George Ajjan, the Aleppine Elephant

Credit to Terry Duffy

2008-05-16T07:55:00.005-04:00

Freeholder Terry Duffy decided to break ranks with the Passaic County Democrat machine and endorse Rob Andrews for Senate rather than Frank Lautenberg.

In other words, he prefers raspberry flavored Kool-Aid compared to the standard issue cherry flavor.

Puppet-master Bill Tax-crell won't tolerate it, though:

"You're free to vote for whom you wish. But if you're going to do something different, you keep it to yourself. That's called party loyalty. The right thing to do is to keep your mouth shut."

A wonderful example of democracy in action for the Iraqis, whom Pascrell voted to "liberate".

Everyone: do the world a favor and contribute to Roland Straten.

Can you see the real me, can you?

2008-04-06T07:46:00.004-04:00

I was shocked to see myself mentioned on the front page of The Record this morning, in an article by Matthew Van Dusen concerning the use of online tools for political purposes. Paragraph 2 of the piece states:

"Republican activist George Ajjan of Clifton uses his MySpace and Facebook profiles, a YouTube channel and a blog to promote his party and punditry."

Then it goes on to discuss my YouTube page specifically:

"YouTube is particularly useful because people don't need to join the site to see a message, they just click a link in an e-mail, said Ajjan, who ran for congress against Paterson Democrat Bill Pascrell Jr. in 2004. He has his own YouTube 'channel' that features his collected appearances on news talk shows and speeches."

Apologies for the hiatus...

My9 TV appearance - 2008 Presidential

2008-02-20T10:48:00.002-05:00

Apologies for the delay - this past Sunday I appeared with South Jersey Democrat operative Steve Ayscue (someone referred to him recently as the "Lord Vader" of South Jersey Democrats). Good fun as usual.

Stumping for Murray Sabrin, Round 1

2008-02-07T10:32:00.000-05:00

From last night's GOP club meeting in Bergenfield.

Many thanks to Frank Cifarelli, who ran a great race for District 37 Assembly in 2007, for the invitation and endorsement of Murray Sabrin's campaign.

Stumping one last time for Ron Paul

2008-01-30T15:18:00.000-05:00

Last night, I travelled down to Middletown in Monmouth County, NJ to speak to the Republican Club and deliver my Ron Paul pitch. I was very well-received as was the message.

An exciting DC trip: Ron Paul endorses Murray Sabrin

2008-01-23T08:57:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I accompanied Murray Sabrin, US Senate candidate from New Jersey (for whom I serve as a spokesman) to Washington, DC, where he videotaped an endorsement from his decades-long friend, Dr. Ron Paul, candidate for President of the United States.

Murray Sabrin for US Senate

2008-01-10T17:28:00.000-05:00

A respected conservative leader in New Jersey, Ramapo College Professor Dr. Murray Sabrin, has announced his candidacy for the US Senate.

I could not be more delighted, as I share Murray's positions on many issues of critical importance. I have gotten to know him quite well over the past several months, and he is one of the few people who challenges the go-along-to-get-along mentality of most elected Republicans, and courageously calls attention to fundamental problems.

This year's Presidential cycle has, thanks to Ron Paul and Murray, made me realize that if the United States today had the Federal Budget of barely more than a decade ago, we would not need to have an income tax. Where is all the money going? It's not enough for Republicans to settle for only half the new spending that the Democrats propose - who is out there saying that the least compassionate way to help those in need is to entrust their care to the Federal Government?

Well, Murray is. And that gives me lots of confidence, because we are headed for bankruptcy as a nation if we don't "change". That's why I will be working for Murray in an official capacity to help him earn the GOP nomination, and eventually to defeat Frank Lautenberg in November.

Forgive me if my usual style of blogging changes slightly in the coming months - you will likely see less long articles, and more juicy snippets of information related to the ongoing political dynamics not just in Northern NJ, but across the entire Garden State. Remember, at the end of the day, politics - like blogging - should be fun.

Thanks for reading and check out Murray's launch email below. (continued...)
-----Original Message-----

From: Murray Sabrin
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008
Subject: Ron Paul endorses Murray Sabrin - Ron Paul Revolution expands to New Jersey

Today, I received the endorsement of Presidential candidate (and friend of 25 years), Dr. Ron Paul, in my campaign to become the next United States Senator from New Jersey (see the press release below). We share the same dedication to honor the United States Constitution, which calls for limited federal government, as well as the Founders' commitment to protect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The United States Senate could use a little more Life, Liberty and certainly some more Happiness – and that is what I intend to provide!

