GR Press Ad
Alan
online somewhere? (for us out of town alums who would like to see it.)
NeverSummer
it here:
An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America, George
W. Bush On May 21, 2005, you will give the commencement address at
Calvin College. We, the undersigned, respect your office, and we join
the college in welcoming you to our campus. Like you, we recognize the
importance of religious commitment in American political life. We seek
open and honest dialogue about the Christian faith and how it is best
expressed in the political sphere. While recognizing God as sovereign
over individuals and institutions alike, we understand that no single
political position should be identified with God's will, and we are
conscious that this applies to our own views as well as those of
others. At the same time we see conflicts between our understanding of
what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your
administration. As Christians we are called to be peacemakers and to
initiate war only as a last resort. We believe your administration has
launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq. As Christians we are
called to lift up the hungry and impoverished. We believe your
administration has taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society
and burden the poor. As Christians we are called to actions
characterized by love, gentleness, and concern for the most vulnerable
among us. We believe your administration has fostered intolerance and
divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it
disagrees. As Christians we are called to be caretakers of God's good
creation. We believe your environmental policies have harmed creation
and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment.
Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we
share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your policies
in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy, and we
pray for wisdom for you and all world leaders. Concerned faculty,
staff, and emeriti of Calvin College
God Bless!
jvandiver
is also running but I don't have a copy of the text.
Deloree
Dear Calvin friends,
Thanks to your generosity and hard work, the open
letter to President Bush that appears in today's Grand
Rapids Press has been signed by 823 alumni, students,
faculty and friends of Calvin College. Graduates from
the '30s signed the letter--as did current students
and hundreds of people in between. A PDF copy of the
ad is attached to this note. You can scroll up and
down and see the amazing, impressive assembly of
names.
This was truly a global effort, with people responding
from as far away as Uganda, South Korea, and Costa
Rica. So many of you passed the letter to family and
friends and sent in contributions to help pay for the
ad. Many of you sent wonderful notes along with your
signatures and money.
As we were working late into the night, tallying names
and reading your emails, we felt part of a community,
all coming together because we care deeply about
Calvin.
Though we had to stop collecting names on Tuesday,
we're still collecting money to pay for the ad. So far
we've raised $6605, which means we still have about
$3,000 to go. Thanks to the magic of VISA cards, we
have a bit more time to collect the remainder. If
you'd like to help, please make a check out to Sally
Steenland and send it to: Sally Steenland, PO Box
53096, Washington, DC 20009.
Thank you again. We know that for many of you, signing
the letter was a brave act--and we are grateful. And
for those who will be peacefully protesting in Grand
Rapids on Saturday, we wish you strong arms to hold
your signs, clear weather and loving hearts.
Last, we want to share a few sentences from a letter
that was sent to President Byker, protesting the
President's coming to Calvin. It expresses what so
many of us feel.
Each generation has the responsibility to safeguard
Calvin's reputation and her traditions, as they were
carefully handed down to us by our parents'
generation, and reaching farther back to those who
started Calvin with a vision---a vision that valued
faith and learning over wealth and power. This is our
tradition, no one else's. It is our history.
Blessings and peace,
Your alumni volunteers
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH FROM ALUMNI,
STUDENTS, FACULTY AND FRIENDS OF CALVIN COLLEGE
Dear President Bush:
We are alumni, students, faculty and friends of Calvin
College who are deeply troubled that you will be the
commencement speaker at Calvin on May 21st. In our
view, the policies and actions of your administration,
both domestically and internationally over the past
four years, violate many deeply held principles of
Calvin College.
Calvin is a rigorous intellectual institution, and a
truly Christian one. Since its inception in 1876,
Calvin has educated its students to use their minds
and hearts to transform the world into a "beloved
community" where no one is an outcast and all of God's
children are cared for. Calvin teaches its students to
work for peace and justice, and to be good stewards of
God's creation.
By their deeds ye shall know them, says the Bible.
