Tancredo Ad: Getting Real
Some are offended -- but why?
By Ericka Andersen Posted in 2008 — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I’m a little behind the news-time on this but I just watched the Tancredo terrorist ad. I’m not surprised there is controversy but it’s not warranted. Tancredo said in the beginning of the ad that he was delivering the message because no one else would. Now, despite his flailing presidential campaign, he has a good point.
This is the reality people do not want to face. This is the reality we’ve avoided for the past six years. We have been protected – so far. And some say the war on terror is a bumper sticker, the threat is exaggerated, or that their civil liberties are being violated.
They have the opportunity to say it because they’ve been so well protected. Tancredo goes extreme on illegal immigration sometimes, but mostly, I agree with him. Why? Because illegal immigration is an extreme problem that threatens our national security and must be dealt with. You may not think it’s extreme to enforce the law or build a border fence but apparently, it is.
Some say Tancredo wrongly connects Mexican illegal immigrants with Islamic terrorists. But they share an unfortunate bond: Both are illegal immigrants. Borders don’t discriminate on the basis of intention.
That’s why we’ve got to know who is in this country. Terrorists can come in through whatever border they find most convenient, including by way of Mexico. People are offended at seeing a bomb blow up in a middle America shopping center? In the ad, it came from a backpack carried by a tennis shoed, baggy jeaned, hoody-wearing 19-year-old. That’s who it will be. Stop being offended and start living in the real world. Here's the ad:
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain Blogger Conference Call — Comments (22) »
Tancredo Ad: Getting Real 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I find the fact that people want to blow me up far more offensive.
...that the people who want to do that aren't Mexicans. The ad has the flavor of somebody attaching an existing worry to his favorite cause: and while it may be justified to do so, there's still the question of why the thing it warns about actually hasn't come to pass yet. It's been six years. If jihadists were going to take advantage of our border, why haven't they struck at our shopping malls?
I would actually like to know the answer: I simply am unconvinced that Rep. Tancredo can give the correct one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
that they are looking for something big. From various correspondences that have been intercepted in the years since the Iraq war, it seems that OBL wants to keep the AQ brand for the big stuff--spectacular 9/11 type attacks.
This is the kind of stuff that they can pull of in Europe and elsewhere. I think their thinking is that it is better to make a bigger bang outside the US than to pull something small in the US.
Of course, AQ is not the only terrorist group out there . . .
Oh, and there are aggressive Islamic recruitment efforts being made in Mexico and elsewhere south of the border.
But the ad still comes across as looking for another justification for a policy position that's already been stake out.
Don't get me wrong, I want a big honking fence across the southern border.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
There has been documented links about the relationship between the mexican drug cartels and int'l terrorists. For example:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/231/mexicancartels.shtml
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n959/a01.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070809/NATION/108090085/1002
Aside from these direct relationships with AQ type bad guys, the constant flood of illegals OF ALL KINDS across our border is a serious problem. The crime gangs cause untold misery in our cities and increasingly in our smaller towns. The burdens placed on our social safety net is immense and will grow enormously in the near future as the industries illegals largely work in contract (e.g. building).
As for why haven't they attacked our malls? What about the public arrests of those cells in CA, FL and NJ that were preparing to launch those attacks? How many more are thwarted without publicity? Perhaps they have a plan they are not ready to unleash - no one knows for sure, but that is a poor reason NOT to fix the broken border and corrupted immigrtion system. If someone wants to come to the US, then there is a process that must be followed. There is a reason for the process.
Something stolen has little value for the the thief.
This ad does come across as fear mongering. Not to mention, none of the 9/11 hijackers came into this country from the Mexican border, they all used student visas and flew in. Now, some of the millenium bombers tried to sneak in through the Canadian border back in 2ooo.
Anyway, I do think that it's a good idea to secure both of our borders and know who is in our country. However, I feel that Tancredo has made himself an imperfect vessel for this message, because his rhetoric often comes across as xenophobic.
A.) He spends way too much time talking about Mexicans not speaking English (as Moe stated, the jihadists aren't Mexicans)
B.) He has even stated that he wants to cut back on LEGAL immigration. Guys, I'm just stating the obvious--his message does not appeal to a wide audience.
I have to go to some dinner. Y'all have a good night. :-)
Susannah, you are mistaken when you claim that all of the 9/11 hijackers "used student visas and flew in".
Besides Hani Hanjour, what 9/11 terorrist used a student visa to enter the U.S.?
At least three of the 9/11 Middle Eastern immigrants that participated in the murder of approximately three thousand Americans were illegal aliens by virtue of their visas being expired.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Now that I'm back from that wretched pharmaceutical dinner, I have an honest question. Did any of the 9/11 hijackers sneak in via the Mexican border? I was not aware of this. I realize that several of them had let their student visas expire by the time 9/11 happened, and thus were illegal at the time of the attack. However, I thought that all of them initially entered the US legally. Furthermore, I wasn't aware that any of them snuck in through the Mexican border. Just asking--I could be wrong.
By the way, last night Moe and Doc Holiday said that it's not a good idea to drink and blog, but I had to swing back a couple of glasses of wine to make it through this boring dinner. So please forgive me if I have some misspellings, run-on sentences, etc. Y'all have a good night and God bless.
:-)
This ad does come across as fear mongering. Not to mention, none of the 9/11 hijackers came into this country from the Mexican border, they all used student visas and flew in. Now, some of the millenium bombers tried to sneak in through the Canadian border back in 2ooo.
