Not present in 5,000 YouTube debate questions?

In last night's YouTube CNN debate - in which Romney must have been dizzy from his own spin, Huckabee offered more of his insipid brand of "Elevator Music Conservatism", Giuliani displayed his trademark arrogance, Thompson validated the panic that ensues from Hollywood writers' strikes, and McCain acted more crabby than Archie Bunker - Ron Paul was largely shut out of the last segment, until the following question was posed:

"Mr. Paul, I think we both know the Republican Party is never going to give you the nomination. But, I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox, like that, and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run...Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent?"

How convenient of CNN to pick this question to air. I'm wondering if, in their stack of 5,000 submissions, they received any of the following questions?

1. "Mr. Thompson, I think we both know that unless you disclose immediately that the lead script writer for Law & Order will be your running mate, the Republican Party is never going to give you the nomination. But..."
2. "Mr. Tancredo, I think we both know that a guy who wears that shabby a suit to a nationally-televised debate is never going to get the Republican nomination. But..."
3. "Mr. Romney, I think we both know that a guy who needs to consult his attorneys before he decides what color flip-flops to wear is never going to get the Republican nomination. But..."
4. "Mr. Huckabee, I think we both know that Ted Nugent playing a wailing guitar solo while 'The Nature Boy' Ric Flair and his tag team partner Chuck Norris threaten to bodyslam any voter who doesn't laugh at the snappy one-liners on which you rely to cloak your shallow grasp of the issues is not enough to get you the Republican nomination. But..."
5. "Mr. McCain, I think we both know that Republicans are never going to give the nomination - and therefore the trust to run the nation's finances - to a guy who can't even keep his own campaign afloat. But..."
6. "Mr. Hunter, I think we both know that Republican voters do not directly nominate a Secretary of Defense. So what the hell are you still doing in this race?"
7. "Mr. Giuliani, I think we both know that once voters find out that you once married your cousin, the Republican Party is never going to give you the nomination. Although in a few states..."

Fred Snowflack on Ron Paul - my response

Fred Snowflack, Editorial Page Editor of the Daily Record and a respected observer of Morris County politics, remarked on Ron Paul in his most recent editorial. I took issue with several of his points, as shown below from my correspondence with him.

Snowflack's editorial is quoted in italics, my responses are the indented bullet points beneath each statement.

Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas, but his party designation is really a misnomer. Paul is more libertarian than Republican

• Ron Paul has been elected to Congress 10 times, each time as a Republican candidate. He was a backer of Ronald Reagan in 1976 (one of only 4 in Congress), even serving as a delegate for Reagan in the bicentennial Republican National Convention. Ron Paul was way ahead of his time and foresaw the Reagan legacy long before it became fashionable. Remember, at that time Reagan was considered "too conservative" to win, but that didn't stop Ron Paul from backing him on principle.


• Yes, Paul was the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988, having felt that George HW Bush's vision did not carry the limited-government hallmarks that originally attracted him to Ronald Reagan. But to say that Ron Paul is not a "real" Republican simply doesn't hold water. (continued...)

...an anti-establishment trait that seems responsible for him attracting a loyal and mostly young following.

• Perhaps the fact that he is the only candidate with the courage to point out that Social Security offers nothing at all to young people but another black hole from whence their hard-earned money will never return is responsible for his devoted following of young people. Republicans seem to forget that President Bush made an abortive push for Social Security reform several years ago that failed to spark consensus on Capitol Hill, maybe because he squandered so much of his political capital on an elitist neoconservative agenda. Too bad for all of us, especially Republicans, that he neglected a legitimate traditional American conservative agenda, which most certainly does include offering young people the choice to be free of Social Security.

Paul opposes the war in Iraq, which immediately sets him apart from the mainstream Republicans seeking the party's presidential nomination.

• True, he is the only candidate to have voted against the Iraq War, just as he voted against Clinton's Balkan Wars in the 1990s (like most other congressional Republicans) - because his opposition is based on the traditional American conservative principle of non-intervention. Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are influenced not by the latest poll, like the flip-flopping Democrats - but by careful consideration of the advice of the Founders like Washington and Jefferson, who warned us to beware of foreign entanglements. How right they were.

On domestic issues, he sees much of what government does as unconstitutional and wrong. He talks of getting rid of the IRS

• I admit on first glance this seems far-fetched, but consider: 2007's Federal Budget was $2.5 trillion, and nearly $1.2 trillion of that is derived from Individual Income Tax revenue. That means about $1.3 trillion is collected by the Federal Government from other sources. In 1995, do you know what the total Federal Budget was? You guessed it: $1.3 trillion. So for the same level of government we had only 12 years ago (I don't know about you, but it suited me just fine), we would not need Income Taxes.

...it's easy to portray the Fed -- the nation's central bank -- as an entity controlled by the dark forces of money and greed.

• The criticisms of our monetary policy have much less to do with conspiracy theories than with protecting the middle class and the poor. The fact is, since the Federal Reserve was created, the US dollar has lost 93% of its purchasing power - due to massive inflation. However, if our monetary system was based on gold and silver, this trend would have been averted, and staple goods would be much more affordable.


• For example, in 1970, silver was $1.64 per ounce. Gas was 36 cents per gallon. That means an ounce of silver could buy almost 5 gallons of gas. Today, gas is about $3 per gallon. But now, an ounce of silver sells for about $14.50, equivalent to almost 5 gallons of gas. You guessed it - if the US dollar were still based on silver, gas would still be the equivalent of what it was in 1970. This is why Ron Paul supporters heed his warnings about the Federal Reserve - for the good of ordinary consumers.

He veers left in opposing the nation's so-called war on drugs and the Patriot Act.

• Believing that Amendments 1, 4, and 5 should not be thrown to the wayside is considered veering left? I beg to differ. Ron Paul's opposition to the Patriot Act is stemmed from his deep respect for the US Constitution, and his belief that citizens should never surrender their rights to the Federal Government - this is the traditional American conservative position.


• Remember the horrific abuse of the Federal Government's power in the case of Elian Gonzalez, under the Clinton Administration? Imagine what the likes of his wife would do to conservatives with the Patriot Act. This is why Ron Paul opposes it as a Republican, because the Constitution is not meant to be disregarded or upheld based upon our moods or a particular political climate - it is the supreme law of the land and must be respected.

But Paul jumps far right in calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration. He wants to toughen border security

• If we were serious about protecting Americans, we would have a President that cared more about who seeps through our own borders than those of Iraq - 6,000 miles away. And instead of having the US Army directing traffic in Baghdad, we ought to have them inspecting containers arriving at American ports, to ensure that no future terrorist attacks will occur.

The Paul campaign may not have much of an organization in the state other than the Internet.

• Lavish accommodations and all-expense-paid trips for volunteers do not determine the winning candidates, the voice of voters on February 5 does. Right now the Ron Paul campaign is focused on the early January contests - but they are ready to spring into action in NJ at a moment's notice - mobilizing their vast army of volunteers, a small example of which Denville witnessed last weekend. And as far as NJ Straw Polls go, there have been 2, with roughly equal numbers of turnout - Rudy Giuliani swept the first, and Ron Paul swept the second. Imagine what they will do with a full-fledged organization.

To read Paul's New Jersey Internet site is to see a mixture of enthusiasm and political naivety.

• The site you mention is one of many run by individual supporters, without the guidance of the official campaign. Ron Paul's official website is http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ - I challenge you to find me a better-presented, more professional or more compelling official campaign site from any of Ron Paul's competitors. By the way, votes from those who demonstrate "political naivety" do not count for less than those of wily political insiders.

In truth, Paul has no chance to become president. A Rasmussen poll Tuesday showed him with 5 percent nationally and 4 percent in Iowa, scene of the first caucus. In New Jersey, Rudy Giuliani is far ahead of his fellow Republicans in every poll.

• Where was John Kerry in the polls at this time 4 years ago? How about Bill Clinton in 1991? Which is not even to mention the fact that the individuals being polled do not include a large segment of those previously disinterested in Republican politics, or politics in general. Many of the polling arguments against Ron Paul's candidacy smack of political elitism - as if the voice of "regular" voters should count more in an election than those heretofore disaffected by the system.

Keep your eyes on Ron Paul, Fred - he is going to surprise a lot of people on February 5.

An open letter to Arab-Americans, for Ron Paul

Today, this piece was published on LewRockwell.com, a favorite site of mine and one of the foremost libertarian websites out there. Rockwell, a student of Austrian Economics, heads the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama, named for one of the Austrian School's seminal thinkers. Rockwell compiles about 10 articles daily on the minimalist site - proudly identified as anti-state, anti-war, pro-market - plus a blog with some snappier content.

