Tom Tancredo sends this along. Here it is free of the “donate here” buttons.
Dear Conservative,
Time is running out!
My campaign must file our campaign finance report with the State by September 1st and we must show at least $175,000 raised.
It is critical that we have a strong report to prove we can win this election against ultra-liberal Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
Hickenlooper supports Amnesty and has run a sanctuary city for 7 years – if he becomes Governor, Colorado will become a sanctuary state!!!
Illegals fleeing states like Arizona are already heading to Colorado and this is going to get much worse with Hickelooper as chief executive.
He must be beat so we can eliminate one more state as a safe haven for those living and working in our country illegally.
Illegal immigrants are already busting budgets everywhere, driving down wages and taking American jobs.
Since the federal government refuses to enforce our laws we have to depend on the states to enforce them.
Friend, that is exactly what I’ll do in Colorado if you will just help me win this election.
That is why I’m counting on you to give the most contribution you can afford — $100, or just $50 — or more if you can afford it. The maximum is only $525, so please be as generous as you can.
My candidacy represents the only chance for conservatives to elect a governor who will stand up to the open border Obama Administration and end the flood of illegal immigrants into Colorado.
But I need your help. Hickenlooper supports amnesty for illegal aliens and blatantly owned businesses that hired illegals. In fact, two years ago, one of the illegal immigrants employed by his restaurant even murdered a police officer months after the management was informed of his illegal status.
Time is running out to solve Colorado’s illegal immigration crisis. My candidacy is the only chance to elect a governor who will enforce the rule of law in Colorado. But I can’t fight this fight on my own. It is only the support of good conservatives like you that will make it possible for me to win this election.
That is why I need your help today! Please make your contribution of $100 or $50 today — so that I have it before the September 1st filing deadline.
Colorado residents deserve a governor dedicated to strengthening our economy and ending illegal immigration.
I would be immensely grateful for your financial support in this crucial fight.
Sincerely,
Tom Tancredo
P.S. It is time for our state to take a strong stand against illegal immigration. My opponent, John Hickenlooper, is standing hand in hand with Obama’s open border, amnesty policies.
In order to defeat them we must raise $175,000 by the September 1st filing deadline.
Your contribution of $100, or even $50, will go a long way to help us win this election. Please be as generous as possible.
Conservatives who don’t see this are blind and possibly willfully so. The article states that the County remains Republican, but that is because a lot of these new immigrants can’t vote yet. When they can, the GOP can kiss it’s a** goodbye. And good luck for the even more conservative AIP. And libertarians can kiss their libertarian utopia goodbye as well.
I’m not a conservative or Republican, I don’t prefer Republicans over Democrats, and libertarian “utopia” has never been on the table.
Democrats supposedly want to limit some aspects of government more than Republicans and vice versa. Regardless of which one is in power government keeps growing across the board, whether it’s the welfare state, the police-prison-industrial complex, surveillance state, military-industrial complex, or what have you.
Democrats gaining vis a vis Republicans means nothing to me.
But, I notice that you didn’t answer how many demographic factors you would try to use to control the franchise so as to swing things more your way.
Orange County, CA is a perfect example of what is in store for the whole country (particularly urban centers) if current immigration trends are not reversed. See this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/us/politics/30orange.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general
Conservatives who don’t see this are blind and possibly willfully so. The article states that the County remains Republican, but that is because a lot of these new immigrants can’t vote yet. When they can, the GOP can kiss it’s a** goodbye. And good luck for the even more conservative AIP. And libertarians can kiss their libertarian utopia goodbye as well. Professional campaign organizations have long known that demography is destiny and routinely write off large chucks of the country as out of play based on demographics alone. (One campaign type told me at a C4L event that Adam Kokesh was wasting his and his donors’ money because due to the makeup of the district the outcome was already a foregone conclusion. He was right.) When the makeup of the district makes every district in the country outside of Omaha Nebraska a foregone conclusion for the other side, maybe a lot of these conservatives who are today too squeamish to take on the immigration issue will think to themselves “Maybe we should have listened to the immigration restrictionists when we had the chance.” But by then it will be too late.
lol
Really, I don’t see myself in a constituency for low taxes and limited government with proponents of expansionist government policies on social issues and foreign policy….any more than I see myself in a constituency for civil liberties, non-interventionism and limited government with those who support expansion of government on the economic side.
Both support some aspects of bigger government and some aspects of smaller government. I’m with them on the issues where they favor making government smaller, but I’m not on one side or the other.
Neither side can lay claim to the limited government mantle as long as it is pushing for bigger government on numerous issues, which both of them do.
So saying that migration freedom helps one side or helps the other does not even tempt me to favor restrictionist policies, not that I would consider that a proper function of government in any case.
“Comrade Red”
Deran, so now I’m a Communist?
““Screwing whitey”? LOL. You seriously believe I think like that?”
