Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo managed to tie two of the biggest issues of the week together on Tuesday when he railed against efforts to take down Confederate flags, saying that the Koran is an even more dangerous symbol, and then claimed that thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent marriage equality decision, such comments will soon be illegal.
When Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg asked Tancredo to discuss a Facebook post he recently wrote comparing the Confederate flag to the Koran, Tancredo responded that efforts to “erase” the flag are misguided.
“However,” he continued, “there is something else out there, our president really happens to enjoy it, we teach about it in the public schools, we tell people, kids in the public schools to respect it. It’s called the Koran and it’s responsible for far more, far more murders, enslavement, the most horrible things, and it’s still going on. It’s not history, it’s still happening. And that, we don’t ban it, heavens no, we even tell kids we gotta read it in our schools and respect it.”
Malzberg then changed the subject, asking Tancredo about the Supreme Court’s marriage decision, which Tancredo said was connected. Not only will the decision eventually lead to the criminal prosecution of pastors, he claimed, but soon “everything I just said” about the Confederate flag and the Koran will be “outlawed” due to the institution of unconstitutional hate speech prohibitions.
“Mark my words, that’s what’s coming,” he said. “Dark days ahead, Steve.”
In WorldNetDaily this weekend, former Rep. Tom Tancredo wondered if President Obama will soon launch a military strike against Israel in order to help Iran.
Citing a fabricated quote from Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope,” the former Colorado Republican congressman wrote that the president may bring about “a U.S. military attack on Israel” to stop the country from “attack[ing] Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
He added that by refusing to impeach Obama, Republicans in Congress are giving Obama an opportunity to launch such an attack.
Would anyone be surprised to see this headline in the spring or summer of 2016: “Obama orders U.S. military attack on Israel / blocks Israeli strike at Iran / Iran grateful“?
Like it or not, there is an increasing likelihood we will see that kind of headline before Obama leaves office.
Why should we worry about that? Does water flow downhill?
Obama, by contrast, believes “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Moreover, in his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Well, forgive me, but nuclear missiles pointed at the United States and Tel Aviv from the foremost terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world might be construed by many as “an ugly direction.”
Who or what would stop Obama from attacking Israel? A Republicans [sic] Party that is already throwing in the towel on the Iran nuclear agreement? Republican leaders who will not even utter the word “impeachment” no matter how unconstitutional Obama’s actions? Republican presidential candidates who can’t even make a strong case for secure borders?
There is good reason why Obama does not fear the Republican-controlled Congress. Why should he? Does the snake fear the mouse?
So, it is entirely likely and predictable that if Israel decides it has no choice but to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before Iran can produce nuclear weapons, Obama would likely act to block that military intervention by whatever means necessary, including a U.S. military attack on Israel. Why would he not do it? Who would stop him?
In the interview, Tancredo reiterated the accusation before alluding to accusations that the president is secretly Muslim and asserting that the president finds Christianity and Western Civilization “disdainful.”
“Listen, this president, no matter how he tries to portray himself in terms of his religious proclivities — because he’s never been baptized, to anybody’s knowledge, in a Christian church — we do know, of course, of his past participation in Islamic religion in terms of schooling and that sort of — so, the reality is he is not a Christian,” he said. “I don’t think he cares one twit about what Christians say. And I think, this is my belief, that he is antagonistic to Christianity because it is part of Western Civilization, and that is what he also finds disdainful.”
"What an honor!" former Rep. Michele Bachmann declared upon learning that she had been named WND's "2014 Lawmaker of the Year."
A federal judge has struck down South Dakota's ban on gay marriage.
Tom Tancredo declares that "we must stop all immigration of Muslims into the United States – yes, ALL Muslims – and then deport those already here who adhere to Shariah law."
J. Christian Adams has a simple solution for stopping terrorism: "People who are engaged in the business of Islamic terror should spend the rest of their lives behind bars, period."
Finally, there is no small irony in the fact that Glenn Beck is heaping praise upon "Selma" considering that had Beck been active during that time period, he probably would have spent every show screaming about how Martin Luther King Jr. was the most dangerous man in American history.
Former congressman Tom Tancredo wants Republicans in Congress “to immediately file articles of impeachment against the president” if he uses executive action to block the deportation of some undocumented immigrants.
