Archive for Saturday, May 7, 2011

Republicans must not forget Congress in 2012 elections

May 7, 2011


Regardless of the national debt, the price of gasoline, unemployment numbers, illegal immigration, the economy and other negative situations, President Obama will be a tough incumbent to defeat in the upcoming 2012 presidential election.

This week’s daring and successful raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideaway will certainly give the president a boost in public popularity numbers, although this groundswell of favorable thoughts about the president probably will be temporary and fade from the public’s mind before November 2012. Nevertheless, Obama promoters will work hard to keep it in the forefront in his presidential campaign.

Some Republican strategists have suggested Obama will be easier to defeat in the 2012 election than he was in 2008.

This writer believes he will be just as tough, or tougher. His handlers, and the president himself, could be likened to extremely tough, skilled and experienced street fighters, using every possible trick to nail down another four years in the White House.

His campaign leading up to his 2008 victory should offer ample proof of the challenges faced by his GOP challenger. Various senior political observers were quick to give the Obama team high marks for planning and executing an almost perfect campaign.

It’s likely, rather it’s “guaranteed,” Obama will have a record-breaking war chest to fund his campaign. Various reports indicate he raised close to $800 million in his first bid for the presidency, and he and party leaders hope to top the $1 billion mark before November 2012. This will dwarf whatever the GOP is able to raise.

Likewise, he will have the services of record numbers of volunteers who will commit substantial time and effort to campaign and bring out the voters to support the Obama candidacy.

He did this in his first campaign, and the 2012 effort will be even more sophisticated. Thousands of these volunteers did far more than just put up yard signs and knock on doors. They committed weeks to go wherever they were needed throughout the country.

The names of these volunteers were added to vast computer information banks, so they can be retrieved and returned to active duty in the upcoming months. Likewise, the names, addresses and other pertinent information of all financial contributors were stored away, and these individuals are sure to be solicited again in the coming months.

An added plus for Obama is what he has accomplished in his two-plus years as president in using federal assistance programs to ingratiate himself to millions of Americans. He and his aides will claim that if Obama is not re-elected millions of dollars in federal assistance will be reduced or eliminated. That’s a strong and powerful argument.

As several top Demo strategists noted prior to the 2008 campaign, fear is the most powerful campaign tactic. Another plus is the massive support he will be receiving from organized labor.

Potential Republican candidates surely are aware of the odds stacked against them in their efforts to defeat incumbent Obama, even if the national debt situation worsens, there are new troubles in Iraq, North Africa, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan or other trouble spots, or if unemployment numbers should remain high or even grow to greater numbers.

This being the situation, it seems the best plan for Republicans would be to select their best and strongest candidate to take on Obama, but at the same time give the U.S. Senate and House races equal priority.

There is ample evidence of how Obama wants to change this country. He said as much in his first presidential campaign when he told supporters they were only days away from being able to bring about a fundamental change in this country. He has followed through on this pledge in many ways and if he should be re-elected, there’s no limit to what he may try to do to this country.

The only way to stunt or stop these radical changes is if the GOP can maintain and/or strengthen its majority in the U.S. House and win enough seats in the Senate races to control that legislative body.

Otherwise Obama would be free to impose his welfare, socialistic blueprint on America.

As election time draws nearer, Obama is sure to try to present himself as moving from his far Left political philosophy to a more moderate or central position, but such actions will be purely to better his re-election chances.

The best advice for those watching the Obama campaign is to not pay attention to what he says, but what he has done. For example, his pledges for transparency in government actions and ample time for lawmakers to examine proposed legislation and how this compares to what actually happened with the Obama medical care plan and other executive actions.

It’s likely to be a very mean, tough presidential campaign with Obama forces pulling out all stops. That’s why the House and Senate elections will be so critical.


whitehouse_photoshopper 7 years, 1 month ago

Why is it so important to so many to keep a black guy in the white house?

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

Actually, for many it is more important to keep war profiteering, economy destroying, monopolistic right wing corporate bagmen and their simple minded religious kook enablers away from the controls long enough to allow us to recover somewhat from the horrendous effects of their last stretch of power.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

Agreed. The right winger's, however, are worse.

Corey Williams 7 years, 1 month ago

Wow. That post will be the standard to which every post of yours will now be measured against.

Corey Williams 7 years, 1 month ago

You get life and room and board for 18 years, how much more do you need? Why not be an adult and make it on your own?

