0 comment Sunday, November 16, 2014 | admin
From The Hill:
Tancredo slams Katrina spending
GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) said Friday it is "time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station" and urged an end to the federal aid to the region that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina two years ago.
"The amount of money that has been wasted on these so-called 'recovery� efforts has been mind-boggling," said Tancredo, who is running a long-shot presidential campaign. "Enough is enough."
Citing administration figures, the lawmaker said that $114 billion has been spent on the effort to rebuild a large stretch of the Gulf Coast after the storm hit New Orleans in August 2005 and claimed more than 1,600 lives.
"At some point, state and local officials and individuals have got to step up to the plate and take some initiative," said Tancredo. "The mentality that people can wait around indefinitely for the federal taxpayer to solve all their worldly problems has got to come to an end."
I agree with him on the Katrina gravy train. Two years after Katrina, I am still stunned to read about people who are still drawing some kind of federal assistance money, such as living rent-free, thanks to taxpayers' money, and still complaining whenever the government tries to end their handouts. Two years is more than enough time for people to put their lives back together, and I agree with Tancredo that the taxpayer should not be seen as the perpetual sugar daddy.
Personally I am convinced that, if allowed, the professional 'Katrina victims' want to make their handouts permanent entitlements, that will continue for generations. After all, if we make excuses for people because their ancestors several generations back were slaves, why not offer that same advantage to descendants of Katrina victims?
But kudos to Tom Tancredo. He is hitting all the right notes, speaking truths that the other candidates avoid.
Even if Tancredo is a 'long shot candidate' as the old media never tire of telling us, his candidacy is a way to get a conservative message out there, because the 'leading' candidates are too timid or too subservient to stray outside the PC boundaries. We have become so unaccustomed to hearing a politician speak truth that we are shocked by what should be an everyday event.
I do hope that Tancredo, as a result of this candidacy, will gain in visibility and in influence, politically; there are far too few conservatives in national positions, and even fewer who have the kind of commitment to the pro-border enforcement cause that Tancredo has.
Tancredo slams Katrina spending
GOP presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) said Friday it is "time the taxpayer gravy train left the New Orleans station" and urged an end to the federal aid to the region that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina two years ago.
"The amount of money that has been wasted on these so-called 'recovery� efforts has been mind-boggling," said Tancredo, who is running a long-shot presidential campaign. "Enough is enough."
Citing administration figures, the lawmaker said that $114 billion has been spent on the effort to rebuild a large stretch of the Gulf Coast after the storm hit New Orleans in August 2005 and claimed more than 1,600 lives.
"At some point, state and local officials and individuals have got to step up to the plate and take some initiative," said Tancredo. "The mentality that people can wait around indefinitely for the federal taxpayer to solve all their worldly problems has got to come to an end."
I agree with him on the Katrina gravy train. Two years after Katrina, I am still stunned to read about people who are still drawing some kind of federal assistance money, such as living rent-free, thanks to taxpayers' money, and still complaining whenever the government tries to end their handouts. Two years is more than enough time for people to put their lives back together, and I agree with Tancredo that the taxpayer should not be seen as the perpetual sugar daddy.
Personally I am convinced that, if allowed, the professional 'Katrina victims' want to make their handouts permanent entitlements, that will continue for generations. After all, if we make excuses for people because their ancestors several generations back were slaves, why not offer that same advantage to descendants of Katrina victims?
But kudos to Tom Tancredo. He is hitting all the right notes, speaking truths that the other candidates avoid.
Even if Tancredo is a 'long shot candidate' as the old media never tire of telling us, his candidacy is a way to get a conservative message out there, because the 'leading' candidates are too timid or too subservient to stray outside the PC boundaries. We have become so unaccustomed to hearing a politician speak truth that we are shocked by what should be an everyday event.
I do hope that Tancredo, as a result of this candidacy, will gain in visibility and in influence, politically; there are far too few conservatives in national positions, and even fewer who have the kind of commitment to the pro-border enforcement cause that Tancredo has.
