Frum v. Fleming

In conducting research for an article I recently completed, which will be a bit of an introspection on paleoconservatism, I once again came across an infamous article written by speechwriter-in-chief David "Axis of Evil" Frum, the notorious neocon who coined that lovely phrase. In the severely flawed 6,500-word piece untitled "Unpatriotic Conservatives", Frum blasts certain principled activists who opposed the Iraq War, and their ideology - everyone from Lew Rockwell to Pat Buchanan.

But what really struck me in the course of my research was an argument made by Frum that frankly, made to me a convincing point when first I read it several months ago upon initially coming across the piece. In the midst of a string of paragraphs seemingly designed to convince his readers that paleoconservatives should be characterized as jew-haters (wrong), Frum quotes Pat Buchanan's "flavorful malice" in a March 2003 cover story in The American Conservative (a paleoconservative magazine that I have blogged about previously):

Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

To which Frum responds:

The echo in that previous paragraph of the Nazi slogan "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" is unlikely to have been unintentional.

At first, I thought: well, the translation (one people, one state, one leader) is not exactly a word-for-word match but, jeez, Pat, you stepped over the line on that one! But recently, as I refreshed myself on the content of the French History courses taught by my favorite professor at Johns Hopkins, early modern expert Orest Ranum, I came across a number of mentions of the famous French phrase "une foi, une loi, un roi" (one faith, one law, one king). The phrase adorns France's history and dates back centuries before the Nazis.

Come to think of it, in Senegal, where I spend a great deal of time, there is a national motto: "un peuple, un but, une foi" – one people, one goal, one faith. And perhaps most prominently, Ephesians 4:5 speaks of είς κύριος, μία πίστις, έν βάπτισμα - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". So it seems that this catchy string of three unifying elements, each preceded by the word "one", is pretty ubiquitous and – believe it or not – not a definitively anti-Jewish grammatical construct.

So, to borrow what Frum's arch-nemesis, Chronicles Editor Thomas Fleming quipped in his rebuttal to the attack from the "NRO brat-pack", which is also highly recommended reading, not to mention extremely entertaining:

If Frum read books instead of web logs, he would know this.

Rob Ortiz and the BCRO

I turned up last night at the hallowed HQ of the Bergen County Republican Party on Main Street in Hackensack, as County Committee members voted from 5 pm to 7 pm to elect a new Chairman. Given the inclement weather, a surprisingly high crowd of 458 voters turned out. The final count:

Rob Ortiz - 263 or 57%
Ben Focarino - 171 or 37%
Bill Thompson - 24 or 5%

The 20-point win gives Ortiz a strong mandate in moving the organization forward. Aside from a few minor whispers of negativity by loyal-to-a-fault supporters, this was a near-totally positive campaign in which all 3 candidates behaved like gentlemen, and all graciously thanked one another and pledged to work together. There was a refreshing absence of rancor in the air at the BCRO last night.(continued...)

The Record sketched Ortiz as follows:

Ortiz, a native of Corpus Christi, Texas, is regarded as a highly productive fund-raiser for the national GOP. He raised money in New Jersey for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and is working in behalf of Rudolph Giuliani's presidential bid.

That fund-raising experience, Ortiz has said, shows him that Bergen has plenty of eager GOP donors. "I know plenty of people who can write the $4,600 maximum contribution level to the president," he said last month. "The task is to translate those large donors into local donors as well."

Ortiz said the party also needs to make better use of technology, communicating and organizing quickly via e-mail. And it needs to cultivate a deep bench of potential candidates for higher office -- by reaching out to local GOP mayors and council members.

For my part, I generally kept a low profile, observing the action from behind the hot-dog cart set up by Ortiz - since I am not a Bergen resident and don't wish to be seen butting into affairs that don't directly impact Passaic County. However, I was a strong supporter of Ortiz and furthermore a number of local political junkies do look to this blog for details on local happenings. Matt Friedman of PoliticsNJ also quoted me:

Republican blogger and former Congressional candidate George Ajjan, 31, who designed Ortiz's Web site, was there was well, although he lives in Passaic County.

