The War on Slogans

In the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani were invited to submit their foreign policy outlines - here, and here. (I previously covered those of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama). More on Rudy in a forthcoming post, but for now let's have a look at John Edwards.

First of all, the former North Carolina Senator and 2004 Vice-Presidential candidate submitted a plan with more maturity and finesse than Obama, who presented a ridiculous list of pie-in-the-sky campaign promises.

None of the 4 outlines published thus far, however. differ substantially from current US policy under the Bush administration, and yes, that includes the Democrats Obama and Edwards (don't hold your breath for any groundbreaking changes to the status quo from Ms. Clinton). They all call for continued US intervention in global affairs, perhaps even military, and all strongly believe in projecting American values onto the rest of the world through democracy promotion, health care, human rights, and other pet projects. Judging by these Republicrat ideals presented thus far, the US is going to try to soften its image with an neoconservative "army" of civilians in button-downs and khakis, using all of their technocratic might to "make the world safe for democracy". Edwards says: (continued...)

"In the coming years, we will most likely see an increasing need to stabilize weak and failing states and provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of disasters across the world.

These missions are demanding, dangerous, and expensive. They require a wide range of resources and sources of knowledge, from experts in water purification to medical technicians, judges to corrections officers, bankers to stock-market analysts...To resolve these problems, I will establish a Marshall Corps during my first year in office...patterned after the military reserves, will consist of at least 10,000 civilian experts who could be deployed abroad to serve in reconstruction, stabilization, and humanitarian missions. They will be on the frontline in the United States' reengagement with the world."

Edwards also gets nostalgic about America's global image under Presidents like JFK and Ronald Reagan.

"This is about much more than convincing people to like us. There was a time when a president did not speak just to Americans -- he spoke to the world. People thousands of miles away would gather to listen to someone they called, without irony, 'the leader of the free world'...We need to reach out to ordinary men and women from Egypt to Indonesia and convince them, once again, that the United States is a force to be admired."

Sounds delicious. Shall we order a side of mloukhia with that?

The other interesting trend, particular in Edwards' and Giuliani's essays, was a total rejection of the phrase "War on Terror":

"The 'war on terror' approach has backfired, straining our military to the breaking point while allowing the threat of terrorism to grow. 'War on terror' is a slogan designed for politics, not a strategy to make the United States safe. It is a bumper sticker, not a plan. Worst of all, the 'war on terror' has failed. Instead of making the United States safer, it has spawned even more terrorism -- as we have seen so tragically in Iraq -- and left us with fewer allies.

...many generals and national security experts have criticized the president's 'war on terror' approach. Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni has said that the 'war on terror' is a counterproductive doctrine...[the] new chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) -- has instructed his staff to stop saying that we are in a 'long war.' These leaders know that we need substance, not slogans.

Yet the politics of fear remains tempting. Some have chosen to pillory those who dare question the concept of a 'war on terror' as somehow weak. But these attacks unmask the slogan for what it is: a political sledgehammer used to stifle debate and justify policies that would otherwise be utterly unacceptable."

Edwards seems quite defensive about appearing timid, so he makes sure to flex his muscles:

"There is no question that we must confront terrorist groups such as al Qaeda with the full force of our military might. As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, take measures to root out terrorist cells, and strike swiftly and forcefully against those who seek to harm us."

But he follows up his tough-talk by blaming the Bush Administration's execution of the strategy.

"The Bush administration has walked the United States right into the terrorists' trap. By framing this struggle against extremism as a war, it has reinforced the jihadists' narrative that we want to conquer the Muslim world and that there is a 'clash of civilizations' pitting the West against Islam. From Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, the 'war on terror' has tragically become the recruitment poster al Qaeda wanted."

While I do believe that the Bush Administration's prosecution of the "War on Terror" (or whatever it's fashionable to call it these days) largely resembles the removal of microscopic malignant tumors from a vital organ using a butter knife, the idea that Bush alone is responsible for an increase in terrorism is ridiculous. Yes, I concede that his approach has certainly healed no wounds, but someone willing to blow himself up as a means of murdering others is unlikely to be swayed by the minutiae of US policy.

Take, for example, the London subway bombers. After they struck, I recall debating with someone who argued that a withdrawal from Iraq would have prevented these suicide attacks. I find that totally implausible. An individual sick enough to go to the lengths that such terrorists do cannot be evaluated using normal human logic and will always find an excuse to take out anger in a murderous way. With individuals like that, appeasement will certainly not work. Nevertheless, Edwards continues:

"Instead of reengaging with the peoples of the world, we have driven too many into the terrorists' arms. In fact, defining the current struggle against radical Islamists as a war minimizes the challenge we face by suggesting that the fight against Islamist extremism can be won on the battlefield alone."

And once again, his answer is not to reverse the trend of imperialism and excessive intervention into the affairs of other sovereign nations, but to dress up American operatives in pastel shades and call them a "Marshall corps".

Edwards' outline is proof positive that the easiest job in the world is to be an opposition politician. Just toss together a few clichés about the ineffectiveness or unpopularity of the current leader, and make vague statements about change with no specifics. According to Edwards:

• Our enemies are taking advantage of the United States' declining popularity...al Qaeda has expanded its reach not only across Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan but even in Europe
• Iran has been emboldened by the Bush administration's ineffective policies and has announced plans to expand its nuclear program.
• China is capitalizing on the United States' current unpopularity to project its own "soft power"
• Russia is bullying its neighbors while openly defying the United States and Europe

On the plus side, Edwards deserves credit for recognizing the potential impact of climate change on geopolitics, even if he offers no solutions. (note to conservatives: whether climate change is a natural phenomenon or induced by industrial human activity, no one denies that it is a reality.) And his listing of purposes for the US military is not perfect, but also not overreaching.

1. deterring or responding to those who wish to do us harm
2. ensuring that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States
3. maintaining our strategic advantage over major competitor states, in part so that they choose to cooperate with us, rather than challenge our interests militarily

However, Edwards' approach to other global issues brings big government to a whole new frightening level. His idea of moral leadership implies an American obligation to sanitize and educate every child on the globe.

"I will increase our funding for global primary education sixfold, with a $3 billion annual effort to educate poor children in countries with a history of violent extremism. Through the U.S. Agency for International Development and multilateral aid organizations, I will also pursue reform of the school systems in developing countries, working to eliminate school fees and required expenses for books and uniforms, which effectively bar millions of children from enrolling; investing in teacher education, classroom expansion, and teaching materials; and helping to provide safe and hygienic facilities for all students.

Finally, as president, I will lead an effort to increase opportunity for millions of people by adding $750 million annually for microcredit programs."

These are all noble goals, but in my opinion fall under the purview of NGOs, not the United States Government. Why should our tax dollars be used to support microcredit when funds devoted to microloans solicit investors and return dividends to them? It's a profit-making enterprise and therefore should be left alone. As for education in poor countries; it has often occurred to me, having seen many a young talib in Senegal beg me for money, that Saudi dollars could flow in to brainwash these poor youngsters in the absence of proper schools. But again, that is why responsible American NGOs, charities, and foundations - either religious or secular - should lead the charge, not our federal government. But the really dramatic promise of Edwards reads:

"I will concentrate on reversing the spread of these three deadly diseases (AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria) by guaranteeing universal access to preventive drugs and treatment by 2010. I will also substantially increase U.S. funding for clean-water programs. Finally, I will direct U.S. agencies to lead an international effort to dramatically increase preventive care, beginning with increased vaccinations and the provision of sterile equipment and basic medications."

And to accomplish these benevolent deeds, Edwards wants to add more bureaucracy to the Federal Government:

"I will create a new cabinet-level position to coordinate global development policies across the government. I will also replace Kennedy's Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with a Global Development Act to modernize and consolidate development assistance...With measures like these, we can reclaim our historic role as a moral leader of the world while at the same time making the world safer and more secure for the United States."

But, of course, more perilous for the American taxpayer.

My9 TV appearance - Iraq and 2008 Primaries

My9 News (WWOR tv based in Secaucus, NJ) producer Ronica Harris invited me for a 2nd appearance on the talk show "New Jersey Now", which airs each Sunday at 12pm on Channel 9. This time, the 2 segments were:

1. The ongoing debate about America's continuing military occupation of Iraq
2. Developments in the 2008 Presidential Primaries, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani

Naturally, I appeared to offer the "Republican" angle, and opposite me this time was Dick Codey's former Chief-of-Staff (including the brief stint as Governor), Pete Cammarano. Pete was a lot of fun to talk with and as you'll see in the videos, cuts right to the heart of the matter.