Labels: Conservatism, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Tom Tancredo
0 comment Monday, August 11, 2014 | admin
PC won't permit illegal immigration opponent to speak
The 'PC' alluded to in the headline is Providence College, by the way:
PROVIDENCE -- Tom Tancredo, former congressman from Colorado, Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, is scheduled to speak in Rhode Island Wednesday. But he will not be addressing students at Providence College as he had originally planned, after college officials rejected a request from a student group to invite him to campus.
[...]
Student group Youth for Western Civilization asked PC officials if they could also host Tancredo, but the request was denied, said PC spokeswoman Pat Vieira. "They are not an officially recognized group," Vieira said. "They asked very late in the semester when there was not enough time for the request to go through the usual channels." Just as important, Vieira said, were Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's views on immigration and how immigrants -- whether here legally or illegally -- should be treated, which contrast sharply with Tancredo's.''
Happily, another venue has been found for Tancredo's speech, under the sponsorship of another group.
What is going on with this treatment of Tancredo? He has had a long record of opposing illegal immigration, but I don't remember him being shut down as much as he as been in recent times. Why, now, are his views intolerable, or more so than they used to be to the PC 'tolerance tyrants'?
I realize the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor is it meant to be, so the Church leadership is not accountable to church members for their political stances -- but it seems a little separation of church and state is in order here.
I also understand, though, that Providence is a Catholic college, but as the article notes, the college has not prevented pro-abortion politicians like Ted Kennedy from speaking, though abortion is against Catholic teaching. It would seem that immigration, legal or not, is a more 'sacred' principle than life to some of these liberal theological types.
The 'PC' alluded to in the headline is Providence College, by the way:
PROVIDENCE -- Tom Tancredo, former congressman from Colorado, Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, is scheduled to speak in Rhode Island Wednesday. But he will not be addressing students at Providence College as he had originally planned, after college officials rejected a request from a student group to invite him to campus.
[...]
Student group Youth for Western Civilization asked PC officials if they could also host Tancredo, but the request was denied, said PC spokeswoman Pat Vieira. "They are not an officially recognized group," Vieira said. "They asked very late in the semester when there was not enough time for the request to go through the usual channels." Just as important, Vieira said, were Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's views on immigration and how immigrants -- whether here legally or illegally -- should be treated, which contrast sharply with Tancredo's.''
Happily, another venue has been found for Tancredo's speech, under the sponsorship of another group.
What is going on with this treatment of Tancredo? He has had a long record of opposing illegal immigration, but I don't remember him being shut down as much as he as been in recent times. Why, now, are his views intolerable, or more so than they used to be to the PC 'tolerance tyrants'?
I realize the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor is it meant to be, so the Church leadership is not accountable to church members for their political stances -- but it seems a little separation of church and state is in order here.
I also understand, though, that Providence is a Catholic college, but as the article notes, the college has not prevented pro-abortion politicians like Ted Kennedy from speaking, though abortion is against Catholic teaching. It would seem that immigration, legal or not, is a more 'sacred' principle than life to some of these liberal theological types.
Labels: Academia, Church-State Separation, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Illegal Immigration, Liberal Christianity, Liberal Intolerance, Political Correctness, Tom Tancredo
0 comment Friday, July 25, 2014 | admin
Gandalf at Up Pompeii cites an interview with Tom Tancredo by a Danish journalist in which Tancredo prescribes the deportation of all Moslems in Europe.
Gandalf links to what appears to be a very leftist blog (which I prefer not to link to directly) as the source of information on the interview. The interview was apparently for a Danish TV series called 'Clement in America' and there may be a video link at some point, but as yet there is not.
Interested readers should check out Gandalf's post at the link above.
If Tancredo did say this, good for him. As usual he is the lone voice in the wilderness among our politicians. Invariably after I say that, someone will always say 'yes, and that's why he can never be elected.' However I am of the belief that we should never say never. Things change, and if we believe that a Tancredo can never be elected, then we may as well say good-bye to America and the West, and just close up shop.
Our ancestors, thank God, did not have that mindset. They created this country in defiance of the odds.
