OPINION:
More than 700 national security experts recently endorsed Kamala Harris for president. Aren’t those who work in national security supposed to be concerned first and foremost about the safety and security of the American people, particularly from foreign enemies?
If so, how can they in good conscience endorse a candidate who is a part of a presidential administration that has willingly let millions of unvetted migrants into this country illegally, some terrorists who could be planning a day of horror that could easily dwarf 9/11 in death toll? How do these supposed experts — most of whom have lived through the horror of 9/11 — ignore this egregious transgression and opt for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump, who is so pro-wall and pro-security?
The 1980 presidential election featured the following options: Jimmy Carter, a sitting Democratic president with an abysmal track record, and a “peace through strength” Republican, Ronald Reagan. The only Hail Mary the Democrats had was to label Reagan a madman who would “blow up the world.” The result a decade later was the end of the Cold War, won without a shot being fired. You’d think these so-called experts would have learned from history.
As I see it, anyone who suggests that Mr. Trump is a threat to our democracy while he or she endorses an open-borders candidate paving the way for another 9/11 is either crazy, stupid or treasonous (probably all three).
Speaking of the 1980 election, many remember the 44-state electoral landslide for Reagan — but few probably recall that the race was a statistical tie going into the final week. Americans eventually saw through the Democratic Party’a false narrative that Reagan was dangerous. I predict the same phenomenon will occur this time with Mr. Trump.
EUGENE R. DUNN
Medford, New York
Please read our comment policy before commenting.