Since Rockwell served as Chief-of-Staff to Ron Paul during his early congressional career, he is one of the Texas Congressman's most prominent and well-read supporters - thus the various Open Letters he has published on Ron Paul's behalf, written by supporters like me.
------------------





Open Letter to the Arab-American Community in Behalf of Ron Paul
by George Ajjan

Following upon the advice of Walter Block, and in the tradition of Laurence Vance and Thomas Woods, I offer the following Open Letter to the Arab-American Community in Behalf of Ron Paul.

While the previous Open Letters on LRC were addressed to a particular religious denomination, I offer this one on the basis of ethnicity. Arab-Americans need to hear Ron Paul's message, because serious concerns about the fate of US foreign policy and civil liberties captivate the minds of Arab-American Muslims, as well as Arab-American Christians, who actually comprise more than half of the community. My Open Letter will therefore be inclusive in nature and address all denominations.

It is interesting to note that those who advocate this unifying approach have been disparaged by the wedge-driving, divide-and-conquer neocons as "dhimmis" or "Islamo-Christians" – or whatever today's new vocabulary is on the Word-a-Day calendar of the American Enterprise Institute (a.k.a. the Supreme Soviet of Neoconservatism) – for not accepting their erroneous worldview, in which Semitic people (and by Semitic, I mean Semitic) are mindless sectarian robots genetically programmed to kill each other and incapable of peaceful co-existence. (continued...)

I suppose this letter will also cause some consternation for the likes of my fellow Melkite Catholic, Deacon Robert Spencer, who recently wrote two unflattering articles about the Arab American Institute (AAI) Leadership conference, at which Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate to speak – he dazzled the crowd last month in Dearborn, Michigan, as I will discuss below. I am pleased to report that Spencer did not directly attack Ron Paul in his criticisms of the event, one of which was published on the ever-beloved FrontPageMag.

Now, we most certainly recognize the danger posed to all of us by the fear-mongering approach to governing practiced by the current ruling elite in DC, which is why we support our courageous "Champion of the Constitution," Congressman Ron Paul. But I personally make particular note of the predicament faced by Muslims in America. Why? Well, my last name, Ajjan, is Arabic – my ancestors came to the United States from Syria nearly a century ago. The name means "mixer," as in someone who prepares dough or cement, and it bears no religious significance. Thus, one can find Ajjan families with sons called George and Elias (common Christian first names in the Middle East) as well as genealogies full of Muslim names like Mohamed or Ali.

In that vein: suppose, if we do not succeed in getting Ron Paul elected, that some shady bureaucrats in Washington decide to advance their own political objectives by casting a very wide net for "Islamofascists" on American soil, i.e. every Muslim, for starters. Will they bother to distinguish one Ajjan from another? Should I trust the Federal Government to omit me from their list of terror suspects to round up? After all, someone who has taken vacation in Syria (a country, which unlike Saudi Arabia, is classified as a "state sponsor of terrorism"), and who writes for a website proudly identified as "anti-state," must be a threat! Dare I argue with the Blackwater-esque thugs they likely will send door-to-door to impound me and others with the "wrong" last names? (Note to self: prepare an "Open Letter to Arab-Americans on Behalf of the 2nd Amendment" to educate the community on provisions afforded by the US Constitution for dealing with such circumstances.)

No, we will all suffer together. But aside from that unpleasant line of thought, I am pleased to write this Open Letter, because one of the most appealing and refreshing elements of Ron Paul's campaign is his insistence on the power of his message to unite Americans of all races, colors, creeds, socio-economic backgrounds, occupations, etc. Dr. Paul campaigns in a non-discriminatory manner almost to a fault. As cited by Thomas Woods in his Open Letter to the Catholic Community, Ron Paul began his speech at the AAI conference by bluntly stating that he would not be pandering, and that he would address Arab-Americans just as he would any other assembly of voters he might encounter on the campaign trail. That is indeed worthy of admiration, but as Walter Block correctly states:

"There are a lot of people who view the election not from [the] general perspective of the public good, but rather on the basis of their own more narrow interests. Forget whether or not this is a good thing; it is part of reality that we supporters of Ron need to take into account."

Accordingly, I recently received an email from a die-hard Ron Paul supporter that I met at the AAI conference. She had noticed the "Home Schoolers for Ron Paul" link on http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ and suggested that we petition the Ron Paul campaign to add a link on their homepage entitled "Arab-Americans for Ron Paul." I argued that this approach, if originating from the campaign itself, would too closely resemble the divide-and-conquer tactics used by all the other candidates. Regardless of one's ethnic origin, one could always be a "gun owner for Ron Paul" – that is an inclusive demographic. But for Ron Paul to solicit supporters based upon definitively exclusive subsets of the population would contradict his philosophy. That is why Walter Block is spot-on when he advocates that we as Ron Paul supporters must independently reach out with more specific agendas.

But the non-pandering approach favored by Ron Paul does not at all suggest that he lacks acute awareness of Arab-Americans' and Muslims' specific concerns. That is why he told the AAI assembly:

"The freedom message brings all of us together, whatever our religion is, or whatever our beliefs are, and wherever we came from, because freedom is not judgmental. It allows people to make their own choices as long as they don't use force to impose their will on us. So this brings people together, and this is what has been happening in this campaign. People from all walks of life are coming together."

and defined his campaign as one that is:

"...merely standing up for our Constitution, and we stand for our Constitution as it protects ALL Americans."

He closed by describing what he called "the essence of what America is all about":

"We don't have rights because we belong to a group. We don't have rights because we're women, or belong to an ethnic group, or a religious group. We have rights because we are individuals and we should be treated as individuals and we should never get special benefits. But we should NEVER have punishments because we belong to a particular group either."

A cynical individual might not be impressed with mere words. But Ron Paul's voting record more than backs up his egalitarian principles, as he was one of only 3 Republicans to vote "no" on the USA PATRIOT Act. Many of its opponents are well acquainted with Sections 213, 215, 216, and 505, but perhaps not with Section 102, which is supposedly designed to protect the civil rights of Muslims and Arab-Americans specifically. But as Gary North has warned LRC readers, "When you see a high-falutin' title like this, you can be certain of one thing: Its promoters intend the opposite." In any case, Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act because, in his words:

"The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on – which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the PATRIOT Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today."

(Incidentally, what many people may not realize is that this law's title is an Orwellian acronym for Uniting and Strengthening American by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. I wonder if perhaps its backers would also approve of legislation aimed at Maintaining Obsessive Hatred Against Muslim Extremist Detainees, in which case they'd be voting for the MOHAMED Act.)

And don't forget Ron Paul's absolute rejection of a national ID card, or any other kind of government spying on its own citizens. Those who shudder to think that one day their US passports will have an embedded green crescent, or that their emails will be tagged with the letter "M," owe it to themselves and their posterity to vote for Ron Paul.

In addition to his devotion to civil liberties, the dramatic foreign policy changes brought about a Ron Paul Presidency would also be welcomed by the Arab-American community. Naturally, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq – not to mention the possibility of war with 70 million Iranians – has left a very bad taste in the mouth of Arab-Americans and American Muslims. Ron Paul, of course, opposed this ill-fated military boondoggle since before its inception, and makes it clear that he would also strongly oppose a war with Iran. Again, he told the AAI audience:

"For us to be so fearful and so intimidated from a country, whether it's Iraq or Iran, that they might attack us? How are they going to attack us, even if they had a nuclear weapon? How or why would they attack us? This whole thought that all of a sudden Iran is the Hitler of the day and that we have orient ourselves and do everything in attacking this country – that is not for me to defend that country or their leadership, there's a lot of bad people over there, but my concern is making sure that we don't have bad POLICY in this country, that's our responsibility."

Likening his platform to that of then-Governor George W. Bush when it comes to a non-interventionist foreign policy should also attract Arab-Americans, as Bush did very well among that demographic in the 2000 presidential election. Additionally, the explicit blame Ron Paul places on the neoconservatives will win him many fans – as members of the community are well aware of the role that small cadre played in setting this whole Iraq debacle in motion.

"Just think, our current President, in the year 2000, ran on a program of no nation building, a humble foreign policy, diplomacy and talking to people. And yet what has happened? Exactly the opposite. And now we're engaged because of the advice of the neoconservatives who have hijacked our foreign policy – that we as Americans are expected that we are so good and so wonderful and so perfect that we have the responsibility of forcing our way on other people, even if it takes killing them to make them live like we do. I think that's an INSANE foreign policy."