Gandalf links to what appears to be a very leftist blog (which I prefer not to link to directly) as the source of information on the interview. The interview was apparently for a Danish TV series called 'Clement in America' and there may be a video link at some point, but as yet there is not.
Interested readers should check out Gandalf's post at the link above.
If Tancredo did say this, good for him. As usual he is the lone voice in the wilderness among our politicians. Invariably after I say that, someone will always say 'yes, and that's why he can never be elected.' However I am of the belief that we should never say never. Things change, and if we believe that a Tancredo can never be elected, then we may as well say good-bye to America and the West, and just close up shop.
Our ancestors, thank God, did not have that mindset. They created this country in defiance of the odds.
Labels: Europe, Islam, Presidential Candidates, Separationism, Tom Tancredo
0 comment Wednesday, July 23, 2014 | admin
Did you know that there is a French blog for Ron Paul?
Ron Paul France
There is also a Belgian blog, and a Brazilian one. Ron Paul is evidently drawing interest and attention around the globe.
Michael Nystrom, editor of the Daily Paul blog, says
For the first time ever, last week the site passed 4,000 visitors in one day, and not two days later passed 5,000. Yesterday, thanks in part to the bump from the Wired News article that mentioned the site, we hit an all time high of 5236 visitors in one day. This is 100% growth since the end of May, and tremendous growth from back in February, when Ron Paul's grandson Matt Pyeatt started blogging on the site. Back then, 400 visitors was a good day!
Of course these figures are just reflecting the larger trend moving through society. There is a hunger for truth that is not being fulfilled by MSM and the current political leadership. Ron Paul just passed 18,000 YouTube subscribers. This is tops, by far, of any of the candidates. ''
I think Nystrom is correct that there IS a hunger for truth, and the old media and our current crop of discredited and corrupt politicians cannot provide what this country needs. We need a complete change, and I think the Paul phenomenon is a manifestation of that genuine searching for truth and for a desperately needed alternative to the failed status quo.
The GOP loyalists who have been so disparaging of Ron Paul and his supporters are fooling themselves if they write this phenomenon off as just a few zealots spamming online polls, and hyping their numbers. Clearly the traffic to the Paul blog is one indicator of the interest that is out there.
I know that in my own site statistics, there seem to be many people googling Ron Paul's name, looking for news and commentary about Ron Paul. The Republicans are whistling in the dark by pretending that Ron Paul has just a few fanatical supporters. They only wish that there was as much interest in their stale candidates as there is in Ron Paul.
Tom Tancredo could and should be distinguishing himself from the rest of the herd of candidates, but for whatever reason, he has not been very visible in this campaign so far. (Oh, and by the way, stop by Tancredo's website and sign his Save America petition. Even though the amnesty bill is officially dead, it will reappear in some other form.)
I do wish Ron Paul would speak out on the border issue, since it is crystal-clear, after this amnesty debacle, that the people are highly incensed over our sieve-like borders, and the ongoing invasion. But so far, Paul has not addressed that red-hot issue, choosing to concentrate on the war in Iraq. Maybe this is because the media prefer to highlight the fact that a Republican candidate has dared to defy the party line on Iraq.
In case I haven't posted this before, here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, where you may read articles by Dr. Paul on a number of issues. Read what he has to say on other issues such as hate crimes, the stem cell debate, economic issues, the United Nations, and neocons.
I can't find much to disagree with in his thinking; he is sound on all the important things, and sadly, I can't say that about most of the candidates.
Ron Paul France
There is also a Belgian blog, and a Brazilian one. Ron Paul is evidently drawing interest and attention around the globe.
Michael Nystrom, editor of the Daily Paul blog, says
For the first time ever, last week the site passed 4,000 visitors in one day, and not two days later passed 5,000. Yesterday, thanks in part to the bump from the Wired News article that mentioned the site, we hit an all time high of 5236 visitors in one day. This is 100% growth since the end of May, and tremendous growth from back in February, when Ron Paul's grandson Matt Pyeatt started blogging on the site. Back then, 400 visitors was a good day!
