[A CA Guy]

I noted that you two were decrying the reality that some folks are very fed up with our nation moving continually left, and that they are determined to stop supporting the candidacy of anyone who professes an intent to advance leftist ideals. While I understand where both of you are coming from, I am at a loss to understand what you offer as a solution. In effect you offer us the status down hill quo. That's no offer. That's a surrender.

Dear friend, we have had Independent Liberals and Democrats crossing over in our primaries making folks like McCain get wins in some states. That is why we have some nonconservatives getting offered up as our choice for Republican at times. The mostly liberal states allow this cross over stuff to purposely damage the eventual Republican nominee and until there is a day again where only registered Republicans will be allowed to vote in Republican primaries, that won't change.

I get your frustration, but that makes these times to be more active and alert as to not vote in ways that empower the Democrats.

You might be looking at some of the Republicans and saying "Oh my God, look at what we have here, not as conservative on all the issues as I like and near Democrat levels in some areas as well".
I AGREE it gets like that some times, we take steps back and forth from conservatism in all elections. The thing is, if we throw up our hands in main elections, instead of at most a small step towards non-conservatism, you get a Democrat jump off the cliff to total socialism and baby killing.

What we have to do to correct this DoughtyOne is to right now again put the Republican in for President and all the Republicans in over Democrats in our other races.
Look at it this way DoughtyOne, the elected Republicans will move the government far less left. Some will actually advance many areas way right.

Part two, we need to remove all the failing Republican incumbents running for Congress and the Senate in their primaries next time around and we have to back up and well finance their replacements with real conservatives. You blast enough incumbents out in primaries (making sure we don't give things to Democrats) and the remaining incumbents will start to get it before they themselves have to be removed.

So we have all the Republicans swearing to try and put in Strict Constructionist judges at a time when two liberal justices have to retire.
If you blow it and get Hillary in DoughtyOne in, then you are giving socialists the chance to load the court for decades of bad rulings. At least ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS have sworn while running that their judge choices will be far more Constitution leaning.

I know, I know, I can't stand not having a Fred kind of candidate in the lead right now. It isn't Republican voter's fault, it's the cross over votes in Republican primaries that has been allowed by LIBERAL courts to happen.

Politics is a process of steps forwards and backwards as we try and achieve a conservative goal for us. You really don't want to screw up judges the worst you can and throw us off the cliff to socialism as any message to Republicans. Republicans already know it, it is the cross over BS and some incumbents get scared and start to blend into the Washington culture. We have to remove in primaries the Senators and Congressman who have gone left when they are up for election.

Trust me on this DoughtyOne, it is far easier to come back for pricking your finger than cutting your own throat. That is why in tough times we vote for the less liberal candidate over the total lib socialist and don't throw the vote elsewhere. Every time we get frustrated and let things go an election, the Democrats get a football field move in their direction instead of maybe only a step.

Better we let a step go at most backwards instead of a block, so when we get the next conservative he can start from his 60 yard line towards the goal instead of his 10 yard line.
We get a conservative in and if they are forced to make up all the ground we lost for them getting a previous Democrat in, then they have less chance to advance our agenda upfield.

It's like a war, sometimes you retreat a bit to take a better position later and fight another day. If we give Democrats power, then we have to take it all back from the beach when we were already ten miles inland. I know it is frustrating, but you put in the most conservative electable candidate.

If even Lieberman was elected as the republican nominee, he'd get my vote over sitting out and Hillary because though both are disasters, at least Lieberman gets the war right! Lieberman puts us at our 20 yard line from the 60 which sucks, but Hillary might get us backwards for a touchdown.

It sucks my dear friend, but we have the responsibility to put in the least liberal choice between two choices as we have to (which is the Republican over the Democrat). Then we make changes against incumbents in primaries and vote happily for the electable conservatives as they come along (again they will be Republicans).

Again, the game is we make bad incumbent pay in their primaries by replacing them and we NEVER vote in ways which gets the most liberals in during the main elections (which would be Democrats). That is the whole patient strategy we must endure to succeed in the long run and it is exasperating.

