Replies

While most here agree with you, including me, voters just elected a bunch of dems. The Republican party and a conservative web site pushed for the RINO Arnie during the recall rather than McClintook, who had a strong anti illegal stance. I hope you keep pushing these issues. Thanks for letting us know what your views are.

Hillary's running on an immediate unilateral surrender to the terrorists platform, as in exactly what they did to us in Vietnam. A humiliating and dibilitating defeat for America that we've never really recovered from, and it opened the way for the killing fields and bloodletting that killed millions of people. The same thing will happen in Iraq. If we pull out and the enemy takes control, millions of innocent Iraqis will die. And obviously our emboldened enemy will not quit. They'll step up their terrorist attacks anywhere and anytime they can hit us. Hillary will do nothing to put it down. Our people will die wherever in the world they can hit us.

Supposing we run a decorated Vietnam veteran against Hillary who can articulate the truth about the Democrat surrender in Vietnam and the bloodbath that followed, and who can speak directly to the people and relate the parallels and the dangers to America and the world if Hillary's foolish plan of surrender is allowed to take place?

Also, one who can speak confidently on what will have to take place for America to defeat the enemy and what we will have to do to secure the nation against future attacks. I don't think it would be all that difficult to persuade the citizens that we must secure the borders against the possibility of terrorist infiltration or weapons smuggling. It's only obvious common sense to be on a secure war footing if we're at war. And no doubt about it, we are at war even if the Democrats are successful with their treasonous pull out. The enemy will keep on coming at us.

Sorry, this is a little to the side, but Schwarzenegger has been better than a RINO. He pushed hard for reform in California. After spending millions of his own money on getting a set of real reform measures on the ballot and promoting them, he got stomped on all of them. The public employee unions spent all of their money, outspent him by 3-to-1 I think, with wall-to-wall attacks on him and his propositions. Losing those probably set us back 20 years in efforts to fix California's problems. I was wondering why of all the wealthy people in the state, he had to fund so much himself. Why does the blame rest on him when he was the only one doing anything? Maybe he wondered the same thing. Since then he's been a RINO.