Of course these figures are just reflecting the larger trend moving through society. There is a hunger for truth that is not being fulfilled by MSM and the current political leadership. Ron Paul just passed 18,000 YouTube subscribers. This is tops, by far, of any of the candidates. ''
I think Nystrom is correct that there IS a hunger for truth, and the old media and our current crop of discredited and corrupt politicians cannot provide what this country needs. We need a complete change, and I think the Paul phenomenon is a manifestation of that genuine searching for truth and for a desperately needed alternative to the failed status quo.
The GOP loyalists who have been so disparaging of Ron Paul and his supporters are fooling themselves if they write this phenomenon off as just a few zealots spamming online polls, and hyping their numbers. Clearly the traffic to the Paul blog is one indicator of the interest that is out there.
I know that in my own site statistics, there seem to be many people googling Ron Paul's name, looking for news and commentary about Ron Paul. The Republicans are whistling in the dark by pretending that Ron Paul has just a few fanatical supporters. They only wish that there was as much interest in their stale candidates as there is in Ron Paul.
Tom Tancredo could and should be distinguishing himself from the rest of the herd of candidates, but for whatever reason, he has not been very visible in this campaign so far. (Oh, and by the way, stop by Tancredo's website and sign his Save America petition. Even though the amnesty bill is officially dead, it will reappear in some other form.)
I do wish Ron Paul would speak out on the border issue, since it is crystal-clear, after this amnesty debacle, that the people are highly incensed over our sieve-like borders, and the ongoing invasion. But so far, Paul has not addressed that red-hot issue, choosing to concentrate on the war in Iraq. Maybe this is because the media prefer to highlight the fact that a Republican candidate has dared to defy the party line on Iraq.
In case I haven't posted this before, here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, where you may read articles by Dr. Paul on a number of issues. Read what he has to say on other issues such as hate crimes, the stem cell debate, economic issues, the United Nations, and neocons.
I can't find much to disagree with in his thinking; he is sound on all the important things, and sadly, I can't say that about most of the candidates.
Labels: Gop, Presidential Candidates, Republicans, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo
0 comment Thursday, June 5, 2014 | admin
The Tom Tancredo File
Dimitri Vassilaros of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports on Tancredo's candidacy:
If enough voters in the primaries want to stop the illegals' invasion, Rep. Tom Tancredo could be the Republican nominee. And then if enough voters on Election Day want a leader who will defend American sovereignty, well, the Colorado conservative just might win.
"Conservative" as in a lifetime rating of 99 by the American Conservative Union since he became a congressman in 1998. It's the organization's highest rating among announced presidential candidates.
[...]
Frank Newport, editor in chief of The Gallup Poll, notes Tancredo has no national name identification. "But a single issue can be a useful device to get name recognition. If it can propel someone to win the nomination is an open question."
Most Americans will support more border security, but more than 50 percent also want some sort of pathway to citizenship, he says.
"(Tancredo) has very little chance to secure the nomination because you have some big names in the primary," says pollster John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International. "It's hard to see a one-issue person succeeding against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. On the other hand, there is a substantial number of conservatives telling us they're disappointed there are no real conservatives (in the race)."
First of all, I take isse with Newport's poll showing that 'more than 50 percent' of Americans want 'some sort of pathway to citizenship', in other words, amnesty, or 'earned citizenship' or whatever the euphemism du jour is. If the responses indicated that, I have to ask how exactly the questions were phrased; I suspect that the questions were framed in an ambiguous way, so that respondents did not understand that amnesty was the issue.
And secondly I disagree with Zogby, which is nothing new. I don't think that these pollsters are objective or bipartisan; I think their polls are often designed to elicit a given result.
I think there are plenty of others like me, who are completely turned off by the 'mainstream' candidates, such as the aforementioned Giuliani and McCain. Given a choice between whichever Democrat candidate and Giuliani or McCain, or any of the other 'mainstream' GOP choices, I would choose none of the above, voting third party or sitting out the election rather than voting for a 'lesser evil.' If that makes me derelict in my duties as a citizen, so be it; I voted with reluctance last time, and regretted my vote.
