We have learned a few lessons from the NY-23 Congressional race about which candidate to support and why.  The establishment candidate turned out to be a female Benedict Arnold.  There are several Congressional races out across our fine land that have the potential to turn into another NY-23, but for the sake of time and expediency, I’d like to highlight just one - the US Senate race in Illinois.

Currently, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th IL CD) is the “front runner” on the Republican side.  He’s had his endorsements by John McCain and others like Dede Scozzafava did.  He most likely has access to John McCain’s donor list as well which has enabled Kirk has raised a considerable war chest in his bid to be the next US Senator from Illinois.  Kirk is the media’s darling so he also has the name recognition.

Shortly after the November 2nd filing period, a conservative Republican candidate for US Senate named Dr. Eric Wallace dropped out of the race.  The reasoning behind this move is not only because of a lack of funds to adequately fight a well funded establishment candidate, but also it was not to split the conservative vote.  Dr. Wallace fell on his sword because he knew that conservatives needed to be united around one candidate to defeat Mark Kirk.  Dr. Wallace has also put the Illinois Republican Party and Rep. Mark Kirk on notice that he is entertaining an Independent run should the pro-choice, anti-2nd amendment, pro-Cap and Trade voting Mark Kirk win the Republican nomination for US Senate.

So what conservative candidate is left that can take on Kirk?  The only one left that has some of the funding and backing to do so is Patrick Hughes.  Hughes seems to be the only person that stands between 1) Mark Kirk winning, and 2) a strong Independent run by Dr. Wallace.  The latter point is a problem because any splitting of the Republican vote in Illinois would essentially hand the Democrats their seat.

So how do you know Patrick Hughes is the right candidate and that the Illinois GOP will be split if Kirk wins?

The answer is by talking to people.  I’m a GOP precinct committeeman in Central Illinois and I am also a Tea Party leader.  I travel to various GOP events across the state and I talk with Tea Partiers across the state almost on an every day basis.

First, the GOP.  Republicans in downstate Illinois are tired of their conservative values being thrown aside by Sens. Durbin and Burris and they are tired of Republicans like Judy Baar Topinka and Mark Kirk representing their party but not their conservative values.  They’re tired of the establishment within the Illinois Republican Party, especially former Chairman Andy McKenna, pushing candidates that don’t win, don’t represent their values, and care more about furthering their careers than helping Illinois.  I have personally talked to several, several voting Republicans that stated they WILL NOT vote for Mark Kirk in the primary OR the general election.  When I asked them who they liked, the answer was Dr. Eric Wallace.  Some of these answer are coming from people that have been active in the GOP almost since time was born.  A State Representative in Springfield said recently that if a moderate or liberal is on the GOP ticket, that you can expect about 7% of Republicans to stay home on election day.  I would wager that could be a killer in a non-Presidential election year and that spells trouble for Illinois and the Illinois GOP in November 2010 if Kirk wins the nomination.

Second, the Tea Partiers.  I talk with the Tea Partiers all over Illinois and despite what the mainstream media says, they are fiercely independent - and conservative.  I posed the same question to some Tea Party attendees and they give me the same answer.  “I WILL NOT vote for Mark Kirk in the primary or general election”.  Their first choice was also Dr. Eric Wallace.  In fact, I know that there are several Tea Party groups that will most likely be endorsing a Senate candidate soon - and it won’t be Mark Kirk.  They are VERY concerned about Kirk’s voting record and the answers given to be also spell trouble in November 2010 if Kirk wins the nomination.

A third party bid in Illinois would be disastrous.  It would split the Republican vote and hand the Senate seat to Alexi Giannoulias - Obama’s protege.  This is why Rep. Mark Kirk should drop out now.  The future of Illinois, the Illinois Republican party, and the US Senate filibuster proof composition is at stake.  If Kirk stays in, he will fracture the Illinois GOP, and risk having his own Dede Scozzafava moment as conservatives flock to Dr. Eric Wallace as an Independent.  There is a battle going for the heart and soul of the Republican party.  It’ll either be re-made in John McCain’s image, or it will go back to the Reaganism - as it should.