I am very excited about leading the Ron Paul Revolution in New Jersey as we focus our immediate efforts on Primary Day, February 5th for my dear friend.

I encourage you to visit my website http://www.murraysabrin.com/ and consider supporting this effort.

Thank you in advance your consideration and support,

Murray

Murray Sabrin, Ph.D.
Sabrin for Senate
1075-D Route 34
Matawan, NJ 07747

News Release
For Immediate Release – January 10, 2008

Murray Sabrin: The Gold Standard of "Ron Paul Republicans"
The Ron Paul Revolution expands to New Jersey with Dr. Paul endorsing US Senate candidate

Jersey City, NJ – Presidential candidate Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas who inspired a massive nationwide outpouring of grassroots support and record-breaking fundraising, has endorsed his friend and colleague of 25 years, Dr. Murray Sabrin, for the GOP nomination for US Senate in New Jersey.

"Murray has devoted his entire career to promoting limited government and personal freedom, and I am proud to have known him and worked with him for more than 25 years," said Paul. "He will not only be an outstanding representative of the people of New Jersey, but the greatest advocate of liberty and constitutional principles the US Senate has seen in decades. I am delighted to endorse him and encourage all Americans who believe in freedom to support him enthusiastically."

"I am very proud to receive Ron's endorsement and to lead the Ron Paul Revolution in New Jersey," Dr. Sabrin stated. "We will continue to focus our efforts in New Jersey towards Ron Paul's victory on February 5th, my victory on June 3rd, and our combined victory on November 4th."

Sabrin and Paul met in 1982 at a monetary conference sponsored by the CATO Institute, and have been friends ever since. Dr. Sabrin credits Dr. Paul for harmonizing a strong defense of the pro-life position with the limited government principles that both men espouse.

Dr. Sabrin was one of the earliest supporters of Ron Paul's presidential campaign in New Jersey, which has a February 5 primary date and is a winner-take-all battleground that looks to be in play given the faltering campaign of its one-time frontrunner.

Murray Sabrin, a noted academic, author, and philanthropist, is a business professor at Ramapo College in New Jersey. He and his wife Florence of 39 years reside in Bergen County. For more information, please visit http://www.murraysabrin.com/.

###

Review of the Iowa Caucuses - My9

2008-01-07T08:08:00.000-05:00

On Sunday, I joined NJ's favorite "struggling lobbyist in America", Leroy Jones, for another lively discussion of the Presidential races - this time focusing on the results of the Iowa Caucuses. Leroy and I have previously covered Sharpe James, Stem Cell research, Rudy Giuliani, and Iraq withdrawal.

My money quotes:

"Obama really hasn't been taken to task yet. He makes all these lovely speeches and does that sort of Dr. King impersonation that I'm sure he practiced growing up in Indonesia and in Hawaii."
"If [Obama] was running for President of the High School graduating class, I'm sure I'd be the head of 'Republicans for Obama'. But the fact is that he's running for President of the United States, and I don't think that he's demonstrated the credentials to be able to do that yet."
"I think [Rudy's is] a very poor strategy...[Is he] really America's Mayor? Clearly he's not Iowa's Mayor!"

We fudge, you decide; or CNN (Calculator-less News Network)

2008-01-04T07:28:00.000-05:00

As if it wasn't bad enough that throughout the night of the Iowa Caususes yesterday, CNN refused to show the slice of the pie that showed Ron Paul in double digits and beating Rudy Giuliani nearly by a factor of 3. By the end, both Fox News and CNN reported reported Rudy Giuliani with 4,013 votes. They ranked him at 4%.

But if you add them all up, you'll see that the total was 116,114. 4,013/116,114 - that makes 3.46%. In what universe does 3.46 round up to 4?

The numbers match what has been reported on the Iowa GOP's official site. (Yes, I understand that only 93% are reporting in, but a calculator still adds and divides properly with 93% of the statistics.)

Are they that desperate to save Rudy Giuliani that they have to fudge the numbers?

