Jim DeMint Defends Tea Party Candidates in Last Elections

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) was one of the few conservative members of congress that actually endorsed and supported many of the conservative Tea Party candidates this last election and he has taken some flack from the elitist GOP establishment types for his having done so.  Many of them, such as fellow South Carolinian Senator Lindsey Graham, have said that supporting these conservative candidates instead of more viable moderate candidates is what caused the GOP to not recapture control of the senate.

Senator Graham stated, "If you think what happened in Delaware is 'a win' for the Republican Party, then we don't have a snowball's chance to win the White House.  If you think Delaware was a wake-up call for Republicans then we have a shot at doing well for a long time."

Yes, and that is why when we put up moderate candidates for president such as Bob Dole and John McCain, the Democrats end up winning.  Your strategy is poor in outcome as well as principle, Senator Graham.

Further, I would say to Senator Graham, that you are part of the problem then, sir.  By not standing on principle but rather wanting simply to gain and exercise power, you and the rest of the elitist GOP establishment have shown what truly matters to you.  Your "moderation" on many core conservative principles have already been noted, particularly in the last term.  Evidently, Senator Graham, you absolutely missed the message from this center-right nation of ours.

We The People are sick of moderates and want solid conservative elected officials to do our will.  If you think compromising to draw leftist voters into your camp is the way to go, you might want to ask soon-to-be-former Utah Senator Bob Bennett and his conservative Tea Party successor Mike Lee if that really is the way to gain power and move forward in the long run.

Kudos to Senator DeMint for understanding this and for standing on principle in support of those that will strengthen and return our nation to what it was intended to be.

Dennis Prager on The Greatest Threat to America

Despite the fact that this video was shot prior to the election in order to rally Americans as to the importance of this last week's casting of ballots, Dennis Prager's comments are excellent and he absolutely is correct on what the greatest threat to America is.  Please avail yourself of the nine minutes it takes to watch this profound video.



H/T to Carrie!

AARP Tells Employees That Their Health Care Premiums Will Rise in 2011

During the course of the debate over health care reform last year and earlier this year AARP, the powerful senior lobby, came out inexplicably in support of the Obamacare legislation despite the fact that part of that un-constitutional law mandated that $500 billion dollars would be cut from Medicaid in order to help fund the unwieldy provisions within the Obamacare reform.

What at first seemed to be the case of the AARP endorsing something that would effectively harm the interests of its members became clear when delving a little deeper into the situation.  With the reduction in government spending for Medicare, the insurance gaps for seniors would necessarily be greater, thus allowing AARP to sell additional insurance and gap coverage.  In the end, this was only about increasing profits for the AARP instead of the desired mission of actually advocating for seniors.  It was reported that anywhere up to 60,000 AARP members resigned in disgust over the AARP's endorsement of Obamacare accordingly.

Now, fast forward to October 25th when Jennifer Hodges, AARP's director of compensation and benefits, sent out an email to AARP employees, which was obtained by the Associated Press, informing them that the costs for their health care premiums would be increasing from 8 to 13 percent next year due to rapidly rising medical costs.

Ms. Hodges wrote in that email,

“Most plan co-pays and deductibles have been modified. Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP’s plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform.”

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley immediately responded in a written statement,  

“AARP supported a partisan health care overhaul that cut Medicare by almost $500 billion. That will result in less choice, fewer benefits and decreased access to care for millions of its members. But now we hear that AARP’s members aren’t the only ones who will bear the brunt of the new health care law. Like companies across the country, AARP is shifting more costs onto employees in reaction to the health care overhaul. Despite their employer’s support, AARP employees are learning that the health care law is not going to address the top priority of making health care coverage less expensive. Supporters of the law tend to have tunnel vision and focus on how it will affect narrow groups of people, rather than recognizing that most people will just end up paying more. But the big picture is clear.  Employers and employees nationwide will pay more for health care because of the new law.”

In the end, the unconstitutional Obamacare act was largely unwanted by the American people because it did not even address many of the issues that it was supposed to fix.  It ultimately would only exacerbate the problems in rising health care costs.  The AARP knew this would be the case, and still chose to endorse a bad law that was very much against the interests of it members.  Now the employees of AARP that supported this law are beginning to see what it is they have wrought.  I hate to say it, but we told you so!