“If Republicans capture the majority in the U.S. Senate as now appears almost certain,” Tancredo explains in his weekend WorldNetDaily column, the GOP congressional leadership should gather the “courage to follow the Constitution and impeach the man.”
With President Obama determined to declare an executive amnesty program for 5 to 10 million illegal aliens soon after next week’s midterm elections, citizens across the nation are wondering what the Republican Party plans to do to stop it.
The well-understood way to block the president from implementing his giant amnesty plan, an unconstitutional action that he has arrogantly advertised in advance, is to impeach the president.
There could be intermediary steps attempted, such as blocking funding needed to implement the amnesty and filing lawsuits challenging the legality of the plan. Those steps should be undertaken, but they might be circumvented. The only certain way to halt the massive amnesty is to immediately file articles of impeachment against the president.
There have always been two main arguments against impeachment even among those who support it in principle – first, that it is not practical because it would never succeed in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, and secondly that, well, you just can’t impeach the first black president no matter what he has done. But given the likely new political circumstances post-Nov. 4, both of those arguments have lost their power.
If Republicans capture the majority in the U.S. Senate as now appears almost certain, the 2015 Congress is a new ballgame. If the House were to bring impeachment charges based on not only the amnesty but several other unconstitutional actions, do Democratic senators want to run for re-election in 2016 on a platform that starts with apologizing for Obama’s unconstitutional behavior?
Here’s the key question: Is Obama so popular now that Democrats in 2015 and 2016 will fall on their swords to defend him? Do Senate Democrats want a vote against impeachment to be the defining issue in their 2016 campaigns, while also defending the influx of millions of additional illegal aliens across our unguarded borders?
The Obama presidency is self-destructing. All that is needed to neutralize his planned amnesty and other unconstitutional actions is Republican courage to follow the Constitution and impeach the man. Anything less will simply pave the way for more of the same – not only on immigration, but on energy, welfare, voting rights and other issues.
Tom Tancredo spoke to Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association today about why he supports impeaching President Obama, telling the “Today’s Issues” host that impeachment is the only process to remove Obama “short of armed rebellion that everybody constantly — you know, a lot of people, I guess I should say, think to themselves is either coming or a potential — and God knows that’s not something we want to see.”
The former congressman said the president’s actions are “so egregious and so dangerous to the Republic that unless we do something like impeachment, which is certainly deserved, that we will essentially have lost this thing no matter what happens in the next election.”
Former congressman Tom Tancredo once again called on House Republicans to vote to impeach President Obama, writing this weekend in WorldNetDaily that the GOP should “call the White House’s bluff and proceed with impeachment.”
He warns that if Republicans are “afraid to challenge presumptuous dictatorial behavior,” then “the war is already lost and we should all stock our ammunition shelves and join a militia.”
Sometimes the arrogance of the Obama White House offers a gift that is really a Trojan Horse. But sometimes, the Obama hubris presents us a piñata full of unexpected treats. Which is it this time with the impeachment question?
Obama is daring the nation to impeach him. Is this a Trojan Horse or a piñata?
The only political question to be answered is not whether Obama will do it but how Republicans will respond. Even many in the Democratic establishment are admitting that general amnesty by edict is unconstitutional and, as such, is an impeachable offense. The Republican establishment – and the conservative establishment as well – is virtually unanimous in saying, yes, it is an impeachable offense, but it is a trap, so we must not talk about impeachment.
That argument is tantamount to saying that even if Obama burned the American flag on the White House lawn, we must look the other way and pretend it is a summer picnic because the Democratic base might get offended.
What is being recommended in the name of smart politics by the Charles Krauthammers and Karl Roves of the world is a gag order on impeachment talk in the face of blatant impeachable behavior. According to this line of thinking, talking about impeachment now is stupid politically, but we can talk about it later after we win a U.S. Senate majority in November. Anyone who believes that line will shell out big bucks for a resort honeymoon on Mars in a heartbeat.
We are no longer debating what is an impeachable offense; we are being asked to look away and pretend the Constitution is not being shredded. Our answer must be: Sorry, but that is not something allowed by the genetic code of patriots.