Look at Radical Islam, they have strategies to conquer us all by overpopulating the world and they are willing to do this over hundreds of years. Slow, but could in the end work my friend.

Everything we want sometimes takes time, and though I hate using Islamic terrorists as examples, they are a good one.

Hope you get the reasoning behind why I say we don't sit out main elections or do things that gets Democrats elected. God Bless, I get the frustration BELIEVE ME I DO! LOL

[DoughtyOne]

I know this is long.  I hope it will be worth it to you to read it.  I don't expect you to fully agree.  In part you will.  I don't know how big that part will be.

There was a time about ten years ago, when I couldn't accept it either.

I noted that you two were decrying the reality that some folks are very fed up with our nation moving continually left, and that they are determined to stop supporting the candidacy of anyone who professes an intent to advance leftist ideals. While I understand where both of you are coming from, I am at a loss to understand what you offer as a solution. In effect you offer us the status down hill quo. That's no offer. That's a surrender.

Dear friend, we have had Independent Liberals and Democrats crossing over in our primaries making folks like McCain get wins in some states. That is why we have some nonconservatives getting offered up as our choice for Republican at times. The mostly liberal states allow this cross over stuff to purposely damage the eventual Republican nominee and until there is a day again where only registered Republicans will be allowed to vote in Republican primaries, that won't change.

This is true.  Yes it will be much better when we get the independents out of there.  Other areas of concern are the motor voter and same day registrations that are allowed at this time.  There is a problem with any efforts to change these problems though.  You'll see what I mean further down.

I get your frustration, but that makes these times to be more active and alert as to not vote in ways that empower the Democrats.

I realize we're all frustrated by this situation, and I don't see your decision on this to mean you aren't.  I also understand your view on helping Democrats.  Neither of us wants to.  Unfortunately when a program like the medication rider for Medical gets approved, it's rationally impossible to expect it will ever be repealed.  It's for the duration.  It is an intrenched advance for the socialists.  What happens when we vote in some idiot-stick that will approve of a national healthcare plan, from our side?  At that time we'll have achieved the European model, just about a 100% socialist state.  Flat out communism will follow.  What happens if a Giuliani gets voted in and ignores our wishes on a judicial appointment that isn't solid on right to life?  Has a leftist Bush been receptive to conservative thought on immigration?  Why are we convinced other leftists will listen to our wishes?  Some of these guys actually think they are conservatives, when they simply aren't.  Not being well grounded, they simply don't understand when an issue comes up and they act in ways that do not conform to solid conservative policy.  They fumble on from one problematic decision to another.

You might be looking at some of the Republicans and saying "Oh my God, look at what we have here, not as conservative on all the issues as I like and near Democrat levels in some areas as well".  I AGREE it gets like that some times, we take steps back and forth from conservatism in all elections. The thing is, if we throw up our hands in main elections, instead of at most a small step towards non-conservatism, you get a Democrat jump off the cliff to total socialism and baby killing.

You've made some valid points here.  I can't argue with them.  Let me ask you what happens when we're at sixty to seventy million illegals in our nation?  You can see the pandering that started at around 10 million.  Citizens' wishes were completely written off even at that level.  Imagine the situation when 'our boys' have let in many times that much.  Baby killing is a very important topic.  Is it the most important topic?  Morally, I believe so.  What happens if we lose control of our nation or parts of it while we hold on for a cure for that problem?  That's where we are headed.  Do we simply write off California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas?  Do we then write off the states on their borders as they become the new front-lines in the war over illegal alien occupation?

Look at what we are sacrificing in the attempt to right a terrible wrong?  In the end we'll only correct the problem for a portion of what used to be the United States.  A new third nation, not a part of the U.S. or Mexico may or may not follow suit.  It may also be a completely marxist entitiy like Venezuela, China or the old Soviet Union, demanding more from the U.S. all the time, and causing God knows what other problems for the remaining states.  Is this possibility one that we should flirt with over the next 24 to 48 years you envision us taking baby steps back to sanity?