And if casting a ballot, reluctantly, for a candidate who does not even approximate my views, is the best our 'democratic republic' can offer me now, I question the health and prognosis of our system. We can't have a true representative republic while marginalizing the majority views as is the case now. Many of us think that we have no one representing our points of view in the halls of power. There are far too many disengaged, disaffected, disillusioned voters who see nothing and no one worth enthusiastically supporting, and this is not an acceptable state of affairs in our republic.
Of course I am sensing that the elites want to discourage people like me, traditional Americans, from voting or participating. Clearly they are pitching their wares to another customer base now; that's what the whole transforming of our country seems to be designed for. Create a new constituency, and buy their loyalty with special treatment and handouts. Voila: a new 'America', and a new and 'improved' docile populace.
Daniel Webster, in his speech at Concord, Massachusetts on July 4, 1808, said the following:
When we speak of preserving the Constitution, we mean not the paper on which it is written, but the spirit which dwells in it. Government may lose all of the real character, its genius, its temper, without losing its appearance.
Republicanism, unless you guard it, will creep out of its case of parchment, like a snake out of its skin. You may have a despotism under the name of a Republic.
You may look on a government, and see it possesses all the external modes of freedom, and yet finding nothing of the essence, the vitality, of freedom in it, just as you may contemplate an embalmed body, where art hath preserved proportion and form, amid nerves without action, and veins void of blood."
Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to the citizens of Adams County, Pennsylvania, in 1808:
[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
In that sense, then, it appears that our nation has ceased to be republican. Our system may well be simply an empty shell, like that of Webster's metaphor. We still have the outward forms and procedures but the spirit, the essence has departed. Jefferson repeatedly stressed, in a number of places in his writings, the essential place of the will of the nation, specifically of the majority. Without the principle of the will of the people, a government is no longer republican. A government is legitimate only insofar as it embodies the will of the people, the consent of the governed.
Tom Tancredo and his run for the presidency are symbolic of the spurned majority, the will of the people which is being systematically shut out. The border and immigration issue is the most obvious symptom of this state of affairs. Nowhere is the sad situation made more clear than in the reality that our government is busily importing a new people, one which will be more amenable to its designs, than the current populace of the country.
With no suitable candidates, I think there will be an even greater disaffection among the most traditional citizens of this country, and how this will play out remains to be seen. It does seem as though the parties plan to offer as candidates only those who are on board with the mass immigration, open borders, global agenda; they mean to give us no other choices. Right-liberal or left-liberal, they will all carry out the current plan, which means that the transformation of our country via demographic changes and multiculturalism will proceed apace. Along with those dreary projects, we will be faced with a continuing terror threat, as Islam continues to go from strength to strength in our country, aided and abetted by the come-one-come-all policies of our government, and enabled by Political Correctness, which is slavishly followed by our politicians of both parties. Tom Tancredo is one of a mere handful who has bucked these trends, and for this reason, many of us place high hopes on his candidacy. Even though the odds are against him, at least he is bringing the border issue to the forefront, and is giving expression to a segment of the voting public which is often excluded.
Webster and Thomas Jefferson were prescient to anticipate what is happening in our day, with the spirit of our Constitution, and the substance of our republic, being gutted while we keep the mere outward forms. But the ballot and the trappings of representative government mean little when the choices are limited and the outcome guaranteed to serve the global agenda, no matter who is elected.
Dimitri Vassilaros of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports on Tancredo's candidacy:
If enough voters in the primaries want to stop the illegals' invasion, Rep. Tom Tancredo could be the Republican nominee. And then if enough voters on Election Day want a leader who will defend American sovereignty, well, the Colorado conservative just might win.
"Conservative" as in a lifetime rating of 99 by the American Conservative Union since he became a congressman in 1998. It's the organization's highest rating among announced presidential candidates.
[...]
Frank Newport, editor in chief of The Gallup Poll, notes Tancredo has no national name identification. "But a single issue can be a useful device to get name recognition. If it can propel someone to win the nomination is an open question."
Most Americans will support more border security, but more than 50 percent also want some sort of pathway to citizenship, he says.