Ron Paul cuts right through the flowery rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy, and his words on that topic ring true to many in the Arab-American community, who know from their own personal experience that a Jeffersonian democracy does not spring up overnight anywhere in the world just because we wish it to be so. Unlike the neoconservatives, who claim to care deeply for peoples in Arab and Muslim lands, but insult them by advocating one-size-fits-all regime change, Ron Paul acknowledges that he is not at all an expert on foreign cultures and political attitudes. When I told him about my own trip to Baghdad in the aftermath of the US invasion, and my observation of the adverse impact that a military occupation had on the Iraqis' collective dignity, he humbly inquired, "Isn't that really important to people over there?" When I validated his supposition, he added, "well, just think how we'd feel if China invaded us..." A Ron Paul foreign policy would be based upon common sense, and focused on the only thing we possess sufficient and trustworthy knowledge to determine: what is good for the American people themselves.

Those interested in Ron Paul should also closely consider the hands-off approach to Israel that he advocates. At first glance, those against US military aid to Israel, which includes most in the Arab-American community, would be delighted. But Ron Paul's policy is also a double-edged sword, as Walter Block explained in his Open Letter to the Jewish Community:

"There are numerous cases where the U.S. has obviously handcuffed the Israelis, not to the benefit of the latter..."

Does this mean that one should equate Ron Paul's non-interventionist policy with turning loose a pit bull? I offer a resounding NO. A dramatic change in the client-state relationship between the US and Israel would radically alter internal Israeli politics and foreign policy. Knowing that special interests would no longer dictate their country's destiny, the silent majority of Israelis wishing to terminate the conflict definitively on the basis of land-for-peace would be emboldened. Contrarily, the bellicose elements of Israeli society, without the US Armed Forces at their beck and call, would be cast to the political margins. No wonder a Meetup group for Ron Paul has sprung up in Israel itself!

Is this to suggest that America would isolate itself from the Middle East? Not at all. Ron Paul told the AAI crowd:

"We do not have to be isolationists. That's a false charge when they say, 'oh, isolationism – we want to withdraw'. And I don't want to, as a matter of fact I don't like protectionism, I like trade, I like low tariffs – tariffs are taxes. We want to trade with the world and talk with the world."

During a question-answer section, he was further pressed by those who fear that America would be totally diplomatically withdrawn, sparked by Ron Paul's criticism of the UN, an institution that many Arab-Americans view favorably. Dr. Paul wisely explained that his concerns were not based upon a desire to ignore the views of others, but rather a belief that America need not abdicate its sovereignty to the UN in order to engage diplomatically.

"Does that mean that we want to be isolationists and not talk to people? No, it's actually the opposite. It's just that we don't want to force our way on people. In Washington, too often we only have only 2 choices: we either bomb people and tell them they'll do as we tell them, or we have to subsidize them and give them all the foreign aid they want. I would say that there's a third option, and that is to talk to people, trade with people, be friends with people – try to influence the world through a voluntary means, set good examples."

So let it never be said that Ron Paul is ambivalent about peace in the Middle East. He made it clear when addressing our group that he would be happy to invite other nations, such as Israel and her Arab neighbors, to use the United States as neutral territory where they could talk through their differences, with the caveat that the United States not mandate and subsidize the outcome. That would be a foreign policy in which we could all take pride. Ron Paul's views fascinated a staffer of the Egyptian embassy who observed the conference, even after I reminded him that "no more foreign aid" cuts both ways – Egypt, too, would lose its annual 10-figure stipend.

In closing, I am reminded of a famous and beloved Arabic slogan:

الدين لله والوطن للجميع - al-din lilah, wa al-watan liljamia
"Religion is for God, the nation is for all"

The idea expressed therein is certainly not unique to Arabic culture, but the underlying concept has inspired many leaders and statesmen throughout the centuries. That includes a group of revolutionary late-18th-century former Englishmen, who expressed it as such: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I was reminded of the connection two years ago, at the Arab American Institute's annual banquet, called the Kahlil Gibran Spirit of Humanity Awards, at which Mustapha Akkad received a posthumous honor. Akkad, who perished alongside his daughter in a terrorist bombing in 2005, was a Syrian-American film director who created the Halloween horror movies, in addition to The Message, an acclaimed film about the prophet Mohamed. When Akkad's son Malek accepted the award on behalf of his late father, he told the audience that his father had felt more free to practice Islam in the United States than he had ever felt anywhere in the Muslim world.

Anyone who believes that America must stand for the free practice of religion, be he Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc., knows that the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights must be defended vigorously and unequivocally. Only one candidate for President has spent his entire career as a citizen-statesman doing exactly that: Dr. Ron Paul.

George Ajjan is a Republican activist and the creator of REDchoice, a 2008 Presidential GOP Primary poll based on conjoint analysis. He blogs at The Aleppine Elephant.

o --- This article first appeared on LewRockwell.com on November 26, 2007.

It's Steve Lonegan's Party Too

In Spring of 2005, I attended a book signing in Ridgewood featuring former NJ Governor Christie Whitman, in promotion of her book It's My Party Too. Here we are 2 years later, and last week I found myself attending a corresponding event for one of Whitman's strongest critics: outgoing Bogota Mayor, Americans for Prosperity NJ head, and probable GOP contender for the 2009 gubernatorial nomination, Steve Lonegan.

The timing of the event couldn't have been better for Lonegan, coming only 2 days after a stunning defeat of 2 ballot questions (bogus "rebates" and stem cell research) largely spearheaded by AFP under Lonegan's leadership.

As a history aficionado, I took great pleasure in Lonegan's approach - he began his talk not with a fist-pounding rant against liberalism (which I wouldn't have minded terribly), but rather a didactic chronology of New Jersey's economic history over 2 centuries. He started with NJ's leadership in the agricultural field (after all, we are the Garden State, are we not?) and early adoption of manufacturing (insert standard plug for Paterson, the Great Falls, and Alexander Hamilton here). Lonegan pointed out that NJ was a manufacturing leader in the US, and became so with no government subsidies. This continued, he mentioned, up through the 1970s, when NJ once again led the nation in the transition to hi-tech industries and financial services. Lonegan pointed out that at one point 80% of office space was constructed to serve the financial sector. (continued...)

In last twenty years, however, this trend has been severely diminished. Lonegan traced the decline and began on April 24, 1966 - when NJ instituted a 3% sales tax at the behest of the American Federation of Teachers. It was meant to be a temporary sales tax to solve the property tax crisis - originally NJ had no sales tax and no income tax. But a slippery slope it was - by 1970 our sales tax had reached 5%, the highest sales tax rate in the United States. And the lottery was added in 1971 for senior services, not to mention gambling revenues.

Today, we have the worst progressive income tax in the country. People are fleeing New Jersey, Lonegan argues, because they can't stand the fiscal oppression any longer. But basically they are conservative people - the problem is that Republican leaders think everyone in New Jersey is a liberal - and he proudly proclaimed: last Tuesday, the people proved the party elites wrong. This, to Lonegan, is a vindication of the arguments he outlines in his book Putting Taxpayers First.

He then walked us through some of the chapters, particularly the one on education. Lonegan asserted that NJ was built upon a belief in local education. This is his trademark issue, as the Mayor of a small town like Bogota. He argues that small towns are good things, and lead to education reflecting the values of the community's parents - that, he says, was the impetus for the chartering of most NJ towns. In the case of Bogota, Lonegan explains, Dutch farmers who principally inhabited the town didn't want to send their kids to the "big city" (Hackensack) for education.

Meanwhile, New Jersey now has the most expensive education system in the country, and expansion into universal pre-K will make that trend even worse. Lonegan blasted the court orders that have countermanded local zoning boards and led to manipulation of the housing market. The local level, he says, will always do a better job - even if the local level is Newark. And the courts are not in the business of justice, they are the tool of the elected to do their "dirty work" - they are "black-robed oligarchs". This is Lonegan's favorite chapter in the book.

He refers to himself as a "disappointed Republican", especially as the result of bonding without voter approval, as was practiced in the Whitman years. He laments that in 5 years, NJ will have over $40 BILLION in debt. In 1966, when the sales tax was first introduced, we had NONE! The only state with a larger deficit that NJ is Louisiana - but they had Hurricane Katrina.

Much of this disaster, of course, results from unnecessary payroll growth. Accordingly, Lonegan turned his attention to the public employee unions, without neglecting to first mention that his blue-collar grandparents were union members - particularly his grandfather belonged to the IBEW, which Lonegan describes as one of most socialist unions out there. But he recognizes and respects the right of workers to band together for their own protection from employers.

From whom, though, do the government unions protect workers? The taxpayers???

Lonegan then focused on the end of the book, which he calls his "Blueprint for Victory", also known as "Lonegan '09". It is based around the idea that "we have sacrificed the value of independence for the vice of dependency." Government programs, Lonegan says, have simply replaced the family unit, which has been relegated to being little more than a convenient living arrangement. He spoke with conviction about inner cities in particular, where the trends perpetrated by the state have made men obsolescent, effectively condemning them.

