I am writing in response to columnist Saleh Ibrahim's reaction ("Speaker's anti-Muslim propaganda only spreads hate," April 29) to Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's speaking engagement on Tuesday evening. In his response, Ibrahim grossly mischaracterized the nature of Rev. Peterson's comments regarding the Muslim world, namely Obama's bow to Saudi leaders and also the lack of public demonstrations by patriotic American Muslims. Rev. Peterson was not attempting to alienate pro-Democratic Muslims anywhere in the world. Rather, he was attempting to bolster American resolve for the war on terror, which President Bush described as a war not against "the Afghan people, who are our friends and neighbors" or a "war on Islam."
Rather, like (presumably all Americans) Rev. Peterson was expressing outrage against anti-American leaders of Islamic states and the anti-American fundamentalists who reside there. Similarly, it would not make sense for him to discuss the theology of reasonable Muslims. We would like to make it clear that Rev. Peterson's remarks pertaining to the Koran, a document that he is familiar with, were intended to expose the position of America's enemies.
Like Rev. Peterson, the UConn College Republicans believe strongly in the equality of all Americans- an extension of the ideology of the founders of our Party. We believe that no persons or group of persons should be subjugated as a result of their race, ethnicity, or religion. We find it deplorable that anyone would accuse either our group, or Rev. Peterson, of harboring racist sentiments. In fact, we brought Rev. Peterson, who has worked hard to ameliorate the condition of all Americans, especially black Americans, to unify the campus community against an agenda that will eventually hurt all Americans. While I can not release too many details at this point in time, we have been in communication within the Pro-American, Pro-Islam movement, and it is our intention to host an event with them in the coming year.
-Joseph Dilling
Finance Director, Event Coordinator, College Republicans
8th-semester history major
write this letter in response to the recent article and commentary regarding Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's visit to the UConn campus hosted by the UConn College Republicans. As the newly elected President of the organization I believe it is my responsibility to address the complete lack of journalistic integrity The Daily Campus has shown over these past weeks and especially in the April 29, 2009 edition.
Last Thursday, April 23, 2009, Idealist United brought Bill Ayers, a known unapologetic domestic terrorist to campus to speak on behalf of "Human Rights Awareness Week". This week was also sponsored by The Human Rights Institute, ConnPIRG, and the University i.e. tax dollars. Did anyone hear about this? This is exactly my point. I was featured on Fox61, NBC30, Channel 8, FM 104.7 WXLM, and AM 1360 WDRC discussing our planned protest and our outrage in having University donations and departments directly or indirectly sponsor a week in which a terrorist would speak on campus, but the campus community did not hear a word from The Daily Campus. This story was not covered, nor was I asked to comment by The Daily Campus on our very successful and peaceful protest. The Daily Campus is in itself a propaganda machine controlled in order to further its own agenda. I find this absolutely distasteful and detrimental to the education process of the students at the University of Connecticut.
I would like to respond to the article, "Reverend Sparks Protest" in order to clarify and give a more accurate depiction of the events of that evening. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson was in no way speaking hate as David Heseltine commented. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson was speaking from his heart and from experience in which he sees the damage done by liberal Democratic policies within the inner cities in America. He believes this must change and it is up to the individual, not the government to do this. He argues that for too long the "so-called black leadership" has kept the black community believing they are looking out for their best interest, when in fact they are looking out for their own political gain. Peterson cited the breakdown of families, violence, and abortions as most severely affecting the black community, something Bill Cosby speaks about, and it was not this way before the Civil Rights Acts.
In response to Saleh Ibrahim's commentary titled, "Speakers anti-Muslim propaganda only spreads hate" in the April 29, 2009 edition of the Daily Campus, I must say, Saleh has a way of making Peterson seem as if his entire event was devoted to Muslim questions, when in fact there was one question and that was from Saleh himself. Peterson made it clear that it was Islamic extremists, those that have been radicalized that are evil and are willing to go to any cost at defeating the west, not ordinary Muslims. According to the State Department's website there have been hundreds of significant terrorist acts recorded since 1961 in the historical record. This is not to say Islamic extremists performed all of these, but a majority of them were, and most recently this happens to be the case. I shall repeat myself in order that Mr. Ibrahim and the rest of the UConn community clearly understands; the UConn College Republicans and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson in no way attacked Muslims, but stated the dangers posed to America by Islamic extremists. I believe Saleh should refrain from mischaracterizing and libeling against Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.