The stock market sits at around 10,000, still down about 3,000 since it’s high in 2007.  The Obama administration and like minded economists point to the stock market as proof that the economy is turning around.  Both seem to ignore important economic data that effects you and I everyday and will definitely effect us in 2010.

1.  Don’t die in 2010.  If you do, your estate will be taxed at pre-2001 levels.  All that hard work and sacrifice you made so you can leave your children something after you’re gone will be shared with the government.  You don’t think you could leave this world and not be taxed for doing so did you?  This “death” tax could be avoided if Congress extends the deadline indefinitely, but with Pelosi and Reid in charge, that’s not likely to happen.

2.  Inflation.  The US Treasury just printed a bunch of money that wasn’t in the economy one year ago.  You are already seeing some inflationary prices in gasoline (pegged to the US dollar), groceries, and various other items.  How do you control inflation?  The Federal Reserve will have to raise interest rates.  If you think the credit market is tight right now, just wait and see what happens if they bump up those rates.  That’s what happens when you try to control the economy using monetary policies instead of using fiscal policies (lower taxes, less spending).

3.  Income taxes.  First, that tax “cut” that Obama gave us - a whole $13 per week - is in reality a tax rebate, so pay attention when April comes around, because you’ll have to pay your money back to the government.  Same thing happened  tax day 2009 when you had to repay that $600 or $300 you got from the government from the year before.  Oh, and don’t forget about that Cash For Clunkers rebate and new home rebate.  You’ll have to pay those back also.  Finally, the Bush tax cuts implemented in 2001 are also due to expire in 2010.  Again, Congress could stop this but they won’t.  People, the media, Congress, and President Obama are too busy discussing health care to bother with this tidbit.  Most likely, the media, Congress, and President Obama are well aware of this problem but are all in favor of increasing taxes without having to take the political heat by actually voting for tax increases.

4.  Health Care Reform.  Between taxes on “Cadillac” plans and Pelosi’s Value Added Tax, we will all be paying more taxes in 2010, even if Bush’s cuts were to be extended.  Also, there’s the penalties that you will incur if you decide not to buy health insurance.  Don’t forget that “fat tax” in there also.  Weigh too much?  Most likely you’ll pay a penalty.  Smoke?  Penalty.  Buy a Pepsi or Coke?  Pay a tax when you buy it.  Like Doritos or cookies?  You’ll pay a tax on that also.

5.  Cap and Tax (Trade).  It’s amazing and a shame how liberals and Democrats don’t believe in the “trickle down” effects of their actions.  If you tax businesses on how much they pollute, then that will be passed down to you and I.  Inflation from monetary policies aside, prices for goods will go up because of this monstrosity of government environmental regulation.  Furthermore, there will also be penalties for you and I if we too pollute too much or we don’t switch to those stupid mercury filled, Chinese made curly Q light bulbs or take other steps to “green” our homes.  All this without mentioning these regulation will place our businesses at an even further disadvantage against foreign companies.

6.  National debt and budget deficit.  The budget deficit stands at at record $1.4 TRILLION and our national debt is at an all time high.  Congress just keeps spending with no regard to how to pay for everything.  Guess who they’ll ask to pay the mess off…you and me.  Get ready to pay more in taxes, fees, and other ways to fund the Debt Monster.  Businesses will also get nailed also, so I guess in one sense your income tax might go down because you won’t have a job because of the taxes, fees and other regulation imposed on your employer.

7.  The declining US Dollar.  Sure, the less the US Dollar is worth, the more attractive our exports are.  However, imports are also more expensive!  Since most of the junk we like to buy - TVs, iPods, clothes, etc. - are made overseas, wholesalers are paying more for items, which in turn they charge more to those ordering from them, which in turn these stores charge more for the product you want to buy.  Notice how the US Dollar dives, oil prices go up.  Again, import costs coupled with OPEC influenced “shortages”.  What happens our international “friends” decide to carry through with their threat of ditching the US Dollar for the Euro or some other “world” currency?

