Political Liberalism, governmental imbalance, and the Deceptive Quality

In my June 15, 2007 AFB article, What is Balanced Government?, I wrote the following concerning my theory of an internal healing quality inherent to Balanced Govenment:

... Having put quite a lot of thought to it, I have concluded that there's a quality inherent to balance that is somewhat elusive under a mere cursory investigation. For my own purposes I have denominated this "the non-deceptive quality." For the sake of putting a definition to it, I will say this: Balanced Government does not abide deception, or the practice thereof. ...

I quote that passage from the article because it was brought to mind as I read this commentary by Tom Tancredo over at the Team America site. Here is an excerpt from the article:

The opponents of immigration enforcement have stooped to a new low in Arizona with their latest attempt to undermine the state's workplace verification laws. After exhausting their usual tactics, they are resorting to outright and intentional deception of the voters. This November, Arizonans will vote on Proposition 202; which will be described to them as such:

"Stop Illegal Hiring" Act is an initiative designed to crack down on unethical businesses who hire illegal immigrants. This initiative targets employers who hire workers and pay under-the-table in cash, which fuels illegal immigration in Arizona. It revokes the business license of employers who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal immigrants. This initiative increases penalties for identity theft, as illegal immigrants often use stolen identities to conceal their undocumented status...

If this were all I knew about Prop 202, I'd wholeheartedly support it; and the initiative backers are hoping that voters won't learn anything about the initiative beyond the title.

Read the rest of the article to find out what the real motive behind this proposition is.

My purpose here is not to criticize for the sake of criticizing, particularly someone I greatly admire like Mr. Tancredo, but his rhetoric implies that he gives credit where credit is not due. I understand why Tancredo would feel compelled to use the language contained in the opening sentence, but isn't what these liberals are doing purely consistent with the inherent nature of their political ideology? What is political liberalism in truth but deception? Have Arizona liberals really "stooped to a new low" in attempting to deceive the People of Arizona into throwing down the very walls which they themselves only recently erected for their future security? It may be a new tactic, or one we're not used to liberals employing to achieve their ends, but it's in no way a "stooping to a new low" for liberals, as if to say that this new method is below even them.

My impression is that Tancredo's rhetoric, well intended and righteously indignant as it is, serves to illustrate the vital necessity of our accepting the reality of what liberalism truly is, and to what extent it will go in order to achieve its ends. Until that time we cannot begin to understand by what means we must restrain it, given that it cannot and will not restrain itself; that it must be restrained, if it is to be restrained at all, by a force outside itself.

I say to you in the words of the Psalmist that liberals are the heathen of the earth raging and imagining a vain thing saying, let us break their bands assunder and cast away their cords from among us.

Incidentally the exact same thing applies to the problem of Islam. Like liberalism Islam is an inherently deceptive belief system which literally knows no bounds to its ability and willingness to deceive by any and all means in pursuit of its ultimate ends. Islam has but one objective and it will stop at nothing to achieve it. The same applies to liberalism.

Read More

No more loans to illegals

Here is Tom Tancredo on the proposed bailout:

Dear Colleague,

In the midst of the turmoil in our financial markets, we should take pause to reflect on the lessons we have learned in the past few years. With the benefits of that wisdom, we can include the prudent provisions that will close loopholes in any potential “bailout” legislation. One such suggestion is to incorporate safeguards to verify the legal residency and identity of potential homebuyers to ensure that illegal aliens are not obtaining federally backed home loans.

I sent a letter to the Secretary of HUD a year ago about this very concern. I also pressed the agency to disclose the extent to which this type of fraud is contributing to volatility in the mortgage markets. I believe this kind of fraud has contributed to the tumult we are seeing in the headlines daily.

I have seen this ugly issue up close, as a Colorado-based mortgage fraud ring in which realtors, loan officers, and sales agents were indicted and arrested for obtaining federally-backed loans for some 250 unqualified buyers by manufacturing false financial information, fraudulent identities, and bogus citizenship documentation. All of the 191 houses involved were purchased with HUD-guaranteed loans. According to one expert, banks in Colorado alone lose upwards of $75 million per year to fraud – so I can only imagine what the numbers are like nationally.

I recognize that any infusion of foreign investment – especially now – is a welcome addition to our capital-starved market. But there is a difference between the wealthy foreign real estate investor or financier of a vacation home, and the inherently unreliable illegal aliens who are prone to fraud and may be forced by circumstances to return to their home nation at any point. Certainly, we should seek to differentiate between these two categories of buyer.

Including a mechanism to make sure that taxpayers are not providing any assistance to illegal aliens, or absorbing any bad debts owed to financial institutions (such as mortgages) by illegal aliens is a “must” for any “bailout” legislation. If such protections are not included in the package, I hope you will join me in opposing its passage.

