First of all, I think it proper to say congratulations to President-Elect Obama who will be the 44th President of the United States of America.

Americans may have elected not only one of the least experienced candidates in our national history, but one who may be guided by some principles different from what we’re used to and on which the nation was founded.

Since Mr. Obama had no legislative history to look at, people were able to ascribe qualities to him that they hoped he possessed. I have a feeling that many of them will be greatly disappointed over the next four years. They are hoping for a quick fix to the economy. That will not happen. They are hoping for a quick exit from Iraq. That will not happen. They are hoping for prosperity and peace, but, alas, that doesn’t look likely in the next few years. They are hoping Obama will bring peace to the middle east and protect Israel from its enemies. That is also very unlikely. They are hoping that the US will not be challenged by threats to our national security. That, unfortunately, will also not happen. They are hoping the world will love us, and that will not happen. They are hoping that he will create special entitlements to benefit special interests. With the current economy, that isn’t likely either. There will be much disappointment among the supporters of President-Elect Obama.

The American people have handed him a sweeping victory without really knowing who he is. Four years ago he was a first-term State Senator in Illinois. His associations in the Chicago political world are questionable.

He was able to achieve that political victory for a few reasons, not the least of which is that a total of approximately $800 Million was spent on his campaign, considerably more than on any previous presidential campaign in our history. The previous high mark was the approximately $275 million for the Kerry campaign in 2004. Having that kind of war chest enabled him to run a superior campaign ground game and to be able to open several offices in many cities throughout the country – 60 offices in the State of Michigan, for example – manned by paid staff, not volunteers, and managed by salaried campaign organizers.

But the principal reasons Obama won had to do with a) the collapse of the economy and b) the overwhelming desire on the part of the American people for change.

Collapse of the Economy

After the Republican convention, for the following two weeks, John McCain was surging ahead of Barack Obama in the polls. I think it likely that if the economic collapse had not happened when it did, McCain could have won the election. The seeds of this economic collapse were planted before George Bush ever took office, but the fact that it happened during a Republican administration meant that the Republicans took the blame for it, even though they were not primarily responsible for it. In fact, several times over the past eight years, Republicans tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and were blocked by House Democrats. All of the heads of the organizations that were responsible for the economic disaster were Democrats who contributed heavily to Democratic causes and campaigns, yet Republicans still took the blame.

Change for the sake of Change

We Republicans have been let down by our leadership in many ways. Ethical breaches and crimes committed by Republican leaders tainted the Republican brand. Those who thought of themselves, before their country, or their party, brought shame on Republicans everywhere. We have a leader in the White House who has been blamed for everything that has gone wrong in the country and who wasn’t responsible for most of it.

Right after 9-11 President Bush had a 90% approval rating. His approval rating is now 30%. In my view, George Bush’s biggest flaw has been his inability to communicate clearly and articulately to the American people.

After a badly managed battle in Iraq, a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Katrina, the housing crash and finally the economic collapse, the American people were, rightly or wrongly, tired of Republicans and wanted a change. Apparently the question, “Change to what?” is answered by, “It doesn’t matter.”

What do we do now?

So that brings us to the question, “Where do we go from here?”

One of the reasons that we lost in 2006 and again in 2008 is because nobody knows what Republicans stand for. We say that we stand for limited government, yet over the past eight years we have had the greatest growth of government in the history of our country.

We say that we stand for reducing the costs of government. The opposite happened. The costs of government have been skyrocketing. We say that we stand for personal liberty and less government intrusion. The opposite has been the fact. We have less personal liberty and more government intrusion. We say that we believe in free trade, yet our Congress, including Republicans, has been passing legislation that inhibits free trade.

We say we stand for integrity and ethical behavior, yet more and more Republicans are indicted and convicted of criminal behavior. We say that we want to empower people and give them a stake in their future by enabling them to have private investment accounts in place of social security accounts, but we don’t fight to make that happen. We say that we want to have lower medical insurance costs for people who can’t afford current rates, but we don’t take a stand for making that happen. We say that we want to become independent of foreign oil, but we do nothing to develop alternative energy sources.

One might be able to say that Republicans “talk the talk”, but they don’t “walk the walk.” We say what we stand for, but we don’t do what we stand for. Americans basically dislike hypocrisy.

It is time for us to show that we are who we say we are.

Do we try to appeal to the center?