Your deeds, Mr. President--neglecting the needy to
coddle the rich, desecrating the environment, and
misleading the country into war--do not exemplify the
faith we live by.
Moreover, many of your supporters are using religion
as a weapon to divide our nation and advance a narrow
partisan agenda. We are deeply disappointed in your
failure to renounce their inflammatory rhetoric.
We urge you not to use Calvin College as a platform to
advance policies that violate the school's religious
principles. Furthermore, we urge you to repudiate the
false claims of supporters who say that those who
oppose your policies are the enemies of religion.
Signed:
Dan/Sarah Rinsema-Sybenga
JohnC
Calvin and President Bush's commencement visit this Saturday..
POMP AND POLITICS IN GRAND RAPIDS: Bush visit brings controversy
[some liberals at Calvin bring the controversy, Bush doesn't]
[Some liberal] Students and faculty to protest Christian school's
commencement speaker
May 19, 2005
BY KATHLEEN GRAY
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/bush19e_20050519.htm
Calvin College may be predominantly Republican, but a visit from
President George W. Bush on Saturday is stirring up some discontent
among [liberal and leftist] students, faculty and alumni. [see
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org for linkages]
One-third of the faculty members have signed a letter of protest that
will appear in a half-page ad in the Grand Rapids Press on Saturday,
the day Bush is to deliver the commencement address to 900 graduating
seniors at Calvin. The ad cost $2,600.
[I did not know there were that many liberals and leftist professors at
Calvin but it is good to know. I am glad this event flushed them out.
Now we can address them directly and defeat their failed liberal ideas
in the arena of ideas. We can also keep a close eye on them to make
sure they do not inject their wrong-headed politics into the
classroom.]
"As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war
only as a last resort," the letter says. "We believe your
administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq."
[The liberal and leftist faculty members are wrong in their beliefs.
Let's take them one at a time:]
"As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war
only as a last resort"
[I'm sorry to say it, but to me that is nothing but sheer cowardice
and refined selfishness.
Don't you get it? We fight wars not to have peace, but to have a
peace worth having.
As a strong Christian, President Bush is a peacemaker and he does
initiate war only as a last resort. For Calvin professors to present
the leftist canards of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy and
Michael Moore as "Christian" beliefs is arrogant and wrong. What
gives you the right to say that Christ did not want us to protect the
safety and freedom of all Americans, while liberating 50 million
innocent people in two countries?
And if you think the Iraqi people are not happy we liberated them, I
think you need a hug. See:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0502/gallery.sotu.big/content.1.11.html
It's interesting to see how are the current leftist Democrats are
linked to other extremist groups, George Soros, radical
environmentalists, pro-abortion extremists, and so on. See
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
Leftists at Calvin, I ask you to think about this serious question: do
you think Bush and Americans love war, or do they love peace?
Think about it seriously, Leftists at Calvin: I am not asking you to
regurgitate the same old liberal mantras...I am asking you to really
think...
Leftists at Calvin: I, and Bush, do not feel America is right to
attempt to help spread democracy in the world because it is our way and
therefore the right way.
Nor do I think America should attempt to encourage Democracy because we
are Western and feel everyone should be Western. Not everyone should be
Western, and not everything we do as a culture, a people or an
international force is right.
Rather, we have a national-security obligation to foster democracy in
the world because democracy tends to be the most peaceful form of
government.
Democracies tend to be slower than dictatorships to take up arms, to
cross borders and attempt to subdue neighbors, to fight wars.
Democracies are on balance less likely to wreak violence upon the world
because democracies are composed of voters many of whom are parents,
especially mothers, who do not wish to see their sons go to war.
Democracy is not only idealistic, it is practical.
Leftists at Calvin, Americans and Bush are by nature peaceful.
Americans don't want to send their sons, or daughters, off to war. They
don't like that kind of excitement, or they don't like it for long.
This is part of why we used to be called Isolationists.
