Author Topic: Tom Tancredo: I May Run For President on Muslim-Ban Platform (Read 2069 times)

mystery-ak · « **on:** January 16, 2015, 11:16:59 pm »

http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=619135

Newsmax
Tom Tancredo: I May Run For President on Muslim-Ban Platform
Friday, January 16, 2015 05:42 PM

By: Bill Hoffmann

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo says the U.S. must stop immigration for all Muslims and is so alarmed by the threat of terrorism at home he's mulling a run for president on that platform.

"[Running] is a distinct possibility if I can't get anyone else up there to actually bring it to the floor. I do not know how else to do this and I don't know anyone else who will," Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, said Friday on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"Unfortunately, we have no [system] that we can run these people through in order to establish which ones are the acceptable immigrant and which is not."

And that inability, said Tancredo — who previously sought the GOP presidential nomination and is author of "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security," published by Cumberland House — spells danger for the U.S.

"I know there are plenty of Muslims who do not intend to do us harm. That's totally irrelevant to the situation we face," he said, noting the issue goes beyond Muslims.

"Not only should we stop all immigration from Muslim countries of Muslims, from anywhere actually, but we … need to then look at the people who are here as resident aliens who, in fact, support Sharia law, [and] advance it themselves.

"Those people need to be deported because they are supporting something that is absolutely and totally contradictory with the Constitution of the United States.... You can't have two tracks, two laws, English common law and of course Sharia law. Won't work, Britain is finding it out. How long will it take us? At certain point, there's nothing else you can do?"

But it won't happen in the immediate future, Tancredo lamented.

"Certainly not in the foreseeable future, not without some horrendous event.... Not with this Congress, not with this president," he said.

"However, somebody has got to say it. Somebody has got to begin the debate. I'm not suggesting I'm the person, I'm just saying it's got to start somewhere.

"If I have to run again for something in order to get it to be discussed, I'll do it whether it's president or Senate or whatever. If you don't, if we just keep ignoring this stuff, if we keep pretending and sticking our heads in the sand, we are doomed. This society, Western Civilization is doomed."

kevindavis007 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2015, 01:09:12 am »

Oh brother.. Which party will run under?? The Constitpation or the Losertarian Party??

Formerly Once-Ler · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2015, 01:52:47 am »

Quote

"If I have to run again for something in order to get it to be discussed, I'll do it whether it's president or Senate or whatever. If you don't, if we just keep ignoring this stuff, if we keep pretending and sticking our heads in the sand, we are doomed. This society, Western Civilization is doomed."

Inspiring. The Tank is back. I missed him so. Looks like the Tank wants to run to the right of Sen Cruz. Finally a real choice for real conservatives.

jmyrlefuller · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2015, 02:26:33 pm »

Joseph Farah must be thrilled.

massadvj · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2015, 02:32:27 pm »

Quote from: kevindavis on January 17, 2015, 01:09:12 am

Oh brother.. Which party will run under?? The Constitpation or the Losertarian Party??

No libertarian would ever consider rounding up people and persecuting them based on their religion. It is an affront to the first amendment, and it is an affront to natural law. The law of God requires that we prosecute people when they BEHAVE BADLY, not because of their beliefs. That is fundamental to American sensibility.

jmyrlefuller · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2015, 02:38:21 pm »

Quote from: kevindavis on January 17, 2015, 01:09:12 am

Oh brother.. Which party will run under?? The Constitpation or the Losertarian Party??

Well, if the Constitution Party doesn't take him, there's the America's Independent Party, or failing that, the America's Party—Tancredo/Hoefling 2016!

Bigun · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2015, 03:13:46 pm »

Does anyone here actually KNOW Tom Tancredo or are you all just commenting on the media created caricature of the man?

Just wondering!

jmyrlefuller · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2015, 03:22:42 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on January 17, 2015, 03:13:46 pm

Does anyone here actually KNOW Tom Tancredo or are you all just commenting on the media created caricature of the man?

Just wondering!

Tancredo is very good on the issues. The problem is, he's better with stunts.

I'm just not sure how much Tancredo can add to the conversation at this point. He got less than 1% support when he ran in '08. (Now, granted, my guy Duncan Hunter didn't get much better, but still.) He pulled out of the GOP in '10 and the inability for him and the GOP to coalesce probably cost conservatives that governor's election, setting the stage for Obama winning CO in '12.

We have to unite behind someone who can run an effective campaign against the liberals in the party who seem to win the primaries with divided votes. Tancredo could not even come close to doing that in '08. He couldn't even unite the people who would have been his base. The Joseph Farah crowd went for Huckabee and the Free Republic crowd went for Fred Thompson. What makes Tancredo dangerous is that he has a record of going rogue and running third party; as much as I'd LOVE to see that happen if Jeb ends up the nominee, that pretty much ensures Hillary, or whoever else the Democrats nominate, will win.

Not that the GOP has that great of a track record as of late without the split votes.

alicewonders · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2015, 03:27:30 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on January 17, 2015, 03:13:46 pm

Does anyone here actually KNOW Tom Tancredo or are you all just commenting on the media created caricature of the man?

Just wondering!

