Spokesman: Tancredo doesn’t believe North American Union conspiracy theory

posted at 1:49 pm on November 30, 2006 by Allahpundit

This is going to break some hearts. Sorry, kids. Although if it’s any consolation, I think he’s lying through his teeth. Emphasis mine:

Today, I picked up the phone and buzzed Carlos Espinosa, Tanc’s media guy on the Hill and asked him about this story. He said that Tancredo’s comments were taken out of context and he specifically said that he Tom Tancredo did not believe in the North American Union conspiracy. Carlos then added that Tancredo, “believes Bush wants to open up the borders, but he doesn’t believe he wants to combine the US, Canada, and Mexico and create a unified currency.”

Taken out of context? Here’s how WND reported the original statement. Emphasis mine again:

Tancredo lashed out at the White House’s lack of action in securing U.S. borders, and said efforts to merge the U.S. with both Mexico and Canada is not a fantasy.

“I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I’m telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it’s not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it. …

“And they would just tell you, ‘Well, sure, it’s a natural thing. It’s part of the great globalization … of the economy.’ They assume it’s a natural, evolutionary event that’s going to occur here. I hope they’re wrong and I’m going to try my best to make sure they’re wrong. But I’m telling you the tide is great. The tide is moving in their direction. We have to say that.”

Which context, precisely, was that bolded part taken out of? John Hawkins elaborates further by e-mail: “According to his media guy, he was just trying to make the point that things were kind of moving that way in general, not that he thought Bush was actually working on it.”

So Bush isn’t actually working on it … but it’s “something in [his] head”?

I think what we have here is a climbdown.

Meanwhile, the sniping between Tancredo and Jeb Bush continues. Tancredo fired back at Bush’s criticism of his comparison of Miami to a “Third World country” with a letter accusing Bush of being naive about immigration. To which Bush responded by calling Tancredo “a nut.” Stay tuned!

Update: Look what Slublog found on the ‘Net. IT’S ALL TRUE!

mexamca_thumb.jpg

northamericanunion.gif


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

The Bushes would love to see a North American economic union. GWB has proven that he’s more interested in economics than domestic security. This is the gap terrorists will drive their truck through. But I’ll grant that Tanc overstated his case and Jeb pounced.

Tom’s focus on border security and national self-determination is otherwise spot-on.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 2:14 PM

Yeah. Tancredo is wrong on everything.

Our government is not working toward allowing anyone and everyone free unobstructed travel across the border.

Our government is not ignoring immigration laws.

Our government is not assisting the transferring of medium to high paying jobs to foreign workers.

Our government is not currently attempting to make the word “illegal alien” completely meaningless.

And Miami is just a nice little sweet American community … as American as apple pie.

Oh wait. Does this help?

Y Miami es justa una pequeña comunidad americana dulce agradable… tan americana como la empanada de manzana.

What a nut.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 2:22 PM

Another 200-comment thread, where everyone says, ya know, it really isn’t such a conspiracy theory.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 30, 2006 at 2:23 PM

I have got to learn to stop opening these immigration threads.

And Miami is just a nice little sweet American community … as American as apple pie.

What’s unamerican about Miami, exactly?

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 2:24 PM

Not broken-hearted, but disappointed. Rep. Tancredo is pulling a “nuance” to improve his ’08 viability. That may work on the left side of the aisle, but he should know better. When you write a book on a subject, be prepared to defend your stand, not reinvent it.

On the broader topic, it becomes very easy to snipe at a Tancredo when it seems noone else in Congress dares to take a strong stand on border enforcement. He knows he’s being hung out to dry as a paranoid isolationist, I can’t imagine the pressure that must carry with it, including the temptation to “adjust” your rhetoric to make the good-old-boy’s club less annoyed with you.

Freelancer on November 30, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Wait. Tancredo wants to run for president. So he pisses off the popular governor of an important state? Makes sense to me.

lorien1973 on November 30, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Obviously the vast Mexican conspiracy has gotten to Tancredo and shut him up. I won’t be intimidated, though! If we don’t stop this now, the Mexicans will have us baking their tortillas for them at $2 an hour while the Canadians use us as target practice for their slap shots!

frankj on November 30, 2006 at 2:25 PM

And Miami is just a nice little sweet American community … as American as apple pie.

Don’t bash the Cubans; they help make sure I continue to have a Republican governor.

frankj on November 30, 2006 at 2:27 PM

What’s unamerican about Miami, exactly?

Just possibly, the fact that English is the second (maybe even third) most spoken language in the city. Perhaps that leads to that idea ;)

lorien1973 on November 30, 2006 at 2:27 PM

Obviously the vast Mexican conspiracy has gotten to Tancredo and shut him up.

Darn right. Wave some carne guisada and fresh tortillas under someone’s nose and they fold like a cheap suit.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 2:27 PM

If Tancredo wants to see examples of a third world country in America, I invite him to visit Houston or Dallas and I’ll show him around several third world enclaves where they speak English as their only language.

I see Tancredo is the GOP’s Al Sharpton. Nothing like a little race-baiting to fire-up divide “the base”. I guess Tancredo won’t be happy until he completely destroys the Repubican Party.