The value of gridlock

2008-01-03T09:50:00.000-05:00

Responding to the assertion of former NJ Governor Christie Whitman that gridlock is bad, I offered a different take on the matter:

"Governor, rather than 'shatter the political gridlock that prevents the passage of legislation that is good for America,' I do believe that we ought to encourage the political gridlock that prevents the passage of legislation that is BAD for America.
The lack of gridlock that characterized the George W. Bush personality cult that called itself the Republican Party from September 12, 2001 - November 8, 2006, under which the size of government grew in frightening ways without even the whispered threat of a veto, is much more harmful to American taxpayers than the partisan quibbling that prevents Congress from passing more go-along-to-get-along Bills that lay waste to our nation's fiscal health.
We Republicans ought to be thinking about how to get back to the aggressive spirit of 1994 that curtailed Clinton's socialist agenda, and not how to hold hands with the Democrats so that we expand the size of the Federal Government and bankrupt America just slightly slower than liberals would like."

My Republican roots

2008-01-01T19:44:00.000-05:00

My father was digging through a drawer and found a journal that I kept in the 3rd grade (Ms. Stellhorn's class at Packanack Lake Elementary School in Wayne, NJ).

Here is the entry for November 6, 1984:

"Today is Election Day. People all over the country are voting. I am voting for Reagan. I am voting for Reagan because he has been a good President. However, he is creamating Mondale. I think Reagan will win."

QED.

'Look out! Here comes the Spider Linguist'

2007-12-30T11:50:00.000-05:00

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!"

The Observer on the GOP primary

2007-12-29T20:52:00.000-05:00

In addition to my appearance on Channel 4 news opposite Sascha Burns, on my recent visit to London I also met up with political reporter David Smith of The Observer, who was recently embedded with American soliders in Baghdad.

He and I chatted about the 2008 Primaries, and he is currently in New York covering the overall political scene. Smith quoted some of our various discussions in his piece on the GOP field.

"It's definitely not a healthy party, that much is clear. The root of it is that from 11 September, 2001, until now the Republican party became a George W Bush personality cult where it was follow the leader, throw principles to the wind and support the agenda, whatever it might be at any given moment.

Symptoms of that are a complete lack of leadership, complete lack of cohesion and very weak candidate line-up. If it was stronger, I think there would be more consensus on who should be the presidential nominee at this point.
The Republican party under Bush spent so much of its political capital pursuing the war that a lot of what was traditionally considered a Republican platform about fiscal conservatism - cutting the budget, looking at how to streamline entitlements like social security - just fell off the agenda. A lot of people are upset with the President over immigration as well."

Read the rest of David Smith's article. He is a quick study with whom I am keen to correspond.

One Christmas, in London, December air

2007-12-25T15:05:00.000-05:00

I do love London at Christmastime. Just a few pictures to share from my recent trip:

First, to the left, we have Oxford Street and its lights. Now I know that Londoners think the whole thing is cheezy, but I don't care.

During the daytime, you'll find brass bands playing Christmas carols on the street as well. Both of these shots were taken near Selfridge's, my favorite, or should I say favourite, shopping spot in the world.

However, I was annoyed at the redesign of the interior - the ground floor used to have a whole section devoted to men's accessories, with lots and lots of great ties, etc. but now this has been eliminated and incorporated with the overall men's department upstairs. A bit annoying.

I also did some shopping in the Covent Garden market, which features all sorts of delicious foods and crafts. While there I enjoyed a cup of "Christmas mulled wine" with a friend - a mixture of wine and spices served warm.

But neverthless, for me London in late December is a real treat, much like 5th Avenue in NYC. Merry Christmas to all!

There won't be snow in Africa this Christmastime

2007-12-25T15:04:00.000-05:00

Several months back, James Pinkerton wrote a cover story for one of my favorite publications, The American Conservative - a paleoconservative magazine. The piece was called "The Once and Future Christendom", and it outlined the familiar "Clash of Civilizations" between Western culture and Islam.

I found this article to be somewhat alarmist and divorced from reality. Apparently I wasn't the only one. At the John Randolph Club meeting in late September in DC, a few of the other attendees were equally puzzled by its content. When your pro-Christendom strategy is questioned by supporters of the Rockford Institute, maybe it's a bit much.

Here was the most bizarre element for me:

What of Africa? The Christian countries of Africa...need to be embraced with tough love. The immediate mission is to delineate a Christian Zone and a Muslim Zone, dividing countries if need be. All Christians, and all Muslims, have a stake in minimizing conflict; the obvious way is by separating the combatants. So a wall should go up between the warring faiths, and then a bigger wall, until the flashpoint risk of civilization clash goes away. Then, and only then, might we hope to find workable solutions within the Christian Zone.