Anyway, I do think that it's a good idea to secure both of our borders and know who is in our country. However, I feel that Tancredo has made himself an imperfect vessel for this message, because his rhetoric often comes across as xenophobic.
A.) He spends way too much time talking about Mexicans not speaking English (as Moe stated, the jihadists aren't Mexicans)
B.) He has even stated that he wants to cut back on LEGAL immigration. Guys, I'm just stating the obvious--his message does not appeal to a wide audience.
I have to go to some dinner. Y'all have a good night. :-)
Sorry for the double post. I don't know why this happened--I swear I only clicked the "post comment" button once. Y'all have a good night. :-)
It's like a Redstate IED...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I must admit mbecker, you're a funny dude. :-)
Of course, those who support rewarding millions of illegal aliens with legal status don't like the ad. Is it any surprise that amnesty supporters don't like this ad?
Three of the 9/11 Middle Eastern immigrant murderers were illegal aliens by virtue of the expiration of their visas. They should have been deported prior to September 11, 2001.
The first attack on the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists occurred on February 26, 1993. Slightly more than eight years and seven months passed between that attack and the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
There are many in government who could be faulted for what occurred on September 11, 2001. Tom Tancredo is not one of them.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Like when Al Gore says that more kids will get sick, more old people will die, our water will become polluted, and our food less safe if people vote for Republicans?
This ad won't save Tancredo, but he is doing the Republicans a favor with this ad.
Excellent ad. Sometimes it takes the candidates who have been marginalized to hit us between the eyes and wake our sorry asses up.
put the realities on the tables and shelved the platitudes!
I hope he can keep that ad running and or make some more.
such an observation would have fallen under the category "duh." The fact such an obvious problem/possibility even would generate controversy is a sad commentary on the nation as a whole.
would be those who are keeping their head in the sand as it were......dhimmi's. You may not want war but war want's you.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
As much as I don't like Islamic TERRORISTS, if I had to bet, a majority of them came here legally. And I think they would renew their visas, until it would be time for them to blog themselves up and then they would just let the visas expire. If I were an Islamic TERRORIST, I'm not I am a pure American citizen, I would probably play by the rules to come to America.
DO NOT TAKE MY COMMENTS TO MEAN I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AMNESTY, BECAUSE I DON'T. TANCREDO JUST GOES TO FAR.
Tancredo is protectionist trying to stop illegal immigration, we need someone who is pro-free trade who will stop illegal immigration (they have better sense of economics than protectionist). You're probably thinking, "President Bush is pro-free trade and he wanted amnesty." 1)Show me where he WANTED amnesty? Do I believe the bills that Bush supported were amnesty? Yes, but that does not mean Bush wanted amnesty. I think Bush sincerely believed those bills would have secured the borders first, I just happen to disagree with him. I agreed with Bush's plan. Where I disagree with him was Bush tried to implement it with one big, complex bill. His plan would have worked if he implemented it one step at a time, with small bills, and with enforcement first (enforcement was listed first in his plan). Therefore, I believe the complexity of the bills Bush supported is what made his plan amnesty, not the plan itself.
Fred Thompson is the pro-free trade candidate who will get tough illegal immigration with enforcement first.
Pledge your support for Fred Thompson: www.FredsGivingDay.com
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
that if no candidate took the illegal immigration issue and ran with it, he would run for president on that issue alone. He is as good as his word. He has no chance of being elected, and he is a single issue candidate.
Tom Tancredo has, though, always been a solid conservative in Congress. His ratings from the American Conservative Union and the National Right to Life Committee are stronger than any other candidate running for president.
He has a lifetime rating of 97.8 from the American Conservative Union, the highest lifetime rating of any presidential candidate. He achieved ratings of "100" in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005.
He has achieved a grade of "A" from the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) for each year that he has served in Congress. He has been given a "Taxpayers Friend Award" from the NTU for each year that he has served in Congress (the award is given to members of Congress that are "one of the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies").
He has achieved a score of "100%" from the National Right to Life Committee for the 106th, 107th, 109th and the ongoing 110th Congress.
He achieved a grade of "A" from the National Rifle Association (NRA) in its ratings given for the 2006 election cycle and has been awarded a rating of "A" from Gun Owners of America in its "House Ratings for the 110th Congress".
He achieved a score of "100%" from the Family Research Council's "FRC Action" and "Focus on the Family Action" for the second session of the 109th Congress and has been awarded a "Congressional Immigration Reduction" grade of "A+" from Americancs for Better Immigration.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
He is good (not great) on the economy as well.
http://bipac.net/incumbent_detail.asp?g=blank&leg_id_num=20438
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Herodotus, I'm glad you posted the link.
I was aware that Rep. Tancredo has received a strong rating for 2006 from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), though I was not aware until using your link that he had received a score of one hundred perecent (100%) from teh NFIB.
His ratings from the American Conservative Union and the National Right to Life Committee are unmatched by any other presidential candidate.
I have seen a number of posters at RedState say he isn't a conservative. That is an absurd claim. He is a solid conservative, unlike several candidates in the GOP field for president.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
I just can't understand why candidates like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are marginalized on conservative blogs. Why are guys like this viewed as inferior? They both have impeccable conservative credentials and either of them would make a great President.
Americans do not usually elect Congressmen directly to the Office of the President. In consequence Congressmen are usually overlooked as "unelectable."
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!