People say to me that we need to appeal more to the center. In other words, we need to be more like Democrats.

No! If the American people wanted someone who was like Democrats, they would pick the real thing – Democrats, as you saw last night.

There is nothing more persuasive than being passionately genuine. Republican conservative values mean something. They are what distinguish us. They are what make us different. They are what most of the country believes in. Tony Blankley, says it well: “Conservatism always has been and always will be a force to reckon with because it most closely approximates the reality of the human condition, based as it is, on the cumulative judgment and experience of a people. It is the heir, not the apostate, to the accumulated wisdom, morality and faith of the people.”

The fact is, we have had no conservative leader – no champion of the conservative cause, this election season.

We were not prepared to lead. We will only be ready to lead when we have leaders who will take a principled stand for conservative values – individual liberty and responsibility; smaller government; lower taxes; federalism; free trade; the fact that everyone, whatever his station in life, has an equal opportunity to achieve greatness; a strong national defense; protecting our national sovereignty; the American free enterprise economy; the rule of law and order; and most importantly, the understanding that the rights we enjoy are natural rights that do not come from government, but from our Creator. When we have someone who can lead the Party and who is capable of articulating what we stand for clearly to the American people, we will be ready to lead again.

Rebuilding the Party.

Whatever you say about Obama’s campaign, it was masterful. The use of new media, social networking, graphics, communication and the internet were outstanding. It was truly a 21st Century political campaign. McCain’s campaign, on the other hand was a 20th Century political campaign, and, in my view, poorly managed, as well. We need to look closely at the Obama campaign and use it as a model going forward.

We need to spend the next two years rebuilding the Republican Party. We need to find young dynamic spokesmen for the conservative cause. We need, on a national basis, to have leaders like Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, John Sununu, Haley Barbour, Jim Inhofe and other conservative lights step forward and assume leadership of a damaged Party.

The San Fernando Valley Republican Club

Change in the Republican Party will come, not from the top down, but from the grass-roots up. Since we are a Republican grass-roots organization we will be moving forward in the coming months with a program of renewal for the Republican Party in the San Fernando Valley. We will determine how best to communicate our message, and to recruit candidates who are a stand for conservative principles.

To that end, the speakers for our membership meetings for the next few months will be people who have concrete ideas on how to revitalize the Republican Party over the next couple of years. We need to be prepared to recapture seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2010. We need to be unified as a party as to what we stand for. We need another Contract for America, just as we had in 1994 after two years of a Democrat administration. I think Newt Gingrich will be helpful in articulating a strategy.

We also need to be prepared to get more Republican candidates elected to statewide offices, especially Governor, which, so far, Steve Poizner has announced he will be a candidate for.

Our speaker for the November meeting will be Ben Shapiro who will give us his thoughts on revitalizing the Republican Party. Ben is a native of the San Fernando Valley and is the author of Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth, Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future, and Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House. He also wrote The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama” for Townhall.com

Join the San Fernando Valley Republican Club in its mission to re-energize the Republican Party in the valley.

Congratulations to 2008 Candidates for a great job.

I also want to congratulate the candidates for State Assembly, State Senate and Congress who went out and fought the brave fight all over the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles County. They ran strong campaigns and, unfortunately, because of the heavily Democrat districts, most of them were not elected. They deserve our profound congratulations for a great effort, and for standing up for Republican principles despite the odds.

Congratulations to Victory 2008 Volunteers

We can’t forget all of those grass-roots volunteers who came out to the headquarters, walked precincts, made phone calls and were there at all hours and for months on end. Without our grass-roots volunteers we would have no ground campaign. They deserve more than we can give them. It is those who gave of themselves that will be a part of building the future of the Party.

The next meeting of the San Fernando Valley Republican Club is on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at Galpin Ford at 7:00pm. More details to follow.

We are at a new beginning for the Republican Party. Let’s re-emerge as a strong clear party that articulates and lives our conservative heritage.


Gary Aminoff
San Fernando Valley Republican Club

The foregoing was a letter sent to the members of the San Fernando Valley Republican Club on November 5, 2008.

Pinch Yourself

Melanie Phillips writes

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

It is just surreal. Read the whole article.

This Jew Will Vote For John McCain

Ben Naftali, a guest blogger at China Confidential writes about why he will vote for John McCain:

So it’s over. The polls show that Barack Obama beat John McCain in the Presidential debates. No matter. This American Jew will vote for McCain.