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 2:34 PM

He knows he’s being hung out to dry as a paranoid isolationist, I can’t imagine the pressure that must carry with it, including the temptation to “adjust” your rhetoric to make the good-old-boy’s club less annoyed with you.

He’s used to it but his day will come.

So he pisses off the popular governor of an important state? Makes sense to me.

Yes, how dare he frown upon the cheap illegal labor currently supporting Florida’s citrus industry! Evidently, Jeb finds it more expedient to act like a child defending his toy.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 2:35 PM

What’s unamerican about Miami, exactly?

Miami Demographics:

Total Population 362470
Hispanic or Latino(of any race) 238351 65.76%
Mexican 3669 1.01%
Puerto Rican 10257 2.83%
Cuban 123763 34.14%
Other Hispanic or Latino 100662 27.77%
Not Hispanic or Latino 124119 34.24%

White alone 42897 11.83%

Read this.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 2:35 PM

I see Tancredo is the GOP’s Al Sharpton. Nothing like a little race-baiting to fire-up divide “the base”. I guess Tancredo won’t be happy until he completely destroys the Repubican Party.

Race-baiting? Nice try.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 2:38 PM

So a large Hispanic population makes a city un-American?

Is that what you’re saying?

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 2:39 PM

So a large Hispanic population makes a city un-American?

How about a large Hispanic population that refuses to learn English?

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 2:40 PM

Race-baiting? Nice try.

It’s the truth. Tancredo wasn’t talking about illegal aliens or border security with he insulted Miamians.

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 2:40 PM

Gee does this make Little Italy and Chinatown and large areas of Louisiana un-American third world too?

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Phew- just in time, Allah. The old story had just disappeared beyond the bottom of the page. I was enjoying the debate.

Valiant on November 30, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Evidently, Jeb finds it more expedient to act like a child defending his toy.

Or perhaps he finds it expedient as a governor to defend the second largest city in his state and one of its most popular destinations from aspersions cast upon it. You don’t suppose a governor might be expected to do that, would you?

Pablo on November 30, 2006 at 2:43 PM

Is english the official language of the United States?

I’m not interested in opinions of whether it should be (I think it should, if for no other reason than a cost-savings measure), but does a law declaring it thus actually exist?

If not, then the un-American argument seems a bit misplaced.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 2:44 PM

Tancredo wasn’t talking about illegal aliens or border security with he insulted Miamians.

That’s not true. It’s EXACTLY what he was talking about.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 2:46 PM

Postulate 1: Rep. Tancredo always speaks the truth.
Postulate 2: The NAU conspiracy is real.

Observation: Tancredo says he “does not believe in the North American Union conspiracy.”

Conclusion: One postulate is wrong, but which one?

For some of you, I see that your desire to believe in the NAU outweighs even your admiration for Tancredo.

I’m sorry if this comes out as snarky; let me stress again that I would like to see a secure border probably as much as any of you would. I’ll even agree that there is a definite potential for abuse of sovereignty in the SPP, and it deserves some vigilance, though I don’t think it’s a blueprint for the NAU.

I just think the NAU is a red herring, and an–I won’t say moonbatty this time–an untenable conspiracy theory, and advancing it damages the credibility of all advocates for secure borders.

One of the main reasons people advocate this is an argument by authority. One of those authorities is Tom Tancredo. There are good reasons for that in this case, because someone in Tancredo’s position is presumably privy to information the rest of us are not. But now, for whatever reason, he’s clarified his position and doesn’t think the NAU conspiracy is real.

It may be time to reconsider, don’t you think?

see-dubya on November 30, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Calling Miami a “third-world” country may be insulting to Miamians but it is not a race-baiting comment.

Ethnic areas within our cities are not un-American. However, illegal aliens taking refuge within these areas are un-American.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 2:48 PM

Another un-American city:

LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME

Population 5 years and over – 4,007 (100.0%)

English only – 1,450 (36.2%)

Language other than English – 2,557 (63.8%)

Where is this bastion of anti-American fervor, where english is ignored in favor of a foreign tongue?

Fort Kent, Maine.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 2:49 PM

Phew- just in time, Allah. The old story had just disappeared beyond the bottom of the page. I was enjoying the debate.

You noticed that, too, huh? Maybe he can throw in tazering, and Ann Coulter for a trifecta.

EF on November 30, 2006 at 2:54 PM

You don’t suppose a governor might be expected to do that, would you?

Yes, Jeb defending the good name of Miami is noble. But when is he and other big agri-business Republicans going to take border security seriously? At the moment, it’s full-steam ahead to put big business ahead of our national security and ignore the problem as if 9/11 never even happened.

Sorry, but it’s pretty clear which is the higher priority with Jeb and his brother in the White House.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 2:56 PM

Do upside down American flags hung under Mexican flags bother you Slublog?

Do immigration laws mean anything to you?

This discussion is not about the fact that the population is Hispanic. The discussion is about the number of those people who are either illegally here, and the number of those that are here who would swear allegiance to a country other than America.

That … is un-American. “American” has nothing to do with race. It’s a committment to this country, it’s values, and it’s culture. Too many immigrants are only here for financial reasons and have no love for America. In fact, a good percentage of them actually HATE America.

