Archive for November, 2002
Anti-American Pacifism Plagues the University of Hartford
Friday, November 29th, 2002I remember the weeks that followed September 11, 2001 while I was still a student at the University of Hartford. We knew the time was coming when the United States would retaliate against Al Qaeda… It was only a matter of time. When George W. Bush visited Ground Zero days after the horrific terrorist attacks he had said “…the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”
Then I was aware of the presence of a group on campus called the Progressive Student Alliance (PSA) who began posted up fliers in the Commons and other places stating “Don’t Become The Hate You Oppose.” Clearly referring to the United States’ plans for retaliation.
Those today that speak against the War On Terror would likely have been similarly against the United States liberating Auschwitz and other concentration camps in Europe and defeating the Nazi Regime back in the 1940’s. It is a self-defeating form of pacifism that goes against the liberties and freedoms Americans today take for granted.
The current president of PSA, John Dennehy, appears to be leading this movement of campus leftists. “I don’t think war solves problems, it creates problems. It doesn’t save people, it kills people,” he said. Apparently, he doesn’t seem to realize that sometimes there are causes great enough where military action is necessary. Did Hitler have to eradicate the entire European Jewish population before American intervention? Does Saddam Hussein have to gas more of his people, obtain weapons of mass destruction and use them before we do something about it? Or do we just let evil take its course? Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been well informed about the atrocities of the Nazis and Adolf Hitler in the 1940s, and he didn’t do anything about it because he didn’t feel it posed any political advantage for him to liberate the European Jews.
Dennehy preaches that “Violence breeds violence, and it’s just an endless cycle.” But there are no more concentrations camps. European Jews are no longer sent to gas chambers. Today, Dennehy and his anti-American pacifist group are against the liberation of country whose people have been gassed and tortured by their ruler, Saddam Hussein. In reality, lack of American intervention of the brutality of evil regimes is what truly breeds more violence.
PSA led a tasteless and disgraceful “Anti-war” march on November 20th. One of the groups tawdry acts was perpetrated by the PSA Treasurer Jesse Dionne, who dressed as George W. Bush, and a sign being held saying “Honk if you’re smarter than Bush.” These are cheap shot with no solid ground.
George W. Bush not only graduated from Yale University, but he also received his MBA at Harvard Business School. His opponent in the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore, flunked out of graduate school. If you’d like me to make a comparison a little more personal, Bush achieved a combined SAT score of 1206. The average SAT score of incoming first-time applicant freshmen of the University of Hartford for the 1999-2000 academic year was only 1051. Don’t forget that Bush took the SATs before the recentering of SAT scores in 1995.
Sophomore Jeff Goldstein, another marcher, claims people who support American intervention in Iraq are not fully informed: “I don’t think that most people are aware of the full situation, so people who support the war in Iraq support it because of misunderstandings,” and according to the article in the Informer, he blames the mainstream media.
Excuse me? The liberal media is responsible for Americans supporting going into Iraq? Has anyone ever seen ABC’s Peter Jennings show anything but negativity towards Bush’s Iraq Policy? Was it only a fluke when Katie Couric was encouraging Al Gore during a recent interview on NBC to speak out more against Bush’s economic and Iraq policies? The only thing the mainstream media has done regarding Bush’s policy on Iraq has been to bash it. The American people just know better than to fall for it - as we saw on Election Day.
I want peace as much if not more than John Dennehy does. He and I have disagreed in the past; in fact, he is one of a small number of people bold enough to write an article in response to an editorial I wrote to disagree with my beliefs. But we both agree that we want peace and not war, but only one of us is willing to ensure peace can prevail.
Dennehy denigrated American democracy in his recent Letter to The Editor in the Online Only section of November 14, 2002 issue of The Informer, he stated “It is not democracy when our leaders ignore and manipulate those they are supposed to lead.” Which world leaders are the true manipulators? In Iraq, one may have their tongue amputated for criticizing Saddam Hussein. In America, our government does not use rape as a device of political intimidation, but that is what happens in Iraq.
Peace will not exist in Iraq is Saddam Hussein stays in power. Peace will not exist in the world if Saddam Hussein is allowed to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction and either use them himself, or smuggle these weapons to other countries who are against America who would ultimately use them. Peace can only exist if Saddam Hussein is taken out of power.