How is it, asks Lonegan incredulously, that the home state of a great inventor like Thomas Edison now must depend upon government subsidies? To answer it, fiscal and social conservatives must come together to stand for what we believe in. But Lonegan, like his ballot question campaign, is focused on the fiscal side. Good social conservatives, he said, use church and other private organizations to advance their agenda - not cajole the government to impose their values on everyone.

He actually gave Christie Whitman credit for a fiscally conservative approach in 1993 - Lonegan says she ran as a conservative, and thanks to the advice of Larry Kudlow and Steve Forbes, governed that way for the first year. NJ led the conservative movement going into the GOP takeover in 1994. Then the NJGOP backpedaled.

But NJ can lead again. The "juggernaut of liberalism" had been running through the Garden State unimpeded until last Tuesday, Lonegan asserted. We must fight, and maybe even lose on the way to winning. He closed by tipping his hat to George Washington, who explained that he fought so many battles in New Jersey during the American Revolution because "that's where the redcoats are."

For Lonegan, New Jersey is where the liberals are.

A struggling lobbyist in America

You gotta love LeRoy Jones, my sparring partner on "New Jersey Now" from today's installment. In our first segment, which concerned the stem cell research referendum defeat from this past Tuesday's election, I naturally argued for the private sector and the free market benefiting all. LeRoy's tactic, on the other hand, attempted to divide rich and poor. When I chided him on this, a little friendly zinging ensued, and he came up with a good line to close: "I'm a struggling lobbyist in America..."



The second segment was centered on Rudy Giuliani and his connection to the disgraced Bernard Kerik, plus the seemingly bizarre endorsement by Pat Robertson. I managed to work in a plug for Ron Paul in that segment as well towards the end.



Prior to LeRoy and I taping, Jon Bramnick (who is still tossing around the idea of running for US Senate next year) and District 19 Assemblyman John Wisniewski, who doesn't seem to be a big fan of Governor Corzine, discussed Tuesday's results. Wisniewski is the Chair of the Transportation Committee in the Assembly, and has resisted the monetization scheme. Stay tuned on that.

Incompetence and victory are not mutually exclusive

Nor are competence and failure. This is the lesson to be learned from the 2007 elections in New Jersey, and something to keep in mind when listening to the self-serving rhetoric of party spinmeisters.

The top-line results (see PolitickerNJ, the Star Ledger, and The Record):

• Republicans pick up one seat in the State Senate (Jennifer Beck), but lose 2 in South Jersey, for a net loss of 1 - Senate is now 23-17 Democrat majority
• Republicans pick up 2 seats in the State Assembly, but still down 48-32
• Substantial gains for Republicans on the local level statewide
• Ballot questions about stem-cell research and "rebates" were soundly defeated

In my home county of Passaic, where I spent election night, the room was full of people looking for silver linings. Yes, O'Toole, Russo, and Rumana won by a crushing 2:1 margin, ditto Jay Webber, Alex DeCroce, and Joe Pennacchio in District 26 - but that was expected, those are video game campaigns. We did see a major victory happen in Ringwood, but there were disappointments in Haledon (where Ayman Mamkej's strategy could have won us a council seat had it not been for spiteful Republicans loyal to Peter Murphy running as independents) and West Milford, where we lost the mayoralty by less than 100 votes.

But that is relatively minor stuff: the big issue is that Jerry Holt did not manage to defeat Pat Lepore and gain Republican representation on the Freeholder Board. And by all logic he should have, but he lost by about 3,500 votes. Here is what a friend of mine, a Democrat insider, sent me right after the election:

"Word all day was that the turn out in Paterson was low. This scared me because at the same time we heard numbers in Wayne and West Milford were high. Until the final tallies came in from Little Falls, Clifton, Wayne and West Milford which showed that [Terry] Duffy and Lepore were either ahead or competitive, I was getting ready for Freeholder Holt. This was the Republicans' best hope to get a seat, as next year and the year after are both high turnout years."

Paterson turned out almost 25% less than it did in 2003, the analogous year to 2007 - while overall countywide turnout dropped off by much less than that. That means we should have started with a huge advantage. I have not yet studied the numbers to know the difference in vote-getting between the Assembly and Freeholder candidates in towns like Ringwood and Wayne, for example, to speculate what went wrong. (continued...)

Obviously, the reflexive explanation for yet another disappointing loss is to blame it on the divisions sewn by the former regime (where were the 300 people that supposedly joined the so-called "Passaic County Young Republicans" Chapter - and why didn't they at least bring victory in West Milford?) How was turnout in Totowa by the way? But this is just an easy answer that doesn't address shortcomings of the organization that persist. We are still left to answer why more people voted against the Rebate question and the Stem Cell bonding than voted for Joe Stinziano for Freeholder.

Still, if the old goons think that Chairman Scott Rumana is now a wounded bird and they can pick up the pieces, they're dead wrong. True, he would have been beyond reproach had Holt carried the day, but the divisive tactics employed in Haledon and West Milford will not be lost on the County Committee when it comes time to vote on the chairmanship in 2009.

In Bergen, Rob Ortiz wisely sent out a press release detailing many of the wins on the local level. The only thing he seems to have omitted from his list of successes was the fact that the air in Bergen County is comprised of 20% oxygen. Nevertheless, this, at a minimum, is a good defensive maneuver against any plot to dump him in June, which is probably being hatched by a faction loyal to the Freeholder candidates, who I must say very unfairly got the cold shoulder since Day One of the Ortiz Administration at the BCRO. They, especially Paul Duggan, worked their bloody tails off and might have been victorious had the money wasted on the BCRO rent and utilities been diverted to their campaign, spearheaded by my fellow New Jersey Ron Paul supporter, monetary expert Andy Gause. Not to mention, if Anne Estabrook had maxed out for 2007 at $37,000. But then again, it's not like the intent was to sell her the BCRO or anything...

As far as statewide trends go, Steve Lonegan recovered from the embarrassing illegal immigrant/law enforcement collective bargaining fiasco that enveloped him several weeks ago (frankly, some people had written him off as a laughing stock - but I think that will now reverse). He has got to be glowing after an absolute trouncing of 2 of the major ballot questions he campaigned heavily against, devoting a great deal of his time for the past 2 months. If a Democrat hack like Julie Roginsky is quoted in an NJGOP election night press release as saying:

"People are fed up. And they are fed up with borrowing...people obviously are not happy with the fiscal situation. These public questions going down is the most significant outcome of this election. If you saw a statewide trend this is it, because people are fed up...I'll tell you when people voting against property tax relief and stem cell research - which overwhelmingly people are craving - in favor of fiscal responsibility that to me is an astounding message they are sending to Trenton today..."

...then it's a great day to be Steve Lonegan. His fate for 2009 will depend on how he plays his cards in the 2008 Presidential Primary, but more speculation on that later.

All in all, this year is being positioned as a big Republican win. Yes, there were some good and well-deserved results - as well as other results, less than palatable, that were undeserved. We as a party did not hammer home as consistent and concise a message statewide as we needed to. A few months ago, Rick Shaftan mentioned that his polling showed huge opportunities on the tax issue alone for Republicans. But nowhere in the party's message was the public even reminded about the Democrats' increasing the sales tax from 6% to 7% last year - an omni-present and prominent NJGOP plank even during the Christie Whitman years that conservatives love to hate. So on this point, I tend to agree with Michael "The Commish" Illions from CWA, who summed it up by saying:

"the NJGOP message didn't win, the candidates did."

I hate to sound too pessimistic, because there is one very strong positive outcome of this election, which was foreseen but strongly accentuated on election night - the new, younger, hipper State Senate class. The likes of Bill Baroni, Jennifer Beck, Joe Pennacchio and Kevin O'Toole are going to have a lot to say, and I don't suppose Jon Corzine is terribly happy these days about that, minority status or not. I saw O'Toole's victory speech on Tuesday night and let me tell you - this guy is kickin' butt and taking' numbers. Having veto power over Newark politics doesn't hurt.

Just prior to results coming in, one of his staffers said, "well, we hope to stay above 60%." Then BOOM. He won by a 2:1 margin, and his confidence shone through. The exact opposite of the June victory where the victory margin was slimmer than hoped.

On a final note, I want to congratulate Mark Meyerowitz for putting up a good fight in District 27. Plus, I am pleased to report that Springfield has a new councilman in the person of Ziad Shehady, a 23-year-old Arab-American Republican who is a military veteran and serves as a legislative aide in District 21. Keep your eyes on this future leader. Shehady, Beck, Kyrillos and hopefully more to come - eat your heart out, Gerry Cardinale.

Passaic and Bergen elections 2007

A last-minute overview of tomorrow's elections in Bergen and Passaic Counties:

Passaic County

Let's start with the Freeholder races. The GOP's "odd couple" - the bookish Jerry Holt and the entertaining Joe Stinziano - face off against incumbents Terry Duffy and Pat Lepore. The centerpiece issue is the sham pseudo-sale of the Passaic County Golf Course to plug budget holes created by out-of-control hiring of Democrat cronies that my kids are going to be paying for.

