Sunday, May 31, 2009

Andrew Sullivan, Anti-Semite, Anti-Israel, Anti-Jew

Once upon a time I respected Andrew Sullivan, but that was back when Blogging was new and I didn't need to go into detail about how Andrew Sullivan attacked the Conservative movement because he is lazy.

This weekend on AOL, Andrew Sullivan posted a question that was broadcast Web-wide:

"Do we have a double standard regarding Israel's and Iran's rhetoric?"

Most Conservatives I know support Israel, the original Democracy in the Middle east (followed by Iraq, strange that). Andrew Sullivan, in becoming President Obama's favorite Blogger, posts how Israel does not need to worry about Iran or missiles from Gaza or any nation with a rhetoric for destroying Israel.

The only Blogger I know who is a True Conservative and is also an Israeli supporter (like a majority of Conservatives) is a smart, tough New Yorker by the name of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs. Yes, I would back her in any fight, as I think she does for every Conservative and Jew. It's the New Yorker in me.

During the 2008 campaign when it was proven that President Obama had anti-Israeli advisers, and Rep. Eric Cantor, a Republican and a Jew brought up the issue, Sullivan attacked Cantor, not Obama (strange, that post linked to Jeffery Goldberg's 8/4/08 article is gone).

Andrew Sullivan supported Charles Freeman who supported Palestinian rights over Israeli sovereignty; And on a personal level, when I was highlighting Anti-Israeli rhetoric mixed in with Anti-Bush Rhetoric at the Daily Kos, Andrew Sullivan did not return any of my 4 emails.

Nowadays, Andrew Sullivan does not hide his disdain for Israel. He claims to be Conservative but does not understand that Conservatives believe in Democracy Overseas for any non-European, Asian or Northern American nation as well. And he calls us "Conservatives," racists! Ha!

Meanwhile, Pamela Geller, a True Conservative (and dare I say, charming as well?) of Atlas Shrugs has shown time and again (and again, and again, etc.) that President Obama is not looking out for the Jew's best interest. And, since Andrew Sullivan is President Obama's favorite Blogger (TM), it's time to call him out.

Every American, Every Jew, Every Israeli should stand up against Anti-semitism in this Administration and within the Blogosphere.

Who still supports Andrew Sullivan, Anti-Jew, Anti-Israeli and Anti-Semite?

Bookmark and Share

Palinaphobia -- Bad for the Country, here is the Cure

Last year, during the final bit of the elections, I suffered from the Plague year, so my voice was silent. When it came to the Election, I voted for the top of the ticket, weakly, but proudly voted for Governor Palin (R-AK). I met Senator McCain (R-AZ) in 1996, and yet, I still did not feel as supportive of McCain as I did of Senator Dole (R-KS).

Why? McCain was just like anyone from Los Angeles, he flaked on Republicans between 2001 - 2008. And the press fell in love with any Republican who went against President Bush! Bias anyone?

So, what made Governor Palin worthy of my vote and so much disdain from the Left and the the Expats?

When I grew up in the 70's in NYC, feminism meant that Women would have the freedom to work, and raise a family, or do both if they wanted. Education would not matter if a woman would make it to the Executive offices. And then in 1991, sexual harassment was a feminist issue and then in 1995 it wasn't. Wonder why?

If you look at Governor Palin's bio, she went to a few different Universities. Eventually, she ran for City Council in Wassila, then mayor. Then Governor against her own party (which had a corrupt Governor) -- she won in the Primary where it counted, and when she started to Govern, reform was her issue.

When she was picked by McCain in 2008, the feminists, the Democrats, the Governing Elite and the Expats living in the US decried her. Again, why?

The American dream is that anybody can rise and be reborn in the United States. So, she went to 5 colleges? The last Democratic President who was not from the Ivies was Lyndon Baines Johnson, last elected in 1964. Ronald Reagan graduated from another non-ivy college, elected in 1980 and again in 1984. So why are Democrats called the "party of the common man," again?

One of the worst attackers of Governor Palin was Andrew Sullivan, President Obama's favorite Blogger. He attacked her family with "Trig Trutherism," He hated Senator Clinton, too. I think the feminists should start asking questions -- oh, but wait, he supports a Democratic President, why should they?

Governor Palin is blunt, does not hides her views and is an independent woman who loves her family. She represents the commoners who don't have Ivies and have a gut sense of what is right and what is wrong. Palinaphobia is a product of the Left's need for an Emmanuel Goldstein.

When will the Left cure itself of this disease? And what are doing to cure Palinaphobia?

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Borking Judge Sotomayor and any other Obama Judge

Does anyone remember Judge Bork's nomination? It begat the word, Borking, which means (according to Wiki): To defeat a judicial nomination through a concerted attack on the nominee's character, background and philosophy

It was done again with the nomination of Justice Thomas. Now, we have a President who, supposedly campaigned on Bi-partisanship and Post-partisanship. Did President Obama live close to his rhetoric?

Because he was in the Senate, and not a Governor or Vice President, we can actually see how he voted when President Bush offered two nominees. Let's look:

Chief Justice John Roberts: Senator Obama voted NO;
Justice Alito: Senator Obama voted NO.

How do we return the favor?

William Jacobson, genius that he is, of Legal Insurrection , discovered something that can be used in the Judiciary Committee against Judge Sotomayor and every other judge that passes through Committee. It could not be done without Senator Specter flipping parties (a win-win in my book).

