The Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial on the recent rants from Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs against Pope Benedict XVI.
And people expect me to believe that there is no bigotry involved?
Do they think I'm stupid?
Showing posts with label Tancredo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tancredo. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Friday, December 21, 2007
Not an endorsement I wanted to see...
Tom Tancredo's endorsement of Mitt Romney is not a good thing for Mitt.
In essence, it means no real solution to the very real problems we have on the southern border. Instead, we get the usual BS that we have seen - we'll get a fence that will ultimately be as effective as the Maginot Line, we'll raid a bunch of fast-food joints and landscaping companies, and we will delude ourselves into thinking our borders will be secure.
Meanwhile, what it will really take will be ignored in the name of ideological purity.
In essence, it means no real solution to the very real problems we have on the southern border. Instead, we get the usual BS that we have seen - we'll get a fence that will ultimately be as effective as the Maginot Line, we'll raid a bunch of fast-food joints and landscaping companies, and we will delude ourselves into thinking our borders will be secure.
Meanwhile, what it will really take will be ignored in the name of ideological purity.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
All Tancredo has to offer is blackmail...
There is no other conclusion that can be drawn based on the shift in his long-shot campaign.
His track recrod, frankly, sucks. Chris Cannon, the target of his 2006 purge attempt, beat his candidate by a 55.8-44.2 margin. It will fail, but we're only seeing the start of a civil war among the Republican party.
His track recrod, frankly, sucks. Chris Cannon, the target of his 2006 purge attempt, beat his candidate by a 55.8-44.2 margin. It will fail, but we're only seeing the start of a civil war among the Republican party.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Tancredo called out...
I feel that Leon H. Wolf is one of those who tends to be part of the zampolit wing of the GOP. I doubt he cares much for me or my type of Republican, either. He has, in the past, labeled those who disagreed with his methods party hacks, and implied they had sold their souls. But yesterday, he got it right with regards to Tom Tancredo.
Tancredo's got some very, very, shady backers who have promoted eugenics (for a good takedown of eugenics, read Michael Crichton's site). SJ Reidhead has outlined the very questionable background of some immigration hard-liners at Subway Canaries (most recently, there was a two-part discussion: Part I and Part II).
When we broke away from England, we told the world why. In the document explaining so, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:
That's from the Declaration of Independence. If you will, it lays out some of the first principles that this country is founded on. They're very simple ones, if you ask me. Either you believe in them, or you don't. And I am coming to the conclusion that certain people - Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo among them - seem to disagree with those principles. Others, like Michelle Malkin, seem to have no problem citing those folks when they make their arguments.
Eugenics is based on the notion that certain races and people are somehow better than others due to their genetics. How that is compatible with the first principles of this country is something I can't figure out. But in addition to its apparent incompatibility with the first principles of this country, eugenics is morally wrong - and its fruits have included some of the worst of human history.
I will have no part of any movement that finds this acceptable. If conservatism chooses to accept Tancredo as a reasonable "mainstream" voice, then I'll have no part of it, then it has left me.
Tancredo's got some very, very, shady backers who have promoted eugenics (for a good takedown of eugenics, read Michael Crichton's site). SJ Reidhead has outlined the very questionable background of some immigration hard-liners at Subway Canaries (most recently, there was a two-part discussion: Part I and Part II).
When we broke away from England, we told the world why. In the document explaining so, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That's from the Declaration of Independence. If you will, it lays out some of the first principles that this country is founded on. They're very simple ones, if you ask me. Either you believe in them, or you don't. And I am coming to the conclusion that certain people - Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo among them - seem to disagree with those principles. Others, like Michelle Malkin, seem to have no problem citing those folks when they make their arguments.
Eugenics is based on the notion that certain races and people are somehow better than others due to their genetics. How that is compatible with the first principles of this country is something I can't figure out. But in addition to its apparent incompatibility with the first principles of this country, eugenics is morally wrong - and its fruits have included some of the worst of human history.
I will have no part of any movement that finds this acceptable. If conservatism chooses to accept Tancredo as a reasonable "mainstream" voice, then I'll have no part of it, then it has left me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)