Have you seen the political instances of those who dream of this eventuality?

What we have to do to correct this DoughtyOne is to right now again put the Republican in for President and all the Republicans in over Democrats in our other races.  Look at it this way DoughtyOne, the elected Republicans will move the government far less left. Some will actually advance many areas way right.

Do you really think Bush 'moved us in many areas' back to the right?

I don't doubt that some folks will move us back to the right in certain regions.  At the state levels, what good will that do, if the federal government sells them out?  California is a poor example because the state government is so whacked from top to bottom, but what if some republican office holders could move things back toward the center?  Would that stop federal policy from moving in a direction that would ultimately lead the state to be abandoned?  While that may seem like a non-starter, republican presidential candidates don't even campaign in the state any longer.  It's already a given to go for the democrat nominee, no matter who it eventually turns out to be this fall.  You'll probably see some token campaigning here prior to the primary, because taking the majority of republican votes is important in the primary process.  In the fall California will be judged to be too costly and a waste of time.  Anotherwords, the party you and I have called home for most if not all of our lives, has officially adopted a policy that states conservative policies are inferior to leftist policies, they can't be sold on a head to head competition.  Isn't that something to be proud of.

The party is already writing off portions of this nation.  They'll attend fundraisers in the state, then spend that money elsewhere, but they will not try to sell our ideals there any longer.

Part two, we need to remove all the failing Republican incumbents running for Congress and the Senate in their primaries next time around and we have to back up and well finance their replacements with real conservatives. You blast enough incumbents out in primaries (making sure we don't give things to Democrats) and the remaining incumbents will start to get it before they themselves have to be removed.

This is an admirable plan, and I can certainly support it.  Here's the problem with that plan.  When a region puts in a Congessman, they are loathe to replace them.  From what I have observed, the nation that approves of Congress by only 16%, at the same time thinks their Congressman is just swell.  Senate and Congressional offices are almost lifetime appointments.  Unless the political demographics in a region change, the office holder will generally hold office until they decide to give it up.

Then there's the problem of incumbents that neuter our hopes from another angle.  Remember the House Freshmen in 1996?  How long did it take the sitting House members to put them in their place and get them to fall in line?  What, two years, perhaps four, it was hardly a blink of an eye before they were accepting that they needed to back the status quo.  It's basicly the same arguement that you are making here.  "We cannot abandon the leadership.  We may be making baby steps, but if you folks don't continue to be solidified behind the leadership, the left will destroy us."  No, the leaders of the right are doing that for them.

So we have all the Republicans swearing to try and put in Strict Constructionist judges at a time when two liberal justices have to retire.  If you blow it and get Hillary in DoughtyOne in, then you are giving socialists the chance to load the court for decades of bad rulings. At least ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS have sworn while running that their judge choices will be far more Constitution leaning.

Rudy thinks he is a conservative.  Do you agree?  Romney, Huckabee and McCain, do too.  Do you agree?  These folks don't even comprehend that they are not true conservatives, but you think they will know what one is when the time for an appointment comes up.  Do you realize how absurd that sounds?  Don't take that as a slam.  I think you stand in the majority with that belief.  You're actually in pretty good company, if you look around at the RP leadership and RP public personalities out there.

In our lifetime, certianly my own at any rate, we have watched our side appoint seven of the nine current sitting Supreme Court justices.  Even today we have a problem getting our agenda past them.  One of the loons even admits to using European case law to make his decisions.  No, he's not bound to the U.S. Constitution.  He's now bound to the United Nation's, or the European Union's court decisions.  That may have been a justice appointed by the left, I dont' recall, but his point of view prevailed in the case in question.  He may not have written the brief for the majority, but the majority sided with him in the end.  (I don't believe it was based on his arguement though.  Still this is very problematic.)  We appointed 7/9ths of this group.  RINOs did this.  Isn't that clear?  Even my own Ronald Reagan appointed a couple of doozies.