If the U.S. were to go to war with Cuba … what do you think the reaction would be in Miami? I don’t think anyone needs to think too hard to know the answer to that.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 2:56 PM

Where is this bastion of anti-American fervor, where english is ignored in favor of a foreign tongue?

Slublog, that is not an accurated comparison. You quoted a stat of the number of people who speak more than one language. In Miami … the problem is that they DON’T KNOW ENGLISH and refuse to learn it.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 3:00 PM

Where is this bastion of anti-American fervor, where english is ignored in favor of a foreign tongue?

Fort Kent, Maine.

An American city occupied by some decidedly un-American people who refuse to learn English. Who are they and how many of them are there? Who knows, but they do exist.

Do you see the distinction?

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 3:00 PM

Calling Miami a “third-world” country may be insulting to Miamians but it is not a race-baiting comment.

Of course it was. How many orchards are there to be picked in Miami? He didn’t say Dade County. He was talking about the ethnicity of the city, the culture, not the:

However, illegal aliens taking refuge within these areas are un-American.

Yep, good strategy .. let’s just continue to push the Hispanics out of the GOP and turn out the lights on America.

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 3:02 PM

That … is un-American. “American” has nothing to do with race. It’s a committment to this country, it’s values, and it’s culture. Too many immigrants are only here for financial reasons and have no love for America. In fact, a good percentage of them actually HATE America.

An American city occupied by some decidedly un-American people who refuse to learn English. Who are they and how many of them are there? Who knows, but they do exist.

Well, Fort Kent is French, if that gives you any indication.

As for this business of ‘most immigrants hate America’ I submit that at least 61.25% of statistics are completely made up.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 3:03 PM

If the U.S. were to go to war with Cuba … what do you think the reaction would be in Miami? I don’t think anyone needs to think too hard to know the answer to that.

If they went to war with Castro’s regime?

I think that would be well-regarded in Miami. Hell, some of them might sign up to fight.

Honestly, if you’re just going to argue with nothing but the force of your assumptions, then there’s no point in continuing this discussion.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 3:05 PM

I read many of you are more concerned with votes and communicating a friendly Republican Party image than ensuring our immigration laws are enforced.

“Compassionate conservatism” will die and we’ll all be better and safer for it.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 3:09 PM

You noticed that, too, huh? Maybe he can throw in tazering, and Ann Coulter for a trifecta.

Allah, think you can P-shop a photo of Ann Coulter tazering an illegal immigrant with a NAU flag flying proudly in the background?

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 3:11 PM

Well, Fort Kent is French, if that gives you any indication.

I, for one, don’t care if they’re Canadian Eskimos. If they’ve learned English but prefer to speak French, it’s ok by me. I don’t question their patriotism.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 3:13 PM

CliffHanger,

But when is he and other big agri-business Republicans going to take border security seriously?

What exactly is it that you’d like the governor of Florida to do about border security?

Pablo on November 30, 2006 at 3:14 PM

Here’s the actual quote from John Hawkins – who incidentally – was ripped on this blog a few days ago for issuing a point-by-point debunking consisting exclusively of him simply asking the people involved if it were true.

Sounds like overwhelming proof to me.

John Hawkins writes:

Today, I picked up the phone and buzzed Carlos Espinosa, Tanc’s media guy on the Hill and asked him about this story. He said that Tancredo’s comments were taken out of context and he specifically said that Tom Tancredo does not believe in the North American Union conspiracy.

So See-Dubya now believes that Hawkins picking up the phone and talking to an aid in a phone conversation is the same thing as Tom Tancredo stating that he doesn’t believe it.

This is just plain absurd – if not dishonest – and both See-Dubya and John Hawkins have shown amazing naivety for bloggers who seem to believe in extensive research of facts. Instead, here they completely ignore all research and facts and simply declare the entire matter settled because those involved (or someone on the phone) TOLD THEM it’s not true.

I would ask John Hawkins to get back to us as soon as he’s able to convince Tancredo himself to make that denial. It will never happen.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 3:14 PM

Allah, think you can P-shop a photo of Ann Coulter tazering an illegal immigrant with a NAU flag flying proudly in the background?

Don’t forget to give the illegal Parkinsons disease! :-)

Pablo on November 30, 2006 at 3:15 PM

I think the confusion is based on the “u” in union being case-sensitive to the implication.

No one would argue that Bush isn’t pushing for a “North American union” on many matters related to opening our borders and that there is a lot of secrecy regarding these plans; however, the term “North American Union” implies certain specific schemes that haven’t been verified but are merely suspected by people who know that that the Bushes consider the least American city, Miami, to be the archetype of an All-American city.

Perchant on November 30, 2006 at 3:16 PM

Allah, think you can P-shop a photo of Ann Coulter tazering an illegal immigrant with a NAU flag flying proudly in the background?

And have Rosie’s special comments about it from The View

Valiant on November 30, 2006 at 3:16 PM

You’re fishing, Gregor. The point of a spokesman is that he speaks for you.

If the spokesman misstated Tancredo’s position, I’m sure we’ll hear about it soon enough.

see-dubya on November 30, 2006 at 3:19 PM

Allah, think you can P-shop a photo of Ann Coulter tazering an illegal immigrant with a NAU flag flying proudly in the background?

