts" from around the world, including Iran, are chiming in to tell us what is best for us, and it's not to elect Trump or Cruz--see, for example, here and here, but there are many other media accounts you can find.

Wow! Who woulda thunk it? The world progressive elite doesn't like the Republican candidates. I never saw it coming!

Before, however, we get too worked up over this really, really important development, and despair that all will be lost if we elect a Republican to the White House, let's develop a little context.

Way, way back on October 25, 2013, I wrote a little piece called "The Obama Foreign Policy Death Spiral." In that ancient piece, I stated the guiding principle of the Obama team's foreign policy, to wit, "care about foreign policy only when the consequences of their foreign policy ineptitude threaten to become domestic issues."

Well, guess what? That ineptitude, or deliberate undermining, indeed, has had grave consequences for the United States and for the West, and now has become a domestic issue. So, naturally, Obama now "cares" about foreign policy and the opinions of other leaders. I have written a lot about this; a quick search of the archives will pull up all sort of Diplomadian observations on the state of American and Western foreign policy since the Obama reign began. Suffice it to say that everywhere one looks in the world, the interests of the West are in retreat and under assault, including on the streets of our own cities by those to whom we have given asylum. The United States, in the time of the Obama misadministration, has abandoned its role as leader of the Free World and as one of the few voices of common sense on foreign and economic policies.

In a piece on October 31, 2012, titled "Magreb Madness: We Will Pay More for Obama's Libyan Lies," I noted that Obama had violated the Diplomad's Number One Rule of Foreign Policy, "Never pay attention to Europeans. Except at times the British, the rest of Europe hasn't a clue about how the world works." I would add that that's been true for at least the past 250-300 years. The whole mad Libyan adventure was executed by Obama and Clinton at the behest of the EU upset with Qaddafi because he wasn't giving them the oil concessions they wanted. Period. So stated in that 2012 post,

We went to war where we had no major interests; against a regime that posed no danger to us; and with a policy that neither defined our objectives nor gave thought to what would happen if we "succeeded." All that Obama and Clinton could do was hark back to the 1980s, and cite Qaddafi's past misdeeds. Obama seemed channeling Ronald Reagan. It proved absurd and completely counterproductive to our interests of today. Our policy was driven by what I have called the liberal foreign policy mindset, to wit, "send America's youth off to war but only if there is no U.S. interest to be protected or furthered."

Oh, sweet irony. As predicted, that Libyan adventure went belly-up; Obama had to evade responsibility. So whom did he blame? One guess. The Europeans! Can I call 'em or what?

[T]he President told author Jeffrey Goldberg that British Prime Minister David Cameron became "distracted by a range of other things" after the operation. Cameron, along with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, took the brunt of Obama's criticism. Although Obama thinks the intervention went as well as it could, he views Libya today as a "mess." [Privately] he refers to the troubled state as a "sh*t show."

Bam! Take that Europe! Obama says it's all your fault! Who would have thought that Obama reads the Diplomad!

So who are these "foreign leaders" calling Obama and expressing fears about the impending end of his presidency and the possible assumption by either Trump or Cruz? We don't really know. Let's put it this way, the whole story might prove as reliable as Rolling Stone's UVA fake rape story. In other words, Obama might have made it up. You know, a lie. He's been known to do that.

Perhaps, of course, he has been called by somebody. I am sure the President of Mexico might worry about a border wall. Perhaps the Chinese and the Russians fret that somebody might come into the White House and challenge their increasingly imperialistic behavior. It's also possible that the geniuses behind the Libyan debacle and the even greater one we see in Europe, especially Angela "Call me Fatima" Merkel, might be calling afraid that somebody is going to call them on their destruction of the ancient heartland of Western Civilization. The incompetents at the head of the EU and NATO, or the anti-American bosses of the UN and the OAS might call afraid that the era of the American coma draws to an end. Perhaps the Saudis, already upset that their role in 9/11 will come to light, are calling terrified that somebody who has got the measure of Islam will become president. The Ayatollahs? Little Kim of starving NORK-land?

One can only hope it's true.

Pandering Pantsuit: Clinton's Delusional Progressive World

Hillary "I'll Use Any Server I Want" Clinton spoke yesterday before Al Sharpton's National Action Network (NAN). For those who have lived the last forty years on Mars, Sharpton plays the role of a reverend and political commentator on TV, while, in real life being a street thug, anti-semitic, anti-white, tax dodging millionaire.