"(Tancredo) has very little chance to secure the nomination because you have some big names in the primary," says pollster John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International. "It's hard to see a one-issue person succeeding against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. On the other hand, there is a substantial number of conservatives telling us they're disappointed there are no real conservatives (in the race)."
First of all, I take isse with Newport's poll showing that 'more than 50 percent' of Americans want 'some sort of pathway to citizenship', in other words, amnesty, or 'earned citizenship' or whatever the euphemism du jour is. If the responses indicated that, I have to ask how exactly the questions were phrased; I suspect that the questions were framed in an ambiguous way, so that respondents did not understand that amnesty was the issue.
And secondly I disagree with Zogby, which is nothing new. I don't think that these pollsters are objective or bipartisan; I think their polls are often designed to elicit a given result.
I think there are plenty of others like me, who are completely turned off by the 'mainstream' candidates, such as the aforementioned Giuliani and McCain. Given a choice between whichever Democrat candidate and Giuliani or McCain, or any of the other 'mainstream' GOP choices, I would choose none of the above, voting third party or sitting out the election rather than voting for a 'lesser evil.' If that makes me derelict in my duties as a citizen, so be it; I voted with reluctance last time, and regretted my vote.
And if casting a ballot, reluctantly, for a candidate who does not even approximate my views, is the best our 'democratic republic' can offer me now, I question the health and prognosis of our system. We can't have a true representative republic while marginalizing the majority views as is the case now. Many of us think that we have no one representing our points of view in the halls of power. There are far too many disengaged, disaffected, disillusioned voters who see nothing and no one worth enthusiastically supporting, and this is not an acceptable state of affairs in our republic.
Of course I am sensing that the elites want to discourage people like me, traditional Americans, from voting or participating. Clearly they are pitching their wares to another customer base now; that's what the whole transforming of our country seems to be designed for. Create a new constituency, and buy their loyalty with special treatment and handouts. Voila: a new 'America', and a new and 'improved' docile populace.
Daniel Webster, in his speech at Concord, Massachusetts on July 4, 1808, said the following:
When we speak of preserving the Constitution, we mean not the paper on which it is written, but the spirit which dwells in it. Government may lose all of the real character, its genius, its temper, without losing its appearance.
Republicanism, unless you guard it, will creep out of its case of parchment, like a snake out of its skin. You may have a despotism under the name of a Republic.
You may look on a government, and see it possesses all the external modes of freedom, and yet finding nothing of the essence, the vitality, of freedom in it, just as you may contemplate an embalmed body, where art hath preserved proportion and form, amid nerves without action, and veins void of blood."
Thomas Jefferson said, in a letter to the citizens of Adams County, Pennsylvania, in 1808:
[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
In that sense, then, it appears that our nation has ceased to be republican. Our system may well be simply an empty shell, like that of Webster's metaphor. We still have the outward forms and procedures but the spirit, the essence has departed. Jefferson repeatedly stressed, in a number of places in his writings, the essential place of the will of the nation, specifically of the majority. Without the principle of the will of the people, a government is no longer republican. A government is legitimate only insofar as it embodies the will of the people, the consent of the governed.
Tom Tancredo and his run for the presidency are symbolic of the spurned majority, the will of the people which is being systematically shut out. The border and immigration issue is the most obvious symptom of this state of affairs. Nowhere is the sad situation made more clear than in the reality that our government is busily importing a new people, one which will be more amenable to its designs, than the current populace of the country.
With no suitable candidates, I think there will be an even greater disaffection among the most traditional citizens of this country, and how this will play out remains to be seen. It does seem as though the parties plan to offer as candidates only those who are on board with the mass immigration, open borders, global agenda; they mean to give us no other choices. Right-liberal or left-liberal, they will all carry out the current plan, which means that the transformation of our country via demographic changes and multiculturalism will proceed apace. Along with those dreary projects, we will be faced with a continuing terror threat, as Islam continues to go from strength to strength in our country, aided and abetted by the come-one-come-all policies of our government, and enabled by Political Correctness, which is slavishly followed by our politicians of both parties. Tom Tancredo is one of a mere handful who has bucked these trends, and for this reason, many of us place high hopes on his candidacy. Even though the odds are against him, at least he is bringing the border issue to the forefront, and is giving expression to a segment of the voting public which is often excluded.