We weren't and aren't isolationists--we just have a bias for peace. Can
that bias be overcome? Of course. Pearl Harbor overcame it. The Soviet
desire to expand and impose communism overcame it. Sept. 11 did too.
Leftists at Calvin, on Iraq: I think that there's no way 'round it but
through it. We have to stay, and we have to win.
I define winning in Iraq as the yielding up of, at the least, a
relatively stable society unafflicted by governmental sadism and
dictatorship, and, at the most, a stable society in a fledgling
democracy that demonstrates, with time, that the forces of Arab
moderation, tolerance and peacefulness can triumph.
Such an outcome would give so much good to the world. What a brilliant
beacon this Iraq could be, and what a setback to terrorists, who thrive
in darkness.
Here is one thing I like about President Bush. He has the moral clarity
to make it clear that he hates war, really hates it, and loves peace.
Bush always made it clear he thought the impending and then ongoing war
a painful tragedy. Mr. Bush has made it clear, repeatedly, that he
hopes for peace, yearns for peace, loves it. Bush does not enjoy war
and he hopes and prays we can defeat the terrorists so they will not
longer be a problem.
So, Leftists at Calvin, PLEASE stop bashing President Bush, and
pretending you do it because you are Christian and he is not. Take the
plank out of your own eye before you pay attention to the speck of
sawdust in your brother, President Bush's eye. How can you vote for
Demcrats who aggressively promote the killing of innocent unborn baby
American boys and girls, through the painful and bloody procedure of
abortion? 40 million innocent children have been summarily executed,
and you prance around carrying signs and putting your little letters in
the papers due to your partisan hatred of Bush. You lost the election,
get over it! Sure, you may have policy differences with President Bush,
and with 20/20 vision you may critique how one technique or another
turned out in the war, please please stop the partisan Bush bashing
under the guise of "Christianity".
With that said, Leftists at Calvin, I'd like to address this constant
reference to "Blessed are the peacemakers", as an attempt to further
your anti-American and leftist views. Some take quotes from Sermon on
the Mount, and make ethical mistakes with it. Leftists at Calvin, the
Sermon on the Mount is a declaration of personal Christian ethics, not
the rules corporations and states should be run by. If you read Romans
Chapter 13, you will see how God says governments should be run: with
justice, mercy and grace.
Jesus said to "turn the other cheek". Imagine someone has broken into
your house, broke your face, you sue him and take him to court. The
judge says "did you hit this man?" The perp answers "Yes". Then imagine
if the judge said: "Don't you go to church?" Perp: "yes". Judge:
"well, this is simple, turn the other check, take another whack at him,
buster!"
Why does that seem out of order? For a very uncomplicated reason: it is
not the judges cheek! Duh! If he were standing there with a broken jaw
and missing teeth, he wouldn't like that judgment.
Leftists at Calvin, the Sermon on the Mount says that we should give to
those who ask. So imagine you are the President of a bank, and a
homeless man walks in and says "I'd like to borrow $100,000. "Do you
have any collateral?" "No" "Why do you think you can borrow $100,000
from this bank?" "Jesus says, 'turn thou not away .' What's wrong
here?
It's not his money, it's yours that the bank president is giving
away. Leftists at Calvin, this is a PERSONAL Christian ethic. He can
give his own $100,000, that would not be a problem.
Leftists at Calvin, Romans 13 states: rulers are the messengers of God,
the ambassadors of God, they are rending vengeance on evil doers, they
are commanded by God to do that. They bear not the sword in vain. The
sword is the symbol of capital punishment. The duty of government is
justice. Our duty is to live in peace as much as possible.
As long as you have men that are as wicked in the extreme...Hitler,
Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, men of
incredible wickedness, then I believe force must be used to bring them
to cease their wickedness. Saddam has killed 2 million Iraqis, and
caused 6 million more to flee the nation. Not to mention the number of
Iranians he has killed. In Iran, veterans of war with Iraq are
emaciated, dying a slow death from the poison he used on them. They are
dying a slow death that had already taken 22 years in the hospital.