I know, I know, I can't stand not having a Fred kind of candidate in the lead right now. It isn't Republican voter's fault, it's the cross over votes in Republican primaries that has been allowed by LIBERAL courts to happen.

I believe you are right to an extent.  I have watched the focus groups though, and I'll tell you, I've seen some pretty dim bulbs.  One bi_ch last night was declaring Thompson to be glib and sophmoric.  Another expressed her anger at his rude demeanor.  Others thought he was great, but just too little too late.  Others thought he couldn't win, so they wrote him off.  I'd say 80-85% of the focus group thought he won the debate.  When the hands were shown who would vote for him, about 10-15% of the folks who thought he won raised their hands.  It's just amazing to watch this kind of logic rule their decision making.  On national television that made the case for ignoring a clear cut victory by a man they described as having an excellent grasp of the issues, and having a more sound action plan than any of the others. This is the primaries for heaven's sake.  This is when you give guys like Hunter and Thompson your hearts.

Politics is a process of steps forwards and backwards as we try and achieve a conservative goal for us. You really don't want to screw up judges the worst you can and throw us off the cliff to socialism as any message to Republicans. Republicans already know it, it is the cross over BS and some incumbents get scared and start to blend into the Washington culture. We have to remove in primaries the Senators and Congressman who have gone left when they are up for election.

I'm not sure if you realize this takes place or not, but let me tell you what has taken place twice in California.  The rank and file of the California Repubican Party isn't a bad group.  They know the core beliefs and support them.  I know of two times that they have tried to change the leadership to reflect their beliefs.  Both times they were successful.  And when they were, the national Republican Party came out to California and explained that they were reorganizing the leadership in the state.  I don't need to tell you how it turned out.  The party actually sees the rising of a conservative leadership, to be a challenge to their control.  They consider it to be a mutiny.  The party just doesn't get conservatism.  We are fighting against their goals, and I simply cannot accept that we have to any longer.  They have it in their heads to support things we do not.  Until we change that mindset, we're doomed.

The result out here is that the party leadership is MIA every election time, when it comes to supporting conservative republican nominees for state level offices.  If the nominee isn't a RINO, you'll hear almost nothing from them during the election season.  As for funding, funds are not forthcoming for our conservative standard bearer.

Trust me on this DoughtyOne, it is far easier to come back for pricking your finger than cutting your own throat. That is why in tough times we vote for the less liberal candidate over the total lib socialist and don't throw the vote elsewhere. Every time we get frustrated and let things go an election, the Democrats get a football field move in their direction instead of maybe only a step.

Your analogy would be perfect if it addressed precisely what is taking place.  It seems to me both are cutting our own throat, it's just that our guys are only 3/4ths of the way there, while the left is about 90% of the way there.

The last two times a democrat was elected to the presidency, were Carter and Ford.  Reagan came along and pretty well straightened things out.  Bush just hasn't had it in him.  He has tried.  I think he has handed the WOT well.  Right now he's poised to sell Israel down the river.  Wouldn't that be grand?

Better we let a step go at most backwards instead of a block, so when we get the next conservative he can start from his 60 yard line towards the goal instead of his 10 yard line.  We get a conservative in and if they are forced to make up all the ground we lost for them getting a previous Democrat in, then they have less chance to advance our agenda upfield.

Let's stay with the football field analogy.  If you look at what has taken place over the last fifty years, this is what you'll probably acknowledge.  We have moved to an amazing degree toward a socialist state.  Starting with Johnson's "Great Society" programs, we have moved the federal government into the arena of the nanny state.  Welfare as we know it was implemented.  Medicare was instituted.  Now we have a medication addition to that, and we're poised in the near future to add in healthcare.  All the leftist candidates are sure to push for it, and a number of our own players are chomping at the bit to do the same thing.  Today we have a president who has bought on to the military stance of a one theater policy.  We have wagered that our nation will never have to fight more than a one theater conflict on short notice.