"Bergen is like a big brother to neighboring counties," said Ajjan. "For Passaic to have a chance at rebuilding a strong Republican organization, we need a strong organization in Bergen."

For additional coverage, see Tom Jennemann's piece in Campaigns and Elections. As Friedman further noted, I was not the only non-Bergen person to turn up. State Chairman Tom Wilson addressed the crowd, and District 26 Assemblyman, State Senate Nominee, and possible candidate for the US Senate in 2008, Joe Pennacchio, also appeared.

Pennacchio worked the crowd with ease, and created some buzz amongst insiders present about the conspicuous absence of Anne Estabrook, the political neophyte whose hopes for winning the GOP nomination hangs on a steering committee headlined by Congressman Mike Ferguson, with Larry Weitzner (of conga-line of corruption fame) conducting. Pennacchio's ability to connect and his mainstream conservative credentials, matched with the collegial respect and likely support of his Assembly peers will make him tough to beat in a GOP primary, regardless of the dollars flying about Estabrook's been-there-done-that elitist fundraising scheme.

Getting back to Bergen, much has been made of age as an subliminal issue in the campaign. After all, Ortiz is in his mid 30s, far younger than either of his 2 opponents. This created a natural appeal for young activists like me keen to see one of "our own" ascend to the GOP Chairmanship in such a critical county. But as the crowd rolled in to vote yesterday, the average age of County Committee members was closer to Focarino's than to Ortiz's - yet the younger candidate won decisively.

For certain, towns like Ramsey - which turned out 100% of its County Committee - played a big role in that. I mention Ramsey because it is a town under complete GOP control, and one that has successfully reformed the County Committee by bringing on younger members - like Mayor Chris Botta, soon-to-be-Councilwoman Vanessa Jachzel, as well as County Committee members Laura Behrmann (with whom I attended Franklin Avenue Middle School) and former staffer to Chuck Hagel Deirdre Woodbyrne - to compliment the skills of veteran activists.

One should never assume, however, that there is a straight-line correlation between age and willingness to change or adopt new methods. I have seen this demonstrated both in professional (factory workers that I managed only a year away from retirement who learned to use new computer-based inventory management systems in a snap while "younger" workers sulked, pouted, and probably filed grievances) as well as political contexts (recovering angry conservative Steve Lonegan remarked to me last month that the average age on one of the most prominent right-leaning blogs is 55!).

The point being: the average age of County Committee does not match the average age of the voting population, and that needs to change - not by booting out anyone with gray hair, but by replicating what has worked successfully in Ramsey: cultivating a healthy mix of young and old on the County Committee for a Republican Party that looks, thinks, and acts like the electorate whose votes it seeks. This, I hope, will be one of the foci of Ortiz's plan.

BMED - the world's worst airline

For those who understand the importance of customer service and its impact on word-of-mouth marketing, consider the following:

As my readers may know, I spend a great deal of time in Senegal, travelling back and forth to tend to the 4x4 export start-up business that I launched last year. While direct flights do exist on South African Airways (which flies from both JFK and Dulles directly to Dakar en route to Johannesburg), I usually prefer to take one of the European carriers - either because they allow me to stop in London where I can re-acquaint myself with the city I called home for 2 years, earn Frequent Flyer miles on Continental's OnePass program (AirFrance, Virgin Atlantic, and Alitalia are partners), or both.

Such was the case during a trip last fall. I flew to London on Virgin Atlantic, spent 3 days with friends, and then had a flight on British Mediterranean (BMED), which operates as a franchise of British Airways, from London to Dakar.

On this trip, I had 2 suitcases, one of which had some promotional materials inside so it was rather heavy. But I had looked on the British Airways website and saw that flights to Nigeria (in the same region as Senegal) allowed for 2 bags, so I figured I'd be okay. (continued...)

Arriving at Newark, the Virgin Atlantic staff informed me that one of the bags exceeded 23 kg, so I would have to pay an excess baggage fee. How much? $35. No problem.