Lastly, Saleh writes, "anti-Muslim propaganda was a necessity for the creation of an imaginary ideological enemy". First, Saleh continues to refer to Peterson's and other politician's attack on Islamic extremists as "anti-Muslim" which couldn't be farther from the truth, which shows he clearly has an agenda. Second, if you remember 9/11 sir, it was Islamic extremists that attacked us and by you saying this is somehow an "imaginary enemy" is a grave injustice to the three thousand American lives lost on that terrible day in American history and I believe they deserve an apology. Thirdly, President Bush made it clear throughout his time in office that we were not fighting a war against the Muslim world, but rather a war against extremist terror cells and organizations, but you seem unaware of this reality.
Again I would like to point out my complete and utter disappointment in The Daily Campus' biased coverage when it comes to the Bill Ayers and the Peterson event's; next time try to make it a little less obvious. Reasonable students will soon get sick of the shady and unfair treatment the Daily Campus displays in its reporting and turn elsewhere. Lose the ideological biased view and stick to reporting in order to further the education process at this great university. If you have any questions you may contact me at timothy.plungis@uconn.edu. Also please visit our website at uconncollegerepublicans.com for more information.
-Tim Plungis
President, UConn College Republicans
6th-semester American studies major
On April 29, President Obama hosted a press conference to commemorate the progress his administration has made during his first 100 days in office. To his credit, he not only preached the positive, but also the negative. Obama recognized there is still much work to be done to get this country back on its feet. However, the positive accomplishments Obama reeled off sounded more like preaching than speaking. There was little support for his figures, and he expected everyone to believe him simply because he said it. Looking closely, though, things just don't seem to line up.
Obama has talked of the importance of bipartisanship since his candidacy, yet one of the first things he brought up in his speech was the new budget blueprint, allotting $3.4 trillion for fiscal year 2010, which passed in Congress without a Republican supporter. It didn't even garner the support of newest Democrat, Arlen Spector. Conveniently, Obama left this fact out.
So far, Obama hasn't gotten the bipartisan effort he claims to desire, but he also doesn't appear to be trying hard to obtain it. And with the possibility of a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority looming closer, he may not need to.
Obama also spoke about more of his administration's accomplishments, including the saving and creation of 150,000 jobs, passage of laws to provide and protect health insurance for eleven million children of full-time employed parents, and initiation of a housing plan increasing the number of homeowners refinancing their mortgages, which he claims is
"the equivalent of another tax cut." His plan for the future will
theoretically create millions of jobs through investment in renewable energy, as well as put money into education and health care, while continuing to maintain alleged tax cuts for 95% of Americans and cutting the deficit. But how is this going to work? Obama's plan will undoubtedly cost a lot of money (the Recovery Act alone accounts for $787 billion), and with investment to be made in renewable energy, education, and health care, the cost will rise. Since Obama already increased the size of the deficit, this plan seems foolhardy. With increased spending the deficit will continue to grow unless supplemented. Usually, this is done through taxes. So how can Obama make tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans? The plan seems too good to be true. In reality, Obama has increased taxes, which is how he plans to cut costs. The tax on tobacco, for instance, has been increased tremendously. Also, the Bush tax cuts have expired, and Obama quietly refrained from renewing them. So, everyone is paying full taxes, making Obama's cuts superficial. In the end, everyone still pays the same, or more, than before.
Obama's push to invest in jobs in renewable energy and green technology should be assessed. He claims this approach will create millions of jobs. Even if he does manage this, what would be the costs? Consider Spain, which Obama has identified for its green technology programs and investment in renewable energy. The average job created by Spain's policy costs twice that of the job it replaced, and only one out of ten of these jobs lasted over two or three years. Such high cost, short term jobs are an inefficient way of triggering economic growth. In essence, Obama wants to spend more money on jobs just to boost the numbers and make the public happy. But in two or three years all those jobs will be lost, and we will be right back where we started.
Obama's press conference was a well-spoken ordeal, and he drew upon the positives to grab at his viewers' hearts. But he left out the facts. It's hard to believe his plan to spend money in excessive amounts while claiming to cut taxes will work. Unless he plans to dig the deficit deeper, there must be some way in which he plans to get the money. If not through taxes, then through what mechanism? Without bipartisan efforts in Congress, it is clear that Obama's agenda will fall in line with
Democratic Party principles, and if the public doesn't wise-up to his too-good-to-be-true plans, we may soon see ourselves spiraling deeper into economic stagnation.
-Aaron Nelson
Vice-Chairman, UConn College Republicans
Be the first to comment on this article!