God, that makes me hot!

EF on November 30, 2006 at 3:28 PM

If the spokesman misstated Tancredo’s position, I’m sure we’ll hear about it soon enough.

We’ve already heard Tancredo’s position many times and I will predict right now that you will hear it from his own mouth many times again. Hawkins “buzzed Carlos Espinosa” on the phone and had a conversation with him. It wasn’t even an official statement. Give me a break.

Evidence of a North American Union desire by this administration:

About 23,000 lbs of documents (obviously a guess), video, and meetings between government officials of Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. along with active efforts to ignore all immigration laws and to grant amnesty to illegals … as well as actual admissions from various leaders such as the Mexican Ambassador.
(I’m not going to list all the evidence, but you’ve all seen the postings on this blog)

Evidence that it’s NOT happening, presented by Allah, Hawkings, and See-Dubya:

“Tony Snow and Carlos Espinosa said so”

Slaughtered. Overwhelming. Undeniable.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 3:31 PM

What exactly is it that you’d like the governor of Florida to do about border security?

He could, at the very least, acknowledge the problem and stop demonizing those who’s ideas potentially threaten economically his precious agri-business constitutents.

He could also stop opposing the enforcement of state immigration laws. If it’s a matter of Fed/State burden sharing, then that’s a legitimate concern but no one’s seriously talking because… it just might offend some Hispanics, the ACLU and, of course, his and his brother’s biggest supporters – agri-business.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 3:32 PM

We’ve already heard Tancredo’s position many times and I will predict right now that you will hear it from his own mouth many times again. Hawkins “buzzed Carlos Espinosa” on the phone and had a conversation with him. It wasn’t even an official statement. Give me a break.

Unless Tancredo fires Espinosa in the next few days or corrects the record, it seems clear he’s backing down from his earlier statements about the NAU.

Spokesmen who want to keep their jobs don’t go around putting words in the mouths of their employers.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 3:40 PM

Postulate 1: Rep. Tancredo always speaks the truth.
Postulate 2: The NAU conspiracy is real.

Observation: Tancredo says he “does not believe in the North American Union conspiracy.”

Gregor’s Conclusion: Tom Tancredo’s spokesman is lying to journalists about the Congressman’s real position, thereby risking his job, because…

because…

Let me help you out Gregor: Maybe John Hawkins made this up and never called Tancredo’s office?

I mean, he disagrees with you, so his integrity is obviously suspect.

see-dubya on November 30, 2006 at 3:40 PM

I read many of you are more concerned with votes and communicating a friendly Republican Party image than ensuring our immigration laws are enforced.

If you’re including me in that “many of you” then you are as wrong about me as you are about Tancredo. The reality is that there ain’t gonna be no border security with the Dems in the White House! I suggest getting with the program. How did that last election work out for ya Cliff? All that Tancredo bluster and now we won’t even get a fence out of the Appropriations Committee.

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 3:42 PM

Postulate 1: Rep. Tancredo always speaks the truth.
Postulate 2: The NAU conspiracy is real.

Observation: Tancredo says he “does not believe in the North American Union conspiracy.”

You know the way out of this conundrum? “Tom Tancredo knows the NAU conspiracy is real, but he’s just waiting for the right moment to reveal it.”

What a moment it’ll be!

Allahpundit on November 30, 2006 at 3:42 PM

BTW Cliff, it is possible to be both for securing the border and against insulting an ethnic population of Americans at the same time.

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 3:44 PM

What a moment it’ll be!

It will be like Christmas.

With black helicopters.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 3:45 PM

Tom Tancredo’s spokesman is lying to journalists about the Congressman’s real position, thereby risking his job, because…

because…

Let me help you out Gregor: Maybe John Hawkins made this up and never called Tancredo’s office?

I mean, he disagrees with you, so his integrity is obviously suspect.

Actually, that is YOUR conclusion. Not mine. My conclusion was that Hawkins took a single line out of a conversation in which he instigated by phone, and turned it into a Tancredo backpeddle.

As I stated clearly … “this wasn’t even an official statement.” It John Hawkins “giving the guy a buzz.”

If and when Tancredo’s spokesman holds an offical press conference OR issues an offial press release … I will admit I am wrong. But until then … Tancredo has not said a thing.

Also, I will stick to my prediction that it won’t be long before you hear Tancredo making it very clear that he does in fact believe the theory. I wonder if the three of you will then issue the same apology, or if you will simply say it’s somehow evidence that Tancredo is “a nut.”

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 3:47 PM

As I stated clearly … “this wasn’t even an official statement.” It John Hawkins “giving the guy a buzz.”

That’s what spokesmen do. They talk to reporters, both formally and informally. Most don’t bother with press conferences.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 3:53 PM

Also, I will stick to my prediction that it won’t be long before you hear Tancredo making it very clear that he does in fact believe the theory. I wonder if the three of you will then issue the same apology, or if you will simply say it’s somehow evidence that Tancredo is “a nut.”

Oh, I totally think Tancredo believes it. I hope I made that clear in the post. That’s what I meant by “climbdown” — not that he’s changed his mind but that the issue’s too fringe for the moment for him to tout.