To Quote Mr. Jacobson:

But ironically, Specter's defection may give Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee.Huh, you say. Here's the explanation, from Professor Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School at his excellent blog, Dorf on Law, written two days ago before Souter's retirement was in play:

Does Arlen Specter's defection from R to D strengthen the President's hand in Congress?

Perhaps overall but not on judicial appointments because breaking (the equivalent of) a filibuster in the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the consent of at least one member of the minority. Before today, Specter was likely to be that one Republican. Now what? The link in Dorf's post is to Congress Matters, which has the Senate Judiciary Committee rule:

The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority. Now this is interesting. Specter could allow a nominee out of committee if Specter was a member of the Republican minority, but as part of the majority, he's just another vote. Here are the other Republicans: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn

Another reason to hold Judge Sotomayor's nomination? Other then the fact she believes a Judicial ruling is better then Legislative action?

How were President Bush's Minority Judicial nominees treated?

Miguel Estrada was stopped; And Alberto Gonzalez was Borked (remember that word?). So was Judge Janice Rodgers Brown, an African American. Let's not forget Deborah Cook and Priscilla Owen. The full list is here.

The Republican Senators on the Judicial Committee should put a "Hold," on every Judicial nomination coming from this White House. If President Obama is really Bi-partisan, he will make sure the Senate Democrats follow through on every former President Bush Judicial nominee.

It's a fair trade. Remember, Senator Obama voted down both of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees, so we on the Right owe him the same courtesy.

Am I wrong?

Bookmark and Share

A Tale of Two Speakers

To finish off the balancing theme, let me tell a Tale of Two Speakers -- Speaker Pelosi of California and Speaker Martin of Glasgow.

Speaker Martin (Labour) is set to resign June 21, and a new Speaker for the House of Commons is due to be elected. The House of Commons usually has a rule about the Speakers; Normally if a Labour Speaker went first, a Conservative Speaker goes next, no matter the majority Government. Thank Prime Minister Gordon Brown for that muck up.

In America, the Speaker of the House is supposed to represent the whole House of Representatives. The best Speakers have been Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-MA) and Speaker Hastart (R-IL) because their egos never gave way in the House. Both parties know their history, if a Speaker Cannon should rise up, it is the House majority that must kick him out. Speaker Pelosi is following the footsteps of Speaker Cannon (R-IL).

Speaker Martin of Glasgow did not fall on his sword during the first round of problems with personal expenses, but during the second round. His expense problem led to the whole Parliament being under inquiry. Now, he is forced to leave his job as Speaker and his seat as an MP. And Prime Minister Gordon Brown is under fire for not holding a new election.

What does Speaker Martin have to do with Speaker Pelosi? And what can we on the Right do?

The first round of hits has occurred: For all of Speaker Pelosi's fulminations on "Torture," she also signed off. Hypocrisy, thy name is Pelosi. How many countries has she run off too since she was found out?

There is a whole slew of Corrupted Democrats in the House that can be investigated or threaten to investigate. Speaker Pelosi tied her fate to Rep. Murtha, should we push a little?

On the Right, we do not have to do anything but initiate the probe, get our allies in Local papers and on FOX to follow through on the investigation. We have 12 months, let it bubble slowly. Let Pelosi defend corruption and her stance on "Torture,"

Game, set match. Let's look and see what we have to look forward too:

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

President Obama and Vice President Cheney: To Balance the War

Last Friday, while yours truly was involved in a personal drama, there was a debate on Gitmo and the War on Terror (or "Overseas Contingency Operations," if you work in the current White House).

First, here is President Obama. And his transcript. :

Visit for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now Former Vice President Cheney and his transcript:

Visit for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So who is right? For today's Democrats, they thought the War on Terror started on 9/11 -- in fact it started before 9/11.

In fact, Osama bin Laden declared his intentions against the United States in August 1996. But it's Bush's fault in 1996 too, right Democrats?

Let's not forget what happened before 9/11/2001 (USS Cole, WTC 1993, two embassies) But again, lefties, Bush's fault, right?

Compare both speeches. Former VP Cheney expresses a theory and a way to solve it; President Obama speaks in platitudes. Know who else belived in platuitudes against an enemy who did not care? Neville Chamberlain. How many terms did he serve?

I know this requires nuance from the Left, but my questions are these:

What policies has President Obama enacted that is different from President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the War on Terror? And what are the direct aftereffects? And finally, do you remember the 444 days? If President Obama's policies echo President Carter's, what are the odds of a return to the 444 days?

Bookmark and Share

Life -- Back in Balance

Sorry for the long pause. I was just dealing with a personal issue that went badly. Also, I had to make sure a relative's return to Los Angeles worked out well too (Blame United Airlines/USAIR).

As a way of forgiveness, I give you Koyaanisqatsi (which means: Life Out of Balance) film in full. Music by Philip Glass:

Thre next few posts will be about Balance. The Yin and yang in the Political world.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, May 18, 2009

The 5/18 Discussion of the Republican Encyclicals

Topics of Conversation:

Who speaks for the GOP and Why?

The President Bush Rule;

The 3x3 Rule

Who doesn't speak for the GOP?

Meghan McCain

Andrew Sullivan

Bookmark and Share

Republican Encyclicals: Why Andrew Sullivan does not speak for us

Karv and Todd,

Once upon a time I liked reading Andrew Sullivan. But that was during 2001 -2002. Someway, somehow, in 2003 - he started to attack President Bush (thus breaking the President Bush Rule) and endorsed Senator Kerry in 2004. By 2009, he endorsed (and became a supplicant to) President Obama and attacked Governor Palin's family.