Here is the video of the 1st segment on Iraq. The discussion was more free-form, which gave me ample opportunity to discuss non-intervention as a foreign policy and relate that to the Founding Fathers, as well as a paleoconservative argument around the need for a war declaration, according to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

The second segment was more lighthearted, with some banter about Hillary Clinton and her role as 1st Lady, plus some comments on Barack Obama's food shopping habits.

I thank Ronica Harris for the opportunity and I look forward to future appearances.

The Republican YouTube Debate

The Herald News printed my editorial piece today concerning the YouTube debate for the 2008 Presidential GOP Primary. It reinforces themes I have discussed on this blog before, especially the need for Republicans to understand and embrace technological advances in campaigning.
-----------------------




GOP debates YouTube format
by GEORGE AJJAN - Sunday, August 26, 2007
SPECIAL TO THE HERALD NEWS

Several weeks ago, the eight Democrats contending for their party's presidential nomination assembled at the Citadel in South Carolina for a first of its kind debate – in which ordinary citizens were allowed to ask questions using self-recorded video clips, disseminated through the popular video Web site YouTube. While some of the questions were lighthearted, others were refreshingly blunt, stripped of the politically correct veneer typically brushed on by mainstream media.

As for Republicans, their turn to face the video screen had been scheduled for Sept. 17 in Florida. But less than half of the GOP contenders had agreed to participate, while others became squeamish after seeing their Democratic counterparts in the YouTube format. Rudy Giuliani hinted he would not commit to the debate, with a source from his campaign saying, "We have serious scheduling issues. That's prime fund-raising time." Mitt Romney also attributed his reluctance to scheduling, but added, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," referring to a creative question about global warming posed during the Democrats' debate.

As a New Jersey-based Republican activist and blogger who has been urging a stronger embrace of political technology by GOP candidates and organizations here in the Garden State, I found the reluctance on the part of the so-called "front-runners" in the Republican presidential contest to participate to be disheartening and frankly, disturbing. Thus, I was one of many signatories to a "Save the Debate" petition that played a decisive role in getting the debate rescheduled for Nov. 28, to alleviate any "scheduling issues." That is encouraging news, although participation from all the candidates has not yet been confirmed. (continued...)

The comments of those skeptical about the YouTube debates sadly exemplify many of the traditional and stereotypical shortcomings of Republicans. The GOP has got to shatter the image of country-club elitism that plagues the party. Giuliani's campaign prioritizing fundraising over a one-day commitment to appear before millions of viewers and answer tough questions directly from the electorate is deplorable and plays right into that regrettable typecast.

This is not just an esoteric concern; it is empirically demonstrated by many Republicans, who tend to prefer the cocktail-party chitchat of lavish fundraising affairs to rolling up their sleeves and walking neighborhoods to solicit actual votes. Giuliani's campaign tactic indicates this same mentality: money before people. We Republicans must work to change that.

Equally indicative of this disappointing attitude was Romney's principle reaction to the YouTube debate: grumpiness about a silly snowman, not exuberance over the opportunity to interact with voters and show them perhaps a different side to his candidacy. His remark indicates how Republicans must find a more positive consensus to attract voters. Outside of the enviable optimism in Ron Paul's campaign, lately it seems that negative energy is our primary motivation – anger toward illegal immigrants, revenge for terrorist attacks, etc. We absolutely must break the trend described by the late conservative guru Sam Francis, who cynically identified the drivers of successful conservative movements as "greed and hate."

As far as YouTube itself goes, the issue is not that national Republicans don't want to use new technologies. Both Giuliani and Romney have invested heavily in their online efforts and have specifically touted their embrace of YouTube as a campaigning medium. But their behavior seems to indicate the belief that the internet is a switch they can turn on and off, depending upon whether they're in the mood to communicate. But the internet is always "on," although it's not always "on your terms."

Until our party truly grasps that, we will continue to alienate voters and activists, especially young people for whom the internet is not "new," but an integral part of their political upbringing.

Declining to participate in the YouTube debates is inexcusable on the part of any Republican presidential contender, and GOP activists need to make sure the candidates hear that message loud and clear. After all, only several elections ago, Republicans seeking to portray former President Clinton as weak, cowardly, and out-of-touch with American public would bandy about the term "draft dodger."

Woe to the Republican Party if our own behavior makes us known in today's times as the party of "debate dodgers."

George Ajjan, a Clifton resident, is a Republican activist. He runs a blog at http://www.georgeajjan.com/.

O --- This article first appeared in the Herald News on August 26, 2007.

El brusco alcalde arrepentido

Back in 2005, I worked day and night for Bret Schundler's gubernatorial campaign (aka the 7 ring GOP circus). The circus was facilitated by 2 circumstances:

1. Public matching funds, which allowed anyone capable of raising a modest amount of money (about $250K) to have taxpayers kick in double the amount raised (thus $333K becomes a cool million). This enables individuals with no chance at winning the governorship, but merely with other political aspirations, to give a big boost to their name recognition at the expense of taxpayers. For some reason, the name Todd Caliguire rings a bell here.
2. The complete lack of faith in the NJGOP on the part of national Republicans. I blame one person: George W. Bush. The President of the United States, an elected Republican who came within 7 points of his rival in NJ the previous year, should have played Godfather and tapped his preferred candidate. Even if 2 or 3 others stayed in the game based on some combination of ego and principles, the primary would not have been the free-for-all it became.

Anyway, I supported Bret Schundler. Not only was I a big fan of Bret personally, but his "reform" theme fit nicely with the Passaic County Reform Republican Committee (PCRRC), one of the players in the intra-party squabble happening in the Passaic County GOP at the time. (continued...)

The PCRRC formed when a group of concerned Republicans, in the aftermath of losing the last vestiges of Republican presence in Passaic County government in 2004, decided to run a primary to wrest de facto control of the Party from the hands of Mike Mecca and his puppeteer Peter Murphy (who in addition to having a record of incompetence too lengthy to delineate here, had openly supported Democrats Bill Pascrell and Jerry Speziale, thus blatantly cuckolding myself and my running mate, Mark Michalski).

The PCRRC included:

• myself and those who worked closely with me during my 2004 congressional campaign (Jesse Starrick and Norma Watson in particular)
• Clifton Municipal leader, 2003 Freeholder nominee, and longtime State Committeeman John Traier
• a Hawthorne contingent featuring Mayor Pat Botbyl, Bob and Jen Scully, and the rest of the Michalski team
• longtime local strategist Jimmy Marotta of Totowa
• former Paterson Mayor Pat Kramer, accompanied by Paterson Board of Education member Chauncey Brown, III
• former District 35 Assemblyman Frank Catania
• Pompton Lakes GOP municipal leader Mered Frankel
• the West Milford "Real Republican" club, including Councilman Phil Weisbecker

Others joined as time went on, including former Haledon Mayor Ken Pengitore (who was set up to screen for Freeholder along with the eventual PCRRO candidates Victor Rabbat and Frank Gaccione, only to be rejected).

We put together a slate of candidates, including 2 Freeholder candidates (Jonathan Soto and Robert Piersanti), 2 State Committee candidates (Traier and former Herald News columnist/minister Teresa Nance, as well as Assembly candidates in District 35. (Not seeking to divide the party, we did not field candidates against the incumbents in Districts 40 and 26 - Kevin O'Toole, David Russo, Joe Pennacchio, Alex DeCroce). District 34 was uncontested across the board, I'm sad to say.

To make a long story short, our candidates earned roughly 35% in the primary. The "line" candidates earned about 50%, and the other 15% went to a slate organized by Ken del Vecchio (including himself as well as Paterson municipal leader Bill Connolly) and aligned with Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan.

At the time, I had a negative attitude towards Lonegan for several reasons:

1. adding a third slate to an already confusing primary, which dulled the impact of our genuine Reform effort to change the leadership of the Passaic County GOP
2. seeking out controversial coverage to earn a reputation as a spokesman for angry right-wingers (protesting the "War on Christmas" and opposing Affirmative Action in Newark on Martin Luther King Day)
3. bringing personal attacks on Schundler supporters into the campaign (including my dear friend Sherine el-Abd, a longtime NJ Republican insider and highly respected activist, who happens to be Muslim) - I have since been satisfied with the explanation given by Lonegan's strategist, the inimitable Rick Shaftan, though I still consider the mailer to have been in poor taste

These frustrations were compounded during the me encanta uprising of 2006, in which Lonegan railed against McDonald's advertising strategy. I thought this was silly and illogical because it came across as anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic, and seemed to conflict with a free-market laissez-faire approach favored by small government conservatives.

