Here's my thoughts on this:

When you have a displaced majority of this size looking to reorganize for a few common causes, you are bound to have disagreements among them. In addition, you have this ripe brew of awakened spirits and revolting citizenry looking for a catalyst that will transform it to the next level. The problem has been here that the catalyst that moves in is all too often one that seeks to turn the host into something that services the desires of the catalyst, or the sorcerer as it were. The last example of this was Arnold. We had all this simmering anger over democrat governing, the energy price crisis, licenses for illegals, etc. Along came the opportunists and inserted their catalyst to mold the brew into their own image. We didn't get licenses for illegals, but they been gettin' everything else but that on his watch. During the period prior to the election, all these republicans were telling their skeptics that they all had to back Arnie (not McLintock), and not slam him for unity, lest they get another dem that would be much, much, worse. Our silence gave us what? Arnie is beholden to the open borders lobby. He's deliberately failed us on everything but the license issue. Things may have gone differently had we publicly raised our hands and asked questions, voiced opposition, and even brought forth the fears we harbored about his candidacy.
So here we have our movement in the same predicament. We've got Nightingales, Simcox's, Gilchrists, Gheen's, Dobbs's, and so on as prospective catalysts. Is it so wrong to flesh out the truths under public scrutiny so we don't get another Arnie? Personally I'm more afraid of people who fear open discussion and disclosure so much that they would threaten, browbeat, deride, or cast out those insisting on it. If they can't survive a little internal fire, they won't do well against the external forces.

The Ah-nold governership is a perfect example, and really, how could people be so foolish? Here was a man who could barely speak English himself, a Catholic married to a Kennedy. Was this guy put in to resist illegal immigration? How could anyone imagine he was? Here was a guy who repeatedly voiced frustration over being inelligible for the Presidency. Here was a guy who has dual citizenship with his country of origin, Austria, and frequently dabbled in the politics there.

This is all a powerful indicator that the struggle against illegal immigration is already seriously compromised by an installation carefully calculated to deflect progress towards real, practical, pragmatic solutions that cut directly to the heart of the problem. What could be more stupid than putting an immigrant in charge of confronting the illegal immigration problem?

Stupid or calculating? And of course, ignorance is always more easy to confront than conspiracy. Silencing discussion is the basic reflex of conspirators. The embarrassment of ignorance always makes a weaker demand for silence.

That's way too much of a generalization. I think Eagle1 might have a different opinion.

Politics is a dangerous game