Tom Tancredo is a good man - but he, and other fringe candidates - are only hurting the chances of other candidates that actually have a chance to win the election. It's all well and good to say, "I'm running so I can get my message out there", but it muddies the field, it splits up the conservative vote. We need to figure out who is the most conservative candidate that can actually win and we need to get behind this person.

We actually have an opportunity to turn the tables this time around - if Romney, Bush and Christie all run and dilute the moderates.

These guys - Santorum, Carson, Tancredo, et al - actually hurt the cause. A presidential election is not the place to do what they are trying to do.

Bigun · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2015, 03:44:33 pm »

My question had nothing to do with whether or not Tancredo should become a candidate and I'm definitely not advocating that he do so!

massadvj · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2015, 05:19:33 pm »

Quote from: Bigun on January 17, 2015, 03:13:46 pm

Does anyone here actually KNOW Tom Tancredo or are you all just commenting on the media created caricature of the man?

Just wondering!

I wasn't commenting on Tancredo in particular, but on the issue of whether every legal resident alien who believes in Sharia Law should be rounded up and deported. I'd call it anathema to American sensibility no matter who proposed it. We simply do not round people up because of their beliefs. That is basic to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment, both of which are based on natural law.

libertybele · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2015, 10:36:33 pm »

Quote from: jmyrlefuller on January 17, 2015, 03:22:42 pm

Tancredo is very good on the issues. The problem is, he's better with stunts.

I'm just not sure how much Tancredo can add to the conversation at this point. He got less than 1% support when he ran in '08. (Now, granted, my guy Duncan Hunter didn't get much better, but still.) He pulled out of the GOP in '10 and the inability for him and the GOP to coalesce probably cost conservatives that governor's election, setting the stage for Obama winning CO in '12.

We have to unite behind someone who can run an effective campaign against the liberals in the party who seem to win the primaries with divided votes. Tancredo could not even come close to doing that in '08. He couldn't even unite the people who would have been his base. The Joseph Farah crowd went for Huckabee and the Free Republic crowd went for Fred Thompson. What makes Tancredo dangerous is that he has a record of going rogue and running third party; as much as I'd LOVE to see that happen if Jeb ends up the nominee, that pretty much ensures Hillary, or whoever else the Democrats nominate, will win.

Not that the GOP has that great of a track record as of late without the split votes.

Yay. Another Duncan Hunter fan ... I thought I was the only one. The GOPe hates Tancredo about as much as they do Cruz. I personally don't feel that we have to worry about Jeb getting the nomination; the last thing people want is another Bush.

Fishrrman · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2015, 03:43:42 am »

mass wrote above:
[[ I wasn't commenting on Tancredo in particular, but on the issue of whether every legal resident alien who believes in Sharia Law should be rounded up and deported. I'd call it anathema to American sensibility no matter who proposed it. We simply do not round people up because of their beliefs. That is basic to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment, both of which are based on natural law. ]]

Someday, in the name of survival, a few western nations are going to have to do exactly the things you have described above.

It will be either do that, or accept sharia as a way of life, and quite possibly, the law of their lands.

Let me put this to you another way, mass. Suppose your doctor discovered what looked to be cancer cells within your body. Not life-threatening yet, but -there-. What do you think his advice to you would be? Assuming you wanted to go on living, of course.

Would you leave the cells alone, even if at the moment they do not show signs of malignancy? After all, don't all cells have a right to exist?

What would you do?

massadvj · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2015, 04:51:13 am »

Quote from: Fishrrman on January 18, 2015, 03:43:42 am

mass wrote above:
[[ I wasn't commenting on Tancredo in particular, but on the issue of whether every legal resident alien who believes in Sharia Law should be rounded up and deported. I'd call it anathema to American sensibility no matter who proposed it. We simply do not round people up because of their beliefs. That is basic to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment, both of which are based on natural law. ]]

Someday, in the name of survival, a few western nations are going to have to do exactly the things you have described above.

It will be either do that, or accept sharia as a way of life, and quite possibly, the law of their lands.

Let me put this to you another way, mass. Suppose your doctor discovered what looked to be cancer cells within your body. Not life-threatening yet, but -there-. What do you think his advice to you would be? Assuming you wanted to go on living, of course.

Would you leave the cells alone, even if at the moment they do not show signs of malignancy? After all, don't all cells have a right to exist?

What would you do?

By natural law, cells do not have rights. Humans do. Since Muslims are human, they have rights that are inalienable, just like the rest of us. So do Hispanics.

It does not do to support the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the original constitution only when they are convenient. Either one supports them or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then don't be very surprised when some future totalitarian government comes for you.

libertybele · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2015, 01:32:28 pm »

Quote from: massadvj on January 18, 2015, 04:51:13 am

By natural law, cells do not have rights. Humans do. Since Muslims are human, they have rights that are inalienable, just like the rest of us. So do Hispanics.

It does not do to support the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the original constitution only when they are convenient. Either one supports them or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then don't be very surprised when some future totalitarian government comes for you.