This Jew will vote for John M. McCain instead of Barack Hussein Obama because John McCain says what he means, means what he says–and makes the most sense.

This Jew will vote for John McCain because of the two Presidential candidates he is most qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

This Jew will vote for John McCain because John McCain has been thoroughly vetted over and again. We know who he is, where he’s been, and where he stands on all the important issues facing the United States.

This Jew will vote for John McCain because this Jew grew up in New York, a city that was almost destroyed by left-wing extremism and misguided liberalism.

This Jew will vote for John McCain because John McCain is a proven friend of Israel.

This Jew will vote for John McCain because he will stop Iran from acquiring atomic weapons–no ifs, ands or buts. In contrast, Obama’s “aggressive diplomacy” and proposed summit with the devil will provide the Islamist menace with the time it needs to build those weapons, including nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles.

This Jew will vote for John McCain because this Jew can’t imagine voting for someone who has been advised by Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Samantha Power.

This Jew will vote for John McCain because this Jew can’t bring himself to vote for a candidate whose America-bashing wife–there, I said it–posed for a luncheon photo with the wife of Louis Farrakhan.

He lists a lot of additional reasons he will vote for John McCain. You can read them all here.

Why Don’t Obama’s Communist Associations Matter?

Why Don’t Obama’s Communist Associations Matter?

Paul Kengor, writing in The American Thinker, contemplates why the public is not outraged about Obama’s Socialist and Communist associations. He concludes it is because the history and truth of Communism is not taught in our schools any longer.

There’s a lot of frustration among conservatives over how Barack Obama’s radical past seems to be making no impact whatsoever among the American public. His connection to communists in particular, from communist-terrorists like Bill Ayers to the communist agitator-journalist Frank Marshall Davis to fellow travelers like Saul Alinsky, has simply failed to resonate beyond the political right. Quite the contrary, the more information that becomes available on Obama’s radical associations, the more he seems to widen his lead over John McCain, a man who was tortured by communists in Vietnam.

I understand these frustrations completely. I’m also not surprised.

I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold War — and defeated the Soviet communist empire — America is vulnerable to varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, “creeping socialism” (Ronald Reagan’s phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and truth about communism is not taught by our educators.

That total failure to remind and understand means that Americans are painfully vulnerable to repeat mistakes that should have been forever tossed onto the ash-heap of history.

Read the whole article.

The benefits and success of Capitalism is not taught either. Mostly, capitalism is frowned upon and socialism is lauded. Our public school teachers, who have been indoctrinated with leftist theology in our universities are passing on that ideology to our children. American values are no longer held in esteem. Wealth redistribution, government as the solution to all of life’s problems, cultural diversity, rather than celebration of the American culture, are what is valued today.

This, in my opinion, is going to destroy the American culture in the next generation or two. While America stood for innovation, greatness and good in the 1940’s and 1950’s, if we continue on this path for another generation, America will become another socialistic, unmotivated, European-style declining society.

Foreign Policy is Reason to Vote McCain

Foreign Policy is Reason to Vote McCain

Morrie Amitay, a Democrat and former Executive Director of AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), writing for JTA says he is going to vote for John McCain based on his foreign policy, particularly as it relates to Israel.

As a patriotic Jewish American, I care deeply about Israel’s well-being and security as well as that of our own country.

In having to choose between the two presidential candidates, I find myself looking closely at their statements, record of accomplishments, the people who advise them now and those they were influenced by in the past. I do this with our future foremost in mind, and what we could expect their policies would mean to Israel going forward.

This measuring rod is critically important in the face of the unprecedented national security challenges that we will face in the next few years.

Today the choice for the pro-Israel community is clear: Sen. John McCain is the one. I regret that this choice is not shared by more of my coreligionists. As they vote Democratic, more out of habit than out of self-interest, too many fail to appreciate the growing menace of Islamic extremism to both the United States and Israel.

Read the whole article.


The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama

The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama

Ben Shapiro who produced the videos referred to in the YouTube trailer above has written a guest post at HughHewitt.com.

My name is Ben Shapiro, and I’m a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate, as well as a Harvard Law-educated lawyer in Los Angeles. I’m also a huge fan of Hugh’s show and his website, so it was truly an honor and a pleasure when Hugh offered to have me put up a guest post on the site.