We need to ensure that the ‘American Dream’ remains within reach of American families – and that means enacting some long overdue safeguards that prevent illegal aliens and their unscrupulous allies in the financial industry from undermining its integrity.

Read More

True Leadership

See this VFR article to find out what one U.S. Congressman (guess who) is proposing in order to prevent empowered American Muslims from doing what empowered Muslims in Western countries are bound at some point to do.

I agree with Auster that Tancredo's (anyone surprised?) proposal, as it is now, leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and that it seems to assume that we have some way of knowing how to distinguish between Muslims that favor sharia law and Muslims that don't, which we do not. For that matter, we have no way of knowing for certain an apostate Muslim is really an apostate, as Bruce Tefft acknowledged in a comment to an entry I did on the subject some time back.

But here's the thing, Tancredo is retiring from the U.S. House this year, as soon as his term of service is up. He isn't running for re-election, so his seat will be occupied by someone else in 2009. So I don't know who in the U.S. House there is that's going to, or is willing to, or has the basic knowledge of Islam necessary to, carry Tancredo's torch forward. I imagine his proposal, therefore, is simply going to die the death.

What, then, are we to do?...

Well, in my state a group of 21 legislators refused to receive a gift of the Koran from an Islamic advocacy organization in Oklahoma whose chairwoman had been appointed to Governor Brad Henry's falsely named "Ethnic advisory council" on the grounds that the Koran promotes hate and violence against women, and so on. I wrote a letter of approval to the spokesperson for this group of legislators because, first, I agreed with what they were doing, and second, this group was coming under a lot of fiery criticsm from liberals in this state and around the country, as well as from that illegitimate Muslim empowering subversive bullying organization, CAIR.

These are the kinds of legislators that we need to be working to install at the national level. Men who have the strength of character, and the basic knowledge of Islam necessary, to make the connection between Islam and violent and non-violent jihad...

Read More

Tom Tancredo responds to President Calderon's lecture of Americans

Where's Tom Tancredo? Here he is, doing what he does best, defending America's honor, national and cultural identity; strongly protesting the Mexican President's lecture of Americans and his meddling attempts to effect U.S. immigration policies which favor McCain style amnesty for illegal Mexican aliens.

Mr. Tancredo writes:

President Calderon, I respectfully suggest that the next time you visit our country, rather than trying to influence U.S. policymakers or our election process, you take time to listen to Americans rather than lecture them. If you want to make changes in government policies, apply your energies to Mexico’s laundry list of problems rather than meddling in domestic American politics.

By all means, click on the link provided above and read Tancredo's entire letter to President Calderon.

It's good to see the former Republican presidential contender back in action.

**********

Call me Mom writes:

Terry,

Thank you that was an excellent letter. I'm glad I took the time to read it. I think I'll be writing him in.

TM replies:

Mom,

Thanks. I was delighted to make the find, and figured you and others would be interested. As you're probably aware, I've been thinking a Tancredo write-in for several months now. It would be ideal for conservatives to unite around a single write-in candidate, but that seems more impossible than ever given recent events.

Read More

Where's Tom Tancredo?

Over at Brave New World Watch, John Savage poses a question that has also occurred to me lately, what happened to Tom Tancredo?

John writes:

By the way, where has Tancredo been ever since he dropped out of the race? You’d think he’d be making his case for Romney, but I haven’t even seen him mentioned anywhere.

That's a very good and a timely question which I thought warranted a blog post of its own here at Webster's, obviously. Interestingly enough, when I did a search for the "press release of Tom Tancredo's withdrawal from Presidential race," or something like that, I found this story from the San Jose Mercury News, which concludes this way:

Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines, said Tancredo forced his GOP rivals to talk about immigration.

"What Tancredo has done is analogous to what a third-party candidate does," Goldford said. "They call attention to and articulate an issue that the other two main parties neglect or don't see" and then after forcing the issue they disappear. (emphasis mine)

They disappear indeed. In the case of Congressman Tancredo, whose actions are analogous to only in the sense that he was not a third party candidate, this statement is quite accurate, not to mention somewhat prophetic given that it was made at the time of Tancredo's withdrawal from the race way before there was any indication that Tancredo had "disappeared" from the scene altogether. Many of us, including myself, expected Tancredo to move to the sidelines after his withdrawal from the Presidential race, where we'd still hear from him on occasion, not entirely out of the arena. But none of us has seen or heard anything from Tancredo, not even a peep, since he left the race and endorsed Romney, which seems kind of odd. I ask again:

Where's Tom Tancredo? And why isn't he, as John says, making his case for Romney at this critical hour?

Read More

Who would be your second choice ... for President?

(Note: The discussion initiated by Mr. Auster's question on supporting a top tier candidate has been moved here.)

