'Look out! Here comes the Spider Linguist'

In late November, I received an invitation to attend a briefing by Global Linguist Solutions (GLS), conducted over dinner in Paterson, New Jersey. The company was on the verge of gaining a multi-billion dollar contract with the Federal Government to provide translation services in Iraq. As such, they wanted to meet with leaders in the Arab-American community, because their success depends heavily on their ability to recruit American citizens fluent in the Arabic language.

The goal of the meeting was not to hire me and the other attendees, but rather to seek our advice on an effective strategy to reach out to Arab-Americans at large, who would be ideal candidates to fill the many roles available.

Inviting me to the briefing were 2 individuals I know and trust: Sherine el-Abd, respected Republican activist, fundraiser, and operative who sits on the board of the Arab American Institute; as well as Jamal Baadani, a devoted US Marine, founder of the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in the Military and quite simply one of the finest public servants in the community. Both Sherine and Jamal have taken roles with GLS, which is a division of the controversial Dyncorp.

Now, one might ask, why would I, a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, even attend such a meeting? Well, because I am an American citizen, and whether I like the policy or not, it IS my country's policy and I had might as well try to make some lemonade until we can collectively get rid of this lemon. Never losing sight of the end goal, however, I brought along my Ron Paul ballot petitions and collected quite a few signatures. So let's be clear: in my ideal world, Dyncorp would be out of business and GLS would be recruiting translators for charity work and private-sector new market entry for American goods and services.

I do believe that Jamal in particular is of the same viewpoint. He was against the Iraq War from Day 1 and was deployed for highly classified missions in other countries in the region in recent years.

Headlining the meeting, however, was former US Army General James "Spider" Marks, who ran intelligence gathering in Iraq. Now he is an adviser to Mitt Romney and the key figure at GLS. Marks led a very informal discussion and was extremely eager to forge ties to Arab-American community leaders. The recruitment goals he mentioned were steep, and GLS is going to need to work aggressively to meet them. Much of the discussion became a very frank exchange about whether extremely high pay should be the key selling point to attract applicants and translators. I reached out to 2 friends in Syria who are bilingual and is are American citizens, they bluntly rejected the idea, despite the fact that the salary we are talking about would fund a nice lifestyle in Syria for more than a few years.

At the time of our meeting, the contract was still pending, but it was finally awarded on December 7, to the tune of $4.6 billion:

"As per the contract, GLS will provide foreign-language interpretation and translation services to the U.S. Army and other U.S. government agencies supporting OIF, which included embedded Iraqi translators who will operate with U.S. forces. GLS will hire up to 6,000 locally hired translators and up to 1,000 U.S. citizens with security clearances who are conversant with languages spoken in Iraq."

There was an element of the conversation that took place that night that disappointed me. How ironic that so many within the Arab-American community hiss at the word "neocon". The many Democrats among us love to equate "neoconservative" with "Republican". But few actually understand the ideological underpinnings and many haplessly spout neocon talking points in spite of themselves. The meeting was full of discussion about how "everybody in the world wants to come to America" and other such fairy tales that evidently haven't been read by my cousins in Argentina, for example.

Such talk only strengthens the neoconservative agenda through the dissolution of American uniqueness in favor of a "propositional nation" and its imperial overtones. Our community needs to better educate itself about what neoconservativism actually is and how easily it manages to integrate itself in the mentality of both political parties through feel-good talking points.

Finally, there was a funny moment as we were leaving and the topic of Ron Paul came up. I told General Marks that I was supporting Ron, and he was facetiously incredulous. I chided him, "If I have my way, you'll be out of a job!"
continue reading "'Look out! Here comes the Spider Linguist'..."

My 2007 NJGOP wrap-up

PolitckerNJ's regional cousin, Inside Bergen, has published my thoughts on the NJ Republican Party's performance in 2007. This site, run by anonymous persons (or one creative schizophrenic, I'm still not sure...) has cut its teeth on Bergen County politics and is clearly enjoying the thrills of anonymous politco-bashing. The writing is often funny and entertaining, definitely worth a regular read.
------------------

The RIGHT message for New Jersey GOP
by George Ajjan

No doubt, the Republican Party in New Jersey had some notable successes in the recent election. To further the achievements it realized in 2007, the GOP must move forward understanding the importance of message and image: message, because Republicans must clearly explain to voters why they deserve the chance to set the state's agenda; and image, because the GOP will only win in New Jersey as a party proven to unite, not divide.