The truth is impeachment will NEVER be the safest course or the smartest course for the political establishment, but it is the necessary course for the survival of the U.S. Constitution even if ultimately rejected by the U.S. Senate after a fair trial. We must make the case for impeachment to demonstrate that no man is above the law, not even the first black president. If we do not make that case, we are betraying the Constitution and degrading our children’s inheritance.
If we go down the road of “not now but maybe later” when Obama is arrogantly daring us by openly engaging in clearly unconstitutional acts, when will it ever by “smart politics” to threaten impeachment against unconstitutional acts by any future president? Impeachment will always be “off the table.”
There is an additional reason we must call Obama’s bluff on impeachment. The time is now, not later, to accept the challenge presented by the threat to “energize the Democratic base.” Are we really that afraid that the Democrat base can be rallied in support of blatantly unconstitutional acts but that the Republican base cannot be motivated and energized to respond in kind? Are we really that afraid to challenge presumptuous dictatorial behavior? If so, then the war is already lost and we should all stock our ammunition shelves and join a militia.
Nearly two years into President Obama’s second term, a do-nothing Republican Congress is focusing on its next project: the 2014 midterm elections. But that effort might be complicated by increasing pressure from the party’s base to turn Congress’ energy to impeaching President Obama. The impeachment call, which has existed on the right-wing fringe since the start of Obama’s presidency, has picked up steam in recent weeks as it has been endorsed by right-wing media figures, activists and elected officials.
This has put Republican congressional leaders in a tricky spot as they attempt to placate their base without alienating moderate voters. When House Majority Whip Steve Scalise appeared on Fox News Sunday this week, he continually dodged the question. Ted Cruz similarly batted away a question about impeachment, calling it politically unfeasible. Right-wing leaders including Pat Buchanan and Tom DeLay have urged caution in the impeachment campaign, although DeLay said he would personally “love to impeach him.” Likewise, Karl Rove has warned that when it comes to impeachment, “the politics of it are all wrong.”
But it might be too late for Republicans to backtrack on a steady buildup of rhetoric questioning the president’s legitimacy, love of country, and authority to govern, which has led to increasing calls for impeachment from right-wing lawmakers, activists and media personalities... although nobody can quite agree on what the impeachment should be for.
In a radio interview last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that she believed the president has "committed impeachable offenses” but that first “the American people have to agree with and be behind and call for the president’s impeachment.”
This month, Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania said that there are “probably” the votes in the House to impeach the president for “absolutely ignoring the Constitution, and ignoring the laws, and ignoring the checks and balances.”
As we’re dealing with the refugee crisis on the southern border, right-wing elected officials have amped up their inappropriate, inflammatory rhetoric to dehumanize immigrants and attack immigration reform:
Rep. Louie Gohmert claims children being held are a problem because “we don’t even know what all diseases they have” and added that our healthcare system “can’t withstand the influx,” which, he believes was orchestrated by President Obama to recruit millions of people to cast fraudulent ballots for Democrats.
Sen. David Vitter has “had it with undocumented immigrants,” and tweeted on Friday that “enough is enough.” To deal with the crisis, he introduced a bill that would “require mandatory detention for anyone” that is in the U.S. illegally, in order to get “illegal aliens on the next plane home.” (Mother Jones calculated that this effort would require more than 64,000 planes to actually work.)
Rep. Tom Tancredo shared a similar plan when he said that President Obama should “sign an executive order saying all these people ought to be returned. Put them on buses or planes, send them back to the countries from which they came and have the governments there take care of it.”
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, claimed that these unaccompanied minors from Central America are probably “gangbangers” and questioned why they are being sent to this county in the first place.
Of course, elected extremists aren’t the only ones making outrageous statements:
The Minuteman Project’s Jim Gilchrist said this crisis is “part of a concerted effort to transfer populations of Central America and Mexico into the United States using minor children, illegal immigrants under the age of 18, as human shields… to detour our ability to enforce our immigration laws.”
The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios suggested the child refugees should be quarantined like lepers used to be, harking back to “biblical times” when the “lepers were separated” because it was “understood that leprosy was so contagious.” Rios' fretted that these children are transported in the “same planes that you and I fly in… How do we know about lice and disease before they get on public transportation?”