While Sharpton has avoided paying millions in personal income taxes both to the feds and the state, NAN, itself, has engaged in tax frauds of it own, with no less than the New York Times reporting,

To stay afloat, the nonprofit became reliant on money that was supposed to go to payroll taxes, according to its financial statements. The amount National Action Network underpaid the federal government in taxes went from about $900,000 in 2003 to almost $1.9 million by 2006, records show. 

So, of course, Hillary Clinton of Whitewater, Benghazi, and Clinton Foundation scandals fame, went to scandal-ridden NAN to deliver a little address on race relations in the USA. You can read the full text here, and don't need me to guide you through the thick primeval woods of progressive lies and delusions that comprise it.

That said, as I always say before I go on to say that which does not need saying, let me make just a few observations.

Clinton's speech hits a remarkable low in terms of ethics and truth even for this campaign season which has been marked by some significant lows in both. Her speech, in fact, is worse than that; it is actually dangerous hate speech. If I weren't such a first amendment fanatic, I would urge her immediate arrest for spreading hate and for associating with a known racist and hater.

A few things immediately stick out as she relates the usual litany of complaints about race relations in the US. For one, she seems to think that race in the US means black and white. That's old think, Mrs C. Where I spend much of my time in California, the "races"--a stupid word--are Asian and Caucasian, and everybody gets along just fine. Asian Americans, by the way, are the single wealthiest and best educated demographic in the United States--"racism" doesn't seem to have bothered them in the least. For another, black Americans comprise a declining demographic thanks largely to progressive policies on abortion, which slaughter tens-of-thousands of black babies yearly, and to progressive policies on immigration which import hundreds of thousands of poor people from all around the world as part of a deliberate plan to alter the make-up of the nation. Yes, a large segment of black America appears mired in perpetual poverty, but, as you read or listen to Hillary's speech, you might forget who has been in charge in America for the last several years, and that overwhelmingly black Americans live in cities long-controlled by progressive politicians and policies.

In addition, I love how she takes a swipe at Trump for his "birther" campaign against Obama. She, of course, conveniently ignores that it was her own primary campaign back in 2008 which first raised the issue of Obama's birthplace.

Listen to the pandering, to the delusions as the Woman Who Would be Queen speaks,

More than half a century after Rosa Parks sat, and Dr. King marched, and John Lewis bled, race still plays a significant role in determining who gets ahead in America and who gets left behind. 

There’s something wrong, my friends, when the median wealth for black families is a tiny fraction of the median wealth for white families, when African Americans are still more likely to be denied a mortgage. 

Something’s wrong when black kids get arrested for petty crimes but white kids who do the same things don’t. 

Something’s wrong when gun violence is by far the leading cause of death for young black men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined. 

Something’s wrong when so many black parents are burying their children. 

Imagine if a white baby in parts of our country was twice as likely to die before her first birthday than a black baby.  Imagine the outcry and the resources that would flood in to save those babies. 

These are not only problems of economic inequality. They are also problems of racial inequality. 

And it is time we face up to the reality of systemic racism in all of its forms.

I particularly like her mention of black babies dying before their first birthday. Yes, they do, because progressives abort them. Suddenly she is concerned about saving babies. I want to vomit.

Do black kids get arrested for petty crimes while white ones don't? I don't know, and doubt she does either. Her comments on gun violence are pure madness. Who kills those black men for whom she suddenly has such concern? Since no answer appears in her speech, I provide it: the killers are other black men. By the way, these killings occur overwhelmingly in progressive-run cities with progressive gun control laws. Let's face it, a person, regardless of race, is much, much safer in "gun-infested," conservative Utah, than in "gun-free," progressive Chicago. The progressive speech-writers manage to avoid mentioning the big elephants in the room.

Her whole poverty pandering schtick also stinks of progressive deceptions and delusions. She makes no mention, for example, of the progressive-encouraged destruction of the black family. She ignores that black Americans suffer higher levels of poverty because, unlike Jackie Robinson who features earlier in her speech, many have allowed themselves to become wards of the state, looking to the state to solve the problems created by being wards of the state. As noted above, other "races" which have avoided the loving embrace of government have done well. She, furthermore, seems going back to advocating the lunacy that helped create the financial collapse of 2007-08, forcing banks to make loans to unqualified applicants.

That's enough for me. You can read the horrid thing for yourselves. It is revolting anti-white pandering, and to think that thanks to the way the GOP has been conducting itself, the dangerous, crooked woman who made this speech might very well become the next president . . . it's enough to make one despair.