Saddam Hussein is today’s Adolph Hitler - and I doubt John Dennehy or even Professor Goldstein would argue today against the United States liberating Europe from Hitler’s Nazi regime. So what motivates the campus left to being against America’s War on Terror?
At Professor Goldstein’s “teach-in” Professor Doug Eichar stated that if “all the noise about war is little more than political posturing, it is likely that talk of war will subside after the November election.” Well, the election is over, President Bush’s party maintained control of the House and gained control of the Senate, but the threat of Saddam Hussein still exists, and President Bush has not abated from his promise to rid the world of terror. So much for that theory, Professor Eichar.
So let’s end the baseless conspiracy theories. Let’s stop attacking Bush’s intelligence. Let’s stop pretending that these protests occurring across the country are really about being anti-war. Peace is not merely the absence of conflict but also the presence of security and order. Removing Saddam Hussein from power will not only liberate a nation, but also restore security and order to the Middle East and the rest of the world.
“Anti-war” rallies were happening on American soil shortly after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and before the first bomb was ever dropped on the Taliban. These so-called “anti-war” activists are not so much “anti-war” as they are anti-American Pacifists. To them, even the atrocious acts of 9-11 do not justify President Bush’s War on Terror. To them, America was to blame for 9-11 and those attacks should have merely been a “wake up call” for America to rethink its foreign policies. These people ignore the whole truths of what America is and attempt to blemish the greatness of our nation and the freedoms we have in it.
The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein detest the freedom we take for granted here in America. It is alarming to me that there are people within this country who want to put a halt to the War on Terror. To do so would be in affect sponsoring the beliefs of those evil forces that choose threaten our beloved freedom. Terrorism is the true enemy of democracy - to be against the war on terrorism is to be against democracy, and if you’re against democracy, how can you be for America?
President Bush’s War on Terror is not much different than President Ronald Reagan’s “Peace through Strength” philosophy that brought an end to the Communist Soviet Empire. There are fights worth fighting in the world. The War on Terrorism is not about bombs, or an elitist empire, or excessive force; it’s a quest for worldwide peace. Is peace a goal not worth the effort? Being Anti-War-on-Terror is equal to being against peace. As President Bush said on September 20, 2001, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Which side do you want to be on?
Conservatism wins big on Election Day 2002
Monday, November 11th, 2002Where are the likes of Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin going to go now? Are they going to follow up on their original promises to leave the country in 2000 if George W. Bush was elected president? Not only is George W. Bush still the Commander-In-Chief, but now his party controls both the House and the Senate after a critical mid-term election. Looks like Barbra’s singing at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Gala back in September struck the wrong chord with voters. We’re sick of hearing her, and we’re sick of the Democrats and the way they’ve been running things.
Democrats need to understand what Election 2002 says about the direction this country is going. The majority of this country does not want to turn memorial services to political rallies. The majority of this country does not want Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction. The majority of this country has moved on from Election 2000 and accepts the fact that George W. Bush is indeed the legitimate president he has always been. But the Democrats are still making excuses for their big losses last Tuesday.
After the election Barbra Streisand said: “It is a sad time. The Democratic Party was not able to articulate a clear message - was not able to convey the very real and very many differences between the two parties.” On the contrary, Barbra, the Democrat’s message was clear - but that’s not what America wanted, nevertheless, she insists that what the Republicans stand for is ” against the interests of most Americans.” Evidently it was in the interests of most Americans to elect Republicans.
Mitt Romney, a Republican, defeated liberal Shannon O’Brien in liberal Massachusetts (that’s Taxachusetts to us insiders). Robert Ehrlich, a Republican, beat Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend for Governor of Maryland, where Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one. ( Please note the Kennedy name.) The Washington Times pointed out that Ehrlich will be “Maryland’s first Republican governor since Spiro T. Agnew took office in 1966.”
Shaheen was defeated by Republican Sununu in New Hampshire for the U.S. Senate. Republican Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democrat Max Cleland in Georgia. Norm Coleman defeated Paul Wellstone’s successor candidate Walter Mondale in Minnesota. Elizabeth Dole was victorious in North Carolina. Across America, the message was clear; conservatism will move this country forward into the 21st century.
Streisand also wrote, “The American people want leaders - they want people who convey a strong message and stand for something.” That’s exactly what happened on Election Day 2002, unfortunately for Barbra, the American people want leaders that stand for different things then the leaders she was singing for back in September.
Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic Nation Committee, is equally in denial about the message made by the American people on Election Day. “[T]he Republican advantage was a tactical advantage, not an issue advantage.” What he doesn’t seem to realize is that people did vote on the issues, and that the issues mattered above all in this election. And the issues won the Republican’s control of the Senate, and a stronger majority in the House. The Republicans have a tactical advantage as a result of an advantage on the issues.
McAuliffe, in the aftermath of his party’s huge defeat, still felt he had to point out that his party “scored upsets to elect new Democratic governors in Oklahoma and Dick Cheney’s home state of Wyoming.” But he neglects to note that Republican Lamar Alexander won for U.S. Senate in Tennessee, Al Gore’s home state. Republican M. Michael Rounds won the seat for Governor in current Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s (D-SD), home state of South Dakota with 57% over Democrat Jim Abbott’s 42%, a margin of roughly 49,500 votes.
The Democratic “upsets” cited by McAuliffe were by much slimmer margins. Democrat Dave Freudenthal only won the governorship of Wyoming by 2%, less than 4,000 votes. In Oklahoma, both Democrat Brad Henry and Republican Steve Largent each received 43% of the vote, with Henry edging Largent by a mere 6,866 votes. The Independent candidate in that election, Gary Richardson, who is largely conservative, received 14% of the vote. So, 57% of voters of Oklahoma voted for a conservative candidate.
McAuliffe suggests the Republican victory on election was a result of the “money that helped them blur the very real differences between our parties on key issues like prescription drugs and Social Security.” Yet, 21 Republicans managed to win their seats even though they were outspent by their Democrat opponent. The most money spent by a losing candidate was 9.7 million dollars by incumbent Jean Carnahan (D-MO), who lost to James Talent, a Republican who only spent nearly 3.7 million dollars less than Carnahan. Democrat Jeanne Shaheen spent roughly 1.3 million dollars more than John Sununu in New Hampshire, and still lost. In the House, Jim Humphreys, spent about 6 million dollars, and still lost to Republican Shelley Moore Capito, who spent only a third as much on her campaign and won 60% of the vote.
Another important election, the gubernatorial race in Florida, saw incumbent governor Jeb Bush win with 56% of the vote. With Jeb’s solid victory, Democrats in denial over Election 2000 can rest assured that the Florida voters not only reelected President Bush’s brother at the polls this year, but they also legitimized George W. Bush win in their state in 2000, which gave him the electoral votes necessary to defeat Al Gore.
The Democrats lost big time this year. The American people saw two choices, liberalism and conservatism - and conservatism swept the polls on November 7, 2002.
The agenda of the Republicans is clearly the agenda of the American people, and Barbra Streisand has to live with this fact. In her view, it’s an agenda “for the worse.” But it’s what the voters wanted. They wanted change - they wanted George W. Bush’s vision for America to be realized. The people have spoken; they are not falling for the typical liberal diatribe pushed by the Democrats about the Republicans agenda. The people are tired of hearing people like Barbra say that the Republicans are about “Tax cuts for the rich, destruction of the environment, a prescription drug plan that covers only a very small percentage of seniors, an inadequate pension reform bill, an overly aggressive foreign policy.”
No one is falling for it anymore, Barbra… get with the program. Accept the decision made by the American people. The conservative agenda is the one that saw victory on Election Day. There’s much to be done, and it’s time for the Republicans to say “Let’s Roll” and work towards bettering America for everyone.
Liberal Arts and “Education” at the University of Hartford
Friday, November 8th, 2002On October 22, there was a “teach-in” held at my alma mater, the University of Hartford, about the war in Iraq. Professor Warren Goldstein of the history department put on this event, where himself and two other speakers spoke about the potential war in Iraq.
In an article in the October 17, 2002 Issue of The Informer, the University of Hartford’s student paper, Goldstein had was quoted saying that his event was an opportunity for people with serious doubts to meet with like-minded people - which is fine. But, he also said it was meant “to provide useful information to people who might be on the fence about the subject and to educate people who don’t know much about the situation.” This is where I have some major concerns.
If the event was meant to educate people who are unsure about war with Iraq or don’t know enough about the situation to have a position on the subject, why were only speakers coming from one side of the issue? Goldstein is entitled to his opinion on the potential war with Iraq, but he is doing a great disservice by only offering one side of the issue to people who are seeking knowledge about this very important topic of today.