I make and hold my own standards. Everyone else can do the same.

Corey Williams 7 years, 1 month ago

Yes indeed. Just don't take it so harshly when those of us that do strive to maintain their independence from mommy and daddy make fun of you.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 1 month ago

White or black doesn't matter. The mans name is Barrack Obama.

The Republican Party is dead as anyone once knew it.

The neoconservative Christian Fundamentalists took over the republican party which began about 1980. That effectively eliminates the republican party as most knew it. The republican party as we once knew it is dead. There is nothing fiscal conservative about this Neoconservative Christian Fundamentalists party.

The repub party is so far gone that my father in law switched parties after a lifetime as a fiscal conservative/Socially Responsible republican. He sees no hope.

The Neoconservative Christian Fundamentalists systematically eliminated republicans who were "not christian enough" or who refused to be sheep to the point where neoconservative Christian Fundamentalists own the name Republican Party. Yes america has been duped. Jerry Falwell died proud of that accomplishment.

Gov. Sam Browmback is a neoconservative Christian Fundamentalist. I believe a good portion of the Kansas legislators have subscribed to this radical thinking.

These folks are definitely against women's rights no question about it.

Among other things they are all too willing to privatize just about everything to corporate america and give OUR tax dollars to the many corporations who do not pay taxes yet scream all day long about how evil tax dollars are.

overthemoon 7 years, 1 month ago

I think you're over generalizing the involvement of the Christian Right. It was as much of a GOP annexation of the Fundamentalists for their potential as an emotion driven unified voting block. The key component was the abortion issue which was fabricated and fanned into a bonfire by the likes of Francis Schaeffer and Billy Graham et. al. There was a mutual benefit to be had by the merging of the GOP and the Christian Fundamentalists. The corporate capitalists got a passionate group of voters who knew or cared little about economics and Fundamentalists saw their opportunity to build the theocracy they could never promote with any credibility on their own.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

One for the ages this weekend.

Have to give the old coot props for the sheer volume of vapid argument and self serving conclusions this time out. I especially enjoyed the citation of President Obama's popularity and ability to mobilize large numbers of volunteers as one of the scary pieces of evidence. Sensible people would look at the absolute dearth of public support for Sarah and any of the other 7 Dwarfs in the republican clown car and see it for what it is, but leave it to the scion of the Lawrence publishing monopoly to see things differently.

Suffice it to say, if Dolph's for it, I agin it. The President is a bit too right wing for my tastes, but Dolph's desperate campaign is causing me to rethink things.

notanota 7 years, 1 month ago

Seriously. Anyone calling Obama a super leftist has never been even slightly left leaning.

Olympics 7 years, 1 month ago

Well said....scott, verity, and notanota...the republican/right wingers' on-going description of Obama as a leftist/socialist or even a liberal is laughable.

Still waiting for any republican (and sadly, too many democrats) who relies on a fact-based/rational view of public policy.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 1 month ago

It's not black or white. It is the best person and party for the job.

Obama LOOKS Real Good! Ralph Nader would be the best.

Obama Looks Real Good after 20 years of Reagan Wreckanomics and no jobs:

WE must all think about what republicans have left behind for democratic administrations to clean up which BTW is no mean feat.... Multiple offenses have made it ... difficult for America to catch up.

  • Read and think about the magnitude of these events which have cost millions upon millions their jobs,retirement programs and medical insurance!

  • In fact it appears to be policy of republican administrations.

  • AND they are still trying to steal OUR Social Security Insurance dollars and give it to greedy Wall Street investors. That is simply unacceptable.

It's YOUR money! Cases in point to be considered and read completely:

  1. The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist(Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion)

  2. Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers

  3. Bush and Henry Paulson blew the $700 billion of bail out money?

  4. BUSHCO lied and took the nation into a multi trillion dollar new 10 year war = monster money hole and thousands of dead people!!

  5. Nixon's Watergate illegal spying on the democrat party

  6. Reagan/Bush secret arms deal aka Iran-Contra

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

"An added plus for Obama is what he has accomplished in his two-plus years as president in using federal assistance programs to ingratiate himself to millions of Americans."

Using the government to help millions, rather than just the super wealthy and multinational corporate elite!