Just on a quick roundup of the relatively few blogs that I frequent, I note that all of them express a preference, or a pretty solid number one candidate for the presidency. While none of them, including this blog, seem to have a solid number two...

I'll start the roundup over at the AFB. Fellow AFBer Mike Tams seems to be leaning toward Mitt Romney as his second choice. He would probably prefer someone like Duncan Hunter to Romney, but Romney seems to appeal to Mike very much. I don't think Mike has totally committed himself to Romney as yet, but this seems to be the direction in which he is leaning.

Over at VFR, Lawrence Auster has repeatedly endorsed Tom Tancredo. In this recent VFR entry Auster mentions both Fred and Romney as preferable to Giuliani. But he doesn't tell us which of the two (Fred or Romney) he would prefer.

Meanwhile, VA has said many good things about Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. These two seem to be VA's top two candidates, but it's still a bit unclear in what order she would put them. I tend to think, from what I read at VA's, that she would place them in the order that I've placed them in the first sentence of this paragraph.

The Maritime Sentry strongly endorses the candidacy of Mike Huckabee. But I don't recall reading there an endorsement of a second choice or preference.

I'm not at all sure about Wise Man's Heart. I don't know whether Hermes has broached this topic or not. But I'll go check it out. (Hat tip to John Savage for reminding me of this post over at WMH, where Hermes expresses his like of Tancredo and Paul)

John Savage at Brave New World Watch is a strong supporter of Tom Tancredo. Don't miss his lengthy roundup of Tancredo related blog posts in his right sidebar. But like the rest of us, John has yet to name a second preference from the list of candidates.

And to complete the roundup, here at Webster's I've endorsed Tancredo on a number of occasions as my first choice. I've never said, however, who my second choice would be.

I don't think I can nail down a second choice just yet. I need to do a lot more research and reflection on the remaining candidates. I think Ron Paul is interesting, but at this point I don't think I could name him a second choice. Giuliani isn't even on my radar as someone I could ever cast a sacred vote for. And Fred doesn't rate much higher with me at this point than Giuliani. I don't think Fred can make up any ground with me either, but we'll see.

Basically I'm left to decide between Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul as secondary choices to Tom Tancredo. And like I said, I'm just going to have to commit to doing a lot more research on all three of these candidates.

In any event, I can say this. If Giuliani were to get the Republican nomination (which seems to be the general consensus at this point) I could not vote for the man. I would be forced to vote third party, or to write in a candidate. This is a scenario where someone like Ron Paul might actually get my vote. But if I were forced to write in a candidate, Tancredo not being on the ballot, then I would write in the name Tom Tancredo, and let the chips fall where they may.

Read More

Tancredo says N.H. bill violates federal law

(Note: This post has been slightly expanded.)

In an article in the Nashua Telegraph, the utter irrationality of some liberal New Hampshire lawmakers comes through loud and clear. Their proposal, H.B. 404, according to the story, would:

"prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration laws." "This bill would prevent law enforcement personnel from going after suspected terrorists who are also illegal immigrants."

So, are we to take it that state and local law enforcement personnel in New Hampshire would not be prevented by this bill from going after suspected terrorists who are also "legal" immigrants; that it would only prevent them from going after terrorist immigrants of the "illegal" variety? *rolls eyes*

The article further goes on to say that:

"Congressman Tancredo's assertion that bills like HB 404 would be "aiding and abetting" people to break the law. HB 404 would be "a pretty clear violation of the federal law," as Congressman Tancredo stated, and is unmistakably counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law."

Contrast New Hampshire's H.B. 404 with Oklahoma's H.B. 1804, and you can see with perfect clarity the absolute opposite nature of the spirit, as well as the letter of the two bills...

With regard to the latter, it would merely empower state and local law enforcement agencies to do what the federal government has proved itself incapable and/or unwilling to do, to enforce federal immigration provisions, and only with regard to illegal immigrants. As to the former, this bill would further encourage and empower illegal aliens to continue to violate federal law, as well as to encourage, empower, and provide safe haven for illegal terrorist subversives to operate unmolested in this country. We all know the difference between crimes of omission and crimes of commission. I leave it to you to decide which category of crime this faction of the N.H. legislature would have its state engaging in.

It is, therefore, the grandest of ironies that Oklahoma's immigration law will be challenged as unconstitutional in the federal courts. And by the way, you want to talk about a term that gets kicked around way too much by both sides, the constant appeal to this term, unconstitutional, literally wears me out sometimes.

Read More

A Formal (Webster's) Invite to the Honorable Tom Tancredo

(Update: Lawrence Auster has done me a big favor in posting my invitation letter to Tancredo's staff (which I managed to get through the proverbial back door at Tancredo's website), slightly edited, in a full VFR entry to itself. Thanks go out to Mr. Auster.)