Jody Hice, running to replace Georgia Rep. Paul Broun in the U.S. House, suggested that people take up arms in response to “a government that refuses to secure our borders” because “that is the reason we have a Second Amendment.”
The Right Wing's inflammatory rhetoric distorts the reality of the crisis, causing more conflict and damage.
Former Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, said Wednesday that the crisis of Central American refugees at the southern border is “all part of a plan” by President Obama to “fundamentally transform America.”
Speaking with Newsmax host Steve Malzberg, Tancredo said that the president should simply ignore the Bush-era child-trafficking law that is complicating attempts to deal with child refugees.
But, citing a quote from the president that is frequently distorted and taken out of context by the Right, Tancredo said that Obama will keep all of the immigrants in the country as part of his plan to “fundamentally transform America.”
“This is all part of a plan,” he said. “And you know how this sounds, I know how people immediately go, ‘Oh, there’s a conspiracy theorist out there.’ Now, look. It’s not a conspiracy if he tells the world what he wants. If Obama says on numerous occasions, ‘I intend to fundamentally transform’ and then he begins doing it, it’s not a conspiracy. This is absolutely part of that."
Tom Tancredo, the former Colorado congressman and current GOP candidate for governor, told a local Republican group last month that President Obama has become a “dictator-in-chief” and is “the most dangerous thing — he’s more dangerous than any other threat we face as a nation.”
“Barack Obama, I believe, is dedicated to destroying the America that I love,” he said, according to the Colorado Statesman. “He should have been impeached many times.”
Tancredo also hailed Cliven Bundy in the speech and said that if he was governor, he would side with anti-government activists.
If former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo wins the governorship, he intends to put Colorado at the center of a debate over sovereignty of states in the face of “over-reaching federal power,” the Republican candidate said this week.
“We are going to have to establish the whole idea of state’s rights, of the 10th Amendment,” Tancredo said at a meeting of the Jefferson County Republican Men’s Club on Monday in Wheat Ridge. “The fight is going to have to start somewhere. Let it be here, I firmly believe, because I am willing to do it. Not only willing, I am looking forward to it.”
The standoff in Nevada between the Bureau of Land Management and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy — the feds charge he owes years of unpaid grazing fees — is “a flashpoint” in the debate over state sovereignty, Tancredo said.
Although many of Bundy’s supporters distanced themselves from the rancher after his remarks about “the Negro” and slavery became public, Tancredo said the dispute raises important questions for governors about the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states unless specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
If the feds try something similar in Colorado when he’s governor, Tancredo continued, “We will have one hell of a battle about that and I will use every single lever at my disposal to stop that.”
“We have a guy in the White House that I believe, and have seen it on many occasions, is the most dangerous thing — he’s more dangerous than any other threat we face as a nation,” Tancredo said. “Barack Obama, I believe, is dedicated to destroying the America that I love.”
Contending that Obama has “methodically shredded the Constitution,” Tancredo continued, “He should have been impeached. He should have been impeached many times.”
“If you don’t do something about it, it’s a horrible precedent for the next dictator-in-chief,” Tancredo said.
Cliven Bundy, the lawless Nevada rancher whom conservatives touted as a champion of freedom akin to RosaParks and Martin Luther King Jr., said at a press conference attended by the New York Times yesterday that slavery helped the “Negro” people feel free by learning “how to pick cotton” and stop going to jail, collecting welfare and having abortions.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
As it is often the case, Fox News tookthelead in creating the new GOP rock star by fetishizing the Bundy armed standoff as a triumph of ordinary patriots who, in the mode of the Founding Fathers, stood up to evil Big Government…seeming to forget the Founders also played a role in quashing Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. Fox commentators like Sean Hannity and Todd Starnes touted Bundy even as the rancher’s group was making violent threats against the government.
Fox also took the lead in hailing Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson after he claimed that black people were well treated and “happy” during the Jim Crow era and that problems in the black community are only a result of government welfare.
No one should be surprised that a violent, militia-aligned, anti-government extremist turned out to be a racist nostalgic for slavery, and neither should anyone be surprised that Republicans jumped on his cause.
Now that Republicans and Fox News commentators may move to distance themselves from Bundy, it will serve as a reminder for the next time the GOP decides to get in bed with an anti-Obama extremist for freedom’s sake.