Both The Record and the Herald News gave a split endorsement - Holt and Duffy. You've got to give Duffy credit for having the integrity to see that the Golf Course sale was bad policy (at best) or for having the political fitness to recognize that he could insulate his re-election by opposing it (at worst).

I recall election night in 2003, four years ago. John Traier came within a few points of knocking out Sonia Rosado. Jan Sandri and Randy George weren't far off either. I remember then-Chairman Mike Mecca telling me that his Democrat counterpart John Currie saw the low turnout coming out of Paterson and was ready to concede the election before even seeing the returns from up-county. But Currie held out hope and, lo and behold, the GOP didn't get out the vote in Ringwood, Wayne, and Wanaque, etc., which enabled the Democrats to keep control of the board.

Turnout is likely to be low this year, which should benefit the Republicans, but the circumstances are different. At that time, Mecca and Walter Porter still held seat on the Board, and a win of 2 out 3 by the GOP in 2003 would have given our party control. So basically that enabled the raising of more money than has been raised since, when the prospect of GOP control is at best 2 elections away at any given time even under ideal circumstances. (continued...)

Jerry Speziale provides an anchor mid-ballot, although he is running unopposed for re-election as Sheriff, which is a shame on principle. Also to be decided is the Surrogate - incumbent Democrat Bill Bate faces newcomer Jeremias Batista. Bate won the Herald News endorsement, despite the fact that they said practically nothing at all about Batista or what he might be able to do.

In the Assembly, we have the O'Toole-Russo-Rumana team expected to sail to victory in District 40 after an annoying, money-wasting primary. In District 35, the Reverend Al Steele, a Paterson-based Assemblyman who greets everyone by saying "I Love Ya!" is behind bars after being caught taking bribes. I wonder if he'll drop that phrase from his vocabulary now given his new surroundings. The Democrats plopped in the bossy Freeholder Elease Evans as Steele's replacement. She faces Chauncey I. Brown III, who ran in the 2005 Assembly Primary unsuccessfully but nonetheless retains a base in Paterson thanks to his role on the School Board, as a Paterson fireman, and his mother's ties to the community (she is currently Paterson GOP municipal leader). Chauncey won the endorsement of The Record, but not the Herald News, which said that he "failed to mount a campaign whose vigor matches his intelligence and commitment to public service". It's not easy to be an underfunded challenger.

In District 34, the controversial (because of his position on gays) Reverend Clenard Childress, who ran unsuccessfully in the Democrat primary for the same seat in 2005, earned the GOP endorsement alongside Robert Bianco of Montclair. The Record split its endorsement between Oliver and Bianco, while the Herald News chose the 2 incumbent Democrats. But Childress earned the high praise of my friends at Conservatives with Attitude, thanks to his strong pro-life stand.

Bergen County

In District 39, Gerald Cardinale believes he deserves re-election because his law partner's uncle's wife's cousin's former roommate's dog-groomer once overheard a terrorist in a men's room. Write in Bob Schroeder, who should have primaried out Cardinale from the start.

District 38 was looking close on the Senate side for Bob Colletti, until Joe Coniglio was yanked thanks to his legal troubles. Assemblyman Bob Gordon takes his spot and will be tough to beat. Although, I am surprised that The Record stuck with 3 Democrats.

In District 36, the underfunded youngster Michael Guarino has been giving Paul Sarlo sleepless nights thanks to his position on EnCap. Sarlo refused to debate Guarino, and even backed out at the last minute of a TV appearance on New Jersey Now to discuss the race. I guess he was having a bad hair day. Guarino says:

"We know Sen. Sarlo has no explanation for why he supported the $300 million taxpayer rip off known as EnCap. We know that Sarlo is ducking the report on EnCap by the State Inspector General. And we know he fears an investigation into EnCap by the US Attorney. Now he apparently fears me."

He added that Sarlo is hiding from several facts:

1. he failed to protect taxpayers and he failed to protect people living in the Meadowlands from a deal to give a politically connected developer $300 million in taxpayer loans
2. he used his Senate position to sponsor key legislation (S1564) that allowed EnCap to get more taxpayer money
3. For every $1 in private investment by EnCap's investors, state taxpayers are ponying up almost $20
4. he has used his power to get at least 4 public jobs and to boost his state pension

Despite all this, the Herald News gave a clean sweep to the Democrats in their endorsement. Bravo to the The Record however, which did just the opposite.

As far as the Bergen Freeholders go, have a look at their debate. Thanks to Andy Gause for getting this online. The 3 candidates played interesting roles: Charlie Kahwaty as the Good Cop, Bob Yudin as the Bad Cop, and Paul Duggan as the Spirit Guide. They do make a good team and their opponents, with the exception of Thomas Padilla, came across as very haughty. I must say that Bob Yudin nailed them on several points, which proves that when he restricts his commentary to the Western hemisphere he can deliver a compelling message. This group, along with Harry Shortway for Sheriff, really does deserve to win (The Record heartily agrees) and if they don't, I suspect there will be a LOT of grumbling at the BCRO about how much support they received from newly elected Chairman/newly hired lobbyist Rob Ortiz.

Finally, a plug for my friend Mark Meyerowitz down in District 27, who had a glimmer of hope when Mims Hackett was indicted alongside Al Steele. But the Democrats plugged in a replacement and thus have the advantage - this is Dick Codey's district. Rick Shaftan has a plan to win this one in the future though...

And in closing - VOTE NO ON ALL BALLOT QUESTIONS! Here's why.

More on the Arab American Institute Conference

I have already written about the outstanding panel featuring John Zogby, Peter Fenn, and Ed Rollins, as well as my encounter with Ron Paul. Now let me give my rundown of the rest of the Arab American Institute's National Leadership Conference.

I will start with the panel in which I participated, on the subject of political blogging. Alongside me were Steve Clemons (The Washington Note), Spencer Ackerman (Talking Points Memo), and Reihan Salam (The American Scene). While the others talked about national and international foci - especially Clemons, whose blog got right into the intra-family feud between the Saudi royals - I centered my own remarks on the way in which blogging can have an impact on local politics. Here is the video edit of my comments:

continued...

Presidential candidates

We also heard from 3 of them live, in addition to Ron Paul:

First was Mike Gravel. I really can't say much about his talk, since the jetlag had set in and I fell asleep toward the end.

Then we heard from Dennis Kucinich. The crowd loved him, as he told a very heartfelt story about his trip to South Lebanon and his visit to a child's grave with his wife (he must be a newlywed - he walked to the podium hand in hand with her and mentioned her repeatedly during his speech. The emotional appeal of his talk was noteworthy, but I tend to view someone so enthralled with suspicion. I really don't have much respect for Dennis Kucinich, and I think he takes his critique of US policies in a self-hating direction - quite the opposite of Ron Paul.

For example, take his interview in Syrian state-run TV, in which he refers to Syrian President Bashar Assad as "His Excellency". Give me a break, Kucinich. I don't even refer to my own president in such a way, and I'm certainly not going to do so for a foreign head of state - and as readers of my blog know, no one is a bigger proponent of diplomatic engagement with Syria than I. But having such a view does not entail tossing aside your dignity as a citizen or representative of the United States.

Finally, Bill Richardson took the stage. He was introduced very nicely by Norman Assad, a transportation commissioner in New Mexico, the state in which Richardson serves as Governor. He played up his diplomatic credentials nicely. After his speech, there was a small reception where people could individually greet him. I went in close to the end and told him that the way he was treated in the Univision debate was a disgrace, and I basically reiterated the points that I had written about the debate previously. He told me that I sounded like a pretty independent guy who should be a Democrat. Yeah right.

Now, as has been well publicized and mocked, none of the Republicans showed up other than Ron Paul. What if the others end up winning the GOP nomination, will they end the blackout? Mitt Romney will come groveling to us later on. McCain has always been polite to the community according to the AAI higher-ups. Rudy, whatever. Thompson, who knows - hiring Liz Cheney was not a great indicator. Huckabee will be polite.

There were also video presentations. Hillary Clinton's was followed up by her national campaign co-Chairman Bill Shaheen, an Arab-American whose wife Jeanne was the former Governor and who will be challenging John Sununu next year for his US Senate seat. Shaheen took heat for Hillary's position on Palestinian rights, and closed by saying that he just saw it in her eyes, in her soul, that she wanted to make peace in the Middle East. The person next to me turned and said, "Didn't Bush say that about Putin?"

Anyway, her video speech was atrocious and ridiculously disingenuous: "Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement," (that sounds like a pre-emptive write-off to me), "Israel and the Palestinians" (did she mean "Israel and Palestine" or "the Israelis and the Palestinians"), etc.