Back on August 8th, I put up this important blog post concerning the battle about to ensue over Oklahoma's "toughest immigration legislation in the nation." For more information on what's scheduled to happen on October 1st, one month prior to the actual enactment of Oklahoma's new immigration legislation, as well as what the new law actually entails, please read the post linked above...

I was over at Tancredo's website earlier, and I wondered whether Mr. Tancredo would be available, and/or, interested in attending an event such as the one scheduled October 1st on the steps of the Capitol in Oklahoma City. On the home page of Tom's Presidential Campaign Website, I noticed two links one can click on to invite Tom to an event. So I wrote up a letter of invitation and tried to send it. But after several unsuccessful attempts, I decided to put this blog post up concerning the matter.

Now, I'll continue to try to use the official method for making Congressman Tancredo aware of, and to invite him to this event. But as for now while there seems to be some trouble with the remote server not responding to my message,...

I hereby post Webster's formal Invitation to Tom Tancredo to be in attendance and speak at the scheduled demonstration to be held at the date and place mentioned above. Traditionalist Conservative Oklahomans would be honored to have you, Sir. And as the event scheduled is obviously intended to make a public showing of the beginnings of the downfall of Oklahoma's new law, and thereby to discourage other States from defending themselves against unlawful incursions of illegal invaders, following my state's lead, your presence at this event is of national, not just state and local import.

There you have it.

Read More

A Friendlier Atmosphere

Congressman Tancredo will be on the O'Reilly Factor tonight with guest host Michelle Malkin wherein they will be discussing sanctuary cities, immigration, and Tancredo's campaign, according to the Tancredo '08 website. I'm not a 'Friend of the Factor' as I expressed in these comments. But I think I'll watch tonight.

This is obviously going to be a more "user-friendly" environment than was the set of Fox's other popular primetime show, Hannity and Colmes, just a couple nights ago for Mr. Tancredo. One has to wonder whether there was a significant amount of outrage expressed over the spectacle that we saw the other night, and whether this led Fox News to extend to Tancredo another invite under better conditions. I would suspect, given that this news was only reported within the last hour, that this has something to do with it.

But irregardless, tonight's O'Reilly Factor should be worth watching, and the viewers should be able to hear Tancredo out on these very important issues.

-DW

Read More

And Here's the Text of Tancredo's Statement - FTR

(Note: Read an eye-witness account of Tancredo's press conference in Newark posted at VFR.)

Statement of the Honorable Tom Tancredo Newark, NJ August 20, 2007

The fact that Newark, New Jersey is a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens is now well known. In addition, it has been widely reported that two of the alleged perpetrators of this heinous act, which occurred two weeks ago Saturday resulting in the deaths of three young students and the wounding of a fourth, are in this country illegally. Both have prior arrests on charges ranging from sexual assault on a child to robbery and illegal possession of weapons...

If the alleged assailants are found guilty of these brutal crimes, Newark and its political leadership share a degree of culpability. They have established a sanctuary city policy in violation of federal law, harbored illegal aliens, and their actions have directly contributed to the deaths of three promising young American kids.

I am encouraging the families of the victims to pursue the option of a lawsuit in light of this culpability. Not only are sanctuary cities a moral outrage that restricts the flow of information to and from ICE, they are illegal-violating the plain language of 8 USC 1373.

Mayor Cory Booker and Governor Jon Corzine have apologized to the people of Newark for not having done enough. They are right, they have not. But their apologies are meaningless if they aren’t willing to do their jobs now.

Sanctuary cities are safe havens for all illegal aliens including gang members, drug dealers, rapists, and murderers, further exposing the law-abiding citizens of such cities to greater crime. According to the Center for immigration Studies, a confidential California Department for Justice study found that fifteen years after Los Angeles declared itself a sanctuary city, 60% of LA’s most violent gangs, with membership in the tens of thousands, were illegal aliens. Of all outstanding murder warrants as of 2004 in Los Angeles, 95% are for illegal aliens.

Because the leaders of this city and this state can not find the courage to put the safety of those they were sworn to protect above all else, we now read that a movement was launched last week aimed at increasing the number of sanctuary cities in New Jersey. It is time someone made it clear that sanctuary cities are a travesty of justice and innocent people are paying the price of leaders gone amuck.

As a nation we can no longer permit our cities and communities to thumb their noses at the laws of our land; and we can no longer allow illegal aliens to be above the law. The consequences of this lawlessness are simply too high.

It is time for Congress to pass a law that bans the flow of federal moneys to all sanctuary cities. For years I have offered such amendments to various appropriations bills. This year I was successful in doing so on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. There will be attempts in the Senate to remove my amendment, and I appeal to all Americans to demand their Senators resist such attempts.