In a column today for WorldNetDaily, Colorado gubernatorial candidate and former congressman Tom Tancredo lauded the House GOP for refusing to put immigration reform up for a vote, arguing that Republican intransigence on immigration will have no impact with Latino voters.
"Republicans do indeed need to improve and expand their outreach efforts in Hispanic communities, and they can do so without the baggage of the amnesty debate," Tancredo said.
It was only a year ago that the Republican establishment was enthralled by the so-called bi-partisan “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill, which grants legal status to 15 million illegal aliens and sets them on a path to eventual citizenship. That scenario ended in Sen. Rubio’s repudiation of the deal, followed by backroom congressional maneuvers to plan amnesty by stealth in 2014.
Well, amnesty by stealth is also on the rocks, despite Zuckerberg’s millions, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce drumbeat, an avalanche of insulting lectures from the chairman of the Republican National Committee, a continuous stream of propaganda in the mainstream media and stacked pro-amnesty panels at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference.
Throughout 2013 and into 2014, the Beltway plutocracy had its run of the field in demanding “immediate action” on amnesty. But that game is over. Suddenly, common sense is breaking through the fog of self-delusion that has led the Republican establishment down so many blind alleys.
And what about Hispanic voters? The Gallup poll shows the same pattern as most previous polls going back to 2008. Hispanic voters rank immigration behind jobs, health care and education, which explains why they are increasingly dismayed by Obama’s performance as president.
What does all this mean for 2014 and 2016 elections? It means the Republican establishment should wake up and smell the coffee.
If Republican leaders and Republican candidates will start talking to Hispanic citizens as Americans who have the same hopes and dreams and fears as other citizens, they can and will win increased Hispanic support. Republicans do indeed need to improve and expand their outreach efforts in Hispanic communities, and they can do so without the baggage of the amnesty debate.
Former Colorado congressman and Republicans gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo says he has found a “winning issue” for the GOP in the 2014 midterm elections: impeaching President Obama.
Writing in the far-right outlet WorldNetDaily, Tancredo claims that President Obama is “addicted to dictatorial behavior” and should face impeachment over his handling of Obamacare, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive order and Egypt’s political crisis, along with the phony IRS and Benghazi scandals.
Tancredo also likens the U.S under Obama to Nazi Germany: “How often do we hear from the left that Americans must not be ‘good Germans’ and remain silent in the face of oppressive laws? What about obedience to dictatorial edicts?”
The case for impeaching and removing President Obama grows stronger each week, as the president continues to violate the constitutional limits on his executive powers. His latest move in delaying the enforcement of yet another part of Obamacare should be article 20 in a bill of indictable offenses against the Constitution.
Citizens of all persuasions and parties should take encouragement in the fact that impeachment is fast becoming a respectable topic of debate even in the mainstream media. Of course, it is usually discussed with the disclaimer that it is a practical impossibility with Democrats in control of the Senate.
That Beltway conventional wisdom will soon change as Republican control of the Senate in 2015 becomes increasingly likely. But what Republicans do not yet understand is that the call for impeachment can be a winning issue in gaining control of the Senate in the November elections.
The rising tide of public opposition to Obamacare may soon be reinforced by a rising tide of demand for Obama’s removal before he can do any more damage to our liberties and our national security. In fact, the steady decline in Obama’s approval rating – now at about 39 percent – is due as much to the growing public awareness of his arrogant disregard for the Constitution as it is to disillusionment with Obamacare.
His actions in defiance of constitutional limits have become so numerous and brazen that chronicling them has become a cottage industry. The use of executive orders to circumvent Congress can no longer be called an occasional breach of faith. His abuse of power has become so frequent and brazen that it is becoming recognized as the trademark of his presidency. And that is why it must not be tolerated. How often do we hear from the left that Americans must not be “good Germans” and remain silent in the face of oppressive laws? What about obedience to dictatorial edicts?
Allowing such unconstitutional acts to be accepted as routine, as “just part of the Obama landscape,” is tantamount to accepting the inevitability of dictatorship in America. Citizens must oppose those actions vigorously and persistently, and that begins with a call for impeachment.