Then there was Barack Obama. His video was hardly better and hardly more sincere, and - from the grumbling I heard amongst his supporters at the conference - the source of some embarrassment. It amazes me that a man running for President still talks about "when I was a State Senator". He's way out of his league.

Obama dispatched longtime foreign policy hand Anthony Lake to speak on his behalf. Lake closed with Obama's line from the 2004 Democrat National Convention:

"If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties."

To those in our community willing to fall for that trick that I say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Don't we remember Bush's promises during the 2000 campaign?

Finally, we had John Edwards. His video was far more natural, more personal, more genuine - and it was longer and more detailed. I must admit I was impressed by the style of the presentation. Edwards sent former Congressman David Bonior, his national campaign manager, who represented many Arab-Americans in Congress and is well-liked by the community.

Other candidates

I also had the chance to connect with many old friends from around the country that I have had the pleasure of knowing through such events, such as Samiah Bahhur, George Gorayeb, Bill Hamzy, etc. But there were some outstanding new friends and especially candidates. I want to call out Sam Rasoul, who is running as a Democrat in a conservative area of western Virginia - his party has not fielded a candidate in his district in at least the past 5 cycles, so he is hungrily going to task and has raised over $60,000 already. Though he is not from my party, I find his dedication and organization impressive.

Up in New Hampshire, the Arab-American community has a future gem in the person of John Stephen. John is a solid conservative and a parishioner at Our Lady of the Cedars Melkite Catholic Church in Manchester, New Hampshire. He ran unsuccessfully in the 2006 primary against the incumbent, Jed Bradley, who then lost the seat in the general election.

Now Stephen and Bradley have a rematch, and Stephen, who earned rave reviews from fiscal conservatives for his lean and mean style as Commissioner of Health and Human Services, is rocking, rolling, and raising eyebrows in GOP circles nationally because he has already raised well over six figures and Jeb Bradley is starting to sweat. To his further advantage is the fact that Stephen is the lone conservative in the race this go-round, as opposed to 2006 when the conservative vote was split between Stephen and another challenger. It's a conservative district and in fact the one held by John E. Sununu before he became a US Senator. So keep your eye on this race! And lend your support to John Stephen!

Don't forget Connecticut State Senator David Cappiello, whose mom is from the Safi family - he is running to take back the House seat lost by Nancy Johnson last year. Cappiello is super-approachable and has a great sense of humor. I look forward to watching his race.

In the category of "former candidates that I wish would just go away", we also were enlightened with the vitriol of Howard Dean, the 2004 Democrat presidential contender who is now head of the DNC. His ugly speech mentioned:

"Before anybody says one word, look at our candidates when they get up on the stage. They look like the rest of America...Their candidates look like America did in the 1950s and when they open their mouths they sound like they're from the 1850s!"

That's right, divide and conquer. As for the 1850s, wasn't the Republican Party founded in the mid-19th century to end slavery, which existed at that time? Dean? Anyone?

Star of the Show

Congressman Charles Boustany from Louisiana shocked everyone. He was the greatest hit of the conference.

I recall meeting Congressman Boustany, a former cardiac surgeon, back in 2004 when we both attended the NRCC's "candidate school" together. When I saw his last name, which means "gardener" in Arabic, I of course made a bee-line for him and discovered that his grandparents had emigrated to Southern Louisiana from Lebanon, so his profile was similar to that of my parents - proud of his heritage but detached from the Middle East. He didn't seem to have visited the region at all or kept up with its politics.

But now that he has learned the ropes on Capitol Hill, Boustany has done a 180. He spent the whole weekend with the group and told us how he considers it a responsibility to represent the Arab-American constituency nationally, and how he had an open mind to learning more and more about the Middle East. He said that over the past few years, he has been studying the region and our policies therein "much harder than I ever studied in medical school" and that he wasn't afraid to challenge conventional wisdom - "I'm from the Boustany wing of the Republican Party, and I mean that".

There was a great buzz about Boustany among all the conference participants - it's always heartwarming to see people embrace their roots and carry their heritage with them, in true paleoconservative fashion.

All in all, an enjoyable and uplifting event.

Ron Paul at the Arab American Institute

At long last I am writing up the details of the Arab American Institute's National Leadership Conference which took place in Dearborn, Michigan between October 26 and 28th.

While it would have been nice to have seen more interest on the part of Republican candidates, the fact that Ron Paul was the sole GOP contender to address the conference didn't bother me at all, since he is my candidate! And for sure he left Dearborn with a lot more supporters than when he entered.

Before his talk to the whole assembly, there was a small fundraiser during which a small group of us got to have a rather intimate chat with Dr. Paul. His candor and consistency are so refreshing and frankly, awesome. Naturally, he was speaking to a very friendly audience, as most Arab-Americans (at least the vast majority of us, who don't carry hateful emotional baggage) were staunchly against the invasion of Iraq and are more acutely aware than anyone just how ill-thought the neocons' plans were/are.

However, there was some concern about his position on the UN and his approach to diplomacy. My GOP colleague from New Jersey, Hesham Mahmoud, probed this issue and Dr. Paul's answer was far from isolationist, but rather driven by a desire to protect American sovereignty and not send us to war to enforce UN resolutions. I followed up on this question by specifically asking what role a Ron Paul administration would take in peace talks between Israel and Syria, for example. An isolationist would say, "we don't care what they do," but that was not Dr. Paul's response; rather, he said that we could use our diplomatic facilities to invite people and host peace talks, so long as they did not result in the US subsidizing the participants and effectively buying a peace treaty. Makes good sense.

Then he began speaking about the declining dollar, and I said to him:

"Congressman, I started up an export business in which I send American cars to West Africa, and people question why I'm supporting you given your monetary policy, when a weak dollar is helping my business, because I'm effectively buying in dollars and selling in Euros. So tell me why I'm not crazy for supporting you."

He seemed intrigued by the question, and admitted that in certain sectors a permanently weak dollar would have benefits - he cited tourism as an example. But in the auto sector, he explained rather didactically, how ultimately the price of raw materials like steel would increase and how inflation would squeeze an exporter's margins.

I was tasked with escorting Dr. Paul and his staff to their "ready room", where they ate lunch and prepped for his speech to the larger crowd. When we arrived, the AAI photographer took a few pictures of Ron Paul and I (as shown above) and then to my delight he began asking more questions about my export start-up and how I became involved in such an enterprise.

I explained how I made a trip to Baghdad in September of 2003 prior to launching my candidacy for US Congress and met some French journalists who filmed me and then decided to make a full-scale documentary about me, which was then shown on French satellite channel ARTE, seen by viewers in Senegal who contacted me through my website, and the rest is history.

We talked at length about what I had observed in Iraq, plus my view of African economies (he was quite interested in the tariff structure) and I mentioned how the Chinese were doing a far better job following the advice of our Founding Fathers than we were, as they keep their hands out of internal politics and instead sell, sell, sell to everybody. "Isn't that better than doing it militarily?" asked Dr. Paul rhetorically.

It was a lovely chat, and I then left them to their lunch, promising that Murray Sabrin and I would do our utmost to deliver victory to Ron Paul in New Jersey on February 5.

Now for Ron Paul's speech - below is the video plus some key excerpts:

Somebody asked me whether I had a special speech for your group, and I said, no, it's the same speech I give everywhere. And I'm delighted that so many of you have been interested in the campaign because it's merely standing up for our Constitution and we stand for our Constitution as it protects ALL Americans.

Above all else, how are we going to reverse this trend, under this psychology that we have built up, this fear that we have built up among the American people that everything has to be done because there may be a terrorist around every corner and therefore we are, as Americans, supposed to sacrifice our civil liberties and I don't believe we should EVER have to sacrifice our civil liberties for protection!

For us to be so fearful and so intimidating from a country, whether it's Iraq or Iran, that they might attack us? How are they going to attack us, even if they had a nuclear weapon. How or why would they attack us? This whole thought that all of a sudden Iran is the Hitler of the day and that we have orient ourselves and do everything in attacking this country. That is not for me to defend that country or their leadership, there's a lot of bad people over there, but my concern is making sure that we don't have bad POLICY in this country, that's our responsibility.

Just think, our current President, in the year 2000, ran on a program of no nation building, a humble foreign policy, diplomacy and talking to people. And yet what has happened? Exactly the opposite. And now we're engaged because of the advice of the neoconservatives who have hijacked our foreign policy - that we as Americans are expected that we are so good and so wonderful and so perfect that we have the responsibility of forcing our way on other people, even if it takes killing them to make them live like we do. I think that's an INSANE foreign policy.