In addition I personally believe there is a possibility that the political leadership of this and other sanctuary cities may be subject to criminal charges for aiding and abetting illegal aliens. Although I have no hope that the Bush administration’s Justice Department would ever pursue an inquiry, I assure you, mine would.

Thirdly, citizens of sanctuary cities need to demand their leaders cease and desist with such policies and in their place implement procedures that would assure that local law enforcement teams work with all other such agencies to assure the rule of law is re-established throughout the land. If their leaders refuse, they must be held accountable not only in the courts but also on Election Day.

It’s time Americans take back their country.

Thank you very much. I will gladly take questions." (emphasis mine)

Read More

Update on the Tancredo vs. Geraldo Showdown

You can read some pretty fair assessments of what happened here. If any of you watched this I'd like to read what you have to say about how the 'debate' went. Also, I agree with LA's answer to Ben W.'s question. Tancredo's people need to set some guidelines before they agree to go on with someone who has Geraldo's reputation for shouting down his opponents and taking over the show. I'm not convinced that there's any 'strategy' behind Geraldo's tactics, as Ben W. suggests, I think Geraldo really believes that...stuff, and he's genuinely passionate about it. I think Geraldo is a “true believer,” how about you?

-DW

Read More

Guess who's going to be on Hannity and Colmes...

I picked this up over at Tom Tancredo's blog. That's right, Congressman Tancredo will be on Fox News's Hannity and Colmes tonight, August 22, debating none other than America's favorite hispanic, and advocate for mass migration and national suicide, Geraldo Rivera.

The showdown is scheduled to begin at 9:00 pm Eastern. Be there, and tell all your friends!

-DW

Read More

No Cutting In Line

VA has a nice post up this morning lamenting the fact that we now have such GOP 'top tier' presidential contenders as Giuliani climbing on the 'no amnesty for illegals' bandwagon. VA rightly discerns, in my opinion, the true motives of candidates like Giuliani, and perhaps even Mitt Romney as political expediency, not a genuine concern for the dire immigration situation in this country...

Perhaps it's true that some of these so-called 'leaders' of ours didn't formerly understand the extensiveness of the immigration situation here in the United States, and are now really coming to grips with the situation and the need to address it. I will give them all benefit enough to admit that this is indeed a possibility. But truly, y'all, is it wise of us, while being 'fair' to all the candidates in giving them the benefit of the doubt on this question, to allow that tendency of ours of being fair to everyone translate into considering their candidacies as legitimate? I don't think so, how about you?

While I'm glad to see such 'high profile' individuals like New York's former mayor at least expressing some level of sanity on the idea of giving amnesty to illegal aliens already in this country, I still view this 'conversion,' and others like it with a great deal of skepticism. Indeed, in Giuliani's case in particular, I think it to be politically motivated rather than a true honest-to-God conversion. And I think he lets the cat out of his own bag of tricks.

In her post, VA quotes Mayor Giuliani as having said this recently:

If they ever wanted to become citizens, I would say they would have to pay a fine so it's not amnesty," Giuliani said. "Also they have to get at the back of the line, not get ahead of anybody else."

And as I said in a comment to her post directed at this specific quote, 'what kind of a school-boy, lunch-line position is that to take from someone who's supposedly a 'great American Patriot, Statesman, and Hero???'

Ladies and Gentlemen, I implore you to not be fooled by this kind of rhetoric coming from the likes of Mr. Giuliani. That's nothing more than saying “it's not fair for you to be at the front of the line since you're here illegitimately to begin with -convenient position to take, isn't it, given that almost everyone can agree with that- but since you're already here, we insist that you take your place at the back of the line; and oh, by the way, let's have some of that lunch money you got there.”

Like I implied in my comments to VA's post, that sort of a position (coming from a 'johnny-come-lately on this issue candidate like 'America's mayor) seems to me to indicate that Giuliani would sell his country off for little of nothing, and in the very process try to convince you and me that he's 'tough' on immigration for the sake of political expediency.

Well, I ain't buyin' it, Mr. Mayor! And I'll tell ya this, if I have anything to do with it whatsoever, you'll never be elected to the presidency of these United States!

Perhaps you and others truly are experiencing a change of heart on this issue, among others. Fine. But while you go through that process of unlearning that which has become rather habitual for you and they, you oughta be relegated by the voting public to low levels of government servanthood, if any at all. Indeed, I would say that if you had the character that a position like the Presidency requires to be entrusted to you safely, you would admit to yourself and to the general public that such a change of heart at such a time as this would rather tend to disqualify you from serving as President, or in any national political capacity for that matter.

So, my advice to you, Rudy, is to take some time off. Recuse thyself from the race based on the evident fact that you're not qualified, sir. Another way of saying it would be this, follow your own newly to be had inclination on 'immigration reform' and move thyself to the back of the line; you're at the front illegitimately.