Yet in recent months, Lonegan seems to have been changing his tune. I was not the only Republican to be pleasantly surprised when he came out forcefully defending the arch-nemesis of his right-wing cohorts, former Governor Christie Whitman. Lonegan's editorial in The Record on June 28 raised the eyebrows of many GOP insiders with its less-than-subtle key change:

"I have been a vocal critic of former Gov. Christie Whitman's policies in New Jersey, but I have a new found respect for her courage and integrity in standing her ground in defense of her actions as EPA director.

The hearings held by Reps. Jerry Nadler and Bill Pascrell Jr. are nothing short of partisan witch hunts...

Republican leaders, especially those who benefited under the Whitman administration in Trenton, should have the guts to stand up and defend our former governor."

Have a look at the comments on Lonegan's piece that appeared on his PoliticsNJ blog. Responding to doubts expressed by Bergen County's #1 Republican grouch, Joe Tomanelli (We still love ya, Joe), Shaftan rebutted:

"So you're siding with Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, Bill Pascrell and Hillary Clinton here. Now who's the RINO? When she's right, she's right."

It started becoming clear that Lonegan sought to reposition himself not as a campaign-for-giggles right-wing curio, but rather as a viable candidate who could unite Republicans under his banner. In this year's contentious Republican Primary in Bergen County, Lonegan came down squarely on the side of the "establishment" Republicans led by Kevin O'Toole. Much chatter has been heard in the ensuring months, and much more will be heard in the aftermath of Lonegan's most recent editorial about gays in the Republican Party:

"My beliefs in limited government can be shared across the chasms that liberals and conservatives perceive to separate us – ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation...

Historically, gay Americans have struggled for the freedom to live their lives the way they choose in order to pursue happiness. This is the American Dream, the cornerstone of conservative thinking, and it is these principles that make the increasingly influential gay community the conservative movement's natural ally.

It may surprise some to learn that the very same conservative who refused to be coerced into performing civil union ceremonies by government believes gay voters should be conservative, yet this very instance points to our common ground – a commitment to the rights of the individual and opposition to the power of a collectivist state."

Yes, you read that correctly. Lonegan appropriated the infamous moniker of Jim McGreevey: gay American. He then gets into the nuts and bolts of his argument:

"Many gay adults are also in upper income brackets, making the issue of low taxes, which conservatives have staked their reputation on, an important one.

The principles of limited government that keep Big Brother out of our personal lives must also keep him out of our pocketbooks. Liberal Democrats may not care what individuals do in their bedrooms, but they are already rattling their tax-hiking sabers to let us know they do care what individuals do with their money."

And he gets practical, even preemptively addressing his socially conservative base:

"Obstacles to achieving our real goal of reducing the size of government and limiting its ability to interfere in our lives must be torn down. Gays shouldn't expect government to foist acceptance of their lifestyle on others; religious conservatives shouldn't expect gays to abandon an integral part of their being."

Perhaps the most compelling part of Lonegan's essay, though was the apparent shedding of his old skin:

"The media like to portray conservatives as wild-eyed ideologues, which is
unfair. Of the philosophies that have directed civilization, conservatism has
resulted in the most liberty for people around the world. It is at the hands of
the liberal welfare state that individualism is destroyed; thus the failure of
communism, fascism and socialism in promoting a signature American entitlement - 'the pursuit of happiness.'"

This is not your father's Steve Lonegan (I mean that quite literally, as my father actually wrote a check to Lonegan in 2005, having been compelled by one of Lonegan's "red meat" fundraising mailers). The man is clearly redefining himself and positioning himself for another crack at the Governorship in 2009. As Shaftan recently commented on PoliticsNJ, in the context of a poll putting Corzine head-to-head with Lonegan in 2 years:

"If you go back to 1976-1980 you will see exactly the same comments about Ronald Reagan. Go pick any newspaper from early 1980 and read how Democrats couldn't wait to get in the ring with the Gipper."

But aside from this series of cultural overtures and insider signaling, there is one strong attribute Lonegan possesses that puts him miles above just about any potential competitor: his commitment to limited government and fiscal conservatism. Even those for whom Lonegan's name evokes a Pavlovian bitterness cannot but admire the man's skill at managing a budget. His record in Bogota is exemplary, and though it is a very small microcosm of New Jersey, a scaled-up Bogota would be a pleasure to inhabit.

Perhaps more important is Lonegan's project in the past couple of years. He leads the New Jersey chapter of a non-partisan group called Americans for Prosperity:

"AFP is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal levels. The grassroots members of AFP advocate for public policies that champion the principles of entrepreneurship and fiscal and regulatory restraint.

AFP Foundation is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal government to its Constitutional limits."

This is not just any organization; it has some powerful backers, including David Koch (the Koch family of Kansas owns what is generally considered to be the world's largest privately-owned company). By associating himself with this group, and working hard on its behalf, he has shown a true and undying commitment to fiscal conservatism. He has cultivated relationships with big-time national donors. And he has shown more ongoing concern for the taxpayers of New Jersey than any of his fellow ringmasters from 2005. I happen to like all of those guys (though I've lost tremendous respect for Todd Caliguire), has anyone heard from John Murphy, Bob Schroeder, Doug Forrester, or Paul DiGaetano recently? Lonegan has been at the forefront of the battle, continuing to file complaints against the likes of Wayne Bryant (who was later indicted).

All in all, Steve Lonegan has demonstrated much more political skill and strategy than I attributed to him back in 2005 and 2006. I do not think it wise to continue to write him off as a right-wing wackjob. Yes, he went too far in the past and had alienated Republicans like me, but Lonegan is definitely in the game and if he continues to build bridges within the party to unite Republicans under a compelling platform of limited government, he will be a force to be reckoned with - not only in the Primary, but in the 2009 General Election.

Jonathan Pollard's future cellmate

Anti-Semitism is alive and well - and by using the term anti-Semitic, I refer to an individual with a hateful and bigoted attitude toward those of Semitic extraction. An individual like career State Department employee Patrick Syring, who was indicted by a grand jury last week on 2 counts.

What did Syring do? Well, during last summer's Israeli bombardment of Lebanon, he engaged in a series of communications with the Arab American Institute, the foremost and most mainstream Arab-American organization in the US (I am a member of their National Policy Council). I will outline them one by one as listed in the indictment, along with the names of the AAI employees involved (friends and colleagues of mine):

1. Voicemail, 11:17 pm, July 17, 2006

"This is Patrick Syring. I just James Zogby's statements online at the MSNBC website, and I condemn him for his anti-Semitism and anti-American statements.

The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese. The only good Arab is a dead Arab. Long live the IDF. Death to Lebanon and death to the Arabs (continued...)

2. Email, 11:17 pm, July 17, 2006, to James Zogby and Natasha Tynes (who is not an Arab-American)



"Zobgy's anti-Semitic, anti-American statements (and those of the AAI in general) are abhorrent, repulsive, and disgusting.

The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese (as the IDF knows and is carrying out in its security operations, God bless them).

F___ the Arabs and f___ James Zogby and his wicked Hizbollah brothers. They will burn in hellfire on this earth and in the hereafter."

3. Voicemail, July 18/19, 2006 to Valerie Smith (who is not an Arab-American)
   
   

   "Hello Valerie, you f___ing Arab American s___. James Zogby and you are all Hezbollah supporters.

   The only good Arab is a dead Arab. You god-inaudible bitch."

4. Email, 12:32 am, July 19, 2006 to Valerie Smith
   
   

   "You are a f____ing Arab-American stooge who sympathizes with Hezbollah terror.

   You and your Arab American Institute f___ers should burn in the fires of hell for eternity.

   The IDF is bombing Lebanon back to the Stone Age where it belongs. Arabs are dogs.

   Long live the State of Israel. Death to Arab American terrorists. The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese."
   

5. Email, 12:35 pm, July 19, 2006, to Rebecca Abou-Chedid

"You are a f____ing Arab-American terrorist, a Hezbollah sympathizer pig.

James Zogby is a vile evil anti-Semitic pig terrorist member of Hezbollah who is attempting to destroy the State of Israel.

God Bless America. God Bless the State of Israel. The only good Lebanese is a dead Lebanese."

6. Email, 12:13 am, July 29, 2006, to James Zogby, Helen Samhan, Nidal Ibrahim, Rebecca Abou-Chedid, Valerie Smith

"I condemn James Zobgy and the AAI for perpetrating the murder and the shootings at the Jewish Federation in Seattle on Friday July 28 (as well as the killings in Israel).

You wicked evil Hezbollah-supporting Arabs should burn in the fires of hell for eternity and beyond. The United States would be safer without you.

God Bless America. God Bless the State of Israel.