Perhaps the AARP may be able to redeem itself somewhat when the Republicans submit legislation to repeal Obamacare, if the AARP will admit that they were mistaken and now wish to endorse repealing the pernicious law so that new health care legislation can be drafted that actually fixes our health care insurance problems.  Only then can they honestly claim that they are once again looking out for the best interests of their members.

An Uncompromising Mid-Term Election Win

Beginning Tuesday evening when it was apparent to even the most liberal television commentator that the Republican party would take control of the House of Representatives with near historic gains not seen in most living peoples' lifetime, they all seemed to immediately switch gears and began to put forth the notion that now the GOP had to govern instead of just obstruct; in other words, they were going to have to learn to compromise with the Senate and President Obama.

Really?  That is the recommendation from the "objective" main stream media, all of the remaining Democrats in office, and even some of the elitist establishment Republicans?  The Republicans will have to compromise? 

With the fervor and intensity of the tsunami that just washed the Republicans into the House, how can these people seriously think that compromise is what most of the voters in this still center-right nation wanted when they cast their ballots three days ago?  I am thinking there is more "house cleaning" to do in 2012, if you'll pardon the pun, since evidently there are still a few folks that didn't GET THE MESSAGE!

Now, I am not surprised by this tactic.  Indeed, President Obama laid the groundwork for this in a New York Times story by Peter Baker back on October 12th, where Baker wrote,

Obama expressed optimism to me that he could make common cause with Republicans after the midterm elections. "It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible," he said, "either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn't work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way. "

It is striking to me, since when the Democrats have taken the reins of government in the past, they have never stated seriously that they intended to work with Republicans and compromise; nor have their allies in the media ever suggested such a proposal either.

Indeed, after Obama's election in 2008, despite occasional campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama had no intention of compromising with the Republican members of congress even then.  In fact, many folks may recall that just three days after his inauguration when the new president had gathered congressional leaders of both parties to the Whitehouse to discuss his proposed economic stimulus, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won." As I said, President Obama had no intention of compromising on his policies from the very beginning.

Can anyone imagine that when in 2006 when the Democrats took control of congress saying, "Well we still have two more years of George W. Bush, so we will have to work with him and compromise."?  Heck no, nor would I honestly expect them to have ever done so.  This, evidently, is just another example of one of the Democrats' double standards that should only apply to their loyal opposition. 

Well, let me say something loud and clear to my newly elected officials, and to those that escaped the voters' wrath this time.  You good people were elected not to compromise but rather to repeal the un-Constitutional Obamacare act, ensure that cap & trade legislation is not passed, cut spending across the board, secure our national borders, and ensure that taxes are not raised in the midst of this recession.

You do NOT compromise on any of these agenda items or there will be a huge repeat of this last election come 2012.  And,accordingly, the Republican Party will have rendered itself inconsequential since conservatives will relegate them to the sidelines as they take control of congress. 

Compromise is largely what brought America to this brink.  We even compromised with a Democrat-lite presidential candidate for the GOP in 2008 and thus lost.  Why get a wanna-be when you can vote for the real thing?  Ironically, even John McCain has tacked right as he saw the writing on the wall if he continued his "maverick" ways. 

The bottom line is this: We need senators and congressmen that will follow and defend the Constitution, cut government waste and spending to austerity levels, and listen to the will of the people.  We need a hell of a lot more Jim DeMint's and a lot less Lindsey Graham's in other words. 

We The People voted you folks in to address these items, and so you shall, or we will replace you with those who will in two years.  In the meantime, there is no room for compromising when what you are doing is right.  Indeed, why would anyone wish to compromise with policies that have brought us to these perilous times?  One does not compromise when the object of such compromise is wrong!  Stay steady and true!

Obama: Tone Deaf and Heading on $2 Billion Trip to India and Southeast Asia

The dust has not even settled nor all of the carnage of the Democratic Party carried away after yesterday's near historic record-setting sea-change in congress with the American people vehemently and unmistakably repudiating President Obama and the Congressional Democrats' agenda of severe fiscal malfeasance, and yet President Obama is still seemingly oblivious to the message.

The Democrats' unwanted and largely ineffective spending which has added over $5 Trillion more to the national debt since having taken control of congress in 2007, including the passage of the un-constitutional health care act, were the primary impetus for voters' anger yesterday according to most exit polling.

So what does President Obama intend to do to correct his course?  Why, he plans to leave the country for ten days starting with a visit to Mumbai, India.  The costs estimated for this ten day trip are $200 million dollars a day, or for those not wanting to do the math, 2 BILLION dollars for the entire trip.