Allahpundit on November 30, 2006 at 3:58 PM

The reality is that there ain’t gonna be no border security with the Dems in the White House! I suggest getting with the program. How did that last election work out for ya Cliff?

Jumpin’ the gun on ’08, don’t ya’ think?

Last election was horrible and you know why. It sure wasn’t due to Tanc’s rhetoric. BTW… despite his unfriendly focus on immigration issues and his less-than PC approach, Tanc won overwhelmingly in my District. The Dems even fielded a decent so-called “moderate” candidate and he still got clobbered.

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 4:07 PM

too fringe for the moment

With emphasis on for the moment

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 4:09 PM

the issue’s too fringe for the moment for him to tout.

I would definitely agree with that. Unfortunately, some of the comments – even on the conservative blogs – have proven that.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 4:09 PM

AP is in a bit of a tough spot, here, with this disagreement between the sales people and engineering. Let me help, AP:

I love you brothers, but all of you that think Bush wants to merge Mexico and Canada with the States needs to schedule a third appointment next week with your pyschologist.

O.M.Golly.You.Nutbags.

Jaibones on November 30, 2006 at 4:21 PM

I hope I made that clear in the post.

What you made clear, once again, is that you go crazy when the majority of your commenters don’t agree with you.

Tancredo, Coulter, Kramer, Gibson, Tasers = carne roja por Allah.

EF on November 30, 2006 at 4:35 PM

I love you brothers, but all of you that think Bush wants to merge Mexico and Canada with the States needs to schedule a third appointment next week with your pyschologist.

We may be talking semantics here. Do Bush and like-minded leaders in Mexico, Canada and among the Captains of Industry dream of a day when economic barriers are erased? I say “Yes”. Are they working behind the scene to create something along the lines of a Eurpoean Union? That, I don’t know, but why does this possibility seem so far-fetched to some of you?

Shouldn’t we just remain vigilant and hold our leaders to account? Shouldn’t we demand secure borders and immigration enforcement before we stroke economic or ethnic constituents by entertaining guest-worker programs and new paths to citizenship?

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 4:36 PM

First of all, this NAU stuff belongs in the X-Files in my opinion. The gov’t would never get away with it if they even tried.

Second of all, illegal immigration is a HUGE problem. I live in the southwest and see its consequences every day. Pheonix has turned into a complete sh*thole because of it. Western Colorado and southeastern Utah(where I reside) are becoming completely overun with illegals. I just recently moved from a apartment complex that was turned into dump within a year because of a large influx of illegals using the place as a flop house befor moving on in their journey to find work.

The problem is real and no amount of political correctness and NAU conspiracy nonsense is going to make it go away.

Sammy316 on November 30, 2006 at 4:37 PM

Allah, you may see all things clearly but it wouldn’t hurt to spend some time here in the West where illegals commit many of the crimes and consume much of the public services that American citizens pay for.

It might help you understand why Tancredo remains quite popular despite his foot-and-mouth disease. I mean, would any state in the Northeast or Left Coast vote in a guy who’s musings include bombing Mecca the next time we’re hit with a devastating terrorist attack?

His message to Islamists and illegals in no uncertain terms…? BACK OFF!!

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 4:49 PM

Allah is Queens-centric.

EF on November 30, 2006 at 4:54 PM

Tancredo is popular in these parts because he talks out about it. People that see the effects of illegal immigration everyday, have it shoved in their face everywhere they go understand his views against it. This is something people that see us only as square states on a map will never understand, nor should we expect them to I guess.

Sammy316 on November 30, 2006 at 5:00 PM

It sure wasn’t due to Tanc’s rhetoric. BTW… despite his unfriendly focus on immigration issues and his less-than PC approach, Tanc won overwhelmingly in my District. The Dems even fielded a decent so-called “moderate” candidate and he still got clobbered.

There’s no denying that Tancredo’s rhetoric had a negative impact on the Hispanic vote in the GOP column and his strategy of turning the need for border securtiy into an anti-Mexican platform backfired.

And his reelection was never in jepordary, was it? I mean considering his district’s constituency.

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 5:09 PM

This is something people that see us only as square states on a map will never understand, nor should we expect them to I guess.

Yes, we should. Nothing was more aggravating then the right wing blogs trying to beat into submission people who stated they would not vote for open borders canidates.

EF on November 30, 2006 at 5:12 PM

There’s no denying that Tancredo’s rhetoric had a negative impact on the Hispanic vote in the GOP column and his strategy of turning the need for border securtiy into an anti-Mexican platform backfired.

I completely disagree with that. The LEGAL Hispanic population of this country does NOT favor illegal immigration and they are as pissed off (if not more so) than the rest of Americans. They do not appreciate that while they worked their asses off to get here legally … they have to sit and watch millions get a free pass.

Another thing that baffles me. I’ve never understood the illegal alien marchers who repeatedly wave signs of Bush as a Nazi or calling him Hitler. Bush has done more for illegals than any President in history and he has openly called for policies which would allow them to stay.

If Bush’s policies have anything do do with votes, and Texas Gal is correct about Hispanics being pissed at people like Tancredo … the GOP should have received 90% of the Hispanic vote.