As my readers know, I spend a good deal of my time in Senegal, in West Africa. Senegal is a Muslim country, well over 90% of its inhabitants practice Islam. Yet, its government is very secular in nature (it's a democratic republic with an elected President and Parliament), and thanks to its French colonial past, retains a strong Catholic influence. The Feast of the Assumption is a national holiday on which government offices and banks close. Ditto Good Friday, Easter Monday, etc. The pics here are of Christmas lights at Independence Square in Dakar, and sheep ready to be slaughtered for the Islamic feast of Eid al-Adha (known in Senegal as Tabaski), commemorating Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.

This is why I found Pinkerton's article unrealistic. How do we separate a Christian Zone and Muslim Zone in such a case? And why would we want to, when people get along just fine? I continue to subscribe enthusiastically to the adage الدين لله والوطن للجميع - "Religion is for God, the nation is for all."

Squaring off with Sascha Burns on British TV

2007-12-24T19:44:00.000-05:00

I was invited by the producers of Channel 4, one of the BBC's competitors in the UK, to appear on a live segment of their 7pm broadcast this past Saturday, December 22, to discuss the 2008 US Presidential race, particularly the role of religion in the primaries.

I was live in the studio with the anchorwoman Samira Ahmed, while veteran Democrat operative and well-known pundit Sascha Burns joined from DC through a satellite feed.

The discussion was lively and I did my best to introduce the British audience to Ron Paul's candidacy, as you will see in the clip. Notice the opening volley about the 1st Amendment and the Establishment clause, that developed when Burns felt compelled to respond to my mention of "militant secularism".

My 2007 NJGOP wrap-up

2007-12-21T04:24:00.000-05:00

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.

number 9…number 9…number 9…

2007-12-14T01:55:00.000-05:00

Those willing to entertain a little "tough love" for a certain Texas Congressman, and accept a little feedback on how to improve his campaign, will enjoy this piece published today on the pre-eminent libertarian website, LewRockwell.com.

Rockwell heads the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama, named for one of the Austrian School's seminal thinkers, and served as Chief-of-Staff to Ron Paul during his early congressional career.
------------------

Ron Paul's Revolution Problem
by George Ajjan

"number 9…number 9…number 9…"
- from The Beatles, a.k.a. "The White Album"

Ron Paul has generated more political excitement than all of his competitors in the 2008 Republican Primary race combined. His fundraising success has been nothing short of breathtaking, and if he spends the millions he has raked in thus far wisely, he could emerge from the early January contests as a proven frontrunner, poised for massive victories on "Super Duper Tuesday", February 5 – a day on which 19 states hold their primaries and some 42% of Republican National Convention delegates are up for grabs.

It sounds lovely. And it should all be plausible. But Ron Paul has a Revolution problem – one that he must rectify, so that all the time, energy and money that has gone into promoting his message can achieve victory.

What do I mean by "Revolution problem"? Well, to explain it, we need to consult a concept that has been a hot topic of discussion at LRC over the past month – the "Long Tail", a marketing framework popularized by internet business models like Amazon or iTunes, which suggests that many diverse and infinitesimal contributors to revenue can have a definitive impact when aggregated. Inspired by one of his Korean students, Joshua Snyder first introduced the concept with respect to Ron Paul's candidacy:

"Ron Paul is the one candidate able to unite the diverse elements in the Long Tail. His supporters range from strippers to evangelicals; from gun-totters to peaceniks…[his] laissez-faire ideals will unite those in the Long Tail who simply want the federal government out of their lives. This is the key to Ron Paul's diverse range of supporters, and why they don't mind spending time together under the good doctor's big tent."

Gary North then followed-up, explaining the mechanics of how the Long Tail benefits Ron Paul:

"Previously, the cost of delivering information to people who have ignored politics has been high: printed pieces of paper in the mail. Now, because of the price competition of the Internet, the cost of getting your message to readers is close to free, once you have a data base of e-mail addresses…People are mobilizing behind Ron Paul because the cost of connecting with others of a similar persuasion has fallen as never before in history."