As far as message goes, 2007 presented a golden opportunity, albeit somewhat awkwardly seized by the GOP agenda set forth in Trenton. It was a mixed bag - pledges to cut $1 billion in spending were admirable, but mired in a cumbersome 9-point plan. And notably absent was a vow to repeal the sales tax increase enacted just a year ago, which should have been a no-brainer. But on the plus side, one component paved the way for future success and established a means of uniting the various factions of the Republican Party: Initiative and Referendum – using ballot questions to let the people of New Jersey decide directly on key issues.

Given the option this year, the public convincingly rejected funding for stem-cell research and another property tax "rebate" scheme – in no small part due to the effort mounted by Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, who boiled the 10-point NJGOP plan down to one sentence: Stop higher taxes – vote NO on all ballot questions. However occasionally brash his approach may have been in the past, the ballot question romp validates Lonegan's claim that NJ residents are conservatives at heart and will respond enthusiastically to a bold small-government agenda. Thus, it should not be difficult in the future for the NJGOP to unite behind returning to a 6% sales tax, for starters. The party could use future ballot question initiatives to let the voters themselves block funding for more big government programs, in spite of Democrat bosses.

That will require strong leadership in Trenton, and an incoming class of younger, sharper Republican State Senators shows promise. But if the GOP is to win over voters with a convincing fiscal agenda, our campaigns must also promote inclusion. Unfortunately, some in the party still rely on divisive tactics, including those that hint at racial or ethnic prejudice. 2007 saw two such examples, in both the primary and general elections.

Most prominently, District 40 State Senator-elect Kevin O'Toole's Republican Primary election opponents deliberately sought to make his Korean heritage a campaign issue. Simultaneously, they attempted to discourage voting for O'Toole's running mate Scott Rumana through cowardly anonymous phone calls claiming that Rumana was Muslim, which aside from being irrelevant outside of 15th century Spain, is untrue – Rumana's paternal grandparents emigrated from Turkey as Christians of the Assyrian and Armenian rites, and his mother's family is of Irish extraction. Appropriately, O'Toole referred to his team's victory as a "defeat for the politics of hate."

Fear mongering surfaced in the general election as well, as District 39 State Senator Gerald Cardinale tried to connect his Democrat opponent to terrorism because his law partner headed the New Jersey chapter of a civil rights group, the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). Cardinale sought to convince voters that the ADC was not mainstream and promoted a violent agenda, rather ironically buttressing his claim with the opinion of a radical Jewish group that has been implicated in murdering a leader of the ADC, and attempting to blow up the office of an Arab-American Congressman – not exactly an objective source.

To be fair, Cardinale points out that his campaign never attacked Arab-Americans at large, only the ADC. He also made it publicly known that he has Arab friends, which will be useful to know should he ever face Archie Bunker in a primary.

Nevertheless, Cardinale won the election with ease, because he has consistently advocated for Bergen County taxpayers and advanced a conservative agenda that suits his constituents. His last-minute foray into ethnic imagery was superfluous and irrelevant. NJ residents are not asked their opinion on Israeli settlements in the West Bank before Trenton bureaucrats fleece them; rather, Garden State inhabitants of all backgrounds suffer together in a state paralyzed by out-of-control spending and incessant taxation.

Cardinale has a strong record of opposing that trend, and should focus on making that his legacy. Similarly, uniting citizens in opposition to unaffordable big government should be the image projected by the Republican Party. Hair-brained schemes that seek to divide citizens along ethnic lines should be ripped out of the GOP playbook for good. That's O'Toole’s view:

"Republicans succeed when we bring all people together with our message. There should never be a place in our party for divisive tactics concerning Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, or any other group."

O'Toole's sentiments should have a familiar ring – in his farewell address, Ronald Reagan remarked that he wanted to be remembered for appealing to people's best hopes, not their worst fears. And so must the Republican Party of New Jersey.

The author, a Republican activist, blogs at http://www.georgeajjan.com

o --- This article first appeared on Inside Bergen December 21, 2007.
continue reading "My 2007 NJGOP wrap-up..."

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.
continue reading "An open letter to Arab-Americans, for Ron Paul..."

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.

continue reading "Ron Paul at the Arab American Institute..."

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 collabora