Pardon my language here, but how the hell can anyone call Andrew Sullivan Conservative? At least since 2004, he has not been one of us. If we need to promote Gay Republicans, I nominate Bruce and Daniel of the Blog, Gaypatriot.

Since he has been a regular on Chris Matthews' NBC show, the Republican Party legal Department should sue either Sullivan or Matthews for misrepresentation for any funds given since 2004. If Sullivan does not want to pay the monies for misrepresenting himself, then we should get it from Matthews.

Karv and Todd, even when I was young Democratic Politico, I learned not to attack a politicians family (even here in the valley, I will not attack Michelle Obama or her kids). On page 35 of the late Speaker Tip O'Neill's book, All Politics is Local, he wrote:
"Truman said he had no use for Ike. 'But leave his family alone,' the
President [Truman] continued, his voice rising. 'If I ever hear that one of you
attacked the wife or a family remember...I'll personally go into
your district and campaign against you'"

I read Andrew Sullivan's book, The Conservative Soul. Short version: Andrew Sullivan likes the theories of Oakshott, but hates actual Social Conservatives like President Bush.
A few other reasons why Andrew Sullivan should not be looked upon as any part of the party:
1) In the Leadership Institute, Morton Blackwell writes in his Law of the Public Policy Process, rule 31, Don't fully trust anyone until he has stuck with a good cause which he saw was losing. Why is this relevent? In Sullivan's book, he talks of supporting Thatcher and Reagan after the Conservatives in both places worked long and hard to support them. Until Andrew Sullivan supports the Conservatives when it is not "cool," he has no standing to talk for us.
2) Has he ever walked for a Conservative candidate? Has he ever phoned? No, again, no standing.

3) Does he have any Conservative friends in DC or is he a total supplicant to Obama's Administartion? In other words, does he live by the 3x3 rule? If neither, he has no standing.

4) For what he did to Governor Palin's family, he should never be allowed back into the Republican party. Heck, he shouldn't be allowed into polite society for his "Trig Trutherism," When President Obama betrays Sullivan (and he will), our party leaders should let him know we will read his Hollywood stories, but do not speak for Republicans because of his personal attacks on Palin. When we get the majority again, it should be time to send him back to England. he does not understand American politics.

Next in the Encyclicals: Building from the Ground, up.

Until later,

Bookmark and Share

The Republican Encyclicals: Meghan Mccain does not speak for us, ask her cousin, Robert Stacy Mccain

Karv and Todd,

Sorry for the delay, real life always intervenes. Now to follow up on the "Who speaks for the GOP," posts.

For research on this post, thank former editor of the Washington Times, (and cousin of Senator John McCain, father of Meghan), Robert Stacy McCain (In Blogger terms, that is a Rule 2).

Remember the 3x3 rule? Just because her father ran for the Presidency in 2008 does not mean she knows what the rest of the GOP thinks. And any Republican who allows MSNBC to pick them as "speaking," for us, does not. Until Keith Olbermann learns how to debate with Conservatives for two years straight, MSNBC should be Non Grata within our side. Thus, Meghan McCain performs her first EPIC FAIL.

As Robert Stacy McCain documents, Meghan McCain always argues for the Left and Moderate Republicans. As I mentioned in the beginning, until the Moderate and Left Wing republicans bring funds and voters, they do not get to set the table, but they do join us. Decision makers? No. Funds and voters first.

Thing is, when Senator Dole ran in 1996, he earned the loyalty of the Republican voters by standing by them when times were hard, not Senator McCain. And if anyone asks why we do not run moderates, look at 2008. We ran Meghan McCain's father, and he lost. Let us remember that.

Until later,


Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

The Speaker and the Spooks

The Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] is not known for it's publicity machine. Like every Intelligence Agency around the world, it deals in the dark. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, we need them on the wall.

During the Bush Administration, the CIA leaked documents to protect themselves. Acting, instead of defensive agency standing on the wall, it acted like a bureaucracy. And just because they leaked against Bush, did not mean the CIA hated Republicans (Only Democrats HATE Republicans), it only means they had to CYA.

Now, with the "Torture memo," controversy hitting too close to their home, the CIA is now going after the Democrats. I'm just laughing right now. Democrats run everything, and both Speaker Pelosi and President Obama campaigned on "Bi-partisanship," And the "torture memo," brings about Bi-partisanship how?

After 9/11, all the top members of Congress were briefed by the CIA on what was being done to the captured (non-signatories of the Geneva Convention) Al-Queda figures. Since the beginning of the Democrats and their search for a "Truth Commission," Speaker Pelosi is now in the cross-fire. Heh.

In one week, Speaker Pelosi has jumped around the question of her briefings and if she stood up and said they were wrong. A while back, I engaged in a debate with Jason on his Obama Action Comics! Blog. I keep on hearing calls for Bush's neck, but none for Pelosi's. If Speaker Pelosi was the representative of the Left, if torture is so bad, why did she not stop it in 2003? in 2004? in 2005? in 2006? in 2007? in 2008?

Intelligence agents deal in the real. Vice President Cheney does not deal in Bull. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi tried to politicize the water's Edge and tried to pull the CIA's shorts down.

There is a lesson to be learned here. President Obama is not releasing the pictures, Speaker Pelosi is twisting in the wind. What lesson? Do not mess with the CIA and do not politicize the Water's Edge.