In other words, begone child, there's enough confusion to go around without your adding more to it.

-DW

Read More

14 Reasons to Elect Tancredo

I was over at Tom Tancredo's site (which is finally updated following Saturday's Iowa Straw Poll) earlier and I ran across these comments posted at his blog - the title of the post is actually “14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens,” but I figured they were better denominated “14 Reasons to Elect Tancredo,” given that much of this is likely to not be resolved short of doing just that:...

14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens...

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.
http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States . http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S. from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report:
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period." http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ". http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

So using the LOWEST estimates, the annual cost OF ILLEGAL ALIENS is $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! So if deporting them costs between $206 and $230 BILLION DOLLARS, get rid of em', We'll be ahead after the 1st year!!!

Thanks to Luther. Please pass this on. Americans need to wake up!

VOTE TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT! (end of post)

Read More

CSPAN's Coverage of the Iowa Straw Poll

I watched the coverage from the time the event was just beginning in the auditorium. Of course there was an atmosphere of excitement in the building, there were a lot of motivated folks there to support their predetermined preferences.

My preference is of course Tom Tancredo. His message was very clear – stop immigration; preserve our heritage! Of course this is what appeals to me most about Tancredo, that he makes the linkage between our policy of open borders/easy citizenism, and the alarming rate at which we are losing our sense of who we are. And he does so without apology, as well he should in my opinion...

The coverage itself was left uncorrupted by a bunch of pundits giving their assessments of the individual candidates' messages. This I found to be extremely appealing because I'd really prefer to draw my own conclusions on each based on their individual messages, how well they delivered them, and so on and so forth.

Not that I haven't already determined who I like the best among the candidates, but there's something to be learned about them in the way that they deliver their messages. In the case of my preference (Tancredo), I thought he was less effective than he could have been with respect to the wider audience (those who decided to watch it with me on CSPAN) due to the fact that he kept stumbling over his words in what appeared to be a rush to get through his speech. Had Tancredo slowed down a bit in his delivery of the speech, I think it probably would have resonated more with the viewership, and/or, those who might watch the coverage at a later date. As far as his 4th place showing goes, I have a hard time believing he would have changed any votes with his delivery of the speech, irregardless of how good or bad it was.

As much as I would like for substance to rule the day over style, though; to govern one's own approach to the overall message offered of the individual candidates, I'm just not sure that people in general can separate style from substance. And I think this was the weakness in Tom's speech.

As far as Ron Paul goes, I understand that his wife had been hospitalized the day prior to the event, and that due to this fact he was rather exhausted. He did look a little tired, but as I've said before, I don't care for the libertarian underpinnings of his message. Were I capable of taking the messages in his speech at face value, I would say that Paul has a lot to offer. But since it's not possible for me to lay aside his other speeches and writings, and the underlying libertarian message that is always present therein, I'd have to say that Paul's speech appealed to me very little.

These are just a few of my thoughts as to what I witnessed during the coverage of the event which was strictly limited to that which was held in the auditorium. Any additional thoughts from those of you who watched the event with me?...

-DW

Read More

Iowa Straw Poll

John Savage mentioned this yesterday in a short entry on the subject at his blog. But I'll reiterate here that Tancredo's official blog is reporting that of a sample of 222 likely republican participants in today's Iowa Straw Poll, Tancredo comes in second with 16% of the vote behind Romney who carries, among this sample, 33% of the vote.

It'll be interesting to see how this all plays itself out as the day progresses, but if I were an Iowa Republican, I'd be making my way to Ames right now to cast my vote in favor of the 'single issue candidate,' Tom Tancredo.

BTW, in case y'all haven't noticed, we put up a link a few days ago to Tancredo's website, as well as that of Duncan Hunter in the right sidebar.

-DW

Read More

Tancredo On The Issues

I've mentioned this site to y'all before, but I'll mention it again because it contains some good information on the respective presidential contenders. Below is a sample of Tancredo's answers to the questions posed to candidates at the 2007 Republican debate at St. Anselms College, all of which I've copied and pasted from the link provided...

On Immigration Reform:

Q: You opposed the immigration reform compromise calling it "the worst piece of legislation to come down the pike in a long time." What are the consequences for the country?

A: They are incredible and they are disastrous. I have consistently tried to impress upon the American public the seriousness of this issue. We're not just talking about the number of jobs that we may be losing, or the number of kids that are in our schools and impacting our school system, or the number of people that are abusing our hospital system and taking advantage of the welfare system in this country--we're not just talking about that. We're talking about something that goes to the very heart of this nation-- whether or not we will actually survive as a nation. And here's what I mean by that. What we're doing here in this immigration battle is testing our willingness to actually hold together as a nation or split apart into a lot of Balkanized pieces. (emphasis mine)

On Non-Interventionism:

Q: [to Paul]: Should the 9/11 attacks have changed our non-interventionist policies?