Sincerely,
Patrick in Arlington, VA"

True, the emails were not sent from a US government email address, but rather from Syring's personal email address. And Syring has since retired. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack added:

"Let me just underline for you the seriousness with which [Condoleezza Rice] approaches the idea that the State Department should be a workplace that in no way, shape or form tolerates discrimination or hateful language. It's just not condoned or acceptable in this department."

For his part, AAI President Jim Zogby responded:

"We are pleased with word that the grand jury has returned two indictments. This has been a matter of concern to me and my entire office. The Civil Rights Division of U.S. Department of Justice has been responsive, and we feel protected. The threats were both intimidating and frightening – and the fact that Mr. Syring was a 20 year career officer at the Department of State made it of even greater concern."

The indictment itself contains 2 counts. I will first discuss the 2nd count, since it is more straightforward, under the charge of Threatening Communication in Interstate Commerce, United States Code, Section 875c:

"Patrick Syring knowingly and willfully did transmit in interstate commerce, from Arlington, VA to the District of Columbia, telephone and email communication to Arab American Institute employees, in which Patrick Syring threatened to injure Arab American Institute employees."

I suppose one could argue that Syring never explicitly said, "I will make sure that You and your Arab American Institute f___ers burn in the fires of hell for eternity," and therefore didn't actually threaten anybody. But this is an indictment, not a verdict, and Syring lawyers are welcome to argue his intentions at trial. Good luck to them.

But the indictment's first count, I suspect, will be the source of more controversy. It constitutes a violation of the civil rights of others, according to Section 245 (b2) of the United States Code, by stating:

"Patrick Syring did attempt to and did willfully intimidate and interfere with Arab American Institute employees because of their race and national origin, that is because they were Arab and Lebanese Americans, and because they were and had been enjoying employment, and the prerequisites thereof, by a private employer, the Arab American Institute."

Certainly some will seek to discredit the case against Syring, saying that such an indictment violates his own right to free speech. I found one blogger who stated:

"Patrick Syring should indeed not be in trouble for saying what he said or doing what he did...All Mr. Syring did was express his personal opinion. If insulting opinions have become illegal (as they apparently have), no matter who the insulted party is, there is trouble in this land...Yes, Patrick Syring is a mental midget and is in no way an attribute to our society but even that is not yet illegal."

Again, the jury will determine that. But I doubt indictment would have been handed down if Syring had sent merely "insulting" emails saying, "Jim Zogby and all Arabs smell bad. Long live the IDF." It seems to me there was no explicit threat of imminent harm, but Syring went well beyond "insulting".

The other debate sure to evolve concerns "hate crimes". To my knowledge, the indictment of Syring has nothing to do with his communications with the AAI constituting hate crimes. The hate crime legislation that conservatives rail against was passed in 1994 (and therefore before Republicans retook the congressional majority) and applies to sentencing guidelines, which mandate increased penalties for guilty offenders if their offenses were determined to be "hate crimes". I happen to agree with the critics of such legislation because of the big-brother, thought-police implications.

But the statute cited in the indictment of Syring dates to 1969 and is therefore not a product of modern-day ultra-PC climate. It concerns the fact that the AAI is an organization that advocates for the political integration and civic activities of Arab-Americans, considered to be a "federally protected activity" according to the statute. Since Syring mentioned the views espoused by Zogby and promoted by the AAI (no they are not Hezbollah sympathizers, but only in Syring's warped mind) in the course of his communications, it does make sense that he attempted to intimidate or interfere with their ability to advocate for policy as American citizens and as employees of an organization devoted to such activity.

I suppose the indictment would have read differently if Syring had emailed and voicemailed my youngest sister, for example, who is totally apolitical, and said, "the only good Arab is a dead Arab". In that case, I believe that the first count would be less likely, although I suppose the second count of threatening communication would still hold. Thank the heavens I am not an attorney, but if any lawyers out there would care to dispute, I'd love to hear your critiques.

The other interesting element here is the fact that Valerie Smith reads/writes/speaks Arabic but is not an Arab-American. If therefore, she had been the only recipient of Syring's communications, how might the authorities have sought to prosecute him?

In any case, I stand by my friends and colleagues at the AAI and I hope that justice will be served. This is not just to be shrugged off. For those who think it's no big deal, consider that hateful people come in all varieties and remember that Congressman Darrell Issa had his office bombed because of his ethnicity.

addendum:
As usual, my fellow paleoconservative farm team infielder Daniel Larison offers insightful commentary, including:

"...if the situation were reversed and there were a government official sending such hateful messages to Jewish-Americans and their colleagues, it would be a major story and would be hyped from here to eternity by the usual suspects. We would see daily coverage in The New York Times and hear constant commentary every day. There would be bloviating pundits asking 'how many' other Foreign Service officers held similar views, and what Secretary Rice was doing about it. Certain newspapers and magazines would have a field day and would draw broad, sweeping claims about State's toleration of these attitudes."

GOP County Conventions

Anyone who follows this blog knows that I supported both Scott Rumana and Rob Ortiz in their respective quests for the Chairmanship of the Passaic and Bergen County GOP organizations, because I felt each of those candidates was most likely to advance the principles that I consider important for building a successful Republican Party in New Jersey, not the least of which is a more democratic and transparent organization. The election results were to my liking, but that does not mean that my commitment to those principles will relax - hence the following op-ed that appear in The Record today.
--------------------


Breathing new life into North Jersey GOP
by GEORGE AJJAN - Tuesday, August 14, 2007

WITH THE ELECTION of Rob Ortiz as chairman of the Republican Party in Bergen County, the trend of electing young, reform-oriented leaders in North Jersey continues. Of course, the ascension to the corresponding post in Passaic County of Scott Rumana, who has rightly pledged to resign as mayor of Wayne if elected to the Assembly this November as is expected, was another milestone.

Each of these leaders won convincing victories as GOP party chairman with the confidence of the Republican county committee by communicating a plan to break clean from the bumbling ineptitude of the previous administration. Without rehashing the less-than-glorious recent past, suffice it to say that both Passaic and Bergen have seen a nearly complete reversal of their fortunes over the past decade, having gone from just about 100 percent control of the county to almost zero.

While it would be hard to sink much lower, reversing the trend will not happen overnight. Raising enough money to compete with the Democrats in either county is a tall order when Republicans have lately been outspent by more than 10-1 in recent county races. Nevertheless, there are some key activities and administrative changes that should be instituted promptly, which will cost pennies by comparison.

First and foremost, as I continue to advocate, is the embrace of technology. While Democrats at the national level have been more effective than Republicans at attracting new voters and channeling the efforts of supporters both for activities and fund raising, Democrats at the local level still win elections by a combination of dumb luck and the brute force best symbolized by Bergen County Democratic Chariman Joe Ferriero's operation.

With a few small exceptions, Democrats are just as new to the technology game as are local Republicans. Thus the GOP has a golden opportunity to take advantage of high Internet penetration rates in the suburbs to get out its "cut spending/downsize government" message in innovative ways to crucial areas where its margins have slipped.

While emerging tools like YouTube, Facebook and MySpace remain largely intimidating concepts, the Passaic County GOP at least managed to launch a Web site last year (http://www.pcrro.org/), much like the recently re-launched Bergen County GOP site (http://www.bergengop.org/). One of the highlights of the Passaic site, which Bergen certainly ought to duplicate, was the publication of the official organization bylaws that explicitly delineate how the county chairman was elected, what powers he did or did not have, and most importantly how candidates were selected.

This is an important aspect of transparency that deserves mention in detail, because many loyal supporters remain in the dark about how the party organization operates. In every voting precinct, one man and one woman are chosen as the party's county committee members. Their names appear on the ballot every two or three years (depending upon the specific bylaws) in the Republican primary – thus all Republicans who vote in the primary vote for their local party representative, or what was called "precinct captain" in the old days.

In Bergen, these county committee members take part in a convention each spring at which they alone vote to award "the line" to particular candidates for each office – although this vote is not comprehensively mandated according to the Bergen GOP bylaws and, worse yet, this convention doesn't even exist in Passaic County.

While Passaic County has taken a positive step by creating a convention for the 2008 presidential nomination, taking place on Sept. 15 and open to any Republican in the county, both Ortiz and Rumana should advocate amending the bylaws to create binding conventions for each and every nomination the county GOP makes, so that grassroots Republicans have fair say in whom they wish to nominate. After all, it is they who will do the heavy lifting come election time.

Enthusiastic supporters of Ortiz and Rumana share the belief that the Republican Party in North Jersey cannot be rebuilt without harnessing the energy and respecting the wishes of the activists who live and work in the towns of Passaic and Bergen counties.

That is why they need to continue their efforts to increase transparency and democracy of the Republican organizations they oversee. It is the best hope of breathing new life into the GOP.