Does that mean that we want to be isolationists and not talk to people? No, it's actually the opposite. It's just that we don't want to force our way on people. In Washington, too often we only have only 2 choices: we either bomb people and tell them they'll do as we tell them, or we have to subsidize them and give them all the foreign aid they want. I would say that there's a third option, and that is to talk to people, trade with people, be friends with people - try to influence the world through involuntary means, set good examples.

Sanctions don't work. Yesterday I was interviewed and I was quoted as saying and I believe it: sanctions are an act of war. When you place sanctions on a country...I mean, did the sanctions really help Americans or help the Iraqis after 10 years of sanctions on the Iraqi citizens, where children would die because of the denial of food and drugs? No! That's no way to do it. We should be trading with people...this is a much better approach than saying that we can intimidate people. But we do not have to be isolationists. That's a false charge when they say, "oh, isolationism - we want to withdraw". And I don't want to, as a matter of fact I don't like protectionism, I like trade, I like low tariffs - tariffs are taxes. We want to trade with the world and talk with the world.

If Kennedy could talk to Kruschev at the height of the Cold War...that to me sends the message that even with all the misconstruing of what Ahmadinejad has charged, that maybe we can talk to people. I mean, why can't we talk? I think people that can't talk are too weak. They do it from a sense of weakness.

We have a tremendous opportunity right now because it is up to us to decide what kind of government that we want, and to me it's very simple: we want the government that we were given. It wasn't a perfect government, it's not perfect now, but basically it was a very, very good constitution. We've ignored it - the Congress has ignored it, the Executive Branch has ignored it, the Judicial Branch has ignored, but the basic fundamentals are still there. All we have to do is get men of high character enough to go to Washington, whether it's in the Presidency or in the Congress...to actually believe their oath of office, to believe in the rule of law.

We have created chaos over there. There are 2 million refugees that have had to leave Iraq, 2 million that are wandering around in Iraq, half the Christians have had to leave. And you think back, you know that Saddam Hussein was a murderous, bad, evil guy, but boy, if you compare everything that's happened since we invaded versus what was the status quo prior to this, you've got to wonder: how could anybody justify this approach to try to improve the world?

I've gotten more convinced than ever as I've traveled around the country that when you talk about freedom... - and maybe this is one of the reasons the other candidates haven't come - the freedom message brings all of us together, whatever our religion is, or whatever our beliefs are, and wherever we came from, because freedom is not judgmental. It allows people to make their own choices as long as they don't use force to impose their will on us. So this brings people together, and this is what has been happening in this campaign. People from all walks of life are coming together.

We don't have rights because we belong to a group. We don't have rights because we're women, or belong to an ethnic group, or a religious group. We have rights because we are individuals and we should be treated as individuals and we should never get special benefits. But we should NEVER have punishments because we belong to a particular group either. This to me is the essence of what America is all about.

A couple of points:

One person called me and said he was pleased with Ron Paul's speech, but felt it was disappointing because it didn't relate specifically to the Arab-American community. I understand that criticism, but merely put it in the context of the remarks made above, about getting back to the true intent of the US Constitution, which will render moot any and all talk about special rights, as well as discrimination.

Another friend whom I met in Dearborn emailed me about pitching the campaign on an "Arab-Americans for Ron Paul" link on the campaign's website, like the one for home-schoolers. I replied:

"The only trouble with that is that it doesn't match Ron Paul's approach - he doesn't 'divide and conquer' like all the other candidates. Whether you're Arab-American or not, you could still be a home-schooler for Ron Paul, or a gun owner for Ron Paul. But if you're not Arab-American, you can't be an Arab-American for Ron Paul."

I also wanted to comment on Dr. Paul's "sanctions are an act of war" remark and relate it to his mentioning of the plight of Iraq's Christians. Of course, it was St. "Doubting" Thomas who spread the message of Jesus eastward, to Mesopotamia and as far as India, and nowadays a number of rites are practiced in Iraq, but the country is mostly identified by the Assyrian/Chaldean one. Anyway, Dr. Paul's remarks reminded me of the commencement of bombing in spring of 2003. I was living in London at the time and decided, as a show of solidarity, to seek out the Chaldean mass one Sunday instead of the my usual attendance at the Melkite liturgy over which Oxford Professor and bi-ritual priest Shafiq Abouzayd presides. (Forgive me for boasting, at this juncture, that I have attended services in all 7 rites!)

Apparently I was not the only one with such a thought of solidarity in mind, as the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Westminster also sent an envoy to the Chaldeans that day. But I will never forget what the Chaldean priest, Fr. Andreus, mentioned in his homily:

"The Gospel of Matthew asks us, 'Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?' Well, for 12 years the Iraqi people have been asking for bread. And now, after all this time, we have been given stones; that is, the bombs that are falling on Iraq."

So thank you, Dr. Paul, for voting NO and having the courage to speak out against this disastrous war since before its inception.

Gerry Gemayel

Once upon a time, there was an pathetic politician who, in a desperate bid for re-election, resorted to baseless attacking of Armenians.

But I digress. This post is supposed to be about Gerry Cardinale.

Here's the background - in late October, Cardinale commissioned a "push poll" in which voters were asked if they would be less likely to support his opponent, Joe Ariyan, if they knew his firm was connected to terrorists. Then, on October 26, the press release shown here was issued, apparently from Cardinale's office. I say apparently because, as you can see, it was circulated by fax as a scan of a printed page. It was not posted on PoliticsNJ as are the rest of Cardinale's press releases under the name "wmurray", although it did contain a phone number that matches Cardinale's campaign HQ.

The press release states:

In a television appearance today on New York station My9, State Senator Gerry Cardinale drew attention to the sharp contrast between himself and Joe Ariyan, his opponent in District 39. Cardinale criticized Ariyan for, among other things, his association with an extremist organization...

"My opponent and I are very different," said Cardinale. "He is comfortable working day in and day out, side by side with a law partner who is the NJ chapter President of an extremist pro-terrorist organization, ADC. That law partner is his campaign advisor and fundraiser."

Cardinale is referring to Hani Khoury, Ariyan's law partner and fundraiser who has served as an immediate past president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, a group which has been criticized for pro-terrorism viewpoints." (continued...)

Now, it just so happens that I was in Dearborn, Michigan on October 26 for the National Leadership Conference of the Arab American Institute, along with several colleagues from New Jersey. It was there that I first caught wind of the press release, but thought perhaps it was a hoax or a trick, since it was not published on PoliticsNJ but rather distributed by fax. Thus I decided, as did my colleagues, to refrain from jumping to conclusions until the content and intent were validated.

When I returned to NJ, I immediately watched the My9 appearance to which the press release refered. Not a word about the ADC (unless I overlooked it amidst the rest of the juvenile tit-for-tat from these 2 clowns through which I obliged myself to suffer). So I concluded that something fishy was up.

Then, yesterday morning, PoliticsNJ's Matt Friedman broke the story wide open with a plethora of quotes from Cardinale himself. This suggests to me that the campaign was unsure about this tactic, so they circulated the press release in an "informal" manner, so as to provide plausible deniability if it backfired. As the week progressed, perhaps Cardinale became more desparate and decided to play va banque:

At issue is Ariyan law partner Hani Khoury's connections to the ADC, which is not viewed as particularly controversial by the Anti-Defamation League. Cardinale pointed to the national chapter's former communications director, Hussein Ibish, as a sign of something darker lurking behind its anti-discriminatory facade.

"I make no argument that the ADC doesn't concern itself with iscrimination against Arab Americans. It does. But there is a second agenda," said Cardinale.

Hussein Ibish (click on his name to watch a debate in which he teams up with Bill O'Reilly to combat the ultra-PC "War on Christmas") has made several controversial statements regarding Israel and Israeli-US relations, including an article saying that assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was "a monster, war criminal, ethnic cleanser, mass murderer and terrorist." According to other articles provided by Cardinale, some from right leaning publications, Ibish made several sympathetic remarks about Hamas and Hezbollah.

"Hezbollah and Hamas and the PLO have been defined by the United States Government as terrorist organizations by any right-thinking person, but not by the ADC," said Cardinale.

But there is no evidence that Khoury, who could not be reached for comment, ever knew or collaborated with Ibish.

...Khoury served as the New Jersey chapter's treasurer in 2004, and president in 2005 and 2006, according to its Web site. He is currently a member of its board but is not in any leadership position...

Cardinale also pointed out that Khoury, who specializes in immigration law, had represented 10 detainees caught up in a dragnet following the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks, some of whom were illegal immigrants and have since been deported -- but none were charged with terrorism-related activities.

"That firm has represented numerous suspected terrorists picked up by the FBI who were illegally in this country," said Cardinale, who compared the situation to last year's bouncing of Sami Mehri from the Passaic County Freeholder ticket. Mehri was quoted by the New York Times in 2002 as saying that there was no comparison between the 9/11 hijackers and Palestinian suicide bombers.