Imagine the nerve!!

overthemoon 7 years, 1 month ago

Yep....imagine. It takes a lot of imagination for Dolph to come up with this broad and baseless assumptions!

mloburgio 7 years, 1 month ago

How Can America Create Wealth If Our Industrial Base Is Destroyed? 50,000 Manufacturing Jobs Have Been Lost Every Month Since 2001 Until the American people wake up and start demanding change from our politicians on these issues, 50,000 (or more) manufacturing jobs will continue to fly out the doors every single month and even more Americans will become dependent on government welfare.

Is that what you want?

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

Dolph doesn't care to understand and doesn't need to given the silver spoon and all.

But the people who read his opinions in the LJW will benefit from some of the cogent points offered in opposition to the propaganda of the ultra wealthy he offers.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

Can you even imagine the reaction of Dolph and his ilk if someone concerned with the well-being of the American middle class and willing to take aggressive actions on their behalf ever achieved the Presidency?

verity 7 years, 1 month ago

Not really, but I'd be willing to take the risk.

Seriously, she's the only person I see who has the _ (I don't think I can say that word here) to do the job. She doesn't mince words or pull punches.

overthemoon 7 years, 1 month ago

Crazy. You actually think that describes Obama? By no application of the facts can that be construed unless you just really want to believe it inspite of reality. LIke I said, crazy.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

Let's see. Complaints about the vast amounts of money in campaigns. I guess Mr. Simons is upset that most of it for Obama is from individual donations and not corporations.

Complaints about win-at-all-costs dirty politics. I guess Mr. Simons is fine with them, as long as they are used by the GOP (swift-boaters, anyone?).

Mr. Simons, your hypocritical double standards are transparent. Please stick to writing about KU.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

A lie uncontested becomes conventional wisdom.

Dolph may have the ability to write his editorials, but so long as these award winning forums remain, there will be those who set the record straight.

notanota 7 years, 1 month ago

Oh noez. The moderate in the White House might point out that his opposition wants to eliminate medicare as we know it.

overthemoon 7 years, 1 month ago

Hello? Even the guy that started the 'Socialist Wealth Re distributor' meme has come forward and said he really didn't mean for anyone to believe that crock of nonsense. It was a poke to get people riled up...two years ago. Time to calm down and come back to reality.

overthemoon 7 years, 1 month ago

You don't recall EVERY fox news talking head saying 'socialism' every third sentence for weeks or months there after. And the talk radio, and the blogs, and the GOP members of congress???? And all those who desperately want Obama to fail picked it right up like dogs grabbing nasty stuff in the grass.

overthemoon 7 years, 1 month ago

You don't recall EVERY fox news talking head saying 'socialism' every third sentence for weeks or months there after. And the talk radio, and the blogs, and the GOP members of congress???? And all those who desperately want Obama to fail picked it right up like dogs grabbing nasty stuff in the grass.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

"Otherwise Obama would be free to impose his welfare, socialistic blueprint on America."

These words are unbecoming a serious editorialist. Mr. Simons, you are resorting to name-calling. This is fringe tea party language.

It is akin to those on the left calling Bush "Hitler" or fascist, which I am sure you criticized.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

"Otherwise Obama would be free to impose his welfare, socialistic blueprint on America."

Well, I suppose you are correct. The military is the biggest socialist institution in the US. And Obama's military got bin Laden.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 1 month ago

Read the People's Budget,70

Read The Technical Analysis and Working Paper

The CPC proposal: • Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021 • Puts America back to work with a “Make it in America” jobs program • Protects the social safety net • Ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq • Is FAIR (Fixing America’s Inequality Responsibly)

What the proposal accomplishes: • Primary budget balance by 2014. • Budget surplus by 2021. • Reduces public debt as a share of GDP to 64.1% by 2021, down 16.5 percentage points from a baseline fully adjusted for both the doc fix and the AMT patch. • Reduces deficits by $5.6 trillion over 2012-21, relative to this adjusted baseline. • Outlays equal to 22.2% of GDP and revenue equal 22.3% of GDP by 2021.

Support for the People's Budget

Paul Krugman

Jeffrey Sachs

The Economist

The New Republic

The Washington Post

The Guardian

The Nation

Center for American Progress

Economic Policy Institute,70

notanota 7 years, 1 month ago

Huh."Guys, read it again. It wasn’t a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened."

notanota 7 years, 1 month ago

I even read it the first time. My context skills seem to be a bit better than yours.