George Ajjan of Clifton is a Republican activist. Visit his blog at www.georgeajjan.com.

O --- This article first appeared in The Record on August 14, 2007.

Law and Order: Federal Nepotism

Several months ago, antiwar.com (which I reiterate is not a leftist "Cindy Sheehan" website, but rather a libertarian non-interventionist website that started out of opposition to Bill Clinton's ridiculous wars in the Balkans during the 1990s) published my open letter to Liz Cheney, discussing her abysmal role in making American foreign policy, based upon the amazing qualification of being the Vice-President's daughter.

I continue the theme this time imagining a TV show in which a Law and Order prosecutor oversees an investigation of nepotism in the Executive Branch, which exposes the bad policy-making and sinks the presidential campaign of a Republican candidate silly enough to hire Ms. Cheney as his foreign policy adviser. Guess who?!?
---------------
A Law and Order Spinoff You Don't Want to Miss
by George Ajjan

The successful TV franchise Law and Order has spun off a number of niche crime dramas over the years: Special Victims Unit, which deals with sexual predators; Criminal Intent, which concerns high-profile murders; and Trial by Jury, which takes viewers into the deliberations that determine a defendant's guilt or innocence.

Imagine, though, the prospect of a thrilling fourth installment called Law and Order: Federal Nepotism, in which one of the series' main characters, District Attorney Arthur Branch, is appointed special prosecutor, leading his staff to delve into the Washington intrigue surrounding the appointment of unqualified relatives of federal executives to high-ranking positions in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State.

In the show, the heroic Branch's hotshot attorneys investigate the vice president's son-in-law, a Washington lawyer who landed several plum appointments in the veep's administration. First he served as acting associate attorney general, then as general counsel to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Branch's investigators focus on the son-in-law's involvement in drafting the 2002 legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, because he later became a partner at a prestigious D.C. law firm where he lobbied for major government contractors in dealing with the DHS.

Branch's team pores over official lobbying documents filed with Congress, learning how this familial appointee helped his firm secure liability protection from lawsuits prompted by terrorist attacks, according to the 2002 SAFETY Act, making them one of a only a few firms whose products have been certified for coverage.

Furthermore, after his father-in-law was reelected, he was given an even more prominent role – general counsel of the DHS. After being confirmed, the son-in-law was forced to recuse himself from decisions involving his former clients.

But the main target of Branch's investigation is the vice president's daughter, a low-level attorney who stepped over dozens of highly qualified career diplomats to earn the post of assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs in 2002. She then resigned from the post to work on her father's reelection campaign, only to return to the epicenter of American foreign policy-making when the opposition party's dunderheaded decision to nominate a windsurfing elitist for president resulted in her father's second term.

Branch and his staff discover that in her official role, the daughter acted in a seemingly autonomous manner on behalf of her father's foreign policy objectives, objectives borne of deeply flawed neoconservative theories that often conflicted with the on-the-ground experience of Foggy Bottom staffers who questioned the ease of "liberating" Iraq and cast strong doubts on the potential to "spread democracy" in authoritarian environments with no functioning civil society.

Thus, this neocon princess of sorts essentially acted as her father's spy in the State Department. Branch is shocked to learn of instances where the daughter would obnoxiously insist upon meeting with heads of state in Arab countries in the absence of the U.S. ambassador to that country. The prosecutors thus explore the daughter's efforts to establish a "shadow foreign policy" on behalf of her father.

Through their interviews with Washington insiders, Branch's attorneys further discover that the vice president's child has developed a reputation as the "go-to girl" for sleazy foreign agents with axes to grind in their home countries, some of them posing as U.S. citizens while they openly establish Washington offices of foreign political parties to lobby for American military intervention. One such individual befriended by the neocon princess is a fourth-rate con man by the name of Farid Ghadry, who was born in the Republic of Syria and immigrated to the Republic of Lebanon as a child. In addition to these two passports, he was awarded citizenship in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (later revoked), then immigrated to the United States and earned American citizenship. Apparently for Ghadry, pledging allegiance to a nation is about as momentous an experience as filling out a new credit-card application.

Branch sees how Ghadry decided after Sept.11, 2001, that an ideal con job would be to wind back the clock, jettison his preferred name of "Frank" and his preference for Lebanon, and reassume a Syrian identity. Ghadry then set himself up as head of the Reform Party of Syria, hoping for U.S.-led regime change in the country he left as a little boy.

While investigating Ghadry's ties to the vice president's daughter, Branch quips to his staff that Ghadry would probably have more supporters on the Wall Street Journal editorial board than in all of Syria itself. They grill Ghadry about his true allegiance, particularly after he returns from visiting Likud Party leaders in Israel. Branch wants to know if he traveled there with his American passport or his Syrian one, and whether he testified before the Knesset committee as the head of a Syrian political party or as an American citizen. He further asks whether Ghadry's testimony before the U.S. Congress was given as a Syrian citizen or as an American citizen. Branch probes the legality of Ghadry's donations of thousands of dollars to Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who summoned him – by an amazing coincidence – to testify as a foreign agent, as well as a contribution of $2,000 to the same congresswoman from Ghadry's teenage daughter.

Though Branch does his best to avoid politicizing the investigation, increasing public outcry over the Iraq War does seem to color his approach, especially as it pertains to the vice president's daughter and her views on Iran. Branch evaluates the evidence and finds her following the same playbook that the Mesopotamian Misadventure architects used, especially when cultivating links with discredited exiles. The district attorney picks up clues from journalist Laura Rozen, who chronicled some of the neocons' maneuvers in this area, including expensive gifts given to the vice president's daughter in 2005 by a prominent Iranian exile from Los Angeles named Manda Shahbazi. One of these, a carpet worth $4,000, ranked in the top 12 most expensive gifts given by foreigners to U.S. officials that year.

Ultimately, the show ends as Branch publicizes these dishonorable details and successfully exposes the treachery of the neocon underworld. His investigation severely embarrasses the vice president in particular, who is subject to ridicule for the remainder of his tenure in Washington on account of the nepotism he promoted. Although Branch's report to Congress does not recommend impeaching the president for the administration's nepotism, his analysis amounts to a stern rebuke of the administration's modus operandi, in which the vice president's daughter and son-in-law played a major part, particularly as it relates to foreign policy. Subsequently, a conservative House faction emerges as a watchdog for sole allegiance to the United States, and enacts legislation intended to strip Ghadry and other foreign operatives of dubious loyalty of their American citizenship.

Finally, Branch's heroism has one unintended consequence. He puts the final nails in the coffin of a presidential candidate who had hired the vice president's daughter as a foreign policy adviser. With the adviser's fall from grace and her ideas thoroughly discredited in the eyes of a disgruntled conservative base that finally awoke after being lulled to sleep by neoconservative fairy tales, the candidate's prospects plummeted. Though he once was well-hyped in conservative circles and a potential front-runner for his party's nomination, his donor base quickly dried up and his campaign was left with little more than stale rhetoric.

All thanks to Law and Order's star character, Arthur Branch.

George Ajjan is a Republican activist whose blog contains his published writings, as well as up-to-date contributions related to his active career in politics, global affairs, and international business.

O --- This article first appeared on antiwar.com on August 14, 2007.

Paleogallia

Back when Rudy Giuliani was in the midst of pandering to illegal immigrants as the mayor of New York City, he focused his ire on a journalist with a not-quite-Anglo-Saxon name who had written a "tongue in cheek" politically incorrect article about the Puerto Rican Day parade. Giuliani apparently wanted him deported. Only trouble is, Taki Theodoracopulos is an American citizen. He is also a veteran of the conservative movement both in the US (having written for National Review) and in Europe (he comes from a prominent Greek family). Taki co-founded in 2002 with Pat Buchanan the outstanding magainze The American Conservative where he reserves the inside back cover for his hilarious in-your-face conservatives musings and insults of the neocons.

Taki also launched in recent months Taki's Top Drawer, a daily magazine featuring articles and blog pieces from prominent paleoconservatives and libertarians. Today they published a piece of mine entitled "Paleogallia", which they titled "For Christ or Kin" - a bit of an introspection on paleoconservatism. Special thanks to Orest Ranum, French History Professor at Johns Hopkins.
-------------------------------------
For Christ or Kin
by George Ajjan

In 2003, when National Review published neoconservative pundit-in-chief David Frum's attack mistitled "Unpatriotic Conservatives", they did not distinguish between the likes of Lew Rockwell and Pat Buchanan, which might suggest that shared opposition to the neoconservative worldview should naturally incline libertarian and paleoconservative activists to join forces in debunking their ideological foes within the American right. (continued...)