Fast forward to London and my departure. I arrive for check-in and the British Airways clerk tells me, "Sir, you've got 2 bags here, your ticket only allows you one." Well, I'm going to Africa for a month, I explained, and furthermore I check the regulations for Nigeria (which is all that was listed on the website) and saw that 2 were permitted. "That's an arrangement with the Nigerian government. It doesn't apply to other African flights." Well, what can I do, I can't leave behind a suitcase! "I will have to charge you for the second bag." Okay, I figured, no big deal. How much? "£23 per kg." WHAT? I protested, but was told, either pay, or miss the flight. What's the total? "£536".

For those of you not accustomed to the British Pound, the exchange these days is roughly 2:1. So £536 is well over $1,000.

$1,000 for the privilege of bringing a bag into the cargo hold for a 5-hour long-haul flight. For perspective, my ticket for the flight was only about $900. I paid more for my suitcase than for myself! I suppose I should have ordered food and drinks for my suitcase as well.

Then, imagine my shock when I got on board the flight and saw that the plane was only at about 15% capacity with only about 30 passengers on board! So it's not as if space was at a premium.

Once I returned from the trip, I explained all of this to BMED in the hopes that they would rectify the situation. I was told by a British Airways agent when I landed in London and inquired that because I was transferring from the US, the more generous trans-Atlantic provision for baggage should be applied. Not so. BMED rejected my claim flat out.

I then discovered in February that British Airways on the whole had revised its excess baggage policy (presumably because of insane situations like mine) and now there were flat rates charged for excess baggage. Under the new policy, I would have paid less than 1/4 of what I was charged. So I recontacted BMED and asked that they refund the difference between the 2 charges. Rejected again. I mentioned that I was a long-time customer, and that I would be more than happy to accept vouchers for the difference, that I could apply to future flights. Rejected again.

Why they would be such sticklers about a regulation that had later elapsed because of its unfair nature was beyond me - air travel is a very customer-service oriented business. Yet they just didn't seem to understand the potential to damage a relationship with a would-be lifelong customer.

On the advice of a friend, I took my case to the corporate level and sent a letter to British Airways CEO Willie Walsh. I reiterated the entire case once again. I received a reply, this time from British Airways customer service. Unfortunately, it was equally as stubborn and inflexible.

Thus I will never be purchasing another British Airways ticket again. For those in the US, I urge you to take one of the American carriers, or Virgin Atlantic, should you wish to fly to London. For those in the UK, and anyone else who may have the opportunity, consider very carefully whether you wish to deal with BMED - I advise you against it.

Jay Lassiter's potential to matter

A bit of a stir developed in the New Jersey political blogosphere developed several weeks ago when PoliticsNJ reported:

"Among the final acts of Stuart Rabner's tenure as Attorney General of New Jersey: the Department of Law and Public Safety this week pulled press credentials for BlueJersey.com Statehouse correspondent Jay Lassiter."

The buzz found its way into the NJ section of the New York Times in a profile of Lassiter done by Jonathan Miller, who wrote:

"Mr. Lassiter...was selected in April to become...the first blogger to cover the Legislature. But last week he hit his first rough patch when the state police stripped him of an identification badge he had been issued in April, citing 'security issues.'

Officials said there was nothing in Mr. Lassiter's background that prompted the reversal. Rather, they said that they had decided to limit the number of badges issued to Capitol visitors and that his had been approved by mistake...Mr. Lassiter - who has never applied for press credentials from the New Jersey Press Association -said he was told by the police that he did not qualify for an identification card because Blue Jersey did not have an office here. He can enter the State House to conduct his reporting, he said, but instead of circumventing security and metal detectors with an official ID, he must be issued a visitor's badge."

As a political blogger myself who might one day wish to grace the State House with my presence, I wanted to understand exactly what decisions were taken. So I contacted the NJ Attorney General's office, and after a few days and two phone calls, as well as an inquiry submitted online, I received the following: (continued...)

Mr. Ajjan,

The purpose of this e mail is to respond to your e mail concerning Mr. Jay Lassiter being stripped by this office of his press pass to cover the State House. (SOS 324601)

The State Governmental Security Bureau (SGSB) of the New Jersey State Police is responsible for the safety and security of employees and visitors to state buildings and parking facilities throughout the state. It is not our responsibility to issue press credentials/passes.