Let me know when I should book my flight to Sweden for your acceptance ceremony. I'm sure you'll Google hard enough to get a Nobel prize of your own real soon.

Cait McKnelly 7 years, 1 month ago

It's Dolph. Consider the source. I'm more shocked he actually by lined the piece.

Keith 7 years, 1 month ago

Seriously, no one reads his Saturday column for anything other than amusement. If he hadn't been handed a newspaper to run, he'd just be another of those guys with anti-government bumper stickers plastered all over his Ford Econoline.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 1 month ago

Apr 22nd 2011, 13:48 by M.S.

MATT MILLER had a modest meltdown in the Washington Post on Wednesday over the fact that Republicans are refusing to raise the national debt ceiling even though their own budget raises the national debt by $6 trillion over the next decade, and no one in the national press corps seems to be pointing out the contradiction.

(Mr Miller says he considered making a column out of repeating the sentence "The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.") Bob Somerby (h/t Kevin Drum) says the explanation for the press's failure to call Republicans on this is right there in Mr Miller's own column:

He says there’s a “meme,” a hunk of “conventional wisdom,” driving the press corps’ conduct. Miller doesn’t explain just what this “meme” is, nor does he explain how it got “established” as conventional wisdom. But presumably, he is referring to the Standard Press Novel in which Republican budget cutters like Ryan are inevitably said to be “courageous,” “bold” and “honest”.

Is this right? Well, here's a test case. Mr Miller's column notes that "the Congressional Progressive Caucus plan wins the fiscal responsibility derby thus far; it reaches balance by 2021 largely through assorted tax hikes and defense cuts." Which is pretty interesting. Have you ever heard of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget plan? Neither had I. The caucus's co-chairs, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, released it on April 6th.

The budget savings come from defence cuts, including immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, which saves $1.6 trillion over the CBO baseline from 2012-2021. The tax hikes include restoring the estate tax, ending the Bush tax cuts, and adding new tax brackets for the extremely rich, running from 45% on income over a million a year to 49% on income over a billion a year.

Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly.

The Economist

Richard Heckler 7 years, 1 month ago

“others are using that out-of-context remark about the Fed “needing” to create a housing bubble.(…)

So did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea.”

Since Mr. Krugman insists on using his New York Times soapbox to distort the public record, we must, once again, look at his 2002 bubble quote (in two full paragraphs of context):

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ”double dip,” a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I’ve repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance.

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. (Emphasis added.)

Christian Science Monitor

Nowhere can I find that Krugman created the bubble dependent largely on fraud. Nowhere can I find that Krugman said loan people way more money than they can afford.

Where did that concept come from?

notanota 7 years, 1 month ago

"Guys, read it again. It wasn’t a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened."

And how many Nobel prizes for economics have you won, Liberty_One? Just curious.

overthemoon 7 years, 1 month ago

Facts are really interesting things. They don't really change no matter how many times they are stretched and twisted around to fit an illogical argument. Krugman did NOT call for a housing bubble.

notanota 7 years, 1 month ago

His copy and paste button is apparently stuck. Perhaps if he repeats the quote enough times, he'll manage to convince us to read something into it that isn't there.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

How's about some actual links, merrill? We might want to see what you didn't cherry-pick to copy/paste?

Richard Heckler 7 years, 1 month ago

What can we find?

Fraud certainly was very important in the housing bubble of recent years. With the principal problems out in the open and with the authorities not only ignoring those problems but contributing to their development, one might say that the situation with the housing bubble was worse than a Ponzi scheme. And Madoff bilked his marks out of only $50 billion, while trillions were lost in the housing bubble.

A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme: early participants can do well while later ones incur losses; it is based on false expectations; and it ultimately falls apart. But there need be no fraudulent operator at the center of a bubble. Also, while a Ponzi scheme depends on people giving their money to someone else to invest (e.g., Madoff), people made their own housing investments—though mortgage companies and banks made large fees for handling these investments.

Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments.

Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst. Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments.

Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

So, no, a bubble and a Ponzi scheme are not the same. But they have elements in common. Usually, however, the losers in a Ponzi scheme are simply the direct investors, the schemer’s marks. A bubble like the housing bubble can wreak havoc on all of us.

Dollars and Sense

Richard Heckler 7 years, 1 month ago

"Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programs for the poor and the elderly."