Who will win? Speaker Pelosi or the CIA? Why or why not?

Bookmark and Share

The Republican Encyclicals: The 3x3 Rule

Karv and Todd,

Todd, I know you come out to Los Angeles and try some In-and-Out Burgers. The great thing about the burgers are that they are fresh and tasty. What is cool is what you can find on the menu. Even cooler, their secret menu. So, a 3x3 is 3 Burgers with three cheeses; In the Encyclicals, a 3x3 is 3 references in 3 separate areas of the party.

By not using the 3x3 rule, we had a Justice Souter who had no Republican friends in DC when he arrived and gravitated to the Left; and out here in California, Governor Schwarzenegger, when he couldn't get his way in 2005, drifted Left and to hell with our activists. The 3x3 rule is to forestall any future Souter's and Schwarzenegger's.

What is the 3x3 Rule? To speak (or do anything) for Republicans and Conservatives, the person must have 3 references in 3 different areas in the party (applies for the over 30's only, under 29, build them up).

What areas? I'll give a list; if an asterisk is there, the person must have one person from here.

1) Washington, DC Republicans (Principle or staff, applies to all) *
1A) Executive Branch Republicans
1B) House of Representatives Republicans *
1C) Senate Republicans *

2) State and Local Activists *
2A) County Activists *
2B) Regional Activists *

3) State Republicans (Executive or Legislative Staff or Principals) *

4) Bloggers *

5) Talk Show Hosts (Regional or national)

6) Article Writers for National Review, Weekly Standard, etc.

7) Republican Lobbyists (State and/or Federal) *

8) Representatives from each branch of the Party *

9) Campaign Committee Staff or Principals (i.e. RNC, NRCC, etc. et. al) *

10) Conservatives or Republicans in Media *

Use this list as a guide of who should speak for us. If you're reading this and feel hungry for In-and-out, let me know and we'll eat and discuss these posts.

Next: Meghan McCain and Andrew Sullivan, why each are voted off the island!

Until later,

Bookmark and Share

The Republican Encyclicals: The President Bush Rule

Karv and Todd,

Why the President Bush Rule? Because for Democrats, if something is popular, they believe it is also right. As I said in the original post, we are rebels. President Bush sacrificed his popularity for his belief of "Democracy in the Middle East trumps terrorism,"

If you want to shut up a Liberal or Democrat, ask them what issues will President Obama sacrifice his popularity for? Go on, ask. President Clinton did not stand on any issues (other then his own survival).

I have a saying, give it 15 minutes, a Democrat will change his/her mind; Give President Obama 10 minutes. Another thing, Democrats need an Emmanuel Goldstein, just like in 1984. After 2003, the Democrats laid the groundwork for attacking President Bush. And after Andrew Sullivan, the so-called "Gay Conservative," flipped, so did the rest of the public. The press used Andrew Sullivan to give them cover. It is time we stop giving him cover.

Again, if you want a Democrat to be quiet, ask them why the need an Emmanuel Goldstein? Then give them the list (mentioned in the post). They'll run back to Speaker Pelosi for help.

What is the President Bush Rule (also applied to Governor Palin)?

If you were active in politics between 2003 - 2007 and followed the popular route of attacking Bush, you do not speak for Republicans and Conservatives. Period. The end. The rule extends to Governor Palin 2008 and beyond.

If a Democrat converts to our side and was active from 2003 onward, they must publish a FULL APOLOGY to both. Then give why Bush was right as is Palin. or whomever is the Democrat's Emmanuel Goldstein at that moment.

However, this offer does not extend to Andrew Sullivan. More on that on a later Encyclical post.

Thanks again.


Bookmark and Share

The Republican Encyclicals: Who Speaks for Us and Why

Karv and Todd,

First, let me thank you both for helping my Mom. There is no better way to thank people then to do it publicly. She really appreciates your help.

Speaking of talking in public, not everyone who says they speak for us, does. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff here? First, Time magazine has done it's once a decade, "Republican Party is Dead," article.

Former Vice President Cheney is a serious man who represents serious issues, when he speaks, like the E.F. Hutton commercials with John Houseman, people listen. He has worked as a staffer (just like you guys) and a Principle. By having the experience of both branches, he talks from knowledge. Not like the current officeholders of the Executive Branch, they believe if they say it, it will happen.

Those of us who are not former Vice President Cheney should understand, we have other rules to live by when it come to speaking for Republicans and Conservatives. What rules? I only have two because two is all I need. And these two rules knocks off Meghan McCain and Andrew Sullivan from representing us, ever again.

The rules will mentioned briefly here (with some more detail in the next two posts):

1) The President George W. Bush Rule: This rule states if you were active in Politics during 2000 - 2008, we on the 3X3 rule (look below) need to see what you wrote about President Bush between 2003- 2007. If you didn't say anything nice about President Bush, you don't get to speak for us. If you switched parties after 2009, we should expect a public apology to President Bush. It also works for Governor Palin too.

2) The 3x3 Rule: If you are a lone Blogger, you do not speak for us. If you have relatives who are big within the Party, that does not count either. 3X3 means, you need three references in three different sides of the party. For instance, I Blog, but I know both of you on the Hill, I know Gary Aminoff who is a local activist, I know Pamela Geller and Donald Douglas who are Bloggers.

More on those rules in the next posts.