8.  Unemployment.  Currently, the national unemployment rate sits at almost 10% officially.  It’s almost at 16% unofficially and 52% unemployment for 16-24 year olds.  Less people paying into the system because they don’t have jobs.  Not too mention, those that have lost their jobs cannot contribute fully in the economy by buying items they normally would.  Since businesses seem to be a favorite target of this administration and Congress, I would not expect any jobs to be created anytime soon.

When someone tells you that everything is turning around, just nod your head and walk away.  You know better.  We know how to truly turn an economy around; it was done in the early 1980s - you know, Ronald Reagan. We know the failed policies of the 1930s doesn’t work.  It doesn’t take a history major or a Nobel winning President or a Nobel winning NY Times economist to figure that out.   Unfortunately, those in power are more committed to their egos, pride, and ideology to admit tax cuts, less regulation and less spending is the fastest and the most surest way of getting things off the ground and turned around.  The way things are going to take place in 2010, you and I will most likely have to work well into August or later in order to pay our taxes before we can start working for ourselves.  That is if we all still have jobs…  Quick, grab your wallet before the government gets their grubby hands on it!!!

At the end of WWII, the international scene was a precarious one.  Communists supported by the USSR were attempting to infiltrate and take over the country of Greece and make other inroads into Europe.  Standing in the Soviet’s way was Harry Truman.  In 1946, Truman gave his famous Truman Doctrine speech outlining the US response to Soviet aggression around the world.  He stated that the US would adopt a “containment” policy.  To summarize the containment policy very briefly, Truman essentially said that the governments in place now will stay in place, and any interference by communists in democratic or other countries would be met by action from the US government.  As a show of force, Truman sent the USS Missouri to Greece and 2 days after his speech, all sectarian violence in Greece slowed and eventually stopped, and the Greek government began to stabilize.

In the same year, 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his famous “”Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Mo. where he warned of Soviet aggression and how there was a definite separation of the West and the USSR.

The Domino Theory was born out of the containment policy and stated that if the US did not come to the aid of democratic nations or those nations threatened by communist infiltration and aggression, that those countries would fall one after another similar to a string of dominoes.  This policy is ultimately why we became involved in Korea in the 1950s, and Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s.  This policy also led to the US keeping a presence in Europe after WWII, the creation of NATO, and our continued interest in geo-political events.  The climax of this policy (and the Monroe Doctrine) was played out during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Obama administration needs to craft a similar policy.  The US and other nations are not threatened by Soviet style communism any more (other than from our own politicians’ domestic policy decisions).  The new threat is two fold - Islamic Fascism and “Pink State” hegemony, but both are interrelated and even aspire for some of the same goals.  Just as a note, “pink state” refers to countries that have serious leanings toward socialism - Venezuela - but are not declared socialists or communists like Cuba.

Islamic Fascism is being dealt with right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Iran is still a serious threat to the Near East region.  Usama Bin Laden believes Israel should be destroyed and has recently (if he is actually still alive) demanded the US leave Europe and the Near East.  The insane ramblings of Iran’s President Ahmedinejad and his push to become a nuclear power has serious implications for the United States and Israel.  Ahmedinejad has openly stated that he wishes to wipe Israel off the map and if tries to do so using a nuclear weapon, don’t think for an instant that Israel would not retaliate in kind.  Furthermore, Iran’s nuclear program is a problem in our hemisphere also because Hugo Chavez has now stated that he wishes to acquire nuclear power (read: weapons) and Iran is helping Chavez achieve his goal.