"They recognized in the Passaic County case that this is a very troubling image for the party, but they're tolerating Ariyan and Khoury," said Cardinale.

Then Friedman went on to quote Democrat operative Julie Roginsky, who I must admit made rather quick work of Cardinale's ludricous theory:

Cardinale repeatedly described Khoury, who has donated a few thousand dollars to Ariyan's campaign, as a "principal advisor" to Ariyan, but Ariyan spokeswoman Julie Roginsky said that he does have any role in the campaign.

If I played six degrees of Kevin Bacon I'd have an easier time finding a correlation between Joe Ariyan and that (Ibish)," said Roginsky. "What that means to me is that Gerry Cardinale does not understand anti-Semitism if he treats it so lightly. He should apologize to Joe Ariyan, he should apologize to the Jewish community and he should apologize to his constituents for exploiting the issue of anti-Semitism."

Roginsky noted that Ariyan's experience with the Armenian genocide puts him in a position to understand the plight of the Jewish people.

"I can guarantee you that there is nobody who understands the subject of genocide, bias and racism better than the Armenian people, and what the Jews went through," said Roginsky. "For Cardinale to even imply anything on the subject is a pathetic ending to a 28-year legislative career."

Ouch! Then, today, things got more interesting, as Ibish himself responded in an incredulous drubbing of Cardinale:

Cardinale's charges are a malicious slander that grossly distorts my views and long standing track record on these issues. It is a cynical attempt to smear his opponent through guilt-by association several times removed and is based on blatant falsehoods. Even by the standards of dishonesty that sometimes characterize failing political campaigns, this tactic is shocking and despicable.

...Can there really be anyone in the whole State of New Jersey gullible enough to fall for such transparent and ham-fisted attempts at fear-mongering and manipulation? Is this not the very definition of McCarthyism at its lowest?

Suffice it to say that anyone who claims that I am a supporter of Hamas or Hizballah is either a fool or a liar, or both. A simple Google search for my own writings, not to mention a quick consultation with Nexis or Youtube, would have revealed that my views are quite the opposite of those implied by Cardinale's smears.

...I am and have for many decades been a committed secularist with no sympathy for extremist religious organizations of any kind. I am presently a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), whose aim is to promote an end to the conflict in the Middle East based on two states – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security.

I was one of the first prominent Arab-Americans to publicly condemn Hamas' practice of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, beginning in February 2001, when these unconscionable acts started to become a consistent feature of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians during the second Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I made a habit of describing this tactic as "cruel and stupid," a position on which I have never wavered.

The Cardinale campaign has also sought to impugn me based on comments I made in a student paper more than a decade ago about the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, long before I had any association with ADC or ATFP. I agree that those comments were intemperate and were, in fact, the language of a college student. On the other hand, the article was based on evidence that is not in any historical dispute and is recounted in detail in Rabin's own memoirs.

...I suppose it is asking too much of Cardinale and his campaign, who did not even know what job I presently have or, apparently, anything else remotely accurate about me, to check the facts and come to any kind of serious evaluation of my well-established views and track-record.

This is a transparent effort to play on fear-mongering of Arab-Americans, exploit the legitimate concerns of the American people about terrorism and not only smear me unfairly but also apply a truly laughable level of guilt by association many times removed against a rival candidate – especially since to the best of my recollection until Cardinale's slanders surfaced I had never met or spoken with Mr. Khoury, let alone Mr. Ariyan.

And Mrs. Cardinale had to get in the fun, except she seems to have overcooked her alphabet soup, confusing the letters A and J. Wally Edge reports:

Frustrated that the New Jersey office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was not speaking out against The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Demarest Councilwoman Carole Cardinale, the wife of State Senator Gerald Cardinale, wrote an email to what she apparently thought was the group's central office.

"I am told that your NJ office is telling people that the ADC is a benign operation. How is it possible when they employ Hussein Ibish as their communications director?," wrote Cardinale. "...Do you not know or is there some other agenda operating to cause the JDL to defend these extremists?" (Ibish has not been the ADC’s communications director since 2004).

...replied Shelley Rubin, JDL's Chairwoman and CEO, "By the way, you may have us confused with the ADL."

But you see, Cardinale made another error. He doesn't know the half of just how dangerous Hani Khoury is. As Ibish suggests, Cardinale should have done his homework. Had he done so, he would have discovered that "Khoury" is the Arabic term referring to a ceremonial religious figure in a bizarre cannibalistic cult that eats flesh and drinks blood. And - get this - the cult originates in the West Bank! Oh, the HORROR!

(That last paragraph was sarcastic, in case you couldn't tell.)

But anyway, here is my take on all of this: First of all, I know Hani Khoury, I like Hani Khoury, I respect Hani Khoury. Furthermore, I can't imagine that anyone who gets to know Hani wouldn't like or respect him, because he's an affable, even-tempered, and agreeable person. In fact, he also has a reputation as a consensus-builder, which is why each year that the Arab American Institute organizes a candidates night, Hani is always nominated to be the moderator of the event - because he is the one person that all the staunch partisans (like Republicans me, Sherine Elabd, Hesham Mahmoud, and Mayor Randy George - as well as Democrats like Samer Khalaf, Joann Byrnes, and Bassima Mustafa) can all trust to conduct the event fairly.

The irony of this whole situation is that Hani is an individual who dislikes controversy and discord, which is probably why he wasn't terribly thrilled with me at the 2005 AAI event. Hani saw to it that we ran a "town hall" meeting prior to the candidates' arrival at which we duked it out and determined the questions that we wanted Hani, as moderator, to pose to the guests. This way, decorum would be maintained and a partisan balance struck. Anyway, Doug Forrester turned out and was a smash hit with the crowd, while Jon Corzine sent Bonnie Watson Coleman in his stead, who was the Democrats' State Chair at the time. She annoyed the crowd (already restive as a result of Corzine's snub) with her blasé attitude - as she could barely bother to read through the cookie-cutter talking points provided to her - as well as her boasting that she was so busy as a surrogate that she didn't even have time to campaign for her own re-election in District 15. It was repusively arrogant.

Well, I couldn't take it anymore, so I stood up close to the end of her answers to the posed questions, in breach of our ground rules, and said:

"Look, Ms. Coleman, obviously it's frustrating for people in this room to be asking specific questions that you really can't fully answer for Jon Corzine, but you are running for re-election to the State Assembly, so I have a question for you...had you been in Congress in 2001, and not in the State Assembly, how would have you voted on the Patriot Act?"

Without recognizing what an obvious trap I had set for her, she piped right up and said, "The same way I would have voted on the Iraq War - NO", to which I replied, "Well, I hope the media is still here to report that the State Chair of the Democrats is in opposition to the gubernatorial nominee on a key piece of legislation that affects civil rights!" Poor Hani's face started turning colors, and some of my Democrat colleagues were less than thrilled with me, but I'd bet most of the audience was glad that I stuck it to her, she had it coming.

The point being, Hani Khoury is a stand-up guy. It's hardly worth my time to point out how ridiculous Cardinale's logic is: "don't vote for Ariyan because his law partner used to be the local chapter head of a mainstream organization founded by a former US Senator and currently headed by a former US Congresswoman whose national communications director from 3 years ago forcefully criticized a foreign head-of-state back when he was a college student." Not to mention, even if one could detect even the slightest bit of "there there", I would still have to agree with Roginsky's logic: Jewish voters form a well-educated and politically sophisticated constituency - pandering to them with such rubbish is downright insulting to their collective intelligence.

As an Arab-American and a Republican, I can't figure out what's more disturbing: that the likes of Gerry Cardinale find such divisive attacks appropriate, or the fact that Republican candidates would rather base their electoral strategies on such hair-brained schemes instead of a simple tax-oriented message at a time when the Democrats are absolutely bankrupting this state.

Cardinale's insitence on this non-issue seems to be a bit of a head-scratcher amongst the handful of Republican insiders with whom I've discussed it.

So do not vote for Gerald Cardinale. He does not deserve re-election.

But do not vote for Ariyan either. A word or two on him: First of all, Ariyan used to be a Republican. Supposedly, he didn't feel a warm fuzzy welcome in the BCRO. I can relate to that, as I too have been vocal about the fact that the party has done a poor job of reaching out to ethnic communities and young people. But here's the difference - both Ariyan and I saw flaws in the local GOP. My reaction was, "it's my party too" and thus I took head-on the corrupt status quo represented by Peter Murphy and his goons, and held firm to a set of principles that I believe the party should embrace.

Ariyan's reaction was, "it's too hard" and thus he jettisoned his natural inclination and willingly made himself a flimsy tool in the hands of Joe Ferriero and Dick Codey.

NO to Cardinale. NO to Ariyan. Cast a write-in vote for Bob Schroeder. He should have primaried out "Gerry Gemayel" in the first place.