Posted on 12/22/2001 8:04:02 AM PST by tpaine
Arab American hopes to unseat Rep. Lantos
BY CHUCK CARROLL Mercury News
At a time when some Arab Americans and Muslims are lying low amid a perceived backlash in the wake of Sept. 11, Maad Abu-Ghazala is doing quite the opposite. He's running for Congress.
His opponent is Tom Lantos, one of Israel's strongest supporters and a Holocaust survivor who has been elected 11 times to represent the 12th District on the upper San Francisco Peninsula.
Abu-Ghazala, a 39-year-old software entrepreneur and attorney from Pacifica, was born in what was then part of Jordan.
He's running as a Libertarian. Normally, Libertarians are all but ignored by the major-party candidates, the mainstream media and political contributors. But, as Abu-Ghazala said, with their sharply contrasting backgrounds, this matchup is ``made for TV, almost.´´
That, combined with his determination to force a deeper discussion about why America finds itself fighting a war on terrorism, and whether Americans are giving up too much freedom in that war's prosecution, makes this contest anything but run-of-the-mill.
Lantos, who was in Washington this week as a busy Congress rushed to break for the holidays, did not return calls about the race.
Abu-Ghazala is a novice in electoral politics, but he's a member of the board of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. This week he spoke at a news conference to keep attention focused on the hundreds of people being held without charges by the FBI as part of the terrorism investigation. Abu-Ghazala said he was thinking of running even before Sept. 11, but the aftermath pushed him into the race despite the long odds and his controversial positions.
Shortly after the hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Abu-Ghazala said, he was appalled to hear that only 70 percent of Americans polled said the United States should make sure it knows who is responsible for the attack before striking back. It made him wonder about the other 30 percent of Americans.
``We just needed to bomb somebody,´´ he said. ``There was some level of that all over.´´
He also has watched in alarm as, in his view, constitutional protections and legal rights have been eroded ``with virtually no discussion.´´ As an attorney, Abu-Ghazala is especially outraged by Attorney General John Ashcroft´s announcement that the Justice Department would be monitoring communications between defense lawyers and certain terrorism suspects.
``Civil liberties have just been hacked to pieces,´´ he said.
Abu-Ghazala's main foreign policy message -- that billions of dollars in annual U.S. aid to Israel should stop -- may win favor with voters who don't like foreign aid of any kind. But if polls are correct, he might not win many supporters with the centerpiece of his domestic agenda: the protection of civil liberties during the war on terrorism.
``Whether people like the message or not, I think it´s important that they hear it,´´ he said. Win or lose, Abu-Ghazala is doing something important, said Abdallah Al-Zuabi, national field director of the Arab-American Institute, which has sought to increase Arab-American participation in the political process for 15 years.
Recognition of the need for Arabs to get more involved in politics ``was a hundred times more after 9/11,´´ Al-Zuabi said, but at the same time many have felt too intimidated to speak out. ``To have Arab Americans running for Congress and talking about these issues will encourage other Arab Americans to do so also, so it has a positive effect.´´
Abu-Ghazala is taking a classic third-party approach and must know he can't win, said Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont-McKenna College in Claremont. But his background could work for him.
``Even a more mainstream candidate with a lot of money wouldn´t stand much of a chance against Lantos,´´ Pitney said. ``He´s a respected Democratic incumbent in a Democratic district. The question is whether he can get a fair hearing for his point of view.´´
Lantos, who has a strong record on human rights, may be a friend of Israel, but that doesn't make him an enemy of Arabs or Arab Americans. In fact, when the FBI uncovered an alleged plan by a leader of the radical Jewish Defense League last week to bomb a Southern California mosque and an office of Arab American Rep. Darrell Issa, R-San Clemente, Lantos was at Issa's side to denounce the terrorist plot. Abu-Ghazala believes American policies in the Middle East -- of which Lantos is an influential architect -- are one of the root causes of rampant anti-Americanism. Those policies don't begin to justify the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, though, he said. Lantos holds a different view of the cause of the terrorist attacks.
``Osama bin Laden would have us believe that the United States´ continued presence in Saudi Arabia, our sanctions policy against Iraq or even our posture in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- a cause to which he only recently converted -- provoked and justified these terrorist acts. Let no one be deceived by the cynical and hateful rhetoric,´´ Lantos said at a congressional hearing Oct. 24.
``It is our open, democratic, inclusive, free way of life that is the true object of his hatred, he said. The terrorists hate America not for what we do, but for who we are."
We ain't no stinkin' Republicans. Throughout its entire history, from its very foundation with Abraham Lincoln, the Republican party has been the party of Big Government. We Libertarians are the ONLY party of the limited government envisioned by many of this country's founders.
Mark (Libertarian, ex-Republican)
No, THAT was one of the most ignorant statements anyone could possibly make. Go bad to grade school, and learn some math and/or English. I said that Sha'ria law wasn't libertarian. And I said (absolutely correctly) that U.S. laws were certainly not libertarian, either. That most certainly does NOT equate U.S. laws with Sha'ria law. If A does not equal B, and A does not equal C, that most certainly does NOT mean that B equals C.
Of course, you probably don't undertand algebra, so I'll put this way: If libertarian laws were a "100", Sha'ria laws might be a 1, and current U.S. laws might be a 20. That most certainly does NOT mean that 20 is equal to 1.
"You do know how the Sha'ria was derived don't you? It was a bunch of religious leaders over several hundred years reviewing cases at law and then asking them selves how Mohammed and his disciples would have decided the case and what principles were involved."
That was my impression of the origin of Sha'ria law, also.
"This eventually led Islam to a point of philosophical collapse. That's where it's at today."
Not really, because the majority of Muslims aren't interested in living under Sha'ria law...as the majority of U.S. citizens aren't interested in living under the laws of the Puritans.