Webster and Thomas Jefferson were prescient to anticipate what is happening in our day, with the spirit of our Constitution, and the substance of our republic, being gutted while we keep the mere outward forms. But the ballot and the trappings of representative government mean little when the choices are limited and the outcome guaranteed to serve the global agenda, no matter who is elected.
Labels: Conservatism, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Tom Tancredo
0 comment Monday, May 12, 2014 | admin
I haven't seen much discussion of this story around the internet as yet. But I wonder what it portends for the immigration restriction cause?
A former state Senate president. The son of a former U.S. senator. The secretary of state. A radio talk show host.
The long list of candidates mentioned as possible successors to Congressman Tom Tancredo reads like a Who's Who of Suburban Republicans, and paves the way for what is sure to be a fascinating primary race.
One day after Tancredo announced he would not seek a sixth term in Congress, the jockeying began to determine who might replace the nationally known Littleton Republican, who is reviled and revered.
"I assume there will be a spirited primary," Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said Monday.
"It's kind of a family feud that has to play itself out."
At least four Republicans have expressed an interest in running for the seat: Secretary of State Mike Coffman; businessman Wil Armstrong, son of former U.S. Sen. Bill Armstrong; and state Sens. Ted Harvey and Tom Wiens.
[...]
Tancredo is the 17th House member, and the 14th Republican, who will not be seeking re-election next year, according to CQPolitics.com.
There has been talk for some time that Tancredo will run for the governorship of Colorado; this might be a good move for him and good for his home state, which apparently is being hit hard by illegal immigration.
Tancredo says that he feels his run for the Presidency will have accomplished what he hoped it would, regardless of whether he is is the GOP nominee. He hoped to draw more attention to the immigration issue, and he feels that goal has been accomplished, since there are now more Congressmen who are adopting the restrictionist position, and there is more open public discussion of immigration. It's also noticeable how much more restrictionist the 'top tier' candidates have been sounding lately. Of course whether or not they can walk the walk remains to be seen; I doubt it. Tancredo, however, is the real deal; he is sincere in his concern for this country and its preservation.
Whatever Tancredo decides to do, I hope he will not leave public life; he is sorely needed right now, as never before.
A former state Senate president. The son of a former U.S. senator. The secretary of state. A radio talk show host.
The long list of candidates mentioned as possible successors to Congressman Tom Tancredo reads like a Who's Who of Suburban Republicans, and paves the way for what is sure to be a fascinating primary race.
One day after Tancredo announced he would not seek a sixth term in Congress, the jockeying began to determine who might replace the nationally known Littleton Republican, who is reviled and revered.
"I assume there will be a spirited primary," Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said Monday.
"It's kind of a family feud that has to play itself out."
At least four Republicans have expressed an interest in running for the seat: Secretary of State Mike Coffman; businessman Wil Armstrong, son of former U.S. Sen. Bill Armstrong; and state Sens. Ted Harvey and Tom Wiens.
[...]
Tancredo is the 17th House member, and the 14th Republican, who will not be seeking re-election next year, according to CQPolitics.com.
There has been talk for some time that Tancredo will run for the governorship of Colorado; this might be a good move for him and good for his home state, which apparently is being hit hard by illegal immigration.
Tancredo says that he feels his run for the Presidency will have accomplished what he hoped it would, regardless of whether he is is the GOP nominee. He hoped to draw more attention to the immigration issue, and he feels that goal has been accomplished, since there are now more Congressmen who are adopting the restrictionist position, and there is more open public discussion of immigration. It's also noticeable how much more restrictionist the 'top tier' candidates have been sounding lately. Of course whether or not they can walk the walk remains to be seen; I doubt it. Tancredo, however, is the real deal; he is sincere in his concern for this country and its preservation.
Whatever Tancredo decides to do, I hope he will not leave public life; he is sorely needed right now, as never before.
Labels: Borders, Congress, Politics, Tom Tancredo