We can visualize this analysis in real life, in all of the Ron Paul bumper stickers (has anyone yet seen a bumper sticker for any of his competitors?), the signage, and most of all, the massive rallies that continue to attract hundreds and even thousands of citizens. Some are die-hard Republicans like me, some are Independents, some are Libertarians, some are Democrats, some (as Ron Paul likes to joke) are Anarchists, and most importantly – many are previously disaffected, politically disengaged, and perhaps not even registered to vote.

Given this concept of the Long Tail and its role in the 2008 race, let's have a more detailed look at what the dynamics might be, using the adapted Long Tail graph below as a reference.
On the x (horizontal) axis, we measure the distance from the political mainstream. The further left you go, the closer you are to the mainstream, and the further right you go, the more politically "quirky" you become.

On the y (vertical) axis, we have the number of available votes in the GOP primary.

We have to trace the gray line to match up the number of votes available for the various positions, and how far from the mainstream they may be. For example, at the origin (where the 2 axes intersect in the lower left corner), we are at the political mainstream, and thus there is the largest number of votes available (the gray curve is at its highest point).

As we trace the gray curve, however, we see that as we move away from the mainstream, the number of votes available decreases.

We can use this graph to understand what it will take to win the Republican Primary by calculating the area under the curve (the colored regions). In green are all the voters who exist at or close to the mainstream. These are individuals who love watching Fox News, agree with Rush Limbaugh's talking points, and adore the soothing sound of Mike Huckabee's "elevator music conservatism". Their attention is focused on "regular Republican" issues like life, family, guns, borders, security, taxes.

Naturally, these are the voters to whom Ron Paul's peers pander at every opportunity. Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee risk injury racing to the microphone to boast about who loves God more, who will be tougher on the "Islamofascists", who cast more meaningless procedural votes that supposedly "cut taxes", etc. And they do this because the winner will be the one who captures the most green on the graph above.

Then there is the yellow region. The voters contained herein may get their news from LRC, not CNN. They may understand monetary policy. They may question their leaders and display a healthy degree of skepticism. They may reject jingoism. And a million other diverse statements might characterize these voters, or might not. The reason they are shown in yellow, however, is because probably under normal circumstances, they would not be voting at all in the Republican primary. In any other year, the graph would cut off abruptly at the end of the green region, and the candidates would have to duke it out for the largest share of the green area.

So, it naturally follows that when the MSM reports their latest polls, they are only picking tiny drops from the vast green sea shown on the above graph. The flaws in that approach and the misleading nature of political polling have been well explicated on LRC; but more importantly, polling "likely Republican voters" entirely ignores the yellow region – the Long Tail.

Quite simply, the Long Tail shown in the graph above belongs to Ron Paul. (notice the shape differs slightly from the standard Long Tail diagram, because the total area under the curve is finite, capped at the number of people who we could reasonably expect to vote in the 2008 Republican Primary)

So place the yellow region over the green one. It's considerably smaller, but still respectable. But the fight doesn't end there. It's not a 2-man race: yellow vs. green. Far from it. The green area will be cut up 6 ways, and depending upon how those 6 divisions look, the addition of the yellow area could be decisive.

This is the power of the Long Tail and its contribution to Ron Paul's presidential aspirations. Notice, the word is contribution, not characterization. This is where misapplication of the Long Tail concept can lead to trouble. An entertainment industry blogger named Ryan Holiday jumped on this point, taking issue with Joshua Snyder's initial relating of the Long Tail to Ron Paul's campaign.

"On Amazon, the one person in every town that likes Finnish Death Metal can be aggregated into a sustainable consumer subset. Borders, however, can't afford to stock product for a single fan. This naturally guides them towards products that appeal to blocs of people much in the same way that Durverger guides us to just Democrats and Republicans and leaves no room for Libertarians…
What works on the internet does not work in US political elections. That is what Ron Paul supporters don't understand…let's be honest, he might be running in the
Republican primary, but he's doing it as a Libertarian, as a third party."

Bretigne Shaffer took Mr. Holiday to task, and for good reason, although I must say I do very much like his analogy between buying music and casting votes. However, I think he has confused the nature of Ron Paul's campaign. First of all, (as if it needs to be stated again) Ron Paul IS a Republican, he has been elected 10 times as a Republican, and he will be on the ballot in 50 primaries/caucuses as a Republican, competing against all the other Republicans with whom he has participated in the Republican debates.