The article you refer to states, "Among the final acts of Stuart Rabner's tenure as Attorney General of New Jersey, the Department of Law & Public Safety this week pulled press credentials for BlueJersey.com Statehouse correspondent Jay Lassiter."

The SGSB does not issue press credentials. The State House, and other state buildings have an ID system to identify persons assigned to the building. Some of these IDs grant users access to the parking garage and other areas of the building. All of the ID's identify the person as a worker in that building, thus allowing them entrance without signing in as a visitor. The State Police, SGSB maintain the system at the State House, and we issue State House ID's when authorization from a representative of one of the tenants is received.

Members of the media or any other person wishing to visit the State House may do so during normal operational hours of the facility by showing up and signing in with identification. This person in question, Mr. Lassiter, can visit the State House any time he would like. He is not issued a State House ID because he does not "work in the building" with an office here. He just needs to show up and sign in like any other visitor. Other press personnel have asked for the State House ID as a matter of convenience, and have not receive the ID. They are required to sign in as a visitor and conduct their business. Any person who doesn't work in the building, is required to be signed in as a visitor. This includes other state employees working outside of the particular building.

The article you referenced is using the term press credentials. They are actually referring to a State House ID which says press on it. This in no way is a valid press credential. Just like my State House ID has State Police on it, it is not a legitimate State Police Identification, but merely a State House ID, stating what area I work in.

Unfortunately the article written by Wally Edge mistakenly refers to a State House ID as a press credential. We are not determining who is issued a press credential, nor are we taking away anyone's ability to conduct business at the facility. We did take away Mr. Lassiter's ability to bypass state house security procedures which all non employees are subjected to.

I trust this gives you a clearer understanding of the events which have taken place. If you should have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.

Lt. E. Sarin

In addition, an employee of the Attorney General's Office named Lee Moore called me to reiterate (I actually received his call before the email). He made all the same points very clearly, after which I concluded this was a whole lot of nothing. There is no freedom of press issue here, or any move to limit the public's ability to investigate the actions and work of the government they elect.

So why write about this? Because the principle behind it should be important to those who wish to safeguard a society based upon the ideas set forth in the Constitution (i.e. conservatives). Yet, RINO-hunter Joe Tomanelli, in response to the original blurb on PoliticsNJ, quipped:

"The point being...does anybody care?"

Tongue-in-cheek, Eric Sedler from RedJersey (BlueJersey's nemesis) blogged:

"Stuart Rabner is my hero."

But jokes aside, conservatives should care and should take no delight in any curtailment of press freedoms (even though there are absolutely NONE in this case). Even if restrictions were selectively applied to political opponents, conservatives must remain principled and defend to the hilt the right of their foes to spew liberal propaganda, as distasteful as we find it. As goes the phrase widely (but incorrectly) attributed to Voltaire:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If the French affiliation of Voltairisms doesn't much impress Republicans, it will surely have great appeal than Michael Douglas's character in The American President, who said:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Of course, later in the same speech, he proclaims:

"You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns."

Good luck.

Liberals always seem like great Presidents in Hollywood movies, because they make the audience feel good when the movie ends.

Forunately for us, we never have to watch the horror sequel which depicts the outcome of their disastrous policies.

My9 TV appearance - Sharpe James and Iraq

I was contacted early last week by Joe Silvestri of My9 News (WWOR tv based in Secaucus, NJ) about making an appearance on the talk show "New Jersey Now", which airs each Sunday at 12pm on Channel 9. I gladly accepted, and appeared in two 8 minute segments.

1. The indictment of former Newark Mayor Sharpe James on corruption charges
2. The ongoing debate about America's continuing military occupation of Iraq

Naturally, I appeared to offer the "Republican" angle, and opposite me was LeRoy Jones, Jr. LeRoy has extensive Democrat credentials - he served as a State Assemblyman for 8 years, in addition to two terms as an Essex County Freeholder. His career as an elected official was cut short when Nia Gill, running off-the-line to defend her State Senate seat in 2003, handed Jones a 10-point defeat (had he won, he would currently my State Senator, since Clifton is in the 34th District). LeRoy currently bears the unenviable task of serving as Democrat leader in the GOP stronghold of East Orange, and he works as a lobbyist for 1868 Public Affairs.