And for our Campaign Committees and campaigns, I suggest that instead of hiring people who have grown up within the party, we have Converts speak. Converts are more supportive because they know the choice and the know what the Left will do. People grown up within the Party know only theorretically what the Left is. And as a convert, I speak from experience.

Also, G-d Bless talk radio, because with the press playing hagiographers to president Obama, our voices are heard. Be it Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, or Rush, they understand the rules above.


1) The RNC, NRCC, NRSC, etc. et. al. must have Converts speak for them.

2) Follow the 2 rules:
A) The President Bush Rule
B) The 3x3 Rule.

Thanks again!


Bookmark and Share

Sunday, May 10, 2009

A Challenge of Civility to my friend, Jason

Jason, of Obama Action Comics and Washington Interns Gone Bad, twittered about the Valley on May 3. I am proud to consider him a friend. He plays good tunes, he writes with a sense of humor and he is a sci-fi geek like me.

If the British parliament has a Two Line Whip, I'd be proud to add Jason as my equal and opposite (but he is funnier then I will ever be). But he is worried about the direction of the Valley. Why? I am using the rhetoric I once opposed by the Left. Here are examples I am still mad at.

He is worried, but shouldn't be. Here is why, I did a series of posts on Bi-partisanship (1, 2, 3). I used to be a Democrat so I do not think they are "Evil," But I grew up learning from Old Machine Party Democrats who taught me, three things:

Never attack a Politician, his or her family at these places:
1) The Sickbed
2) The Deathbed
3) The water's Edge.

I then did a post saying the past 8 years, the Dean Democrats broke all those rules and proved Rush right. Nothing in the comments contradicted that theory I espoused. Before the Plague year, I was already venturing towards radicalization.

Heck, my first post back, I said I was radicalized.

Let's put together some factors:

Plague year (with assorted Liberal Hollywood Democrats) + 8 Years of making President Bush Emmanuel Goldstein (as part of a list of some others) + No Democrats saying this was bad = Radicalized me.

Jason, I have five questions, hit me back on the WIGB Blog with the answers (I still read both your Blogs, even when I disagree):

1) Do Democrats need an Emmanuel Goldstein? Democrats run everything and you guys are STILL attacking President Bush. WTF? Can you prove me wrong?

2) At the Washington Press Dinner, comedian Wanda Sykes joked about "Rush should die from kidney failure," The press (which we on the Right look upon as suspect anyway) and the President laughed. Why should we attack with class when you guys still hit below the belt (i.e Keith Olbermann)?

3) Was Rush right about Democrats the last 8 years? I never got a yes/no answer here.

4) Why should Republicans not scorch the earth the same way Democrats did? From my standpoint, it helped you win elections (2006 and 2008). If it helped you win elections, how bad is scorching the earth?

5) What's the best way back from the bloody attacks? Start with the press dinner and show me the way.

Keep Blogging, keep playing. I'd like to hear your answers. And always, you have a permanent invite to the Valley. You have proven your opinion counts here.

Bookmark and Share

To my Mom, Helane Fein, Happy Mother's Day!

As I once did a post about my late Father, Stephen Fein, today I do a post about Mom, Helane Fein.

When I was growing up, it was my Mom who took to the different museums in New York City. It was my Mom who came to the class trips in Fourth grade. She always made great Sunday meals (and when I have a family of my own, I will make sure of the Sunday meals too).

After my Dad died, my sister and I helped my Mom get back on her feet. It took awhile, but she is stronger now then she has ever been. They love her where she works and she looks foward to getting up in the Morning.

She has always been the optimist -- in fact I'd be the first to nominate her for the Tzadikim Nistarim for her (and my sister's) support during the Plague year.

So, Mom, let me wish you a Joyous, Happy Mothers day!

Bookmark and Share

Friday, May 08, 2009

Eugene Delacroix with a dash of Chopin

I have always been a fan of Eugene Delacroix. His paintings inspire my writings.

When I first started the Valley, back in 2006, I did Friday Postings of paintings by Eugene Delacroix.

Do you want it to start again?

While you think about that, Enjoy this video with Delacroix's paintings and Chopin's music:

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, May 07, 2009

The 5/7/09 Discussion of the Republican Encyclicals

Here is the first set. Discuss:

The Intro (2.0)

Who are the GOP?

Who are the Democrats?

The battlefields

Victory 2012

Bookmark and Share

The Republican Encyclicals: What Victory looks like

Karv and Todd,

When planning out anything, it is best to start with the end in mind. Two books I have read is "The Secret," and "Think and Grow Rich," Both books discuss the idea of having a thought and making it real. Every County should have a party Election Night, it's why we are involved. After fighting on all the battlegrounds, here is what the Endgame looks like:

Election Night 2012 from a County Perspective

1) At 6:00PM Pacific Time, on Television, the Republican Presidential Candidate thanks his or her family, the campaign staff, the state chairs, and local Volunteers. Behind him or her, the staff readies for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave with a game plan lasting Four to Eight years.

2) Either by visit or by Proxies, the State Chairman (or woman) calls the County Chair and asks, who distinguished themselves this election? The List will be provided to the State Chair by morning -- the people who distinguished themselves, be they volunteers or chairs of local committees, should be recognized that night by their County.

3) The County Chair takes the stage and thanks the Assembly District Chairs [ADC] of the area; The Chair follows suit with the Volunteers. Then, the County chair gives up the stage for all the candidates, from Congressional to Dog Catcher.