Darrell Lea 7 years, 1 month ago

Our writer today has given us the courtesy of condensing nineteen paragraphs of not-too-well constructed blather into one single sentence:

"Otherwise Obama would be free to impose his welfare, socialistic blueprint on America."

What a silly, silly goose you are, Mr. Simons. It is a shame that a man with your resources and educational opportunities can do no better than parrot silly, unfounded claims about our President and his supposedly oh-so-sinister intentions.

Grow up.

cowboy 7 years, 1 month ago

Dolph will have to pray that not only the electorate forgets the past decade of republican governance but especially the past 18 months of getting absolutely nothing done on their primary platform issue. Jobs

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

"An added plus for Obama is what he has accomplished in his two-plus years as president in using federal assistance programs to ingratiate himself to millions of Americans. He and his aides will claim that if Obama is not re-elected millions of dollars in federal assistance will be reduced or eliminated. That’s a strong and powerful argument."

So "millions of Americans" are thankful for the "millions of dollars in federal assistance." Wouldn't that just be a few dollars per person? Compare this to the billions and billions in tax cuts to the wealthy few pushed by the GOP. Millions to help millions, or billions to help a few thousand ... gee, which is better for America?

Of course, Dolph doesn't name these assistance programs, those nasty, nasty things like unemployment benefits. How dare the President try to help the unemployed! Of course, it doesn't matter who the GOP select as their candidate. Dolph certainly threw the weight of his newspaper behind supporting McCain / Palin last time, and he will do the same in support of any GOP candidate next time. Guaranteed.

However, he has a point. While I agree that the popularity of the president is likely a short term effect of killing Osama bin Laden, if Obama remains close to being as popular as he is now, then the GOP had better start planning on doing anything they can to just hold on to some of their seats in congress.

Finally, if you are writing under your name, just use "I," rather than "this writer." We know who is making this claim. "This writer" comes across as arrogant and pompous. Just use "I" already.

Brittanicus 7 years, 1 month ago


Illegal Immigration will become a principle issue in the 2012 election for the potential president, because it deals with the loss of American jobs. Costs are spiraling to support the new arrivals, purposely the pregnant Mothers with "Foothold" babies. This too will become a prominent issue as for decade’s illegal aliens have been receiving preferential visas, because of automatic citizenship for their infants. The TEA PARTY Republicans are unwavering to amend this huge financial problem, to revise this misinterpreted law. President Obama is obsessed for pushing through a multibillion dollar plan, to give 20 million plus illegal aliens a path to citizenship. The mainstream of American has no notion that by federal law we must support those people once legitimized. In a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, the total net cost of the 1986 Simpson/Mazzoli amnesty (direct and indirect expenditures of services and benefits to the former illegal immigrants, less their taxable contributions) amounted to over $78 billion in the ten years following the amnesty pardon.


An amnesty is a reward to those breaking the law. Issuing an amnesty to illegal aliens only encourages more illegal aliens enter the United States. The amnesty of 1986 was supposed to be a "one time only" amnesty promised by deceased Democrat Ted Kennedy yet since 1986, Congress passed a total of 7 amnesties for illegal’s: Yet this type of leniency benefits neither our social order nor those being amnestied. An earlier (INS) Immigration and Naturalization Service study established that after living in the United States for 10 years, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a seventh grade education and earned less than $9,000 a year. This detrimental to all Americans, as already subsist on a lowest of incomes with illegal aliens stealing jobs from our own class of people, who have been displaced by businesses for profit. Amnestied illegal aliens have no guarantor to support them financially.

Instead, by enacting a mass amnesty, Congress places a shocking financial weight on American taxpayers to maintain those amnestied. The 1986 immigration bill has been a failure, not because it’s—BROKEN--but for the reason that the laws were never obligatory? By granting amnesties, Washington has set a dangerous precedent that threatens homeland security. Our normal immigration procedures involves screening to block potential criminals with foreign crime records, people with communicably diseases, anarchists and terrorists from entering the United States. Yet millions of illegal aliens have avoided this screening process by authorities and a volume amnesty would allow them to permanently bypass such screening, that was a serious oversight of the 1986 ICRA.