I found LeRoy to be a pleasure to chat with, both on-camera and off, and I look forward to facing off with him again.

Here is the video of the 1st segment on Sharpe James. It was fairly straightforward.

(continued...)The second segment was more feisty. LeRoy chose to plug-and-play the Pelosi/Reid talking points, and delivered his message in an effective quantitative manner by repeatedly citing the cost of the war in dollars and lives.

My job, on the other hand, was trickier and much more qualitative. While I certainly wasn't about to defend Bush's Mesopotamian Misadventure, I wasn't about to join up with the likes of Dick Durbin. So I had to acknowledge the shortcomings of this neocon project that I've been vocal about for years now, but focus on the blame that must be laid on Congress and the pro-war Democrats therein. I decided to advance a paleoconservative argument around the need for a war declaration, according to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

I thank Joe Silvestri (whom I discovered was a former attendee of my lifelong parish, St. Ann Melkite Catholic Church in West Paterson!!!) for the opportunity and I look forward to future appearances.

Patriotism and Gospel beasts

Just a belated note on American Independence Day, which of course was on July 4th. I spent the day in Boston which some friends, one of whom was studying for his citizenship exam. I looked through the preparatory materials and became fixated upon the Oath once must take before earning citizenship in the United States (if not running for Bergen County Freeholder):

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;

that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;

and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

This is serious stuff, especially the part about renouncing past allegiances. While I think immigration hawk Tom Tancredo goes overboard when he describes his vision of legal immigration, he is absolutely right to insist upon cutting political ties to one's country of origin. (Don't expect this administration to say much about that though - how would they determine America's foreign policy if not for the sleazy double-agents that hang around Liz Cheney?) (continued...)

Illegal immigration aside, we have a problem with legal immigration too. Most treasure their adopted country and express their profound appreciation for the opportunities afforded them here in the US, but I find it troubling how many naturalized American citizens I have met whose behavior clearly does not reflect the Oath that they took. Some treat a US passport like a contingency credit card, and I find it disgusting.

Anyway, while watching the fireworks and the Boston Pops concert on TV, my friend read through some of the questions that might appear on the citizenship exam. When he got to one which asked "what is the most important right given to US citizens?" the 1st Amendment initially passed through my mind. But then I realized, since we live in a republic, we choose our leaders to make the laws that govern us - so the right to select those leaders is a pre-cursor to any others that may be derived from our choice to elect them.

On a separate topic, there was interesting discussion about the difference between a jahash (جحش) and a hamar (حمار). Both, it seems, are words for donkey or ass - and clutch insults, I might add. Then there is a mule (بغل) - offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, and a hinney (نغل)- offspring of a male horse and a female donkey. I speculated that perhaps the Arabic names جحش and حمار are now synonymous, but once each related to a different breed. Wikipedia says:

"By 1800 B.C., the ass had reached the Middle East where the trading city of Damascus was referred to as the 'City of Asses' in cuneiform texts. Syria produced at least three breeds of donkeys, including a saddle breed with a graceful, easy gait. These were favored by women...

The Syrian Wild Ass (Equus hemionus hemippus) was a wild ass found in the mountains and desert/steppe of Syria. The last one died at Schönbrunn Zoo, 1928."

Of course, the most easily-cited historical text of reference is always the Bible. In John 12:14, the beast that carries Jesus into Jerusalem is called جحش أتان. And in Matthew 21:5, it is أتان وجحش إبن أتان. The female donkey is called أتان, so does this mean that جحش is a baby donkey? But in the Old Testament, the animal is repeatedly called חמור in Hebrew, which of course is nearly identical to حمار. In the Koran, جحش does not appear, nor does أتان, but حمار appears twice - in Sura 2:259 and Sura 62:5.

If anyone can shed any light on this, please feel free to comment!