The American Spectator

Reader Mail

FAIR Play for Tancredo

1.17.07 @ 12:01AM

PATRIOT GAMES
Re: The Washington Prowler's Tancredo's Dubious Allies:

Although he is well known for his inimitable speech in the state legislature conjoining the concepts of life and liberty, my fellow Virginian, Patrick Henry, is lesser recognized for a different remark at another time, the gist of which summarizes my feelings about the article, "Tancredo's Dubious Allies." When informed that plans were afoot to call for a Constitutional Convention, whose goal was to centralize governmental power, Henry is supposed to have said: "I smell a rat." If not a rodent, then, I detect in this tract the noxious odor of sulphur, emanating from the White House and/or the Wall Street Journal, for neither institution, for its own reasons, has anything good to say about Representative Tom Tancredo.

By taking the tact that to damn Tancredo, he must begin with faint praise, The Prowler claims that Tancredo does, indeed, have conservative principles that go beyond enforcement of current law. Well, that is more than we can say about the current incumbent in the White House, who five years after 9/11, still believes that the millions of workers who have illegally entered this country since that day of infamy do so because they "do the work that Americans won't do." As for those 150,000 or more (Rep. Duncan Hunter's estimates) Middle Easterners illegally present, well, that's an acceptable risk. Congressman Tancredo doesn't think so; neither should you.

But what is diabolically disturbing is the unfounded assertion that Tancredo's association with FAIR and John Tanton suggests that the congressman has, or will, embark upon a course that is different from the one he has to date: a robust pro-life stance. All one need do is visit Tancredo's website, where the Colorado congressman specifically mentions his unblemished record in voting for pro-life causes ("the sanctity of life"), and his steadfast refusal to support Planned Parenthood. Or one might wish to check Tancredo's voting record in the Congress on these issues. They look "conservative" to me.

I conclude by noting that President George W. Bush accepted money for his presidential campaigns from various Christian religious organizations. The fact that he accepted funds from such groups did not, it appears, change the situation: his efforts to introduce legislation to restrict and/or curtail the unlimited abortion license are non-existent, despite the group's largesse. A bill, written by a noted jurist for the specific purpose of restricting partial birth abortion, and stay within current Supreme Court guidelines, remained gathering dust while the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. It is now a lost cause. But I forgot: George W. Bush is a conservative; Tom Tancredo is not.

Pax tecum,
-- Vincent Chiarello
Reston, Virginia

Not since talk show host and Republican water boy carrier Hugh Hewitt disparaged Tom Tancredo for advocating the bombing of Muslim sites if Muslims attacked American cities has such far flung idiocy against Tancredo been aired ("Tancredo's Dubious Allies," Jan. 16). As an embarrassment to President Bush for taking the part of the American people regarding the out-of-control illegal alien invasion across the southern border, Tancredo has been an outsider to the rubber-chicken circuit Republicans for years. Tancredo's "tough stands on immigration reform" mean closing the border to the chaotic, crime-ridden and overwhelming onslaught of millions of illegal aliens. This position now is "controversial" in delicate Republican circles. The article's bizarre attack on the Federation for Immigration Reform as pro-abortion has nothing to do with FAIR's activities and goals, nor is there anything about abortion on its website. Would the author also criticize the Catholic Church for being pro-abortion, since liberal pro-abortion Queen Nancy Pelosi had celebratory Masses held in her honor for being elected House speaker? FAIR documents the billions of dollars in yearly financial costs of illegal aliens in this country, something Republican elites don't care about, since it's unlikely their kids will attend schools where no English is spoken, or be turned away from emergency rooms bankrupted by mandated free care to illegal aliens, or suffer from a stolen Social Security number, or get into a car accident with an uninsured illegal alien driving without a license, or face prison systems overrun with criminal illegal aliens, or deal with the attempted slaughter of law enforcement officers by illegals. No, these experiences by Americans don't touch the Republican elites, but Tancredo dares to cut through the political blandishments of the PR-driven political parties on this issue, and so Republican elites have turned him -- and by extension, the American people -- into pariahs.
-- Caroline Miranda
North Hollywood, California

The open borders wing of the Republican Party can't stand the idea of immigration enforcement. Tom Tancredo and FAIR only advocate a return to the immigration policies of pre-1965 when Ted Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson blew a hole in our laws.

I'm not surprised that people like you will say this, since you continue to defend this worthless waste of a President whose primary allegiance is to open borders. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. People who support open borders are not patriots.
-- Brian Hassler
San Diego, California

RE: "Tancredo's Dubious Allies" -- This blather illustrates one of the principal reasons for the Republican defeat in 2006 and why it will suffer another huge defeat in 2008.

Incidentally, sourcing Jason Riley's opinion as the basis for The Prowler's opinion carries about as much weight with those outside the Beltway as Tamar Jacoby's would have.
-- S. Meachum
Wasilla, Alaska

TAKING FLACK
Re: William Tucker's Lost in the Woods:

"But once they see U.S. forces departing, they will be frightened. The aftermath of our departure will cause them far more pain than it will us. Not only will the countries in the Middle East become more cooperative, but so will the Europeans and others."

Sez who? Why is it supposed that everyone ultimately has the same interests? Why wouldn't the Iranians just love to advance into a much weaker Iraq? Guess who Saudi Arabia will leave at the after-school chess club for the brand new friend at the soda shop? What part of Baker's The Iraq Report did not spell s-e-l-l I-s-r-a-e-l d-o-w-n r-i-v-e-r?

And, of course, how come we don't turn to the always dependable EU and UN for these sticky situations more often?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Economics, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, NATO, Africa, Immigration, Alaska, Oil