What makes the “Deferred Action” program so brazen an act outside his constitutional powers is that Congress had in December of 2011 voted to reject the so-called “Dream Act.” Thus, in this case, Obama did not act in the absence of congressional action, he acted in defiance of congressional action. Obama simply declared it the law of the land by unilateral, administrative decree. Contrary to media reports, he did not sign an executive order; he merely ordered it done by a junior appointee in the Department of Homeland Security.
It is time for the Republican leadership to conduct an “intervention” for a president who has become addicted to dictatorial behavior. Let’s stop being the enablers through silence for unconstitutional acts.
“Obama does remind me of Winnie Mandela, the scandalous, self-serving, demagogic second wife whom Nelson Mandela divorced because she was such an embarrassment,” Tancredo adds. “We can only wish that America could divorce Obama as easily as Mandela divorced his agitator-wife, but Obama’s crimes are more insidious and his support network more forgiving than Winnie Mandela’s.”
Curiously, Tancredo’s column hailing Mandela as South Africa’s George Washington ran in WorldNetDaily, whose editor Joseph Farah explicitly condemned Obama for likening Mandela to George Washington.
This week the world lost a rare, genuine hero of national reconciliation and racial progress, Nelson Mandela. A leader of Mandela’s character, courage and nobility comes along maybe once in a century; the 21st century has yet to see one.
Comparisons of Mandela and Obama are probably inevitable, especially when promoted by our reigning narcissist, Obama himself.
Yes, Barack Obama can be compared to Nelson Mandela – the same way a midget is compared to a giant, a zircon to a diamond, or a street-corner hustler to an astronaut. No matter how hard the mainstream media try to paint a different picture, Obama will forever remain a little speck lost in Mandela’s long shadow.
On the other hand, in one way Obama does remind me of Mandela, but not the Mandela whose legacy will be celebrated universally. Obama does remind me of Winnie Mandela, the scandalous, self-serving, demagogic second wife whom Nelson Mandela divorced because she was such an embarrassment.
We can only wish that America could divorce Obama as easily as Mandela divorced his agitator-wife, but Obama’s crimes are more insidious and his support network more forgiving than Winnie Mandela’s. She and her bodyguards were convicted of kidnapping and assault, and her tenure in the South African Parliament was marked by controversy and arrests for financial manipulations.
Mandela was not corrupted by the trappings of power, by the love of popular adulation or the lure of riches. His nation needed a George Washington, not an Adolf Hitler, and he filled the role beautifully. Mandela served only one five-year term as president of South Africa before turning over leadership to a new generation.
The United States’ constitutional traditions used to provide a model for emerging nations to follow in contrast to dictatorships and military dynasties. As Barack Obama heads off to Nelson Mandela’s funeral, we can only hope South Africa’s leaders look to America’s past achievements for guidance and inspiration, and not our present condition as a nation spiraling downward into the despotism our ancestors fought so nobly to avoid.
Former Congressman and current candidate for governor in Colorado, Tom Tancredo, was the guest on Rick Wiles' End Times radio broadcast yesterday where the two men engaged in a long and convoluted discussion about everything that was wrong with the nation and the world, including immigration reform, terrorism, and even the rise of gay rights.
In the end, both Wiles and Tancredo agreed that the only real solution is for this nation to turn back to God in order to free us from the trap created by Satan:
Tancredo: If this nation returned to God, if some crisis did occur that caused people to turn to God and not to government, we've got a chance under that scenario.
Wiles: That's really where it's coming down to, isn't it?
Tancredo: Yes it is. Yes it is.
Wiles: We're going into a situation that the people are going to have to chose who is their god.
Tancredo: Yes, God or Government. Boy, no kidding!
Wiles: That's really what it's coming down to.
Tancredo: Yeah, what's the big "G" in your life?
Wiles: Whatever you want to call this group of this secret government, whoever is running, with the power, what they've said to the American people ... It's really, at the core of it, it's Satan. I mean, He's working through his people on earth just as God works through people.
But literally what has been said to the American people is we will allow you to enjoy your sins - in fact, we will legalize your sins, we'll protect your sins, we'll encourage you to sin. In return, you give us your freedom.
Wiles: And now, the American people are caught in a trap.