"The huge amount of around $200 million (a day) would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.  An entourage of around 3000 people will be accompanying the presidential delegation including government officials, journalists, and Secret Service personnel.  Of course President Obama will be accompanied on the trip with his wife Michelle and their two daughters, Malia and Sasha.

The entire Taj Mahal Tower Hotel, 570 rooms in all, have been rented for the Presidential visit accordingly.

Now I certainly don't begrudge our president having adequate security on foreign travels, but it certainly strikes me as ludicrous to have 3000 people traveling with him in over 40 planes, while ferrying six armored vehicles, and several Marine One helicopters for his use while abroad.

To add insult to injury, India is not expecting any "big bang" results from the forthcoming visit of  President Barack Obama, India's Foreign Secretary has said.  In other words this trip does not significantly advance the interests of America nor India.  It, seemingly, is a "much needed" vacation with a little diplomacy thrown in to justify the trip.

So with all of this being said, it strikes me that our president, despite the horrific losses his party just suffered at the hands of irate American voters yesterday, still has not heard nor understood the message we sent.  Surely a man of such intelligence cannot be that politically tone deaf and that foolish! 

With millions of people still searching for employment and the economy still not showing any significant signs of improvement, is spending $2 Billion dollars on a trip to India, South Korea, and Indonesia really the best use of President Obama's time and our taxpayers' dollars right now?  I guess he will be surprised when he gets our next message in November of 2012.  I guarantee you that message will be heard by him as he packs his belongings to return to Chicago!

UPDATE 11/4/2010: There have been multiple sources now reporting that are skeptical as to the original claims regarding the amount of money to be spent on President Obama's trip.  No credible source is able to cite what actual costs for the trip will be, however.  The Whitehouse has stated that the cost numbers are wildly inflated but have cited security reasons for not disclosing an exact figure.  Suffice it to say, that the actual amount of money being spent is indeed likely lower than what the Indian Government official originally claimed.

Nontheless, the 3000 member entourage, 40 planes, etc. still are ludicrous and will be exorbitantly expensive in addition to the entire rented Taj Mahal Towers Hotel.  The main premise of this posting, that the expenses incurred on this excursion to India that serve no significant U.S. interests immediately following the message sent by the American people after Tuesday's elections still strikes one as being politically tone deaf.  The spending of what will still amount to many hundreds of millions of dollars regardless does not strike one as being very fiscally warranted or prudent, accordingly.

2010 Mid-Term Elections: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Well, as expected, Tuesday was indeed a great day for the Republicans.  And, of course, I must do an obligatory posting on the outcome of these critical mid-term elections.  My expectations are, with the GOP in control of the House and the Senate still amazingly being under the cynical governance of Harry Reid, is that there is likely to be darned little legislation either passed or repealed for the next two years.  GOOD!  A little grid-lock that creates some predictability may very well be just what the doctor ordered to give our businesses a break so that they can perhaps plan, budget, and maybe even hire a worker or two again.

All that being said, here are my takes on what went right and what went wrong yesterday.

Senate Races
GOOD

Mark Rubio (R-FL) defeated the inconsequential Meeks and more importantly the ultra-flexible and integrity-devoid Charlie Crist.  Rubio really seems to get America and its greatness.  His political career is limited only by himself!

Boozeman (R-AR) defeated Blanche Lincoln largely because of her pernicious accepting of taxpayers' money for her state in order to secure her vote for Obma's un-constitutional health care law.  There are indeed consequences for your actions, Former-Senator-to-be Lincoln.

Toomey (R-PA) defeated Joe Sestak, who was offered a job by the Obama Whitehouse via President Clinton if he would stand down in the primary so that turn-coat Arlen Specter could win the Democratic nomination and theoretically be more competitive in this senatorial election.  I've got news for you folks; Specter's defeat, had he won the primary, would have been by an even greater margin than Sestak's.

Kirk (R-IL) won the senate seat that used to be occupied by President Obama.  Enough said there! 

BAD

Harry Reid (D-NV) as, I already stated, narrowly and inexplicably won re-election and will remain the Senate Majority leader.  The only up side to this, is that had he lost, Chuck Schumer would have likely been his replacement.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) won re-election over Carly Fiorina.  I guess this just goes to show that Californians are either ignorant or just don't mind being represented by this boorish and arrogant socialist.