4) As the Candidates speak, the County Chair makes his or her rounds to all the ADC's, and asks the same questions as the State Chair: Who made a difference this election? The ADC's should have their List ready by the time the County Chair starts his or her speech.

5) The ADC's contact all the local townships before the County party and get names and address' of volunteers and staffers. Before the night is out, contact these people personally to Thank them for the good job they did.

6) All Volunteers, staffers, Committee Chairs, County Chairs, and State Chairs bask in the nights triumph. The next morning, they prepare for the local elections in 2013 and the off-years in 2014.

Everyone who distinguished themselves move up the scale. If a local volunteer does not want to get into the political/policy sphere offer them a ticket to next year's Reagan Dinner (Winter) or Bush Dinner (Summer) [More on those later].

All the candidates should have started from the ADC level, thus giving everyone a chance to see them grow from newbie to veteran. Just because they carry the GOP banner does not mean they know us -- but we should make it a point at all levels that the candidates should have gotten to know us first. Don't believe me? Look at the California Governor. He did know us personally, so he felt comfortable selling the CA GOP down the river.

The key to making all the above happen is money. The County and Assembly chairs should know how to raise it. The more volunteers and professional staff, the more incoming funds. Funds flow to candidates and elections and topped off with the Victory party above.

It can be done!


Bookmark and Share

The Republican Encyclicals: Our Battlefields

Karv and Todd,

How are you? Things are moving forward in regards to my move back east to help the GOP and Conservatives. The next two posts are about where we fight and how it looks when we've won. This is all still set-up, but before a great meal is cooked, it is all about the prep.

So far, we have prepped the two sides in the game: The Republicans (us) and the Democrats (them). So, the question remains, where do we fight the Democrats?

The normal answer is in Our Legislatures and during Elections, but given the push from the Left during the last 8 years, we must expand that meaning.

Karv, I know you read comics, but have you read Marvel recently? They wrote a cross-book series called, "Secret Invasion," In it, the shape-shifting Skrulls, the enemy of the Fantastic Four since issue #2 (which I own), decide to attack the Marvel Universe. They were in every comic and every hero (and villain) had to fight the Skrulls to save the Earth. This being comics, infiltration failed and the heroes win the day, but it is an example of what Republicans must do.

I am not talking infiltration but it is time to even make the personal, political. The Left has years on us on this: Classical music concerts for instance.

So, what are our Battlefields? I say, everywhere and everytime.

We should be re-colonizing Hollywood (see, Big Hollywood) [Also look back on the California Encyclicals, Los Angeles, second stanza ], re-taking the American Campus, (what is left) in the Newspaper industry, and the media. The Left already corrupted the space with anti-President Bush screeds, let them eat their words. Oh, and by the way, we are not bound by Senator Vandenberg's line of Politics stops at the Water's Edge. The Democrats broke that rule in 2002.

I would suggest the RNC use the Blogosphere as a battle zone too. I called them for help on a post, and they were unhelpful to say the least. Our Leaders on the Hill and in the campaign Committees must look at social fields and say, we will attack there too.

There are people right now who understand this, let me introduce them:

1) Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs. She uses her Blog to attack the Democrats on every ground, she protests in Times Square, she has a way of getting her voice heard. It is the sign of a true New Yorker that nothing stands in her way of attacking the Democrats. We can learn a lot from her.

2) Gary Aminoff of the San Fernando Valley Republican Club. He started the club a few years ago when no one else would. Mr. Aminoff read the California Encyclicals, so he subscribes to a vision where the GOP is the majority in CA. He inspires his people to protest the Democrats when they oppose the war, he leads us to candidates fighting in the Valley (or the Westside). A calming influence, he leads.

3) Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. If Andrew Sullivan hates them, then they must be doing something right. They are our communicators. They are willing to anger people, to take the heat when elected officials won't. We must be willing to anger the Left and force their hand. Keep listening and reading to everyone mentioned in this group.

4) Professor Donald Douglas of American Power. His Blog posits the theory that America is a good place and that the Left has no understanding of the dangers we face. He fights as a college professor, he fights as a Blogger. DD, as I call him, can show the rest of us how to fire on the Left without fear (reminds me of another DD -- Daredevil, the man without fear).

5) Bruce and Daniel at GayPatriot. When Andrew Sullivan failed to keep Reagan's vision alive, these gentlemen have done so from their West Coast based blog. It was from here that I learned the quote: It’s easier to be gay among conservatives than it is to be conservative among gays They fight on the social battlefield so the rest of us don't have too. That should not be the case. All of us should. They even started a pro-GOP Republican group when Log Cabin went the Andrew Sulllivan route. Social Conservatives should back them, as they fight for Republicans too.

What do they all have in common? A willingness to engage Democrats and Liberals in battlefields the Campaign Committees (and local GOP) have not thought of. No place is off limits, and when we Conservatives and Republicans learn that, then we get one step closer to winning.

Until later,


Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Will "Who lost Pakistan?" replace "Who lost China/Cuba/etc."?

In the Economist magazine, there is an article about how the Taliban are advancing closer to Islamabad. In fact two questions should be asked:

1) Why, after January 20, 2009, do the Taliban feel safe to expand from war from Warizistan and inch closer to the Capitol of Pakistan?

2) With Pakistan falling into the realm of a failed state with Nuclear weapons and devices, will the Democrats in Congress do anything to stop a new failed state from occurring?