Not all traditional conservatives seem convinced, however, of a shared agenda with libertarians. On the weblog of paleoconservative publication Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, several months ago one such activist responded to the call for cooperation rather dismissively, stating, "Libertarians think primarily of $$$. Paleos lament the death of Christendom." Aside from its somewhat crude characterization of libertarians, this remark embodies the fascination common among traditional conservatives with Europe's – and by extension America's – Christian political heritage.

Vigorously disapproving of an America detached from its roots, the staunchest of these paleoconservatives believe that restoring Western Civilization requires more than increasing devotion to God on an individual spiritual level, which tends to characterize most Americans and even self-identifying "conservative" politicians. For them, winning the Culture War entails renewed fidelity to the West's political Christian identity – a view containing weighty historical overtones. For example, in the December 2006 issue of Chronicles, which carried the very title "Christendom Under Siege", historian Thomas Fleming relates the divisions amongst the nations of the West that nearly enabled the Ottoman Empire (which at the time covered Asia Minor, Greater Syria, Mesopotamia, and much of Southeastern Europe) to pose a serious threat in the heart of the continent. In his view, a shared faith in Jesus Christ should have bound together the likes of England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire in defense of Christendom, just as it should today, he argues, unite Europe and America in resistance of a depraved secular culture and fear of sharia.

Fleming's chastisement of those early modern leaders for failing to fully embrace their Christian connection, however, opens an interesting avenue of debate when compared with the views of his counterparts in the Europe of ages past to which he hearkens back. Nearly contemporaneous with the Ottoman encroachment described by Fleming, for instance, French jurist Franςois Hotman in 1574 published Francogallia, a political-historical treatise heavily critical of the hereditary monarchical culture dominant in France at the time. Francogallia therefore compelled French citizens to reclaim their country by embracing the traditions of their own ancient past – a common theme of paleoconservatism – beginning with the Frankish-Gallic kingdoms of the pre-Roman era. Hotman described a mythical constitutional monarchy and extolled the democratic concepts adopted by his forebears in the selection of their kings, arguing that historic Gaul embodied the eminence of France's political and cultural tradition.

For example, Hotman boasts of the ancient Gauls' military valor and offers conjecture on the origins of the French language, with an emphasis on the existence of a Gallic tongue that predated Roman conquest of the lands that later unified as France. By downplaying external Greek and Latin influences, Hotman idealized a more pure and indigenous inheritance in which Frenchmen could take pride, thus touching upon another prevalent paleoconservative theme. Francogallia's central thesis, however, concerns the political composition of ancient Gallic kingdoms, which he speculates:

"...were not hereditary, but conferred by the people upon such as had the
reputation of being just men. Secondly, they had no arbitrary or unlimited
authority, but were bound and circumscribed by laws; so that they were no less
accountable to, and subject to the power of the people, than the people was to
theirs."

The text veils very thinly Hotman's contempt for the French monarchy, to which he ascribed the disastrous religious civil wars that tore France apart in the 16th Century, forcing Hotman himself to flee the country. He laments in Francogallia's preface:

"There was indeed a time when young gentlemen desirous of improvement flocked from all parts to the schools and academies of our Francogallia ... now they dread them as men do seas infested with pirates, and detest their tyrannous barbarity."

He thus conveys his wish to heal France by calling upon the political wisdom of ancestors from a bygone era and presenting it to his countrymen in the pages of Francogallia.

Hotman is not exactly a household name, even amongst aficionados of the humanities. He serves, nonetheless, as a thought-provoking case study to assess paleoconservatism, because the historically rooted manner in which he disparaged the shortcomings of his own society mirrors the approach of today's traditional conservatives. By definition and example, paleoconservatives will find Hotman's style pleasingly familiar and certainly consider him a kindred spirit. For instance, he further expounds in Francogallia's preface:

"When we think of that air we first sucked in, that earth we first trod on, those relations, neighbors and acquaintances to whose conversation we have been accustomed ... [we] may sometimes say, my country is grown mad or foolish, (as Plato said of his), sometimes that it rages and cruelly tears out its own bowels."

With these sentiments, Hotman manifests the "expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture" proposed by writer Chilton Williamson, Jr. as a definition of paleoconservatism.

Yet precisely in this sense Hotman presents a curious irony for paleoconservatives, because the France of yore that he compelled his contemporaneous countrymen to reclaim was predominantly correlated not to its function within Christendom, as Fleming would have it, but rather to a pagan epoch. Writing in an era when the king of France was technically consecrated as a Catholic priest and carried the institutional title rex christianissimus, latin for "most Christian king" – two glowing symbols of the Christendom to which the most steadfast paleoconservatives aspire – their early modern counterpart Hotman de-emphasized this religious identity. By evoking a French legacy relegating Christianity to irrelevance if even existence, his priorities therefore starkly contrast with those of traditional conservative champions like Russell Kirk, a seminal American author who described Christianity and Western Civilization as "unimaginable apart from one another." For Hotman, the origins of French civilization lay not in devotion to Christ, but instead in its pre-Christian Gallic roots characterized by secular components – elements that Hotman's counterparts of today might consider depraved in their modern form.

While only pure folly would suggest that Hotman explicitly praised the paganism of his forebears – after all, he himself was a believing Christian who wrote treatises on the Eucharist among other sacred topics – there is a certain paleoconservative paradox related to his enthrallment, despite its lack of Christian character, with France's ancient heritage. He writes:

"I have perused all the old French and German historians that treat of our Francogallia, and collected out of their works a true state of our Commonwealth in the condition (wherein they agree) it flourished for above a thousand years. Indeed the great wisdom of our ancestors in the first framing of our constitution is almost incredible, so I no longer doubt that the most certain remedy for such great evils must be deduced from their maxims."

While Hotman may have been a believer, in fact one so distressed to have written "never … can we reasonably hope our Commonwealth should be restored to health, till through divine assistance," as a patriot, his preoccupation lay first and foremost in the secular past, not in the saving power of Christ or the ebb and flow of Christendom.

Ironies aside, for pondering enthusiasts of European history and its reflection on American politics, Hotman's time-honored approach principally validates conservatism as a natural predisposition of the human condition. But it also forewarns today's conservatives, with their zeal to preserve America's religious roots on such issues as prayer in schools and public acknowledgement of the Almighty, not to idealize or oversimplify Christendom's political legacy. As Hotman demonstrates, even in a nation so inextricably imbued with religion and the Church as was France during the early modern era, conservative thinkers, acting out of respect and love for their traditional identity, will still lament society run amok and look to the past in order to restore it. That identity, as described in the pages of Francogallia, must encompass more than a mere religious pedigree.

Similarly, as a corollary to Hotman's point view, countries should act in their own interests as informed by unique national legacies and traditions, not merely religious commonalities. His perspective would cast a dubious eye, for example, upon the pastoral letter "Strangers No More – Together on the Journey of Hope", in which Mexican and US Catholic bishops assert that compassion for migrants and a shared faith arguably trump concerns over the impact that an immigration crisis can have upon a nation's sovereignty.

Restoring the "Christendom" of Hotman's time, therefore, is not a panacea for the ills of the modern world, though paleoconservatives' labors to preserve respect for the sacred, for faith in God, and for the Christian influence on American identity continue to exemplify a noble struggle. Indeed, the process by which thoughtful citizens look to the past in order to "conserve" the values, institutions, and principles upon which a society is based remains an indispensable outlook – one deeply rooted in Western Civilization and befitting true patriots from Plato, to Hotman, to Kirk, to today.

The author, a Republican activist, can be reached at http://www.georgeajjan.com.

O --- This article first appeared in on Taki's Top Drawer on August 10, 2007.

Metn Romney and Non Quincy Adams

The GOP's 9-ring circus graced Iowa this past weekend, with no big surprises in a Sunday morning debate. A few points:

1. The discussion about the Fair Tax (a 23% national sales tax that would eliminate income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes) was instructive. Note that none of the "frontrunners" has the courage to embrace this concept, while Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee all support it enthusiastically. Tancredo got a little haughty in responding to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney's contentions that the Fair Tax is too complicated or is too risky. His point about using the Fair Tax to curtail the power of the Federal Government was beautifully stated.
2. Romney may come across as too rehearsed, but his quip, "I get tired of people that are holier than thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have," was a winner. However, following that up by insulting the integrity of YouTube was poor.
3. I don't often enjoy listening to Rudy Giuliani, but he used a question about crumbling infrastructure to give a good overview of the Laffer Curve.

The most intriguing part, however, was a clever question pertaining to George W. Bush's commitment in his 2nd inaugural address to spread democracy with the goal of "ending tyranny in our world." (continued...)