I’m an Orthodox Jew — my wife hails from Israel, where we were just married in July. So the issue of Israel is very near and dear to me, as it is to most other Jews. With Israel in mind, this is an enormous election season for American Jewry. It pits a consistently strong defender of Israel in John McCain against a man who is at best an enigma on the issue of Israel. At worst, Barack Obama is far more dangerous. His advisors are largely anti-Israel. His friends are consistently anti-Israel. His running mate, Joe Biden, says all of the right things but has a questionable record on the Jewish State. And the candidate himself is ambivalent on his defense of Israel — he reversed himself on a united Jerusalem over the course of 24 hours, and states that he will meet with Hitler-lite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

And yet most American Jews are convinced that Obama is a less threatening version of Bill Clinton. They believe that Obama loves the State of Israel, will stand up for Israel’s interests, and only wants to see the Israelis come to a quick and just agreement with Palestinian Arabs that protects Israel’s long-term safety and security.

There is no evidence to that effect. In fact, all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

To the end of educating American Jews on Israel — as well as Israel’s non-Jewish American supporters — I’ve produced a three-part YouTube video entitled “The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama. The trailer for the video (1 minute, 40 seconds) can be found here. Part I, which introduces the subject and discusses Obama’s advisors, who have ranged from the virulently pro-Palestinian Samantha Power to the Carter-style anti-Israel advocate Zbigniew Brzezinski, can be found here. Part II discusses two of Obama’s friends: Reverend Wright, who associates with Louis Farrakhan and believes that America’s Israeli policy is responsible for 9/11; and Rashid Khalidi, a former spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Part II can be found here. Part III examines Joe Biden and Obama himself, and concludes that the Democratic nominee for president cannot be trusted with the future of Israel. Part III can be found here.

For fifty years, Jews have been gratefully voting for Harry Truman. Truman, unfortunately, is gone, and his party has largely become a respository of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment. Jews cannot live in the past when it comes to 2008. They must make a choice between McCain and Obama. When it comes to Israel, the choice is clear.


Voter Fraud Will Destroy American Confidence

Voter Fraud Will Destroy American Confidence

The one thing most American’s have always had confidence in is that the voter rolls are accurate. In the last election ACORN was discovered to have committed voter fraud in several states and was fined. Apparently this year, ACORN is committing massive voter fraud.

Don’t take my word for it, just google ACORN and read about all the incidents of registering dead people, people from the phone book, Dallas Cowboys in Las Vegas, and other fraudulent voter registrations. Estimates are that there may be one or two million fraudulent voter registrations.

If the American public begins to seriously question the integrity of the voter rolls the confidence in the American electoral process will be lost.

The voter fraud committed by ACORN and others needs to be investigated, and quickly. The voter rolls need to be purged of all fraudulent registrations, including the registrations of illegal aliens who are not eligible to vote.


The Governor of Missouri Speaks Out

The Governor of Missouri Speaks Out

Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts – not a free society.”


Who is Better Suited for National Security Leadership?

Who is Better Suited for National Security Leadership?

Palin v. Obama: Who’s Better Suited for National Security Leadership
by Clark S. Judge

In the Category 100 hurricane of mainstream media sarcasm, dismissals and denunciations that has blown over the number two spot on the GOP ticket this week, one simple fact remains standing amidst the debris: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is better suited to take responsibility for the national security of the United States than is Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

Let me be clear first about the reasons I could have had in mind, but did NOT have in mind, in reaching this contrarian conclusion.

First off, I was NOT thinking about the MSM’s record for perceptiveness and insight when it comes to national strategy and commanders in chief. It is not a good record.

Over seven years, I served in the Reagan Administration in capacities ranging from volunteer staff for a commission to review government management to an international economic policy assignment to speechwriter to the president. I watched as the same institutions – even sometimes the same people – directed the same rhetorical fire at Ronald Reagan that they are now directing at Governor Palin.

Ignorant, dangerous, trigger-happy cowboy (well, not “boy” in Palin’s case): all this and more they said about the author of the most brilliant national security strategy of the 20th century. For more than a decade after he returned to California, they dismissed as a near buffoon the man whose policies led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War within less than a presidential term of his exit from office.

For example, The New York Times was a leader of the charge of the blind brigade then and is once more leading the pack now. This Sunday’s edition featured a front page story and three columnist writing that the governor who took on corruption in high places, cut federal earmarks accepted in half and enjoyed an 80 percent approval rating was not such an able a leader at all and, of course, not suited for global leadership.