UGLY
Murkowski (write-in, AK) looks to have likely have won the three-way race for senate, despite her having been defeated for the GOP nomination in the primary and thus prompting her to run a perhaps successful write-in campaign.  Her refusal to accept defeat and insistence on holding on to "her senate seat" is precisely the kind of spoiled and arrogant political nonsense that we had hoped to purge.  Alaskans, what are you thinking here?

House of Representatives Races
Good

Alan West (R-FL) won election and is a exceptionally smart man of honor and integrity.  He too will be a rising star in conservative politics for years to come!

Daniel Webster (R-FL) defeated the incumbent Grayson who had been a progressive firebrand who was quite accustomed to hyperbole, mischaracterizations, and out-right lies toward the GOP and his opponent over the past few years.  His brand of vile politics is not needed and thankfully will no longer be spouted by him on the floor of the Senate ever again.

BAD

Barney Frank (D-MA) won re-election.  This outcome is truly sad and does not speak well to the character of a majority of his constituents.  Frank's dishonesty and culpability particularly with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac GSE's collapse that was the catalyst of the housing collapse should have been impeached along with his senatorial cohort in crime, Chris Dodd.  Putting this man back in office, despite his intransigence, is disgraceful.

Gubernatorial Races
GOOD

John Kasich (R-OH) returned control of the state to the GOP despite nearly a dozen visits by the Obama Whitehouse in support of his opponent Strickland.  Ohio went for Obama in 2008 and this dramatic turn here does not bode well for Obama's re-election in 2012.

BAD

Jerry Brown (D-CA) won the governorship here despite the fact that many of California's ills today can be traced back to their genesis with his horrible stewardship of the state when he was governor decades ago.  He admitted that he had no plan back then and yet Californians returned him to the governor's mansion.  My best advice here is to build a border fence around the state and ensure that the federal government absolutely under no circumstances bails out California in their impending bankruptcy which his election will only hasten.

There are still some races too close to call at this point, but overall, the country now has a chance to be restored.  We will be watching closely to ensure that this is what is done by our newly elected officials.

Democrats Propose Guaranteed Retirement Accounts by Raiding Your 401(K)

It would seem the next great abuse perpetrated by the federal government may come in a lame duck session of congress this fall.  The form that this new abuse of power will take is in the context of our federal government's potential plans to seize private 401(k) and IRA plans to fund government controlled "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts" in which to disburse money to retired recipients.  This is proposed to be a supplement to the current social security program, and indeed is intended to be managed by the same Social Security Administration.

The main, if not explicitly stated, purpose of these Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRA's) is to fund the collapsing union pension funds with this un-Constitutional confiscation and redistribution of monies from private citizens' retirement accounts such as 401(k)'s and IRA's.

This plan was originally proposed by Professor Theresa Ghilarducci, an economist at the New School for Social Research in New York several years ago.  The Obama administration seems willing to move forward with this plan, and indeed Vice President Joe Biden floated the idea to the public for GRA's back in February's “Middle Class” report. 

Ghilarducci's proposal calls for eliminating the 401(k) plan system and replacing it with a government-run pension plan funded by employee contributions.  Her plan claims that participants would be guaranteed an inflation-beating return and a lifetime stream of income, accordingly.

"What people want from their pensions is guaranteed income for life," Ghilarducci said when her plan was first brought to light in 2008.  I would submit to Ms. Ghilarducci that what people really want is for the federal government to NOT confiscate money they earned and have it "managed" and redistributed by a federal government that has repeatedly and without exception proven that they are incapable of managing any program with efficiency, and indeed are more likely to create a reasonable chance of insolvency over time for any program under their management.

Ghilarducci's plan would eliminate the tax breaks received for contributing to a 401(k) or an IRA plan thus making the desirability of these plans practically vanish.  The thought behind this idea is that these tax breaks are depriving the federal government of too much revenue.  Far better to redistribute Americans' privately earned and saved retirement accounts and further reward a huge Democratic constituency by keeping their pension funds solvent on the backs of us "greedy" Americans.

If this plan is passed in a lame duck session of congress this fall, it will only serve to show the continued arrogance and disregard the Democrats have towards a vast majority of hard working and responsible American people.  It will also serve to illustrate that the progressive Democrats still have not gotten the message that a majority of Americans have been saying to our government over the course of the last few years.  Finally, it will also give the Republicans one more law to repeal in 2011.