Of course, Ron Paul made excellent points on his trademark issues and specifically attacked the neocons:

"Our responsibility is to spread democracy here, make sure that we have it. This is a philosophic and foreign policy problem, because what the president was saying was just a continuation of Woodrow Wilson's 'making the world safe for democracy.'

There's nothing wrong with spreading our values around the world, but it is wrong to spread it by force. We should spread it by setting an example and going and doing a good job here. Threatening Pakistan and threatening Iran makes no sense whatsoever. We went in -- and I supported going after the Al Qaida into Afghanistan -- but, lo and behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Osama bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today."

Mike Huckabee also came out very strongly in tune with a non-interventionist position:

"I don't think it's the job of the United States to export our form of government. It's the job of the United States to protect our citizens, to secure our own borders, which we have failed to do for over 20 years. It's the job of our government to make us free and us safe, and to create an enviable kind of government and system that everybody else will want, much in the same way I think we ended up seeing the fall of the Soviet Union.

...I don't think we can force people to accept our way of life, our way of government. What we can to is to create the strongest America: change our tax system, make it so that people are healthier, create the enviable education system on this planet, make sure that jobs come back to this country rather than disappear from this country.

And if we do that kind of approach, we'll have the sort of freedom internally, secure borders, a safer nation. That makes a whole lot more sense to me than spending billions and billions and billion of dollars to try to prop up some government we don't even like when we get it. And people in this country are losing their jobs, losing their health insurance, and their kids are sitting with their heads on their desks, sound asleep in school."

Giuliani and McCain countered by criticizing the "rush to elections" and said that the "rule of law" has to come first. How is the rule of law a predicate for successful democracy? Autocracies often have low crime and very little civil unrest. That doesn't mean that they can adapt well to democracy. The prerequisites for democracy would more likely include a functioning civil society, with a free press and an accountable judiciary.

Romney's answer to this question takes the cake though:

"I think when there's a country like Lebanon, for instance, that becomes a democracy, that instead of standing by and seeing how they do, we should have been working with the government there to assure that they have the rule of law, that they have agricultural and economic policies that work for them, that they have schools that are not Wahhabi schools, that we try and make sure they have good health care."

Imagine a Romney/Brownback ticket - on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday we could make sure citizens of foreign nations have good health care; while on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday we could strengthen ties with their labor unions.

But Romney's remarks reveal another important characteristic of his candidacy - namely that he buys into the neocons' definition of democracy: "whatever happens to be in our interests for the next 15 minutes or so". Indeed, as I will continue to point out, the neocons have made democracy the cheapest word in the English language. For example, Romney takes a page from Liz Cheney's playbook and writes off the first six decades of Lebanon's history as a democratic Republic (too bad Liz is advising Fred Thompson).

The truth is, Lebanese citizens have voted in elections just like the ones of 2005 many, many times before President Bush's 2nd inaugural address (which, believe it or not, did not mark the beginning of recorded history - apparently Rudy Giuliani's election as Mayor of New York City did). The difference is, the elections of 2 years ago were the first in a long time that were conducted without explicit manipulation by operatives of the Syrian Arab Republic and with the presence of that country's military occupying its smaller neighbor.

So does Romney mean to suggest that elections conducted while a country undergoes military occupation don't count? I leave it to you to complete that proof.

Also, would Romney's sense of "working with the government there to assure that they have the rule of law, that they have agricultural and economic policies that work for them" include using American influence to ensure that the country's only international airport is not bombed, along with many of its bridges?

Anyway, Romney's mention of Lebanese democracy makes a nice transition to a discussion of the mini-election held simultaneously with the Iowa debate, in which residents of the Metn and Beirut chose replacements for 2 assassinated parliament ministers: Pierre Gemayel and Walid Eido. The latter was basically uncontested, the former a fierce electoral battle: a showdown between the opposition or "March 8" movement led by former General Michel Aoun with Hezbollah, and the"March 14" government run by Saudi Prince Band..., I mean, led by Fouad Siniora and other allies of the slain former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, including his son and political wunderkind, Saad Hariri.

Running to fill the seat of Gemayel (whose murder seems to have been an inside job - hmmm, makes you wonder how the United States is supposed to protect "democracy" in Lebanon when a scion of the country's most prominent political family can't even find a bodyguard he can trust) was his father, former President of the Lebanese Republic Amin Gemayel, also known as "Mr. 2%" for his "business skills". He faced an ally of Aoun named Kamil Khoury. And by a razor-thin margin, Gemayel lost. He's no John Quincy Adams.

March 14 supporters alleged Hudson County style vote tampering, although Aoun supporters cast suspicion on that since they are the opposition party and not the government in power. Lebanon's Armenian minority played a major role in the outcome. The March 14 group has also tried to spin defeat as a victory, saying that the decline in Aoun's vote getting ability in the intervening 2 years shows that he is no longer a strong leader - for details see Josh Landis's "syriacomment" - the definitive blog on Syria and its politics.

From my perspective, the big losers here are Gemayel and his fans in Washington and elsewhere (those supporters of "democracy" who rolled out the neo-red carpet for Aoun in Washington when he was the staunchest opponent of Syrian military occupation - now he's no longer their "Maronite of the Month", but rather a terrorist collaborator because he stopped reading from their script). What a disgrace for Gemayel, despite his political stature and sympathy for his son's death, to lose to a no-name opponent.

How many more bad foreign political bets are the American people going to allow our government to make before we realize that Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee's points in the Iowa debate were correct?

addendum, 8/8:

My teammate from the libertarian/paleoconservative farm team, Byzantine historian Daniel Larison, picked up on this post and made a stirring analogy related to my remarks about what it means for the US government to "support Lebanon":

"After watching the appropriate outrage over the I-35 bridge collapse this past week, it occurs to me that Americans might be even slightly more agitated if a foreign government blew up the port of Long Beach, knocked out the runways at O'Hare, took out multiple bridges across the Mississippi, bombed some of our military installations and displaced 25% of our population in the name of self-defense and helping the American government with its internal security."

As a note to me, he added:

"I would have thought that Romney's remark about Lebanon having schools that are 'not Wahhabi schools' would have merited some comment from George. I'm not saying that Saudi/Wahhabi influence in Lebanon doesn't exist, but it is a rather strange thing to focus on in a country where Sunnis make up perhaps 25% of the population."

Actually, it's even more interesting than that. Romney may have made that remark to compensate for the fact that he was accused in the week prior to the debate of praising Hezbollah for its social service network particularly as it relates to health care. Romney seems to have a vision for an American technocrat army dressed in button-downs and khakis to promote democracy, with particular focus on health care.

But I think Daniel's remark about Wahhabi influence as it relates to Lebanese demographics is far more sophisticated than the level of discussion common in the debates (surprise, surprise - a paleocon intellectual trumps the neocons). This is especially true of Romney, who as Daniel has previously indicated, lumps together Sunni, Shia, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. So to me, his mentioning the word "Wahhabi" is just showing off vocabulary, like he previously did with "caliphate" and "worldwide jihadist effort". Expect to hear "salafi", "sufi", "mehdi", and more before the 9-ring GOP circus ends its glorious tour.

Technology vs. Assimilation

I was recently invited by longtime immigration reform advocate Peter Brimelow, who is also a highly accomplished journalist, editor, and publisher, to write a piece for the immigration watchdog site VDare about the experiences of Arab-American immigrants through the story of my own family, and what that might teach us about immigration today. This might seem ironic, considering that VDare is named for Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the Americas, unless of course you have engaged in enough dialogue with Brimelow and his colleagues to know that despite their hawkish views on immigration, they are not the wretched xenophobes their detractors make them out to be.
---------------------------
Modern Technology vs. Old Fashioned Assimilation - Is A Melting Pot Even Possible Any More?
by George Ajjan

In the early part of the last century, almost 20 million people immigrated to the United States. Less than 1% of them came from the geographic region of Syria, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire. (Now it's divided into the modern political entities of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Lebanon, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the State of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority).

Like their counterparts from Eastern and Southern Europe, Arab immigrants sought economic opportunities in the U.S. Many probably intended to return to their homelands with better economic status as much as they wanted to settle into a new life overseas.

Interestingly, many would-be Americans from the Middle East arrived to Ellis Island and other ports of entry only to be rebuffed due to the prevalence of maladies like trachoma, common amongst Mediterranean people. This left them two options: undergo quarantine for treatment, which was generally unaffordable, or get on another boat. So many Arabs continued their journey southward, settling throughout Latin America. Their descendents achieved enviable economic and political success. For example, recent Presidents of Argentina, Ecuador, and El Salvador have been of Arab extraction.

