Last week, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) reiterated his call for bombing Muslim holy sites as a "deterrent" against terrorist strikes on the U.S. homeland. "If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," he said in Iowa.

"This shows that we mean business," said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. "There's no more effective deterrent than that."

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg responded, "That's nuts, of course, not only contrary to every cherished American ideal, but counterproductive, as the prospect of the United States bombing Islamic holy cities would inspire, rather than deter, terrorists." Fortunately, many leading conservatives have distanced themselves from Tancredo's dangerous logic:

Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson: "I sincerely believe that bombing religious artifacts and religious holy sites would do nothing but unify one billion Muslims against us. It makes no sense."

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: "Historically, we've tried to avoid doing what the Nazis did, and that's bombing every kind of possible target. We've had this attitude (that) we don't do these things. There are some things that are off limits."

Rep. Duncan Hunter: "I wouldn't follow that."

State Department Spokesman Tom Casey: Tancredo's comments are "reprehensible" and "absolutely crazy."

State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack: "The remarks are simply outrageous. ... [I]t's important for people abroad, who may not necessarily pay attention to the details and just hear a headline with that in it, that the official position of the United States Government is that those remarks are just outrageous."

Tancredo's comments have created international concern. Pakistani National Assembly Speaker Chaudhary Amir Hussain said the assembly will "unanimously adopt a resolution against this mischievous statement."

For his part, Tancredo is refusing to back down. At last weekend's debate, he responded, "Boy, when [the State Department] starts complaining about things I say, 'I feel a lot better about the things I say,' I'll tell you right now."

You can email Tancredo's official blogger by clicking here. Let him know you want to see Tancredo retract his remarks.

UPDATE: The New York Times blog labels Tancredo's ludicrous bombing plan a "tough stance."

Originally by Faiz from Think Progress on August 6, 2007, 6:50pm


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • So, according to all these other so-called conservatives, it is fine to kill people but not level sites. The lives of people are less important than sites labeled "holy."

      What do these sites symbolize? They stand for the teachings of Mohammed. Mohammed taught war. He taught total destruction if under his creed, the opposition would not submit to his god/ego.

      Mohammed's god is not the God of Jesus Christ. Mohammed stood against the teachings and life example of Jesus Christ.

      Tom Tancredo is Mohammed's standard turned against Mohammed's followers. Tancredo is just the voice of punishment. He's also just more open about it than are his fellow false-conservative critics.