But alas … Texas Gal is wrong.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 5:41 PM

Texas Gal …

I also object to your mis-characterization that Tancredo has turned the topic into something “anti-Mexican.”

Tancredo has not done anything that would suggest that, and from what I’ve read … nobody on this blog has either. Only you.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 5:47 PM

When we see the Redcoats coming, I don’t think we are wise to quickly assume they just want to help us secure our boarders.

Maxx on November 30, 2006 at 5:49 PM

O.M.Golly.You.Nutbags.

Who would have ever thought that between 60 – 80 percent of Hot Air readers are “nutbags.”

I might be wrong about that stat, but I believe it’s probably accurate.

Allah … can we do a poll on here for Hot Air readers to see what kind of result we might get.

Are government officials actively working for a North American Union?

No?
Yes?
Maybe?

I think the results would be interesting either way.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 6:03 PM

There’s no denying that Tancredo’s rhetoric had a negative impact on the Hispanic vote in the GOP column and his strategy of turning the need for border securtiy into an anti-Mexican platform backfired.

And his reelection was never in jepordary, was it? I mean considering his district’s constituency.

I think your giving Tancredo too much credit unless that’s what you experienced locally or you’re reading Simon Rosenberg again. I didn’t see that here. Of course I live in a mostly mid-to-upper-class white suburban Christian conservative district where we employ illegals to wash our cars and clean our houses.

Try this explanation on for size..

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 6:09 PM

sorry, try again… http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/why_republicans_lost.html

CliffHanger on November 30, 2006 at 6:10 PM

Ooo! Gregor throws out his own carne roja: He wants to know if Allah thinks 60-80% of his readers are nutbags.

EF on November 30, 2006 at 6:11 PM

I think the results would be interesting either way.

I tried setting up a poll yesterday but I can’t get the damned code to work with WordPress.

Allahpundit on November 30, 2006 at 6:14 PM

You know the way out of this conundrum? “Tom Tancredo knows the NAU conspiracy is real, but he’s just waiting for the right moment to reveal it.”

What a moment it’ll be!

I smell a frog march! Won’t it be glorious?

Pablo on November 30, 2006 at 6:16 PM

He wants to know if Allah thinks 60-80% of his readers are nutbags.

Not really, because I simply don’t know the beliefs of all of the readers here. I only have my suspicions. I really do think it would be interesting to find out though.

I’d actually like to know if I’m seeing things differently than most. I’m definitely not suggesting that I can’t be wrong.

I also think Allah might be interested in knowing how many of his readers believe this theory.

Gregor on November 30, 2006 at 6:20 PM

I also think Allah might be interested in knowing how many of his readers believe this theory.

It won’t have any effect on him. There are certain issues he has decided he is right on and everyone else is wrong. This is one of them. He will just keep subjecting us to “Tancredo is nuts” posts. My God, look at Coultermania and tazermania. This is Tancredomania.

EF on November 30, 2006 at 6:38 PM

I see John Hawkins is up to his “I made a phone call” tricks again. He used the same tactic when he called Jeri Ward and she said there was no working groups taking place in secret when debating Corsi at Human Events online.

When in fact the FOIA request filed by Jerome Corsi proved that there were indeed working groups taking place at the Commerce Department, in secret as substantiated by Judicial Watch and Jerome Corsi’s receipt of the proof and all are on his website, Stopspp.com, for anyone that is interested in the facts.

Mr Hawkins only had to go to the official Tom Tancredo website and read the official position of Tom Tancredo put out in a press release yesterday for everyone to see instead of trying slime Tom Tancredo again with intrigue and innuendo ala John Hawkins.

From his website:

“I know the administration has given assurances that the SPP is not a veiled effort to create a ‘North American Union,’ nor an effort designed to dilute American sovereignty by entering into a European Union-like arrangement with Canada and Mexico,” said Tancredo, Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. “Unfortunately, however, [the SPP’s] ‘recommendations’ seem to be at odds with those assurances.”

Tancredo concluded, “As such, I would ask that you consider suspending Commerce Department participation in this tri-lateral effort.”

You can read Tom Tancredo’s letter your self by clicking this link.

John Hawkins is in denial about the SPP or NAU and his disdain for Tom Tancredo is evident in his kool aid support for George W Bush even though the facts prove that the administration is doing an end run around the Constitution.

Even PoliPundit disagrees with our esteemed forum leader about Tom Tancredo and the North American Union:

“Congressman Ron Paul also warns of the NAU:
Tancredo isn’t the only congressman warning about plans to integrate the three nations of this continent.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, denounced plans for the proposed “NAFTA superhighway” in his state as part of a larger plot for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.”

“Allahpundit and Captain Ed are way off-base on this one and their anti-Tancredo comments are unnecessary. I think I will stick with Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Phyllis Schlafly & Dr. Corsi over MM Allahpundit and the Cap’n on this one.”

ScottyDog on November 30, 2006 at 6:47 PM

America is the ‘doormat’ Bush laid out to welcome his foreign invaders.