Nuclear ambition is today what communist aggression was during the Cold War.  Even Brazil’s Vice President wants to develop nuclear weapons.  The “Pink State” hegemony, led by Chavez, has been busy consolidating like minded leaders in Brazil, Bolivia, and elsewhere in South and Central America.  Each country in the loose coalition desires government run business and economy and believes in restricting the many rights we hold dear in this country such as freedom of press, petition, and assembly.  Any deviation from the government plans are met with severe abuse, prison, or making people “disappear”.  Complicating matters is renewed Russian involvement in Cuba, and open support for the Chavez regime.  Chavez also has been openly supporting Cuba, and others attuned to his anti-US stances.  The first real test of containing Chavez has been an absolute failure.

Honduras recently had a coup, but a constitutional coup.  President Zelaya was a Chavez wannabe, and he attempted to illegally rewrite the Honduran Constitution via an illegal vote.  The ballots for that vote were paid for and sent to Honduras by Hugo Chavez.  After Zelaya was arrested and ousted from the country, there were some protesters arrested and they turned out to be Cuban and Venezuelan agitators.  Our country DENIED visas to Honduran officials that wanted to travel to the United States for the UN Summit and at other times before the summit.  However, we have no problems with allowing Qaddafi, Ahmedinejad, and Chavez coming to the United States to spew their anti-Jew, anti-US, anti-capitalist rants.  I have to say, one of the crowning moments during the UN Summit was Benjamin Netanyahu taking the stage and lambasting Ahmedinejad for denying that the Holocaust ever happened while holding up documentation of the attempted elimination of Jews in Europe.

Today, it seems the US is a similar predicament that the USSR was in during most of the Cold War.  The USSR was essentially surrounded by democracy and where communism tried to spread, it was for the most part contained which helped bring about the destruction of the “Evil Empire” - thanks partly to the powerful foreign policy of Ronald Reagan.  Now, the United States seems to be surrounded by communists and socialists - Chavez in South America, Iran in the Near East, China in Asia, and all of this is happening with the tacit and sometimes open approval of Moscow.  President Obama has declared that Iran has been put on notice because of their nuclear ambitions, but to what end?  More sanctions?  That tact hasn’t seemed to deter North Korea at all.  Part of the reason sanctions haven’t worked is because countries like Russia and China continue to covertly supply and support these sanctioned regimes, even as these sanctioned regimes pursue non-peaceful avenues for their people and their countries.

No longer does an Iron Curtain exist; it melted in 1989 and was finally laid upon the scrap heap in 1991.  However, in it’s place today is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the idea in science that we cannot know at any given time where an electron will be the next instant, we only know where it was.  Likewise, our foreign policy is being conducted by the same principle.  We know where we are at and what is going on, but we have no idea where we are going.  As you can imagine, this kind of foreign policy is a cause for a great deal of chaos.  The Obama administration seems bent on tearing down decades of good relations with our allies in Europe and elsewhere and instead negotiates with terrorists and wannabe Lenins or Stalins.  Meanwhile, those countries that wish to defend the principles of freedom and/or democracy are thrown to the wolves in order to appease our enemies.  There was a time when the United States took a hard line approach against those regimes that caused their people and the international peace and security of the world harm.  Today, the United States and the Obama administration seems to be refusing to take a hard line against such principles that threaten peace and the liberties we hold dear.  How can we begin to repair what has already been done?

First, we need to repair our economy.  One thing that helped post-WWII Europe fight off communism and socialism was the US economy and a powerful US dollar.  Today, our dollar is barely worth the paper it is printed on and we are in debt up to our ears.  The most surefire way to restart the economy would be to scrap plans for saddling our economy with another $1 trillion of entitlements - also known as the current Health Care Reform Bill.  We should use market solutions to solve our health care crisis that will be of minimal cost to the government and the taxpayer.  Second, we need to cut taxes both on income and business.  Even JFK, a Democrat, knew that cutting taxes equaled growth and results in MORE money flowing into the government.  More money in our pockets means more money to spend on items we can’t afford, and pay off the personal debts that we owe.  As more money flows into government, we will be able to pay off the Chinese, who own 80% of our debt, much faster than if we just kept printing money placing the US onto a dangerous inflationary bubble.  Third, ease regulation on business.  Allow business to do business without the government dictating every step of the manufacturing process from beginning to end.  This will allow business to grow and create more jobs.  Lastly, the Obama administration should do what it can to stimulate small business.  Teenagers and young twenty-somethings have the highest disposable incomes but when their unemployment rate sits above 50%, it’s a huge hit to the overall economy.