PAUL: No. [Abandoning our tradition of] non-intervention was a major contributing factor. They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

TANCREDO: Whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion (emphasis mine), at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.

On the Survival of Western Civilization:

Q: Let's say terrorists mounted 3 successful suicide attacks in the US, and a 4th attack was averted and the terrorists captured. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held?

A: We're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that nuclear devices have gone off in the US, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you [referring to the counterrorism agent in TV's "24", who uses any methods needed to achieve desired results]. We are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the US, they go out the window because when we go under, Western civilization goes under. As president you should make sure 1) it doesn't happen, but 2), you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you because otherwise you guarantee something like this will happen. (emphasis mine)

On Abortion:

Q: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.
BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.
GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.
HUCKABEE: Most certainly.
HUNTER: Yes.
THOMPSON: Yes.
McCAIN: A repeal.
GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal.
TANCREDO: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned. (emphasis mine)

There's more information there on Tancredo, as well as the other candidates on their respective pages, so go check it out.

One final note, according to the graph depicting Tancredo's placement at the bottom of his page, which may be accessed simply by scrolling to the bottom of his page, Mr. Tancredo and I fall very close to one another on this chart. Having taken the quiz several times now, I find it to be pretty accurate as to my placement given that I consistently fall within the same block on the chart just to the right of Tancredo...when I answer the questions honestly, that is.

-DW

Read More

Great Question, and an Appeal to the Readership

A couple of days ago I posted a comment to this entry over at Savage's blog. In reply to my comment John posed a question about why I thought Ron Paul gets so much attention among bloggers, as opposed to someone like Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter. VA interjected with her own thoughts which closely resemble my own original thoughts on the matter.

I put some more reflection to it before I answered John, because I thought the question quite appropriate and deserving of a more full answer than that which came to mind immediately following the reading of the question. Indeed, there has to be a reason why I believe Paul garners so much attention among bloggers, and I would take it a bit farther and say: there has to be a reason for why I believe Paul garners so much positive attention among conservative leaning bloggers...

I tried to answer the question as best I could given the thoughts I'd put to it, but I still get a strong sense that my answer is just not adequate enough. And here's where the appeal in the title comes in...

I wonder whether any of you have put much thought to this question? But whether you have or haven't, have you any ideas you'd be willing to share as regards the reasons you think Paul gets so much quality attention from bloggers, and why Tancredo and Hunter don't?

There's no doubt that Paul gets more attention than the other two. I had CTO find out for me a while back what some of the most searched for items are as respect this blog's general focus. And Ron Paul was among the top of that short list. Tancredo and Hunter were not even in the same ballpark.

On the one hand, Paul was involved in the famous incident with Giuliani which probably helped to draw to him more conservative attention of the anti-war kind. To his credit he seized upon an opportunity in a very public forum, and that must have gotten him a lot of exposure that otherwise he would not have gotten most probably. Whereas neither Tancredo, nor Hunter, to my knowledge have been able to seize upon that kind of an opportunity thus far in the race.

But can this be said to account for all of the disparity between the interest in these candidates generated over the internet and the blogosphere? I had some additional thoughts on the matter that I posted in my latest comments to John's post, but as I said before, they just don't seem to me sufficient to account for the disparity.

I suppose if I were forced to give a specific answer I would likely say that the incident at the Republican debate probably sparked the interest in Paul, and that my thoughts over at John's blog probably account for the continued interest among conservative leaners throughout the blogosphere. But to be very honest, and to reiterate, I'm just really not sure whether that's an adequate enough explanation. I mean, Paul draws a lot of attention from folks I'd consider to be more than just 'conservative leaners.'

If any of you have any additional ideas on this question, please don't hesitate to put them in a comment here, or over at John's blog. This is a question that I've actually asked of myself on numerous occasions, but so far I've not been able to satisfy my own curiosity as to why this is, except in the way that I've already shared. Perhaps that's all there is to it; or perhaps that's not all there is to it and I'm missing something vital here. Maybe my thoughts are simply altogether wrong.

Whatever the case may be, or whatever you believe the case to be, please do let me know. More to come on some of these other items later...

-DW

Read More

No 'Exit Strategy,' Tom?

Is Tom Tancredo our man for the White House? And if not, then who?

It's a pertinent question, and one which we could (and should I suppose), ask ouselves in relation to every other prominent (or not so prominent) candidate on the campaign trail in the not-too-distant future.

As I was making my morning rounds -a thing that has become something of an enjoyable ritual for me lately- along the blogosphere, I ran into excerpts of this Backwoods Interview with Tom Tancredo posted over at VA's.