Mellen on November 30, 2006 at 6:52 PM

Robert A. Pastor

OLD ARGUMENTS, NEW VISIONS

Opponents of integration often attack such proposals as threats to national sovereignty. Sovereignty, however, is not a fixed concept. In the past, Canada used sovereignty to keep out U.S. oil companies, Mexico relied on it to bar international election monitors, and the United States invoked it as an excuse to privilege “states’ rights” over human rights. In each case, sovereignty was used to defend bad policies. Countries benefited when they changed these policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83112-p40/robert-a-pastor/north-america-s-second-decade.html

When Bush and Fox sit down with new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancún on March 30, all three leaders will pretend that relations are better than they are. They will note “progress” toward the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, signed last year in Texas, even though it is a timid, paper-shuffling exercise that measures success by the number of bureaucratic meetings.

What they should do is think far more boldly. The only way to solve the most pressing problems in the region—including immigration, security, and declining competitiveness—is to create a true North American Community.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11904430/site/newsweek/

There just isn’t any need for a conspiracy when people like Robert A. Pastor have influence inside our halls of Government.
Sovereignty is passe’ to some, useless to others and just a bother to yet still others.
An independent America is just a notion of some long dead all but forgotten Statesmen.
And the Constitution…just a dry erase board.
Institutional majority anyone?
No thanks.

Speakup on November 30, 2006 at 7:07 PM

Gregor: I completely disagree with that. The LEGAL Hispanic population of this country does NOT favor illegal immigration and they are as pissed off (if not more so) than the rest of Americans. They do not appreciate that while they worked their asses off to get here legally … they have to sit and watch millions get a free pass.

The LEGAL Hispanic population is not in favor of enforcement only. That was the mistake that the House Republicans made and that effort was lead by Tancredo. MOST of them do want all immigrates to come here legally and they wanted a Temporary Worker Program as part of a comprehensive immigration reform. It was not necessary to include a pathway to citizenship as a part of that program. Kyl/Cornyn had such a Bill that was completely castrated by the Senate and a similar Bill in the House was completely shut down by the House enforcement only proponents. The LEGAL Hispanics sympathize with the economic conditions in Mexico. Most of them desired a program that allowed Mexicans to come here and work and then go back home.

And when the House decided to include the criminalization of illegal aliens in their Bill they in essence made “grandma” a criminal. That didn’t set well and the Dems outsmarted the smartasses in the Republican House and stopped them from being able to take that out. And even if they had, the MSM and La Raza and latched on.

Another thing that baffles me. I’ve never understood the illegal alien marchers who repeatedly wave signs of Bush as a Nazi or calling him Hitler. Bush has done more for illegals than any President in history and he has openly called for policies which would allow them to stay.

Because the Dems and La Raza seized the moment. What’s so hard to understand? Their message was Bush represents the Republicans, the Republicans are anti-Mexican.

If Bush’s policies have anything do do with votes, and Texas Gal is correct about Hispanics being pissed at people like Tancredo … the GOP should have received 90% of the Hispanic vote.
But alas … Texas Gal is wrong.

You might want to check and see just exactly what was included in that House bill and then compare that to the number of Republican seats lost in the House.

But alas … Gregor is the one who is wrong.

I also object to your mis-characterization that Tancredo has turned the topic into something “anti-Mexican.”
Tancredo has not done anything that would suggest that, and from what I’ve read … nobody on this blog has either. Only you.

Object away but that doesn’t change the fact that Tancredo gave several interviews on TV and in print where he described that he first became motivated to make illegal immigration his issue by the fact that he was seeing the MEXICANS in his schools being separated into classes taught in Spanish. He made these comments often. I have no doubt that La Raza was waiting in the wings for Tancredo.

CliffHanger: I think your giving Tancredo too much credit unless that’s what you experienced locally or you’re reading Simon Rosenberg again. I didn’t see that here. Of course I live in a mostly mid-to-upper-class white suburban Christian conservative district where we employ illegals to wash our cars and clean our houses.
Try this explanation on for size..

There is no doubt many issues contributed to the defeat of the GOP in both houses. No doubt Iraq and the success of the MSM to paint as dismal a picture as possible were factors as well as other things. It was after all, local races for the most part. And those local races added up to the defeat. We all knew that based on the divide in the country it would be close. But the one vote we didn’t need to loose was the Hispanic vote. As a swing vote we had an opportunity not only to hold on to what had been gained but to increase it. And yes, I did see the turn for myself. I had more than one Hispanic friend express to me their dissatisfaction.

Now Tancredo needs to shut his damn mouth because we both know there aren’t enough mid-to-upper-class white suburban Christian conservative voters to carry a Republican into the White House in 08.

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 7:08 PM

Whats the point of carrying a Republican to the White House in 2008 if he/she maintains the status quo. Do you run the party or does the party run you?

Sammy316 on November 30, 2006 at 7:15 PM

I see John Hawkins is up to his “I made a phone call” tricks again. He used the same tactic when he called David Bohigian and she said there was no working groups taking place in secret when debating Corsi at Human Events online.

When in fact the FOIA request filed by Jerome Corsi proved that there were indeed working groups taking place at the Commerce Department, in secret as substantiated by Judicial Watch and Jerome Corsi’s receipt of the proof and all are on his website, Stopspp.com, for anyone that is interested in the facts.

Mr Hawkins only had to go to the official Tom Tancredo website and read the official position of Tom Tancredo put out in a press release yesterday for everyone to see instead of trying slime Tom Tancredo again with intrigue and innuendo ala John Hawkins.

