Tom Tancredo: The Greatest Threat To America Resides In The White House

This may well be the most egregious example of over-the-top political rhetoric that I’ve seen in quite some time:

Tancredo: What could be more important for you to do, really, if you think about this? Everything is at stake here. Everything.

I firmly believe with all my heart, you guys, although we have had many threats to our nation — and we have gone through a whole lot of things, and survived many things. We — I always say, you know, we survived the Civil War, we survived the Depression, we went through all — we survived Bill Clinton, for heaven’s sake!

But nothing — I do not believe — not the Soviet Union, when we were in, you know, that thirty-five year period leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union, thanks to Ronald Reagan, God bless him.

(…)

But we had that threat, we survived it. Later, we found out we had another threat to our way of life, and that was Al Qaeda, and we found that out on 9/11.

But I firmly believe this — it’s not just, you know, some dramatic statement a person would make to get press or something or ink. I believe this with all my heart — that the greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country that was put together by the Founding Fathers, is the guy that is in the White House today.

Of course, this is Tom Tancredo we’re talking about so I suppose this is par for the course.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Politicians, Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. John P. (Tupelo) says:

    I believe in rainbows Doug. And I’m not just talking about refracted light. I believe that the physical particles that make up the air we breathe turn a magical array of colors.

  2. Tano says:

    Well, I agree it is egregious, but it is only tied for “most egregious” with about a million similar things said on a daily basis by all manner of people on the right.

  3. Brummagem Joe says:

    Obama, a bigger threat than Hitler and Tojo combined, wow, I’d better check the state of the Pacific fleet.

  4. An Interested Party says:

    This rhetoric is no different than that spewed forth by many in the Tea Party movement, not to mention more than a few commenters around here…

  5. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    There are none so blind as those who will not see. I will just name one thing. Jobs. He said in his state of the union speech (all lies) jobs would be his number one issue. That is why he placed a moritorium on drilling in the gulf. How many jobs will be created from that act? Check out Obama’s background to see where he is comming from. Oh, thats right, you can’t. School transcripts are locked up. You left leaning socialists can defend this communist manchurian President, but you are in the minority and will remain so. The list of things this bum has done to weaken America is long. How about the abandonment of our missle shield in eastern Europe? Or his new START treaty. How about the cancellation of the F-22? To bad we will have to wait until January to impeact Obama.

  6. TangoMan says:

    the greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country that was put together by the Founding Fathers, is the guy that is in the White House today.

    An entirely defensible position. Do Presidents have the ability to use their authorized and unauthorized power to shift the trajectory of their nation’s path or are they merely indistinguishable cogs in a political world where their actions are so thoroughly constrained by circumstances that it doesn’t matter who is in office, the outcomes would be the same?

    If you hold to the latter viewpoint, the Tancredo’s view won’t have relevance to how you see the world, but if you hold that President’s do have some ability to shift events, then having a President who thinks that the Constitution, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, got it wrong on the issue of equality because they didn’t go far enough in mandating economic redistributionism, and who also thinks that there needs to be more wealth spreading, that America has much to apologize for, that there is no American exceptionalism, etc is a direct threat to “our way of life” etc. He didn’t say to life, so Soviet occupation and subsequent enslavement are not on the table. Those types of threats are external and they threaten different aspects of our existence. Tancredo is talking about internal threats that are hard to recognize as theats. Most of us know that people love getting free stuff. Wealth redistribution is a like a drug for most people and once hooked it’s hard to kick the habit. Is America just another cradle to grave social welfare state where everything must be regulated by the government and where inequality must be stamped out or is it a nation with a strong streak of individualism and where inequality is allowed to rise as a consequence of success for some individuals.

    Once people get hooked on free stuff that has an impact on cultural attitudes, relationships to government, increased dependency and loss of individual initiative. A foreign external threat doesn’t serve to change the nature of a nation’s people, but an internal threat can certainly have that effect, especially if the threat is not recognized as a threat. Go back and reread what Tancredo is saying is being threatened. Do you really think that the founders and the national self-identity that developed over the ensuing centuries can be summed up by saying that “we don’t spread the wealth enough?” If a nation comes to believe that we don’t spread the wealth enough and that the Constitution was wrong on the issue of equality then that is a direct threat to how Americans have seen themselves in relation to government and in comparison to other nations.

  7. Dodd says:

    By “the most egregious example of over-the-top political rhetoric that I’ve seen in quite some time” you mean, “in the last 18 months, right? Because that was pretty much par for the course for the 8 years preceding Jan 20, 2009.

    Not defending it, mind, just pointing out that all that’s happened is that the teams have switched sides.

  8. An Interested Party says:

    I rest my case…

  9. Pug says:

    Once people get hooked on free stuff that has an impact on cultural attitudes, relationships to government, increased dependency and loss of individual initiative.

    What, exactly, is all this “free stuff” conservatives rail on endlessly about? Food stamps? $250 welfare checks? Unemployment insurance? What?

    For all the resentment of poor people getting a few bucks from the government, the real money goes to four things: Medicare, Social Security, the military and interest on the debt. I’d like to hear Republicans talk about what they want to do to fix things and get away from the loony rhetoric of Tom Tancredo and the rest.

    … having a President who thinks that the Constitution, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, got it wrong on the issue of equality because they didn’t go far enough in mandating economic redistributionism, and who also thinks that there needs to be more wealth spreading, that America has much to apologize for, that there is no American exceptionalism, etc is a direct threat to “our way of life” etc.

    That whole screed doesn’t make a lick of sense.

  10. @An Interested Party:

    Indeed.

  11. John says:

    I’m going to go against the sage advice of one Coach Greg Glassman regarding “invincible ignorance” and take a hack at explaining why Tancredo is a pushing a perverted notion. Here’s the link to the Glassman explination (in sum: invincible ignorance is just that – invincible – leave it alone) http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/07/glassman-invincible-ignorance.tpl

    Here’s a sports analogy for you all: Obama is tantamount to a change in a football team’s offensive strategy. He’s running the option rather than the spread. There are “fans” that don’t think the option is a great offense. It is frustrating to watch fumbles and misreads that come with the option, but Tancredo insinuates that Obama is trying to throw the game on purpose.

    In fact, he outwardly states that our opponents – those trying to literally put us in a body cast and stop us from our ultimate goal – are less of an enemy than our less-than-efficient quarterback (President).

    The level of cognitive dissonance that it takes to espouse this line and push it forward mirrors the exact thing Glassman discusses in the video – invincible ignorance.

    That’s my attempt at putting a nice bow on this issue, however I don’t expect that the analogy will penetrate the mental fortress of solitudes that agree with Tancredo.

  12. TangoMan says:

    That whole screed doesn’t make a lick of sense.

    Barack Obama radio interview bemoaning the failure of the civil rights movement and the Constitution to bring about economic redistribution.

  13. Jim says:

    I have no issues with what he said… it sounds like the truth to me… I live in IL. and have watched Obummer run for the senate seat against Alan Keys… he had no view points that I can remember, he won… as soon as he won, he ran for the pres. of the greatest land on earth. He did not come up with any legislation, law, help etc. for this state, he voted “present” around 130 times. He could not vote yes or no he voted “present”. We know who he hung out with, radicals, his dad was a communist, and a muslim. He was brought up with muslim beliefs, he attended a church for 20 years under that hate preacher. He was a community organizer. He is the least qualified man to run for this office and won.
    I agree with this article. We did not know who was running for this office, but after the election we found out.
    Jim King