We need to approach this with a modicum of common sense. I am dismissing the personal attacks made on Simcox because they are neither here nor there. In fact, let's take the personalities out of this all together.
I DO take believers in the cause seriously and they've sounded the alarm that something is not right. If people are selling their houses to send money to one of our own, it is not reasonable for us to ask for an accounting of those funds? Isn't it reasonable for good and decent freepers to ask what the money is being spent on and assess the results of the project thus far before we send additional funds? Isn't that a basic responsibility we have a conservatives?
I want the border to be protected. But IF it turns out that the issue is being used by charlatans to raise money, or people so sloppy with others money that there is no accounting for it and it will never go for the proposed purpose, we need to stop this thing in it's tracks because it will set the movement back further than anything the opponents could ever do.
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE OUR OWN WORST ENEMY.
I guess the thing that stuns me is that a person with your experience should understand that. You KNOW how transparent any campaign must be. Perhaps you have just been attacked so much you have lost a little perspective on this. But either way, I implore you to slow down, take a deep breath and watch that video again.
It is NOT what the reporter says that is disturbing it is what Chris Simcox himself says, and those who are affiliated with his cause. It has been four months since this happened and that is plenty of time to open those records and PROVE that the allegations are not true.
He owes us nothing. But if he wants to continue to lead, he needs to put this to rest. If he doesn't I think it is a reasonable course for those who support border security to distance themselves from him. I have a very clear understanding about this sort of thing based on Tim Eyeman experiences here in Washington State. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and things can get very confusing and murky very quickly.
In the words of President Reagan: Trust, but verify.
I wish you the best.
Thanks for your entire post, polly..........but especially this statement.
Why EV, with his experience should be defending closed books, is puzzling...........and part of the reason I believe he has changed.
It makes absolutely no sense from a conservative political action perspective to defend financial secrecy in an effort this major and this important. One would think that those of us who value what the MM have done would ALL support complete financial disclosure.