But I am NOT suggesting that, given their record, the opinion of this crowd on the suitability of any candidate for global leadership is beyond laughable and beneath contempt. I’m not. Truly, I’m not.

And in saying that Senator Obama is less qualified than Governor Palin, I am NOT thinking of the almost unbelievable absence of judgment that the senator has displayed on national security matters since the campaign began.

It is hard to pick the low point. There have been so many — from advocating abrogation of NAFTA to proposing unconditional direct talks between US president Obama and Iranian president Ahmadinejad to announcing in a televised debate that he would start pulling US troops out of Iraq within sixty days of taking office to his running mate telling Israeli generals that they would have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran. It is quite a list.

But my top pick for low moment came in just the past couple of weeks. In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Senator Obama said of our troop surge in Iraq that no one could have imagined how successful it would be. The mainstream media glided over the confession, but it is worth noting that early advocate John McCain as well as the much maligned George W. Bush and the brilliant David Petraeus all were able to imagine the surge’s success. By her support for the surge, Governor Palin was, too.

But I am NOT saying that Senator Obama’s breathtaking failure of imagination on the most consequential national security decision of the past four years makes him a less able candidate for national security leadership. After all, maybe he thought that our troops just weren’t up to the job, that they couldn’t do much but cling to their guns and pray for the best.

And I am NOT saying that Governor Palin is more qualified because of her experience related to foreign affairs, though it is vast by comparison with Senator Obama.

Let’s face it — neither has much in the way of direct experience in international policy. Senator Obama’s main claim to stature is co-sponsorship of an uncontroversial, entirely obvious bill regarding acquisition and disposal of Soviet-era weapons of mass destruction still in Russia – legislation that, while beneficial, displayed all the sophistication of an undergraduate term paper and on which he followed the lead of GOP co-sponsor Senator Richard Lugar, a true expert in this field.

But the world and its challenges are changing. Thanks to the surge’s unimaginable success, Iraq may be little more than a cleaning up operation for the next president. But with the economic rise of China and India and events in Russia, it seems clear that outside the Middle East, the big challenges will have to do with access to resources.

Both tickets have placed high emphasis on securing energy from, if not domestic sources, then at least friendly ones. Senator Obama initially put off limits the two forms of energy that are most within reach of current technology – offshore oil drilling and building more nuclear generating plants. He seems to be backing off that position, like so many others. But if he goes through with his threat to demand a renegotiation of NAFTA, he may well complicate access to the next most politically stable and friendly source of both petroleum and uranium: Canada.

By contrast, according to American foreign policy expert James Bennett, writing in this weekend’s London Sunday Telegraph, Palin’s celebrated pipeline deal included successful negotiations with the Canadian national and provincial governments. Because of its rich energy resources, Canada is about to become a far more important factor in US global policy. Obama has spent a good part of this campaign insulting and threatening this ally. Palin already has worked constructively with them.

But, as I say, experience is NOT the reasons that Governor Palin is better suited as a steward of our national security than Senator Obama. Here is the reason.

Presidents are surrounded with lots of foreign policy experts. Most of the National Security Council staff will be the same, whichever ticket wins. Both Obama and Palin are intelligent people who will quickly absorb their briefing books and lectures and within months be extraordinarily well versed in the full range of foreign policy issues.

But then something will happen and, not only will the president have make decisions, but it will be essential that he or she be able to stand firm. No quality is more fundamental to the success of a keeper of our security than strength. In recent weeks, one McCain ploy after another has thrown Senator Obama and his campaign. The senator has backed off one position after another that had been previously cast in cement. He and his campaign have acted deeply intimidated by McCain television ads – well, not ads actually broadcast on television, internet ads, an incredible display of weakness

Meanwhile, Governor Palin has uttered three critical words that mark her as having the strength of a Thatcher or a Reagan – the most telling words she said to Charlie Gibson: “You can’t blink.”

That’s what we learned this week. Under pressure, Senator Obama blinks. Under pressure, Governor Palin does not. That is why Governor Palin has emerged as the one better suited to assume our national security leadership, should she need to step in.

Clark S. Judge is managing director of the White House Writers Group, a policy and communications consulting firm based in Washington


Cling to me

Cling to me

This is what Obama really wants.