In fact, here in Virginia, I don't think there was even a Congregational Church in the state until recent times - maybe you have some.
Precision in language is very important, particularly if you are a Libertarian because there are a gadzillion of us non-Libertarians out there ready to call you to account for imprecision.
Yes, that's not at all incompatible with, or contradictory to, my point that there is no evidence that a majority of Muslims wish to live under Sha'ria law.
It has been suggested in this thread that Maad Abu-Ghazali is a Muslim (because he is an Arab) and that, as a Muslim, he must support, or probably supports, Sha'ria law. In contrast, the article doesn't even state that Mr. Abu-Ghazali is a Muslim...and it most certainly doesn't state that he supports leading the U.S. towards Sha-ria law. As a Libertarian running for federal office--unless the Libertarian Party executives and membership in his district aren't paying any attention--Mr. Abu-Ghazali should know that his SWORN DUTY is to follow the Constitution. And the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids the federal government from any intervention whatsoever in any issue where Mr. Abu-Ghazali's religious views might come into play (e.g. abortion).
"Precision in language is very important, particularly if you are a Libertarian..."
I agree. That's why I *am* precise in my language. (Unlike, for instance, those who say my postings "equate" Sha'ria law with the laws of the United States...where I merely stated that neither Sha'ria law or the laws of the United States are libertarian.)
...because there are a gadzillion of us non-Libertarians out there...
Yes, it sort of makes the whole website name, "Free Republic," ironic. If ALL the people who posted here were truly interested in a FREE REPUBLIC, ALL the people here would be in the Libertarian Party. Or at least all the people on this site would vote straight-ticket Libertarian, in the privacy of their voting booths.
Mark (Libertarian Party...accept no substitutes)
I might add that when the American people finally figure out what the Libertarians are really about, they'll run them out of town along with the Democrats.
Heh, heh, heh! When the American people finally figure out Libertarians are about returning American government to the ideals of Madison and Jefferson, they'll run Libertarians out of town? Yeah...I'll bet you statist Republicans will! Since your party has NEVER liked the small government envisioned by Madison and Jefferson!
And what do you think will happen when the conservatives on this site stop deluding themselves into believing that Republicans are interested in either "Free," or "Republic"? Or do you think that the conservatives on this site already know that Republicans (in general) aren't interested in "Free" or "Republic"...and the conservatives here just don't care?
------------------------------------
How weird VA. I'm sorta flattered that you'd think I could inspire a fan club, despite your well known insanity.
But you forget. -- Like Groucho, me hero, -- I would scorn any club that would accept me.
Oh yes, lots of fans. Mostly waving off the odors the eminate from your threads.
Republican: One who wishes to preserve certain government usurpations and violations of individual liberty, as opposed to a Democrat, who wishes to introduce new ones.
Democrat: One who gets elected to congress.
Libertarian: One who is laughed at.
Now do I sound like a "statist"?
Did you know Abe Lincoln's mother and sister are actually buried on a plot of ground which, at the time of their deaths, belonged to one of my direct paternal ancestors - that's how poor they were - Tom wasn't sure enough of his title, or his surveying, to trust his dead family members to anyone but friends.
Fortune smiled on Abe when the neighbors pulled together and made sure he got to read the few books around in the Indiana wilderness, and they involved him in their every discussion of community affairs, and right, and wrong, and the founding principles of what became the Republican Party.
Unfortunately for young Abe, the Republicans weren't around yet, so he was forced by cruel fate to play along with their Libertarian Equivalent in that day - the people called "The Whigs".
They were a doomed political party because they had no moral values and always compromised with the most evil proposals of the Democrats.
Then, as if the finger of God had written it on a hillside in Michigan, the Republican Party sprang into full existence and young Abe knew that it was time for his destiny.
The rest is history, and no matter how you slice it that Whig sausage still doesn't turn into beefsteak.
You could go back to DU, you know.
{Hark! -- Do I hear the applause of fans?}
Democrat: One who gets elected to congress.
Yep - another similarity. Both use socialist programs to purchase votes.
How very proud you must be of one another.
Excuse me. I should have said, "y'all." There are certainly a few (at least a couple dozen, I reckon ;-)) Republicans who are NOT statists. I simply was referring to Republicans as a group.
Sorry, no Party that approved of government sponsorship of the owning of human beings can be considered a "Libertarian Equivalent."
In fact, Libertarians don't approve of a Draft, since it unquestionably violates the 13th Amendment's prohibition on "involuntary servitude."
Your Republicans, on the other hand, didn't seem to mind THAT type of involuntary servitude...at least during the 30+ years it existed, from WWII to the mid-1970's. And y'all definitely have NOT said anything about forced REGISTRATION for the draft! So y'all clearly have a mind to reinstitute THAT kind of slavery...if y'all ever "need" it! Bwahahahahahaha! (Of course, I won't be so amused if y'all and your Democrat friends ever draft anyone I love.)
There are MAYBE a handful of good--if you care about freedom and limited government--Repubbies in the entire federal governement. All in Congress, unfortunately...where their goodness is most diluted. So the odds are WAAAYYYYY strong that the Repubbie candidate in that race isn't "good." (If you care about freedom and limited government. If you like an omnipotent federal government, Washington DC is LOADED with "good" Repubbies...and it's quite likely that you'll love the Repubbie candidate in that race, too.)
The American Whig Party (roughly from 1834-1856)
The Whig Party, in the United States, was for most of its history concerned with promoting internal improvements, such as roads, canals, railroads, deepening of rivers, etc. This was of interest to many Westerners in this period, isolated as they were and in need of markets. Abraham Lincoln was a Whig for most of this period.
Go join VA in the alumafoil section of FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.