The approximately 150,000 Arabs who did succeed in immigrating to the United States in the early 20th century included my own ancestors. The last of them arrived in 1921, when new immigration quotas drastically reduced inflows from the Mediterranean. After the quotas were further revised in 1924, only a few hundred Arabs entered the United States annually. (continued...)

My forebears, and the vast majority of Arab immigrants in that era, were Christians. For them, emigration seemed more attractive than compliance with Ottoman tax policy, which required religious minorities to pay a tribute called jizya or otherwise face military conscription. Some Catholic, others Orthodox, these immigrants followed Eastern rites—Melkite, Maronite, Syriac, Armenian—which in some cases still presented a religious barrier to cross in America. (And that barrier was even higher for the few Muslims and Jews. Brooklyn, New York and Deal, New Jersey still retain thriving Syrian Jewish communities).

Camaraderie ran high within the Arab community despite the religious differences. But there was cultural friction with American society at large. Stories passed down from Paterson, New Jersey in the 1920s recount street brawls between Irish and Syrians, whom the Irish mistakenly called Turks, which the police had to break up with fire hoses. Finally, the Syrian version of the legend goes, Dean William McNulty marched into an Irish pub one night and lectured his people:

"This fighting with the Syrians has got to stop. These people come from the land where Christ himself walked—so show them some respect."

McNulty's sentiment was echoed in a poem by the celebrated Arab-American author Khalil Gibran, born in what is now Lebanon and raised a Maronite, he wrote "To Young Americans of Syrian Origin" in 1926:

"I believe that it is in you to be good citizens. And what is it to be a good citizen?

…It is to produce wealth by labor and only by labor, and to spend less than you have produced that your children may not be dependent on the state for support when you are no more.

It is to stand before the towers of New York, Washington, Chicago and San Francisco saying in your heart, 'I am the descendant of a people that built Damascus, and Byblus, and Tyre and Sidon, and Antioch, and now I am here to build with you, and with a will.'

It is to be proud of being an American, but it is also to be proud that your fathers and mothers came from a land upon which God laid his gracious hand and raised His messengers.

Young Americans of Syrian origin, I believe in you."

In my case, it was my great-great-grandfather who sought a visa from the American consulate in Aleppo, now in northern Syria. He arrived in the United States with his family in 1921, speaking no English. As with many immigrant households in America, he and his family communicated in their native language at home and in their ethnic enclave of Central Falls, Rhode Island and later Paterson. (To this day, Paterson is a prominent center of Arab-American social and cultural activity, shared by both Christians and Muslims, who nowadays comprise roughly equal numbers within the Arab-American community nationwide).

The youngsters learned English at school. These bilingual children of Arab immigrants assimilated nationwide in a manner typical of that era, best exemplified by their service to the Armed Forces. For example, in the 1940s both of my grandfathers joined the US Army and were sent to Europe during the Second World War. This naturally had a profound effect on their immediate families. The impact of that experience on immigrants of that era, like my great-grandparents, illustrates an important difference with their counterparts of today.

With their son fighting thousands of miles away, my paternal grandfather's parents craved news about his whereabouts and the overall progress of the war. It so happened that a gentleman in Paterson published a newspaper to serve the Arab-American community and provide them updates. He took Monday's paper in English, translated it, and published Monday's news in Arabic on Tuesday. For a while, this suited my great-grandfather, anxiously awaiting knowledge of his son's fate. But then he began to realize: this is not good enough. My son could be dead. I can’t wait a day to know what is happening.

So he taught himself to read and write in English. For him, it was a necessity. It was also a major step on the road to assimilation.

But at that time, the process for immigrants was much more clear-cut. In most cases, people had little choice. Immigrants arrived by boat, and certainly not in luxury. The weeks-long journey was difficult and expensive, but most of all time-consuming. Traveling back and forth to one's home country was essentially out of the question. Additionally, telephones and television did not exist (and when they did, they were prohibitively expensive for poor immigrants) Even exchanging letters with overseas kin took weeks if not months. So many people simply lost touch with their relatives and the lives they left behind.

Outside of grocery shopping in the local ethnic enclave, doing anything in America required some degree of familiarity with English. The electric company, the phone company, even voting ballots, didn't offer multi-lingual options. Immigrants thus resigned themselves to assimilation.
But the 21st century tells a different story. Immigrants come to the US and, like previous generations, tend to settle into ethnic enclaves where their native language has primacy. But the similarities often end there.

Immigrants arrive by airplane. Flights leave daily and, if purchased wisely, are affordably priced. The journey back and forth is easy and comfortable. It's all too simple for 21st century immigrants to keep a pied-à-terre in the homeland. Staying in touch with their relatives is simple. Everyone uses email. Phone cards allow people to call overseas for just pennies a minute—not to mention instant messenger, webcams, and Skype. Communication is cheap, if not free.

Among the first things modern-day immigrants tend to do is hook up satellite dishes, also at relatively low cost, so they can follow the news in their countries of origin, in their native language. Who needs to learn English and watch CBS, NBC, or ABC when you've got Telemundo? And even without cable or satellite, the major networks are close-captioned in Spanish.

Rewind to World War II. If al-Jazeera had existed back then, costing just a few dozen dollars per month, my great-grandfather would probably never have learned English. He could have followed the news of his soldier son in his native Arabic.

Thus the media revolution presents us with a paradox. It is actually removing the pressure on immigrants, no matter what their origin, to learn English and to assimilate into American society. For example, simple programming can now automatically translate VDARE.COM into Spanish.

Technology's impact alone is cause for concern. But there is something even more disturbing that must be honestly discussed and debated. No one would expect immigrants who become naturalized US Citizens to expunge an emotional attachment to their countries of origin. But the ability to maintain such integral connection to another country can present a conflict of loyalty that does not befit America. As Congressmen Tom Tancredo stated in the latest Republican primary debate, immigrants should be expected to cut political ties to their homelands. Dual allegiance cannot be accepted.

Of course, the main intent of immigration reform, the primary domestic issue of today, is to enforce our laws and to eliminate illegal immigration to protect the American way of life. But once we have confidence in the robustness and legality of the system, we must then turn our attention to the secondary problem of those who immigrate legally to the United States in an upright manner, but choose not to assimilate.

Even establishment figures propose a return to English-only ballots and government documents, a focus on the teaching of American History, and an Oath of Allegiance. But they show awareness that technological change will continue to make assimilation less likely.

The next great battle, therefore, for immigration reform advocates who wish to protect as well as strengthen America, as I believe immigration has historically done, is a comprehensive effort aimed at encouraging the participation in, involvement with, and especially loyalty to, the culture, society, and civic life of the United States of America.

George Ajjan is a Republican activist and member of the Arab American Institute's National Policy Council. He is also the creator of REDchoice, an issue-based poll for the GOP's 2008 Presidential primary.

O --- This article first appeared in on VDare on August 1, 2007.

A follow-up Letter to the Editor, including my response, was published on VDare on August 11:

A Mexican-Canadian Reader Hopes America's 'Fear' Of Foreigners Does Not Turn Her Into An Authoritarian State

From: Jesús Peña (born in Mexico, and a naturalized Canadian)

I hope with all my mind and heart that America never becomes the authoritarian state George Ajjan is advocating for and that his ancestors fled from. But again, even the best country in the world may devolve by fear of the foreign and lack of acceptance of new people and ideas.

Many facts are hidden or ignored in Ajjan's article. For example, even when Spanish-speakers in the US watch Spanish TV, that does not mean they speak Spanish only. Another one is that "a simple programming" can translate English into Spanish, but the resulting text is unintelligible for any practical purpose.

America is a free country, where its people (and I count legal immigrants and naturalized Americans among them) choose freely to assimilate at their own pace.

Using the government—as I believe Ajjan advocates, although he doesn't say it directly— to restrict TV programming and technology is un-American.

I replied:

Of course Spanish speakers may prefer Spanish-language entertainment despite being totally fluent in English or perhaps even possess superior skills in English.

For example, my Arabic is poor but I occasionally watch al-Jazeera to brush up on my comprehension. I also watch historical dramas, game shows, and music videos on other Arabic satellite channels. As an American citizen, I am free to enjoy whatever entertainment I wish.

But let's not kid ourselves, there are those who immigrate to the US, legally or illegally, and rely exclusively on non-English media sources that inhibit their ability to assimilate.

True, the translation technology is not perfect (believe me, if you think the Spanish auto-translations are bad, try the Arabic ones!) But sooner or later, these tools will be as close to perfect as they need to be to allow people to function in American society without knowing English.

Finally, if the government restricted tv programming on the basis of language, I would be the first to protest alongside you.