An institution of higher education, such as the University of Hartford, has the obligation to teach its students all subjects, including social sciences, from an unbiased point of view. Professor Goldstein’s event offered no balance, thus creating an unfair environment for people to learn about the situation with Iraq. You can’t get a good education by only getting one side of the story.
Professor Goldstein’s “teach-in” was allegedly meant to educate students, faculty and staff at the University of Hartford… but how can you educate people without presenting both sides of the issue? Goldstein only wanted to present the side of the issue that was equivalent to his.
In the article, Professor Goldstein had explicitly warned that his event was “not an open forum to debate whether or not war is a good idea.” What kind of an educational event doesn’t allow for questioning the material presented and differing opinions? By not allowing opposition Professor Goldstein was not educating the attendees of his event, but rather he was indoctrinating them.
Those who “don’t know much about the situation” should have been given the opportunity to hear differing points of view, so that they may come to their own conclusions - this was clearly not Goldstein’s motive.
Professor Goldstein should have just been honest about what his event really meant to do… His intent was not to educate, but rather to push those people who are “on the fence about the subject” onto his side. As a professor, it was more appropriate for him to allow the attendees to choose what side of the fence to be on, but they weren’t given that chance, they weren’t allowed to choose.
I was obviously unable to attend Professor Goldstein’s event, but the article in the October 24th issue of the Informer, spoke volumes of the bias that permeated this so-called “teach-in”.
Doug Eichar, of the sociology department of the University of Hartford, discussed absurd conspiracy theories such as a “wag the dog” theory. How does that make any sense? It doesn’t. He also accused President Bush of trying to engage in a special interest war to distract the American people from domestic problems… What Mr. Eichar doesn’t realize is that Saddam Hussein is a domestic problem, at least he will be if we don’t do something about him.
Professor Goldstein then spoke about his own opinions about the war, and questioned the motives behind it. Apparently, he’s forgotten about the War on Terrorism we’ve been fighting since last year.
Then there was Marcia Morris from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). The AFSC is a leftist, anti-American activist group founded by socialists in 1917, that has called the USA a terrorist nation. Did I mention the AFSC also has an FBI file 3,498 pages long? Morris not only encouraged vocal activism, but also encouraged tax resistance. She claimed she won’t pay taxes to pay for the war in Iraq. Should I call the IRS, Ms. Morris? I’ll be glad too.
Doug Eichar, William Goldstein, and Marcia Morris all have forgotten September 11th 2001. None of them see the big picture. None of them know the history - and the potential for history to repeat itself.
We now know the President Bill Clinton turned down the Sudanese government when they offered to give him Osama bin Laden back in 1996. Let’s not forget Bill Clinton’s irresponsible inaction after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. With all of these Al-Qaeda connected acts of war (yes, they are acts of war), Bill Clinton still felt it wasn’t good policy to take Osama bin Laden. His inactions cost the lives of over 3000 people in the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001.
Now here we have Saddam Hussein, who has the potential to cause even more death and destruction with his growing nuclear and chemical weapons arsenal. Does Saddam have to strike against the United States before Eichar, Goldstein, and Morris will approve of military action against him? Are we supposed to wait until history repeats itself? Who wants to take that chance?
Goldstein also said “Over the next few weeks and months, if the American people talk loudly enough we may be able to stop a potentially disastrous war.” What would be more disastrous, a ruthless dictator being killed, or a nuclear strike against the United States courtesy of Saddam Hussein? Years and years of diplomacy has gotten nowhere with Saddam, don’t you know that Professor? I know the history… Why doesn’t he? After all, he is the history professor.
Clinton’s inability to defend our country and retaliate against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda back in 1993, 1998, and 2000, ultimately brought down the Twin Towers a year ago. We need to stop Saddam before another 9-11 happens.
It is time to stop treating the symptoms of terrorism, and actually cure the disease. Saddam Hussein must be stopped, he only spreads the infection of terrorism, and if we wait too long, the infection is going to reach Professor Goldstein’s backyard, as well as all of ours.
If history is any guide, I see a world much safer from my side of the fence, I can only see more innocent lives being lost from the side Eichar, Goldstein, and Morris are on.
I never took a history class when I was a student at the University of Hartford. Today, I am glad for that. Professor Goldstein may be a good professor, but the classroom is no place for personal politics. His event was biased. He needs to stop indoctrinating and start educating.