We are living in very precarious times and if things continue to progress the way they are we will be in serious trouble.  The Obama administration needs to show some resemblance of leadership both in the United States and to the world.  Right now, we are doing nothing more than spinning our wheels while dictators and Islamic Fascists further their causes and destabilize the world.  A strong foreign policy needs to be adopted before it’s too late and the enemies of freedom get too far entrenched.

After having some time to digest what the President said in his speech last night, I seem to be left with this gnawing issue - when he addressed the “history of progress”:

This has always been the history of our progress.

In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.

Being better for it is a matter of dispute.  The critics seem to be right about the socialism warnings.  The government owns a car company.  The government owns a financial institution in Citigroup.  The government is giving money to buy cars.  The government is bailing out banks and others.  And now, the government wants to control over 1/6th of our economy, aka the health care industry.  The government has turned our currency into nothing better than monopoly money.  Did we learn nothing by the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR?  Did we not learn that Cuba could not have survived without financial aid from other Communist countries or now from a certain dictator in a certain South American oil rich country?

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.

They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

What piece of mind do our seniors have now?  The President’s friends were in power in Congress when the banking industry blew up setting off a ripple effect through the entire economy.  Any retirement that our seniors have has been reduced and in some cases lost.  The health care bill, whether supporters want to admit it or not, will ration care and the seniors will be on the front lines.  The government has a vested interest in the profit from the death of the elderly.  If the end of life doctor-patient consultations stay in the House version of the bill, then the government savings in Medicare will come from less treatment of those “too old” or “too sick”.  Doctors should discuss a patient’s future but it should not be dictated by the government.  The wording in HR 3200 to me sounds as if the government is pushing people to do living wills and set up proxies for making decisions - thereby tacitly denying treatment that may prolong their lives.  We know such “questionnaires” or “worksheets” already exist for our elderly soldiers utilizing the VA.  Savings would also come from not having to continue Soc. Security payments to our seniors if their passing is hastened.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.

Then why not take their advice?  Stop with the bailouts.  Stop with the public option in the health care reform bill.  The more government gets involved, the worse we are.  Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac anyone?  1930s Keynesian economics anyone?  The government’s heavy hand in our lives and our pocketbooks.  So are the gains in economic “security” worth the lost freedoms of a market economy?

But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.

The President is absolutely right about monopolies.  What else can you call GM, Citigroup, or government run health care?  Monopolies are price setters, not price takers.  GM now has unlimited pockets (in the eyes of government) in the form of the US tax payer.  Monopolies are also characterized as having vertical integration.  The government gave subsidies to buy a car from (the government hoped) GM or another US auto maker.  Those subsidies were provided through Citigroup.  The President is supposed to have graduated with a degree in Constitutional law.  What article or section of the US Constitution gives the government the power to do these things?  I would say our Founding Fathers knew the leveling hand of government, not our current President - hence the change from the Articles of Confederation to our current Constitution.  Also, what exactly is the “leveling hand” supposed to mean?   The government is supposed to pick winners and losers?  Redistribute wealth?  That “leveling hand” could be interpreted as being what those in 1935 warned about.

And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

The right has tried to have civil discussions but has been stifled in their attempt by being called “angry mobs” or “Nazis”.  When the right is not being called names, then the opposition to health care and other government policies are muted by the refusal of our elected officials to hold town hall meetings or limits speech at town hall meetings.  It’s hard to have a discussion when only one side seems to be talking while the other side puts their fingers in their ears and calls you names.

That was true then. It remains true today.

You’re right Mr. President about  the critics in 1935. They were right back then as they are today.  It just took 70+ years for their prophecy to become true.