No paulie, I think you are an honest and sincere leftist libertarian ideologue. But it obviously motivated some of the people behind the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, and it motivates many of the diversity cultists today. Especially after the election of Obama emboldened them, a lot of liberals were openly cheering on the demographic demise of the white majority. There is even a website called Imagine2050. That this immigration cheerleading is motivated by a desire to dilute all those recalcitrant whites in flyover country who refuse to get with the progressive program is palpable.
“Electoral support for libertarianism is tiny, so saying that it is overwhelmingly white is hardly an argument”
As is support for my brand of decentralist strict constitutionalism —> anti-federalism. But speaking broadly the constituency for low taxes and limited government (whether you concede such a thing can exist or not) is almost entirely white as its enemies are more than willing to point out. (Why many in this constituency favor big government militarism is for another thread and is something I’m trying to change.)
In this one, CLS misuses “skinhead” when he should be saying bonehead, but otherwise is quite on point:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/06/charming-morons-hired-by-immigration.html
Much better approach on immigration in quite a few other issues, from a Republican politician from a border state:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/07/this-is-still-politician-i-can-like.html
Tom @ 12 – The “constituency for limited government” is like the “constituency for leprechaun gold.”
Everybody seen the leprechaun say “yeah!”
Tom, again upside your thick Marine skull-lack of viabiliknowing they are going to lose-is a perennial reason to not vote Lib or Green. Hence your perennial 1%.
However bthere is the potential to squeak out a close plurality victory. But the voters can’t be expected to figure that out. They go by the polling. & they know which they would rather vote for-dem or rep-lesser of 2 evils. They hold their vote in great value-quite correctly-so they don’t want to waste it on a candidate that will probably lose.
the trick so to speak is to get out there & explain to them that you are going to try something new. Lib & Green vote coordination. Then do polling to back up that it is working. As the election cycle proceeds, time works in your favor as more voters catch on & polling goes up. Instead of working against you & polling goes down.
We need to knock on doors & explain to voters s much as ads & leaflets & yard signs.
I guarantee the progressive vote is @27%. That explains Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 & why the Progressive Party is a failure-not quite enough votes on their own to win. & why the Allende coalition finally won followed closely by the nationalists. & Ron Paul-bless his dinosaur fossil heart, proved The Libertarian Vote is real in 2008.
Will you please take off your tunnel vision glasses?
Every libertarian candidate has a Nascar class racecar.
Ballot access, driver/candidate etc.
All they need is a winning strategy.
Instead they have losers Tom & paulie waiting in the pits.
At least there is plenty of lube.
paulie read Radical Therapist Claude Steiner.
Tom, you wouldn’t know a Nascar class PLAS racecar if it drove over your toe.
Milnes@14,
I don’t have to be Dale Earnhardt to understand that your jalopy with no engine and four flat tires is going to need some work before it’s ready to compete in the Daytona 500.
“Illegal immigrants are already busting budgets everywhere, driving down wages and taking American jobs.”
Who is going to pay for higher wages? The public? Pretty much bankrupt!
In your dreams. For reasons why this can never work, read Ludwig Von Mises.
Yes.
No.
paulie, you should check out The Radical Therapist.
re: beneficial heirarchy.
Government COULD be a beneficial heirarchy.
A progressive government would be.
A soviet government was supposed to be.
A libertarian government? Not possible.
The people involved in what you call social pathology are not necessarily voters, and if they are voters, that does not mean they believe that what they are doing should be legal. Their propensity to vote Democratic is not based on social issues, other than immigration.
I am too, kind of. To the extent that I have a home base at all, it’s in Alabama. The US regime and non-white racists consider me to be white, although white racists do not.
The constituency against war/militarism and for social/civil liberties is almost entirely white? I did not know this.
I had no trouble marketing libertarianism to poor Mestizos on any number of occasions, for example when I was in jail in the Denver suburbs for a few weeks in 2005. Many of them agreed with me that government is not something to look to for solutions to problems, but rather something to avoid. Many openly said they did not want anything from government except to leave them alone. Quite a few were entrepreneurs and independent contractors. Some had a live and let live view on social issues. More than a few practiced the right to keep and bear arms. A good number were tax resisters. Most did not support imperialism/militarism/war. ETC.
However, they generally did not see government as a problem they were empowered to solve, more as something they just hoped to avoid. There was little interest in citizenship and voting, much less participating in political parties or movements. Their ambitions were economic, not political.
And as for self-interest, I disagree that libertarianism is against their self-interest. Big government hurts poor people and minorities the most. Libertarians need to make that case more often than we do.
“4) I’m an anarchist-“potential electoral viability” is of no concern to me whatsoever.”
Spoken like a true self defeating radical. Might explain his failure to grasp the obvious logic of PLAS. Viability is a major reason voters vote the way they do-against third party/independents.
Comrade Red’s nativism speaks to my point. Thank you comrade Red.