During the 1950's, President Truman was hounded out of office for losing China and North Korea (by Democrats!), President Kennedy had problems with the USSR tightening it's grip on the Eastern Bloc with the addition of the Berlin Wall. And President Kennedy was unable to stop Fidel Castro from implementing his rule on Cuba.

My questions are the two above and this one:

3) What will President Obama do to stop the Taliban from entering Islamabad?

or, sarcastically, how's that "smart diplomacy," working out for you?

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, May 03, 2009

US Politics, AI's and Uploading Minds: The Singularity awakes

Let's jump off Future Politics for a moment and go straight for the futurology. During my Plague Year, I was stuck reading a book by Charles Stross. The book was Acclerando. It discussed the Singularity and many other subjects. It's sequel, Glasshouse, was an adventure within the new world of the Singularity.

As someone who has one foot in Science Fiction and another in American Politics, let's discuss how to make the unreal, real.

First, what is the Singularity?

According to the Singularity Institute:

The Singularity is the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence. There are several technologies that are often mentioned as heading in this direction. The most commonly mentioned is probably Artificial Intelligence, but there are others: direct brain-computer interfaces, biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ultra-high-resolution scans of the brain followed by computer emulation. Some of these technologies seem likely to arrive much earlier than the others, but there are nonetheless several independent technologies all heading in the direction of the Singularity – several different technologies which, if they reached a threshold level of sophistication, would enable the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence.

Another good book to read is Ray Kurziweil's, The Singularity is Near. It discusses the theoretical advantages of living under the Singularity.

How can we create the world of the Singularity during the Second Decade of the Millennium? And how can we make the United States the forefront of this idea?

If NASA is the guide to how Government does science, then it would take fifty years to build a foothold (unless they are in a race against another State, but what Nation State is fighting us on that battlefield?) It needs private monies and private business' to make any sort of progress. Personally, I think we need a real life version of William Gibson's Chiba City (from Neuromancer). A Technological Free Zone where science advances without interference from the State and trade outweighs all. But I don't think this Administration will promote it.

But at some point if tax money can be had, the State will be involved. Let's posit that the next Republican Administration with a Republican Congress (Read the Encyclicals, it will happen soon) authorizes, say, Seattle, Washington as a technological Free Zone. If you are wondering how that happens? Lobby the Fiscal Conservatives. Trade helps civilization in their eyes.

In the new technological Wild West, an Artificial Intelligence [AI] is birthed. It is grown over a few years to adapt to modern life. More then just acting as a Chess Master, the AI establishes an inner life and world akin to the MMORPGs (i.e World of Warcraft). In the Technological Free Zone, other Artificial Worlds are created.

Charles Stross wrote Halting State to show the echoes the virtual world can have in the real one. The State will try to regulate the AI as a person. Will they use Corporate rules? Or human rules? The reason why Republicans are better at this, is because most Elected republicans actually run business'. They will weigh the benefits of making AI's people. If Democrats gain hold, they will tie the AI to the State, maybe make it operate for the State. Do we really want to go down that road?

The final part of uploading minds, how would that be popularized? Maybe culture will be influenced by the Technological Free Zone. If it can be done, safely, people will want to join in. A member of Congress will want to test it before they legalize it. The public will follow.

And, thanks to Republicans (and the many people who Lobby them), America is the first to enter the Singularity.

Would you want to live under the Singularity? How do you see it coming about?

Bookmark and Share

The Republican Encyclicals: Who are the Democrats?

Karv and Todd,

I just wrote about who we are, now it is time to write about our opponents. Who are today's Democrats?

Here are some of the breakdowns:

Blue Dog/Conservative Democrats: They err on the side of Fiscal Responsibility and Social Moderation. Most are regional to the South, Western and Border States. When we re-build to a majority party, they will be our allies.

Liberal and Progressive Democrats: They are Anti-war (only if a Republican is President); Anti-capitalist; Anti-police; Anti-tradition and the base of the Democrats. These are the people listening to Pacifica radio (where Anti-Israel views flourish) or Air America (where Hate Speech against Republicans is encouraged).

NPR Democrats: What Orwell would call "the Inner party," They live on the Coasts and are richer then the other Democrats. This is where the line of civilization is. These Democrats still Hate us, but they do it formally, with their friends in the Press.

And then finally, Democrats break down by profession and ethnicity:

The Professions are Unions and Hollywood;

The ethnicity is all the different type of ethic groups in the United States. Whereas, Republicans and Conservatives look upon people as individuals, Democrats have groups. That will work to their demise.

How? Keep reading and following.

Also, before I'm done with the Encyclicals today: let me say, RIP Rep. Jack Kemp

Next: Our battlefields, How victory looks like, and the first step to re-building.


Bookmark and Share

Saturday, May 02, 2009

The Republican Encyclicals: Who We Are

Karv and Todd,

I get frustrated when I read the News Media ranging from Newsweek and Time, to CNN and MSNBC, etc. et. al. talk about Republicans. The reporters do not try to understand "us," I feel that News reporters (both Print and TV) are not making the time (especially in the Era of Obama) to understand Republicans or Conservatives or our views.

To start off these posts, I want to re-define for any News Media out there, who we in the GOP are. I do not understand why Republicans are thought to be monolithic when the Democrats did a good job kicking out someone in their party who disagreed on Foreign Policy in 2006; Senator Specter left us on his own for personal reasons. It is time to ask: Which party is more tolerant?