As I read the entire interview via the link provided, I noticed early on in the discussion that the question was posed (indirectly) and that Tancredo, picking up on and addressing it, refused to nail down an 'exit strategy' for his campaign. According to Tancredo, 'you can't really do that because once you've made the commitment to run, and you've accepted money and other kinds of support from various and sundry supporters who believe in your cause, you feel obligated to stay in the fight as long as you can, and to push your/their main agenda to the fore.'

For Tancredo that main agenda is immigration reform; real immigration reform. That is why he got into the race to begin with. And as the interview makes abundantly clear, that is why he's still in it at this moment, despite his low polling numbers.

I suppose that on a certain level one can use the same sort of approach with regard to the 'war in Iraq,' and the larger 'war on terror.' Many of us believed from the beginning, and still do today, that once we made the commitment to the Iraq war and the WoT, that we were in it for the long-haul, and that seeking an exit strategy too soon would be disastrous for the country and for the cause. But that's really a different discussion altogether, and I only mention it here because I see some parallels here with regard to what the two men (Tancredo, and President Bush) are passionate about and why an exit strategy as such is not currently an option for either of them in their endeavors.

But as far as I can tell by the interview, Tom Tancredo is all that he says he is, as well as all that he says he isn't. And that latter part is significant. The whole of the interview had me feeling as though this man is truly a regular guy just as he says he is. And of course I can identify with a lot of what he exposes in the interview; the travel to and fro would be a killer, and it would just get to a guy, y'know. Not to mention his freely admitting that the campaign necessitates that he neglect certain family things like, for instance, where he laments over the fact that he can't attend baseball games his grandchildren are playing in, and so on.

But one of the things I find so appealing about Tancredo, and that which sets he and one or two more apart from the rest of the pack to my mind is this very fact that indeed, he is a regular person just like you and me. And btw, I'll address all you self-indulging 'irregular' persons shortly...

Those of you who've been there right along with me in the muck and mire over the last couple or three years probably recall that the quality of 'intellectualism' in and of itself carries little weight with me, particularly when it is considered by some to be of the utmost import in choosing a Presidential candidate behind whom one gets and offers his/her full support. Those of us who were there recall all the self-promoting claims of 'intellectual superiority' interspersed throughout the vitriol of one individual whose name I'll not mention here. But I think it's significant because I think that down deep, this is what 'intellectualism,' and/or, one's being convinced of his/her own superiority therein does to a person. And this is one of the main differences I see between someone like Tancredo, and, say, someone like Ron Paul.

Not that Ron Paul has necessarily given me the impression that he thinks himself superior intellectually to his opponents. There is a slight tinge of that in his speeches and interviews and such, but I don't see it as a big problem with Paul. It's more to the point, I think, that a good proportion of those who support him point to this aspect of Paul (his 'intellectualism') as that one factor that should draw us, above all else, to support his campaign.

Now, I should say that I don't believe there's anything wrong with being an intellectual per se, nor is there anything wrong with identifying that aspect of a candidate as something important to be considered. But when too much emphasis is placed on a person's 'intellectualism,' and the lack thereof in his opponents by inference, I for one start to get a little concerned.

Do we seek in our POTUS an intellectual, first and foremost, or do we seek in him/her someone with good, solid character qualities; someone devoted to family, to God, to country; to liberty and justice for all; someone who truly 'bears true faith and allegiance to the same?' As for me I openly admit that intellectualism comes in a distant second to outstanding qualities of personal integrity and character. The 'quality' of intellectualism, or what the term seems to signify these days, doesn't even register on my radar until I have something of an understanding of the internal character of the individual under my investigation. Then, and only then, when I've identified and am convinced that the candidate in question has a good, solid moral foundation; that his/her personal life and political career are marked by such outstanding qualities of personal integrity and moral character, will I begin to consider his/her intellectual capacity and how much that factor weighs into my choice. So to me, for supporters of a particular candidate to point out that aspect of their choice's person as THE quality most appealing in him, tends more to turn me off than to turn me on to the candidate.

So, all that considered, is Tancredo my man? Well, you could certainly come to that conclusion based on the contents of this post. But the truth of the matter is that I've still not decided who that special candidate is for me. At this point I'm just beginning to investigate the different aspects of the different candidates, and as I've said, Tancredo's 'regular guy' qualities are pretty appealing to me. And he doesn't appear to me to be no dummy either.

There are really only one or two more candidates currently in the race that appeal to me at all. One is Duncan Hunter, and the other is Ron Paul whose libertarian undergirdings, very evident in virtually all of his speeches and writings I've read so far, are becoming more and more troublesome. I can't help it, y'all, that's just the way I feel. But you're more than welcome to try to dispel some of the predispositions and notions I have with regard to libertarianism if you like...

-DW
Ron+Paul '08 elections president canidate news+and+politics

Read More