Brittanicus 7 years, 1 month ago

It’s like Christmas daily as I receive around 300 E-Mail responses, with the majority of the public entirely positive to my commentary and blogs. The community who write to me feel disenfranchised by both political parties, because they see pandering to illegal aliens as future votes or importing cheap labor. They comprehend Republicans, inflexible Liberals and Democrats are responsible for this immigration agenda, displaying complete indifference to the American people’s interests. My correspondents are a reaction of disillusioned people from every segment of our culture, including legal Hispanics who are furious at being allied to the illegal alien chaos. Like me, I have informed them to join the millions of people of the rising civil insurrection of the TEA PARTY. The TEA PARTY is not true Republicans, but a splinter group of Centralist Independents, which are the moderate Conservatives in our society, who believe in the "Rule of Law.

The TEA PARTY will not serve activists in the open border organizations, the Special Interests or money lobbyists and nor are they subservient to the Republicans, Democrats or Liberal zealots. The Tea Party has its own measure of patriotic Americans, who are sick of unremitting pandering by most States, federal government that are catering to an invasion of foreign nationals. It is the TEA PARTY'S intention to bring together and focus the power of the millions of angry citizens and permanent residents, with many small groups who will no longer remain silent. America is being invaded and slowly colonized. It is our duty, just as the 1776 revolutionist did; the People will resist.

Brittanicus 7 years, 1 month ago

Taxpayers are paying a astronomical price in welfare and public services without severing access. The Tea Party leaders will attempt to thrash any path to citizenship, giving no tolerance to illegal aliens being accepted for any Amnesty; now or in the future. Sanctuary States should not be allowed to exist, as this like putting fuel to already raging fire..As American (TEA PARTY) patriots we must unite to take back an America, which has allowed the Rule of Law” to be lost on which it was founded. Our country that is nearly unrecognizable from only 3 decades back. We lift our voices in one common language to claim that our borders are protected, our laws be enforced, and that our US Constitution be honored.

Illegal aliens have discovered a fraudulent avenue to aid President Obama predominantly become a strong contender in the 2012 election. Using forged absentee ballots illegal aliens in four States as Colorado, Texas, New York, so far have discovered, but how deep in previous election has this deception gone? In States as California and Nevada that are soft on election oversight, was the absentee ballot forgeries go undetected in huge populace States of nationwide? It's apparent that President Obama considers Americans, who want to restrict illegal immigration laws in America, to be the enemy.

It’s utterly dubious that government would not make trespassing on our lands a felony, which goes against our fundamental rights to defend America from enemies domestic and foreign. It’s equally questioning why E-Verify, Secure Communities, is not the law of the land? To me shows further the governments disturbing inaction to control our border, no matter the consequences of criminal invasion. The TEA PARTY is resolute in upholding the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act, not trying to pass another law, to favor illegal aliens already here. If you are of legal standing the TEA PARTY has a place for you, to invite highly skilled technical workers, who will not take advantage of the US entitlement safety net. Businesses who hire illegal immigrants must be prosecuted to the full exemplary harshness the law will exercise. Find out more at NumbersUSA. Every prudent Taxpayer must take their Politicians to task whether federal or State, by calling their offices as soon as possible at Senate—202-224–3121/ House—202-225–3121 or locate these lawmakers in your phone directory blue pages.

Joshua Montgomery 7 years, 1 month ago

I guess I just don't understand Mr. Simons.

If you are concerned about President Obama destroying the country, isn't it your patriotic duty to donate $100 Million or so of the $168 Million you sold Sunflower Broadband for?

Why, with just a few patriots like you, the upstanding, honest, ideologically pure, conservative thinkers of our generation can sweep into power to reverse the policies of the past 4 years.

With luck, you can return us to Fall 2008, with the stock market in a free fall, unemployment growing by leaps & bounds, the economy near collapse and Wall Street Bankers collecting $Billions in bonuses.

Come on Mr. Simons, do your duty, write that check. If each of the Kochs match it, you will be 1/3 of the way to $1 Billion in campaign funds for Sarah Palin, our next president. She is a brilliant thinker, ideologically pure, a patriot committed to the welfare of our nation above her own welfare. Come on, sir, make that donation, write that check!

Scott Drummond 7 years, 1 month ago

After a day's reflection, I have come to appreciate this editorial. Its desperation is a sign of better days ahead for our country. Unable to rely on intellectual strength of argument and still weakened by the public's fresh memory of right wing governance, Dolph employs the single remain tactic of the reactionary scoundrel - wild fear mongering. Like a rabid dog who has been cornered with no place left to run, the vicious and desperate frenzy of these right wing propagandists are but the death throes of a failed ideology.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.