Now, onto some navel gazing:

Like the Jews, there are three basic branches of Republicans:

1) Fiscal Conservatives -- Governance is the key to winning these votes. When Speaker Gingrich won, he used his Contract for America to promote fiscal responsibility. Groups such as Americans for Tax Reform [ATR] and Club for Growth are on the front lines.

2) Social Conservatives -- The Liberals Bugbear. They are faith based individuals who believe Government is a tool to help get America to a Utopia. I say, G-d Bless them, for they support my cause (Israel) and they are just nice people. No wonder Liberals don't like them.

3) National Security Republicans (i.e. 9/11 Republicans): They are Americans who believe in American Exceptionalism. Or they came on board after 9/11 and subscribed to President Bush's ideal of Democracy Overseas.

Here is another three branches that we are separated by:

1) Liberal and Moderate Republicans: The former "Rockefeller Republicans," or Country Club Republicans. We have them in our coalition (Republican Main Street Partnership) but there is still a learning curve. Other branches support the GOP when times are hard, the Liberals and Moderates jump to the tune of Democrats. The Encyclicals will discuss this problem later on.

2) Conservative Republicans: Whether Economic, Military or Social, this is the "base" of the Party. They bring the candidates, the funds and the voters. Until the Liberals and Moderates learn this (hint, hint), they cannot tell the party where to go.

3) Libertarian Republicans -- A degree of Grover Norquist's "leave us alone," coalition. They want very limited Government and frown upon Overseas adventures. They are beget from Pat Buchanan's run in 1992 and Rep. Ron Paul's in 2008. Their ideas are good, but they need better (dare I say, calmer) speakers and activists. What the Conservatives understand is you get more voters with honey then vinegar. If the Libertarians learn this, they might expand beyond 10% of the GOP.

Other branches:

Neo-Conservatives: Ooh, are you scared yet? Well, just remember, when a Liberal uses this word, it is a code word for "Jewish Republicans," And they do not mean it in a nice way. But what does it really mean? They are Republicans who were former Democrats who believe in Democracy Overseas. In other words, consistent Democrats (now, that's a rare bird).

Second Amendment supporters -- They support individuals rights to bear arms without the power of the State. Until Democrats learn to love Gun Rights owners, they fall into the GOP camp. G-d Bless 'em for standing up.

And where do I fit among all these groups? I consider myself a simple Conservative Republican with a Libertarian streak. I support Democracy Overseas as away of deterring future troubles (When the Czar's of Russia tightened their grip, Lenin came forth -- always look to History for the answers) and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I am an even more fervent supporter of the First Amendment.

Next time, who the Democrats and Liberal are.

Until later,


Bookmark and Share

Friday, May 01, 2009

The Republican Encyclicals (v. 2.0): Letter to Karv and Todd

Dear Karv and Todd,

How's life on the Hill? I will be visiting both of you in your respective offices by the Fall. Hopefully, we can talk about the Encyclicals and how to bring the GOP back to majority status (and find a place where my skills can be put to use).

Can House Republicans list the ways that Speaker Pelosi is making the House of Representatives less democratic? Even with Senator Spector's jump (for personal, not policy reason) this week, I have Hope. Not the fake Hope that was given out by the Obama campaign, but hope that is tied in with faith. Even in the Dark Knight movie, the character of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckert) said: "It is always darkest before the dawn, and...dawn is coming,"

Before the Plague year, I wrote this letter. Here are the highlights of what we need to do:

This is the introduction post to the Republican Encyclicals, begat from the California Encyclicals (which were addressed to Todd), and the goals are still the same: It is a long term plan that Conservatives and Republicans can use to win and maintain the majorities in Congress and the White House.

The Encyclicals are not just ideals, but strategies and tactics. In all the books talking of winning, ideas matter. But so do tactics and strategies. If our ideas are good, they need to be implemented: Hence the Encyclicals.

However, get used to this equation:

Ideas (15%) + Ideals (15%) + Image (25%) + Methods (15%) + Organization (30%) = New Republican majority

Why did I choose you guys? You know my family, you met my late father, you know me. You can get these ideas to the Floor of the House if they are good.

To help make sense of the upcoming Encyclicals, first I suggest reading the California Encyclicals:
Burbank, 1 and 2
Los Angeles 1 and 2
California 1, 2 and 3

Mr. Gary Aminoff read these posts and is using them to chart the future of the Los Angeles County party. I am still trying to meet with Chairman Nehring (whom I met in Stonybrook when we were both in the College Republicans) to discuss these and where I can help him in Washington, DC.

Here are things I will reference to help the case:
1) Frank Herbert's Dune series (My instincts were right on, here. How? Keep reading)
2) Marvel Comics Story lines (I grew up on these and can't we just say the Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are acting like Days of Future Past Sentinels?)
3) Doctor Who -- which Democrat is like Davros?
4) Speaker Tip O'Neill's book: All Politics is Local (we can take Tip the same way the Left took Rev. Martin Luther King)
4) The Art of War by Sun Tzu and Rules for Radicals by Alinsky.

When I was a young metal head, I listened to a group called Queensrhyche. They had a song called "Revolution calling," Remember the lyrics here (especially for May 1):

In the Valley, I have started a tag: Democratic Culture of Corruption. And when has the Mainstream media helped out Conservatives? The band was ahead of it's time. The next three posts will be about:

1) Who Conservatives and Republicans are;
2) Who are the Democrats?;
and 3) What are our Battlefields?

The Revolution begins today!

Bookmark and Share


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...