Unless Muslims in this country are legal citizens of this country they have NO rights period. Human rights do not give them rights under our Constitution nor grant them citizenship period. I am sick to death of every Tom, Dick, Harry, Santiago, Isabella, Aisah, or Hussein thinking they can disregard are laws. Round them up and DEPORT them! What we are doing is handing this country over to them. B.S.!

Does anyone truly think that another "Paris" incident can't happen here?? If so, you are very sadly mistaken.

massadvj · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2015, 03:29:28 pm »

Quote from: libertybele on January 18, 2015, 01:32:28 pm

Unless Muslims in this country are legal citizens of this country they have NO rights period.

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

Dexter · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2015, 06:03:59 pm »

Good idea Tom! That would definitely be the quickest way to push yourself into irrelevance.

Oceander · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2015, 06:36:35 pm »

Quote from: libertybele on January 18, 2015, 01:32:28 pm

Unless Muslims in this country are legal citizens of this country they have NO rights period. Human rights do not give them rights under our Constitution nor grant them citizenship period. I am sick to death of every Tom, Dick, Harry, Santiago, Isabella, Aisah, or Hussein thinking they can disregard are laws. Round them up and DEPORT them! What we are doing is handing this country over to them. B.S.!

Does anyone truly think that another "Paris" incident can't happen here?? If so, you are very sadly mistaken.

Baloney. Non-citizens have fewer rights, but they do have some rights.

libertybele · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2015, 08:58:59 pm »

Quote from: jmyrlefuller on January 17, 2015, 02:38:21 pm

Well, if the Constitution Party doesn't take him, there's the America's Independent Party, or failing that, the America's Party—Tancredo/Hoefling 2016!

Wow! What is wrong with the Constitution Party?? Clymer is a descendent of George Clymer the signer of the Declaration of Independence (my husband is a descendent as well).

I become very disheartened when people downplay the importance of 3rd parties and what they stand for. The Constitution Party is a hell of a lot better than the Republican or Democratic party as neither one has a shred of integrity left.

libertybele · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2015, 09:05:48 pm »

Quote from: Oceander on January 18, 2015, 06:36:35 pm

Baloney. Non-citizens have fewer rights, but they do have some rights.

They do NOT have the right to enter this country WITHOUT going through the proper channels and steps period. Just because they were successful in getting into this country doesn't give them RIGHTS. They should be rounded up and deported period. Entering this country illegally is breaking our laws; therefore they are criminals and should be prosecuted not rewarded.

Most importantly ... what about their infringement on the RIGHTS OF AMERICANS?? I'm sorry but when they are given more rights and benefits than legal American Citizens there is a huge problem.

They are NOT citizens. Therefore they do not have RIGHTS UNDER the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Dexter · « **Reply #20 on:** January 18, 2015, 10:48:40 pm »

Quote from: libertybele on January 18, 2015, 08:58:59 pm

Wow! What is wrong with the Constitution Party?? Clymer is a descendent of George Clymer the signer of the Declaration of Independence (my husband is a descendent as well).

I become very disheartened when people downplay the importance of 3rd parties and what they stand for. The Constitution Party is a hell of a lot better than the Republican or Democratic party as neither one has a shred of integrity left.

Most people are brainwashed into believing third parties are a waste of time. They're scared the other side might win if they vote third party, but it doesn't matter because there is no other side. The bad party wins every time.

Oceander · « **Reply #21 on:** January 19, 2015, 02:55:48 am »

Quote from: Dex4974 on January 18, 2015, 10:48:40 pm

Most people are brainwashed into believing third parties are a waste of time. They're scared the other side might win if they vote third party, but it doesn't matter because there is no other side. The bad party wins every time.

/snicker

Under the form of government the US has, third parties are suicide. The history of third parties has been one of nothing but disaster. It might help you if you started reading some history. There's a first time for everything.

Fishrrman · « **Reply #22 on:** January 19, 2015, 04:19:59 am »

mass wrote above:
[[ It does not do to support the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the original constitution only when they are convenient. Either one supports them or one doesn't. ]]

I believe the First Amendment should be changed from this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

to this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."

My opinion only, and of course I realize most folks' is different.
I'm fully aware of the ramifications.
I do not apologize, and the flame suit is on.

massadvj · « **Reply #23 on:** January 19, 2015, 04:48:03 am »

Quote from: Fishrrman on January 19, 2015, 04:19:59 am

mass wrote above:
[[ It does not do to support the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the original constitution only when they are convenient. Either one supports them or one doesn't. ]]

I believe the First Amendment should be changed from this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

to this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."

My opinion only, and of course I realize most folks' is different.
I'm fully aware of the ramifications.
I do not apologize, and the flame suit is on.

I don't flame. I completely respect your point of view, though I disagree with it.

libertybele · « **Reply #24 on:** January 19, 2015, 05:31:04 am »

Quote from: Oceander on January 19, 2015, 02:55:48 am

/snicker

Under the form of government the US has, third parties are suicide. The history of third parties has been one of nothing but disaster. It might help you if you started reading some history. There's a first time for everything.

Exactly what form of government do you think the U.S. has? At the time the U.S. Constitution was signed, there were NO parties. 3rd parties are suicide? So is continuing to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Like you said ... there's a first time for everything.