From his website:

“I know the administration has given assurances that the SPP is not a veiled effort to create a ‘North American Union,’ nor an effort designed to dilute American sovereignty by entering into a European Union-like arrangement with Canada and Mexico,” said Tancredo, Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. “Unfortunately, however, [the SPP’s] ‘recommendations’ seem to be at odds with those assurances.”

Tancredo concluded, “As such, I would ask that you consider suspending Commerce Department participation in this tri-lateral effort.”

You can read Tom Tancredo’s letter your self by clicking this link.

John Hawkins is in denial about the SPP or NAU and his disdain for Tom Tancredo is evident in his kool aid support for George W Bush even though the facts prove that the administration is doing an end run around the Constitution.

Even PoliPundit disagrees with our esteemed forum leader about Tom Tancredo and the North American Union:

“Congressman Ron Paul also warns of the NAU:
Tancredo isn’t the only congressman warning about plans to integrate the three nations of this continent.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, denounced plans for the proposed “NAFTA superhighway” in his state as part of a larger plot for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.”

“Allahpundit and Captain Ed are way off-base on this one and their anti-Tancredo comments are unnecessary. I think I will stick with Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Phyllis Schlafly & Dr. Corsi over MM Allahpundit and the Cap’n on this one.”

ScottyDog on November 30, 2006 at 7:18 PM

Even PoliPundit disagrees with our esteemed forum leader about Tom Tancredo and the North American Union:

That is “Even Polipundit disagrees with our esteemed forum leader and Tom Tancredo’s spokesman” about Tom Tancredo and the North American Union.

Pablo on November 30, 2006 at 7:29 PM

Allahpundit and Captain Ed are way off-base on this one and their anti-Tancredo comments are unnecessary.

Uh oh. Allah does not like dissent. This is going to cost us at least another 50 anti-Tancredo posts, you watch and see.

EF on November 30, 2006 at 7:30 PM

Sorry about the double post, I was editing a name when I accidentally hit the submit button.

yikes

ScottyDog on November 30, 2006 at 7:56 PM

Even PoliPundit disagrees with our esteemed forum leader about Tom Tancredo and the North American Union

Who cares? Odd that you guys are whacking on Allah for allegedly hating dissent and then praise Polipundit, who is extremely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with his views on immigration – even his former fellow bloggers.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 8:01 PM

Odd that you guys are whacking on Allah for allegedly hating dissent and then praise Polipundit, who is extremely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with his views on immigration – even his former fellow bloggers.

Odder is that you extrapolated one poster into “you guys”. I don’t read Polipundit. So, who cares?

EF on November 30, 2006 at 8:14 PM

Odder is that you extrapolated one poster into “you guys”. I don’t read Polipundit. So, who cares?

Yeah, well I work for The Lancet.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 8:17 PM

I kid…I kid…

Seriously, I apologize. That was unfair.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 8:18 PM

Whats the point of carrying a Republican to the White House in 2008 if he/she maintains the status quo. Do you run the party or does the party run you?

Sammy316

Good Grief!!

Status guo?

Because of the alternative!!!

We are in a freakin’ WAR with insane Islamofascists that want to kill us!!

The Dems want to return to the STATUS QUO!!!

Texas Gal on November 30, 2006 at 9:12 PM

And Miami is just a nice little sweet American community … as American as apple pie.

Don’t bash the Cubans; they help make sure I continue to have a Republican governor.

I thought Jeb Bush was Alcalde, I mean governor, of Florida?

First of all, this NAU stuff belongs in the X-Files in my opinion. The gov’t would never get away with it if they even tried.

Where’ve I heard this before? 1930s Germany? 1950s America? (integration? the gov’t would never get away with it!”)

And I’ve had enough. Congratulations, Allahbepraised, you’ve driven me off as a reader. I like Ms Malkin, but not enough to put up with you.

Hiraghm on November 30, 2006 at 9:22 PM

Not to mention that the Democrats are worse on immigration than the Republicans. With the Republicans, you will at least get enforcement or a wall. With the Democrats – open borders.

But go ahead. Shoot yourselves in the foot. I’m not really all that concerned about what happens to the Republican party anymore.

Because tomorrow, when I go to register my car, I’m going to change my party registration to independent. It’s obvious people like me are not welcome in Tancredo’s Republican party.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 9:23 PM

And I’ve had enough. Congratulations, Allahbepraised, you’ve driven me off as a reader. I like Ms Malkin, but not enough to put up with you.

Oh, isn’t that too bad.

You’ll be missed so much.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 9:24 PM

Okay, that was uncalled for on my part.

I’m just in a pissy mood tonight.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 9:27 PM

I’m just in a pissy mood tonight.

May I suggest a Binky and a nap?

EF on November 30, 2006 at 9:36 PM

May I suggest a Binky and a nap?

Ouch.

I’m going for red wine and some Tony Bennett.

Slublog on November 30, 2006 at 9:39 PM

So the Trojans have just rolled a nice big horsey up to our gate. And I think we should have a little look-see inside the big horsey before we roll it INSIDE the gate. Where am I going wrong here?

Maxx on November 30, 2006 at 9:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3