When Ronald Reagan came to office, Carter had gutted about half our Naval fleet and had let much of what was left decay.  Reagan rebuilt it.  Even Carter didn't destroy our troop levels to the extent Clinton and Bush have.  As a matter of policy, Carter, Bush I and Clinton didn't abandon the two theater military preparedness doctrine, even though the reality was that we probably couldn't have leveled a two theater effort by the end of Clinton's presidency.  Then Bush came along.  Not only did he not correct the situation, he had the gonads (or lack thereof) to make it official.  We would no longer adhere to a two theater military preparedness level.

We have the Department of Education taking it's marching orders from UNESCO.  UNESCO sets up lesson plans and policy suggestions.  And our Department of Education laps it up like a pit bull thrown red meat.  And what did our illustrious president do?  Did he put an end to this.  Did he winnow away at the power of the DoE?  Why hell, he doubled their budget in the first four years of his presidency.

From day one the illegal aliens have had a green light to enter our nation at will.  In 2000 we had something like 10 millin illegal aliens in our nation.  Today it is impossible to state how many are here.  Starting at a base of 10 million in 2000, we have had anywhere from one to three million plus, entering our nation each year.  Traditionally we have caught only about 10% of the illegals coming over our border.  A couple of years ago, during a nine month period aprehensions stood at 900,000.  If that doesn't open some eyes, nothing ever will.  The implications are calamitous.

We most certainly have 20 million illegals in our nation, but we may have as high as 35 million here.  Time magazine claimed we had 3.5 million coming across our borders every year, several years ago.  Over eight years (the end of Bush's second term), we' could have had 28 million illegals cross our borders, just during his presidency, if Time was even close to right.  Remember, births inside the United States bump up the overall number significantly.  What if 10% of these illegals had just one baby during the eight years.  That's an additional 3.5 million, and that doesn't even address a birth rate in excess of that, or the issue of mulitple births.

One illegal alien support group that wanted to display how much power they had, claimed that there was now over 50 million illegals in the United States.  I tend to doubt it's anywhere near that close, but you'll see Bush and others still refering to 10 to 12 million illegals inside our nation.  That would mean that only 250 thousand or so had come over since Bush took over.  That is such a massive lie, that it's pointless to characterize it further.

This is what we are dealing with.

Where was the roll-back?

While all this was taking place, do you think conservatives rolled over?  We wrote letters, sent faxes, made phone calls, visited Washington, D. C.  We developed our own border observation groups.  We did everything we possibly could to bring Bush and the republican party back into the fold.  And as a group they shot us the collective finger in response.

This is the situation that you think we are going to fix with baby-steps.  While you are orgaizing those baby-steps, Bush and company have been taking massive leaps in the opposite direction.  Now you propose another eight years of it.  Well that isn't exactly true, because you are essentially asking us to take the same course of action we have over the last twenty years indefinately.

Do you think we have held ground since Reagan left office?  I only need to touch on a couple of issues to disprove that theory.  Our naval fleet is less than half what it was in 1988.  Under Bush alone I believe our naval fleet has dropped by at least 25%.  Bush is well on his way to destroying 75% of our nuclear arsenal.

Baby steps?

It's like a war, sometimes you retreat a bit to take a better position later and fight another day. If we give Democrats power, then we have to take it all back from the beach when we were already ten miles inland. I know it is frustrating, but you put in the most conservative electable candidate.


Back to the football field analogy.  If we're talking about the 50 yard line being the middle of the spectrum (conservatism vs liberalism) we're on our own five yard line right now.

We started on our own forty yead line in 1960 since social security had already been implemented.  Not a private plan, it didn't set up a bank so that the funds could grow.  It was set up to exist off future payments, not SS reserves.  Then the qualifications were lowered time and again.  If we had any idea how many people are getting payments who never worked a day in their lives in this nation, we'd grab a pitchfork and run toward Washington, D.C.