Red,
You write:
“If you don’t like the way cranky white people in flyover country vote, then just import a new voting base is the strategy. What baffles me is that people like paulie and Philies and Knapp don’t get this. The constituency for limited government (whether conservative, left-libertarian or right libertarian) is almost entirely white. This is demonstrably true whether we like it or not. So the immigration they support spells the end of their potential electoral viability.”
1) I am one of those “cranky white people in flyover country.”
2) I don’t support immigration, I support freedom to migrate. There’s a difference.
3) The “constituency for limited government” is like the “constituency for leprechaun gold.” Why would I care about a constituency for something imaginary?
4) I’m an anarchist — “potential electoral viability” is of no concern to me whatsoever.
Regards,
Tom
No human being is illegal.
Yes, it’s much better to explain why and how he sucks.
🙂
They may certainly be hypocritical on the issue, but the overwhelming majority of them are pro-life and otherwise in line with the social views of the Catholic church.
1) So by this logic, we should support taking away the voting rights of anyone who is not “white”? How far does this analysis extend…gender, sexual orientation, age, annual income, religion…how many people can we disenfranchise to game the election?
2) Electoral support for libertarianism is tiny, so saying that it is overwhelmingly white is hardly an argument for violating people’s rights (which is what I believe migration restrictions to be),
and I don’t consider Republicans to be better than Democrats, so saying that Hispanics prefer Democrats is not an argument at all.
3) Given the relative positions of Democrats and Republicans on migration rights, it’s hardly surprising that Hispanics vote for Democrats.
4) I think we could easily have a far larger percentage of Latino libertarians if we made an honest effort.
“Screwing whitey”? LOL. You seriously believe I think like that?
“if the reactionary whites took a deep breath, they would realize that most “illegal immigrants” from Central and Latin American share a great many similar social conservative views that the white reactionaries also adhere to.”
Deran, this is not true. Measures of social pathology such as out of wedlock births, abortion, crime, etc. are higher among “Hispanic” immigrants than they are among native whites. The idea that new Hispanic immigrants constitute a community that could potentially be mined by conservatives for votes based on sympathy with social conservatism is nonsense. New Hispanic immigrants vote OVERWHELMINGLY for Democrats. Don’t be fooled by reports that 2/3 vote Democrat or whatever. That includes Hispanic families who have resided here for many generations. What is important is how new immigrants vote. This is why immigration is an existential issue for conservatives. All other issues rise and fall upon it. If current trends are not halted, then we can kiss limited taxes, limited government, protecting babies, etc. good-bye.
Democrats/liberals intuitively understand this which is why they favor amnesty and mass immigration and openly dance on the demographic grave of whites. If you don’t like the way cranky white people in flyover country vote, then just import a new voting base is the strategy. What baffles me is that people like paulie and Philies and Knapp don’t get this. The constituency for limited government (whether conservative, left-libertarian or right libertarian) is almost entirely white. This is demonstrably true whether we like it or not. So the immigration they support spells the end of their potential electoral viability. Good luck marketing libertarianism to poor Mestizos who block vote their ethnic self interests every time. People like paulie who support open immigration think they are screwing whitey, but in the end they will also be screwing themselves.
Tancredo’s right — time is running out.
Not so fast that there’s anything to panic about, though.
“Tancredo you suck!”
Wow Lucas, that was a real intelligent contribution to the debate.
sry for the crappy spelling. I’m mostly blind, and my sound card is dead, thus no VoiceOver.
tancredol is the electoral face of the neo-crypto-fascism that is leadiong the US into pogroms and lynchings.
I say this because here in Seattle, in the wake of the Restore Honor Beck rally we’ve had two attacks on Sikhs because the dumba** white guys are too stupid to descern a Sikh from a Muslim (Muslim don’t wear turbans dumba**es.)
I am always discomboluted because if the reactionary whites took a deep breath, they would realize that most “illegal immigrants” from Central and Latin American share a great many similar social conservative views that the white reactionaries also adhere to. And not to mention the social conservatism of many Muslims.
And all this is why there is more talk abt secession in the Oregon Country/Cascadia.
Go Tom Tancredo! The only conservative in the race. He’s against sanctuary cities and is not an embezzler like the GOP candidate Dan Maes who is a phony. I say Tancredo is the next Governor of Colorado and I’m an Independent. How many more Coloradans have to die because of catch and release illegal alien policy by the Mayor? No thanks. Maes is for amnesty, no thanks. Tancredo will get rid of the illegals. YES!
As much as I am personally in agreement with you, I am sooooooooo distracted by
[a] Your on again and off again campaign style ………
[b] Ross Perot any one —– are you addicted to failure?
[c] Flirting with corrupt cows like Nightmare Nightingale ………
[d[ consorting with wackos like Don Grundmann and Bill Lussenheide (don’t take my word for it —— check em out!)
[e] hints of corruption, hints of corruption
[f] and you personally, Bay Buchanan the 2000 poster girl for Mega Corruption, oh come on!
Tancredo you suck!