Stones Cry Out

I am hardly one of Rep. Tancredo's "redneck followers", but your response to his remarks doesn't help. I agree with Hugh that his comments were way off base. But ... at some point, we have to come to grips with the fact that we are fighting an element of Islam. We are not fighting all Muslims. But the enemy we are fighting Muslims and/or inspired by Militant Islam. They say that they are the protectors of true Islam. Other Muslims say no, but they have been very quiet up until now.

How about a debate/discussion on what the Radicals are saying and how it is/isn't consistent with Islam? This is the dabate we need to be having. Granted, Tancredo's shotgun blast is just that. But you frankly seem to be shooting back in the same fashion and missing the larger debate.

Tom Tancredo has built a career on saying stupid things about important issues. He no more respresents the thinking of conservatives or this Administration Ward Churchill does the left. Noticing his stsatements just provides oxygen to his raging furnance of ignorance.

He does serve one useful purpose though. If you find someone who agrees with that point of view, you needn't waste time trying to conduct a rational conversation. Much like someone prattling on about creationism or taxation-is-theft, it's a quick cue to find a polite way to end the conversation.

Thank you for distancing yourselves from Tancredo's morally repugnant remarks. I am relieved to hear you state your opposition to the insane proposal to "nuke Mecca". You have been more critical than other conservative bloggers such as Hugh Hewitt, whose "criticism" I read after following your link. Althgouh Hewitt said Tancredo's suggestion is wrong, much of his argument is based on the the lack of "strategic value" to such an attack, not on the horrific immorality of destroying the holy symbol of millions of innocent muslims, not to mention innumerable lives:

"Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived. Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be effective. Take down the Syrian regime? You bet. Replace the House of Saud? Fine. Bomb every nuclear facility in Tehran? Absolutely. The US would respond to a savage attack with fury --but purposeful fury. Bombing Mecca would be the opposite of purposeful fury. Those who support him have to explain what the strategic value of such a response would be. There is none."

Great, Jon.

Creationism is the same as taxation complaints, and bombing Mecca.

Awesome analogy. Well thought out, excellent planning.

(/sarcasm)

What exactly constitutes a "xenophobic immigration position"? That sounds quite a lot like some left-wing knee-jerk rhetoric.

Editors,

I really don't like the guy, but my rhetoric is hardly knee-jerk. I could go down the list, but since you asked, here's one example of a xenophobic immigration position.

According to his website, Tancredo voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. That is downright immoral. The effect would be to discourage unauthorized immigrants from seeking medical treatment, even when in dire need. Also, since when did doctors start working for the INS?

Tancredo would rather see these folks suffer or die than seek medical attention it seems because once word got out that you would get deported if you sought medical attention, these people would rather risk death than risk deportation. Show me where in Scripture it says we should have any part of that?

I live in San Diego. I know immigration. In fact, as an employer, I've unkowingly hired "illegals" as a GM for a fast food place. I was desperate for workers, they showed me documentation, I processed the paper work, they show up to work, they work hard, and often harder than all my "native" workers, then I hear things from co-workers, things like, "Javier almost got busted by la migra" and "Pedro won't be coming back to work for a while - he got deported." Too bad, because: 1) I couldn't find people to work the shifts; and 2) in almost every single incident where I suspected that my employee might be undocumented, they were the best I had.

I agree that we need to stop unauthorized immigration, but Tancredo's positions are not the way to go. President Bush has it right. Expand the guest worker program to make it easy for any willing employer to find a willing employee. If that means open borders pending background checks for criminals and terrorists, so be it.

I love this Country. I love hard work. I love people. All people - as God commands me to. Tancredo is a xenophobe and his followers are rednecks or nativists - that's not rhetoric, it's my opinion.

I'm still not sure that asking hospitals to report undocumented patients equals "xenophobia" though I agree it is a bad idea for the reasons you noted.

I didn't mean to imply that you were having a knee-jerk reaction. I was just saying that's the sort of rhetoric that so often comes from the left - you want to control the border, you're a xenophobe, a racist, whatever.

Could you explain the line, "If that means open borders pending background checks for criminals and terrorists, so be it."

It sounds a little cavalier about terrorists and criminals coming across, to say the least. perhaps I misunderstood your point.

If a worker has a guest worker permit of some sort, then they're not illegal by definition. Is anyone who wants to stop the flow of illegal immigrants a "xenophobe" in your opinion? It seems a xenophobe or nativist would be someone who's against both legal and illegal immigration.

No, it's just the overall attitude, invective rhetoric, and methods proposed. I despise KRLA's John and Ken, Michael Savage, and Tancredo. I embrace immigration while promoting tough border security (Hugh Hewitt and David Drier). Basically, I'd be for "militarizing" our borders, if it meant open legal borders pending criminal background checks. That way, there is no excuse to sneak into this country illegally. At the end of the day, I despise the hate. Tancredo, in my opinion, is a hate filled man. His wires seem to be a bit crossed and it frightens me. Same with Savage. I wonder about that man's sanity.

(RazorKiss:) *Great, Jon. ...*

My point was that people who rant on such subjects are rarely pleasant to encounter in public. QED

read a Koran for what it is...a book of lies and terror. Islam is NOT a religion. it is a political movement like Nazism seeking the subjugation and death of all those who don't believe in it. you may say that Tancredo is off base with his remarks, but what do you say to the millions of deaths caused at the hands of Islam over the centuries? or 9/11? whose fault was that? or the train bombings in India and Spain, the London bombings, the Bali bombings and on and on. go on and apologize for Islam. but i guarantee you, if Muslims become a majority here, they will impose Sharia law, make you pay a jizya tax and ultimately try to murder you. save your arm chair morality and coffee house intellectualism for another time. this really is a war and you people need to wake up.

If a nuclear attack happens in any country by means of islamic terrorism. We shouldnt bomb mecca, we should bomb every islamic holy site on the planet.Any religion that cannot tolerate other beliefs ,including freedoom of speech, should be wiped off the face of the earth and doesnt deserve the same liberties which all other free religions take for granted.

I suggest every single person who reads this, investigate Islam for yourself.
A religion of tolerance, peace? lmao, Dont be absurd
The world really has to wake up on this one before its too late.