Then left threw a welfare plan that gained them yardage.  They also threw a Medicare plan, another first down.  We got the ball a few times and promptly dropped it with dismal court appointments.  We developed some lousy polices on defense.  We lost more yardage.  We have let our nation be over-run.  We have passed another great society program.  We have abdicated any conservative influence at our universities.  We have doubled the budget of a department that is doing it's damndedst to corrupt our children.  And where has much of this come from?  Well, at least in part the border and education guidelines are driven by the United Nations.  We have actually aquiessed on sovereign matters to a pariah non-representative organization hell bent on destroying our sovereignty.

The reaction to this by many is to think that we will baby step our way out of this.  We haven't got any place to go IMO.  Our back is up against the end zone.

If even Lieberman was elected as the republican nominee, he'd get my vote over sitting out and Hillary because though both are disasters, at least Lieberman gets the war right! Lieberman puts us at our 20 yard line from the 60 which sucks, but Hillary might get us backwards for a touchdown.

Hillary will talk a good game to win the vote from the left.  IMO she will not touch the Iraqi effort.  She will claim that it was something she was saddled and go along to get along.  If she wins the office, the number one goal she'll have from day one on, will be winning a second term.  She won't alienate the middle-ground suckers that she needs for a second term.  She won't be challenged from within her own party.  If so she'll take them down.

I realize this is a calculated opinion, but look at Bubba.  Even that dim bulb signed on to a military action, even if it was handled about as bad as it could have been. IMO

It sucks my dear friend, but we have the responsibility to put in the least liberal choice between two choices as we have to (which is the Republican over the Democrat). Then we make changes against incumbents in primaries and vote happily for the electable conservatives as they come along (again they will be Republicans).

I do consider you to be a friend.  I have argued from your perspective on this issue.  I know where you are coming from.  I have had to change my mind.  What I see here is a person who is about eight years twelve years behind me, in my progression to realizing that what we have been doing isn't working.  When it comes to the place that your own team is pefectly happy to hand over the keys to the rhelm to citizens from another nation, it's reached my breaking point.  This s--t has got to end.  And it ends here for me.

Again, the game is we make bad incumbent pay in their primaries by replacing them and we NEVER vote in ways which gets the most liberals in during the main elections (which would be Democrats). That is the whole patient strategy we must endure to succeed in the long run and it is exasperating.

Yes it is.  Look, I wouldn't mind so much if we had a lot more time to waste on this.  IMO, we're very close to going over the edge to no return.  And while you say that is exactly what you are trying to prevent, IMO, what you are advocating is going to usher in just what you seek to avoid.  We did not move back to the right under Bush.  We will not under any leftist you can point a finger at.  We saw massive movement to the left.  And we're now in danger of signing agreements that will forever relinquish our sovereignty.

Look at Radical Islam, they have strategies to conquer us all by overpopulating the world and they are willing to do this over hundreds of years. Slow, but could in the end work my friend.

If one looks at Europe, particularly France and even Britain, we're not talking about 100s of years.  We're talking about one to one and a half generations before the Muslem's will take control.  If we don't lead this nation away from the brink, we will not move the Western nations away from that brink with us.

Bush looked the other way as an international criminal court came into being.  And then moments before it was solidified, he made a token objection that saw us come under it's rule.  Is this a baby step that you approve of?  Of course not.  Radical Islam is not within.  Liberalism, socialism, marxism, are all inside.  To lesser or greater extents, these live within all but a few people who seek and hold office in our nation.  And we as well meaning loyal patriots, have sought long term corrections to what ails us.  And while we have, we have accepted a situation that saw us lose ground continually.  Isn't that clear?

Everything we want sometimes takes time, and though I hate using Islamic terrorists as examples, they are a good one.