Secondly, Holiday misapplies his own analogy. Ron Paul already IS on the shelf in Borders. His product is well-stocked. In fact, when you walk into the store, there are 8 CDs on display, and Ron Paul's is one of them. Granted, 3 or 4 of those CDs are specially promoted by the store's managers to attract buyers, and the store clerks rave about them – but Ron Paul is there nonetheless.

Meaning: he is in the Republican debates, he is constantly interviewed on news networks, he is profiled by every major print media outlet, and he has even appeared on "The Tonight Show" and "The View" – it doesn't get any closer to the far left portion of the green area of the graph than that.

In addition to those mainstream gigs, though, Ron Paul has a huge presence in less traditional forms – like the massive internet dissemination of his message, the hundreds of YouTube clips of his speeches, congressional sparring with Ben Bernanke, etc.

So there is both green and yellow within Ron Paul's grasp. His "Greatest Hits" album is readily available on the shelf in the local record store (the mainstream portion), while his rare cuts, studio outtakes, and live jams can be purchased online (the Long Tail portion).

This seems an ideal situation in which to market, or in this case, campaign. So where's the problem? The problem is that, for a solid conservative Republican like Ron Paul, the Long Tail should be gravy, not beef. Despite having an impeccable record on all of the core Republican issues on which his competitors pander, he is polling only in the high single digits – an insufficient amount of green to win.

He needs to make better use of his product placement and get more casual buyers to pick up "Ron Paul's Greatest Hits" off the rack. The CD needs some slicker packaging. It needs some 5-star reviews smacked on the cover. And the listening station needs to feature some catchy choruses and snappy melodies, not spacey jams.

Granted, it was his focusing on less mainstream elements that captured the Long Tail for Ron Paul, and won over the hearts and imagination of many people that have become his core supporters – the "Ron Paul R evol UTION". It is thanks to them that he has been able to raise an incredible amount of money, and make himself a real contender. But now he must tailor his message toward the green area. That doesn't mean for a moment that he ought to compromise his principles or abandon his message. He just needs right now to play to the mainstream audience. No one in the race is more pro-life, pro-gun, pro-small government, and pro-borders than Ron Paul. Those are the hit singles. Once people hear those, they'll acquire a taste for the other outstanding content. I know I did.

So what is Ron Paul's Revolution problem? Well, it's a bit of a double-entendre that refers to the recording of The Beatles (better known as "The White Album") in 1968. John Lennon's classic track "Revolution" was the source of some debate, as originally Lennon wanted to include an avant garde segment tacked on to the melodic rock-n-roll tune, an idea resisted by Beatles' producer George Martin. Thankfully, it ended up as a separate and not-quite-mainstream track called "Revolution 9".

The point is: Ron Paul CAN win the Republican nomination for President. The Long Tail of voters, which loves his willingness to talk about issues no other candidates will, can push him over the top. First and foremost, though, is the limited government ditty he's been singing since 1976, for which all Americans can, should, and WILL love him.

For now, Ron Paul should stick to the hits. We'll happily wait for the inaugural ball to hear him play "Revolution 9".

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 December 14, 2007.

A Chemistry quiz for Howard Fineman

2007-12-12T12:08:00.000-05:00

Newsweek reporter Howard Fineman says:

"Attention must be paid to Dr. Ron Paul, the 110-proof libertarian in the Republican race. He's had a surprisingly strong online fund-raising push and now has at least $10 million in the bank. In Iowa, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, he's got 8 percent support among likely GOP caucusgoers, and he's a legit wild card in more-independent New Hampshire."

What, I wonder, does it mean to be a 110-proof libertarian?

"Proof" is double the percentage by volume in a solution. So is Fineman saying that Paul is 55% Libertarian by volume? What, praytell, comprises the other 45%? Republican? Conservative? Water? (is he just a watered-down libertarian?) If you distilled his political views, at what point would he become azeotropic?

Can Fineman please tell us what proof Republican Ron Paul was in 1976, when he supported Ronald Reagan for President and was a delegate for the Gipper at the Republican National Convention?

Better yet, what proof Republican was Rudy Giuliani in that same year? He was a Democrat until 1975, than conveniently became Independent, then became a Republican to support Ronald Reagan when it was safe to do so - AFTER Reagan won the Presidency in 1980.

Not present in 5,000 YouTube debate questions?

2007-11-29T17:04:00.000-05:00

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?

"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..."
"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..."
"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..."
"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..."
"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..."
"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?"
"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

2007-11-28T12:22:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-26T08:42:00.000-05:00

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.