While I do think it's an adequate example, that is not the true danger we face.  Yes it is a very real danger and one we need to combat, but rampant socialist globalist policy is our undoing.  It will feed the Islamic monster, because it suits them.  Chaos is the goal.  World-wide chaos is the deliverance a world-wide body looks for.  Open borders, the thinning down of righteous loyalist nationalistic population bases, international agreements, global governance... it's all the pathway to our undoing, solidification of global governance.  We are agreeing to our own undoing, and we're not talking about hundreds of years.  Look at the changes in the last 15.  We're looking at a massive reallignment within ten to twenty.

Hope you get the reasoning behind why I say we don't sit out main elections or do things that gets Democrats elected. God Bless, I get the frustration BELIEVE ME I DO! LOL

I believe you do get the frustration, and I believe you do search for the best strategy to end what is taking place.  Unfortunately we can't even get our leaders to acknowledge that what is taking place is bad.  We are almost a lost cause, and yet we still think the folks who got us here are our only salvation.  I consider their plans to have been well thought out and massive in scope.  What is excurciationly painful to understand, is that this effort is so massive, has so permiated every level of our society, that even to address the issue is to come off as a Ron Paul ass-hat clown.  I don't imply that he is on the right track.  What I imply is that if anyone were to acknowlege the actual situation we live in, they would be deemed to be of the same sort as Paul, a loose cannon existing on the fringe of the political universe.

The universities are hostage to this cause.  Our K-12 schools are now hostage to this cause, and every decent value we hold dear is being showered in shades of gray on the way to our children's minds.  The media is enthraled.  It can't do enough to herd us toward the globalist corral.  Big business is exherting it's influence to move us into a globalist entity.  BOTH political parties are on board.

At the present time, we cannot get a guy like Hunter elected.  Thompson is fighting an uphill battle.  If he doesn't get the nomination we are another four to eight years away from even the baby steps, that being another Bush to run the errands of the globalist elites.  And here it is that I must fall on the sword of making it clear, the direction we are headed is no longer acceptable to me and miillions of loyal patriots like me.  I will no longer support any man, woman or group that sees globalism as the answer to humanity's great questions.

When November comes this year, I will vote for a person who understands this.  If there isn't someone on the ballot who does, I will have to take a pass.

Is our nation so far down the road that it will not survive another four years of Clinton rule?  I honestly don't know.  It may be.  And if it is, slipping to the left for another ten to twelve years won't save us either.

It is time to draw a line in the sand.  It is time to make it clear that at least some citizens have come to the conclusion that we cannot continue on this course.  If a leftist republican can no longer be certain of victory, then the party leadership will either have to move toward the conservative vision, or it will simply cease to exist.  Either way, this or another party will take up the conservative cause.  Either that or we will experince the inevitable, that would have befallen us anyway.

IMO, it's a real likelihood that the republican party elite would actually join the democrats to defeat a serious conservative loyalist republican or third party threat.  They would throw every buzz phrase and name in the book at the conservative effort.  It would be extremely ugly.  If this is true, and I believe it to be, is this the party you wish to defend you on the field of battle against globalist forces?

Do you think the Republican elites would allow a sovereignty concious, anti free-traitor, border respecting player to userp their plans?  If that person also understood the globalist game plan and would fight against it, do you think the RP elite would allow it?  Do you think they would approve if he attempted to open up the universities to conservative thought?  Some of this perhaps... all of it.  It's not likely.

We have come to the end of the road one way or another.  This simply cannot continue.  We either turn around or march into the 1000 years of darkness President Reagan voiced an objection to.

I will tell you, that I am not convinced Reagan fully understood the threat that was developing.  His rallying cry in his day was the cold war, and the man did a masterful job of moving us away from the brink.  Where he saw communism rear it's ugly head, he developed a plan and killed it.  Did he fully grasp what globalism would do to us?  I don't think he did.

It is time for the next generation to face it's greatest threat.  What the socialists couldn't usher in from outside our nation, they are poised to do from within.  We are being absorbed by the Borg.  If we don't acknowledge it and say enough aready, it is indeed over.  Incrementalism has been tried.  It has been successful.  In your heart you know I'm right.

I appreciate your response. Take care.