Ann Clwyd, from the British Parliament, talked about Saddam's use of a
plastic shredder. Saddam's opponents were dropped into it, and they
were forced to watch...head first, or feet first and died screaming.
Witnesses saw 30 people die like this, and their remains were collected
and used to feed the fish in their ponds. They saw Kusi, Saddam's
son, personally supervise this torture. Others were dropped into acid
which ate them alive.
Leftists at Calvin, how does anyone argue with the fact that such a man
needs to be removed from power?
The Bible makes it clear force must be used to stop evil -- Jesus used
force to cleanse the temple. He will use far greater force when he
comes to end the war with Satan and his minions. The decisive battle
with Satan was fought on blackened hill called Golgatha. There was
great glee in hell, at last Satan thought he had the arch pretender in
his grasp. There was delight in hell, when Jesus uttered his last
words, "it is finished". Satan thought he had won the victory. Until
that glorious morning when, as the sun rose above the horizon,
spreading across the dome of the temple. People saw the tomb was empty,
Christ had risen from the dead, Conqueror. The decisive battle has been
won, and this is just a clean up operation until he comes back again.
The victory belongs to Christ and those who belong in him.
Now let's address this liberal lie that Bush did not initiate war as
a last resort.
Leftists at Calvin, not every situation requires military action. As a
matter of fact, military action is the very last resort for us. As you
noticed, for example in North Korea, we've chosen to put together a
multinational strategy to deal with Mr. Kim Jong-Il.
And a reminder, Leftists at Calvin : When you mentioned Saddam Hussein,
I just wanted to remind you that the Barbaric mass murderer and former
tyrant dictator Saddam Hussein's military action took place after
innumerable United Nations Security Council resolutions were passed --
not one, two or three, but 17 unanimous UN Resolutions.
Leftists at Calvin, the liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam
was justified over 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and
bicameral overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the
American people. We were further justified by the Iraqi Survey Group
report detailing the WMD, and the linkages found between Saddam and al
Qaida.
For more details on the linkages between Saddam and al Qaeda see:
Al-Qaeda's "Boogie to Baghdad"
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200410070845.asp
Case Closed (Osama and Saddam link found)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Liberals like to say "There is no connection between Islamic
terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime." This statement represents
one of the few examples of anti-war activists disagreeing with the
official line of the Iraqi government. Saddam and his killers always
emphasized the proud support of the heroic and revolutionary Iraqi
people for Islamic fighters everywhere, including the holy warriors of
al-Qaida.
Meanwhile, the al-Qaida crew similarly expresses its solidarity with
Saddam - as they did in their Internet statement claiming credit for
the recent Kenya attacks, and linking future assaults to potential war
against their friends, the Iraqis. If Iraq expresses solidarity with
al-Qaida, and al-Qaida expresses solidarity with Iraq, peaceniks face a
difficult challenge in arguing that they represent utterly disconnected
phenomena.
Furthermore, the disarming of Saddam by force is not based on any links
between al Qaeda and Iraq, even though they do exist. They are based
on 14 years of flaunting the UN Resolutions and building WMD with the
intention of destroying America. We disarmed Saddam for the protection
of our people. Thank You President Bush and Thank You Troops!!!
In a videotaped message, the al-Qaida "military commander" for Europe
claimed credit for the bombings, saying that the terrorist attack was
meant to punish Spain for supporting the war in Iraq. The message came
as a total shock to liberals who have been furiously insisting that
Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaida.
Apparently al-Qaida didn't think so. After the Madrid bombings, it
looks like liberals and terrorists will have to powwow on whether there
was an Iraq/al-Qaida link. Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was.
Another liberal lie bites the dust.
Al Qaida ADMITTED they are linked to Iraq terrorists after they bombed
Spain! So much for the liberal mantra, "no links between al Qaida and
Saddam"!
And so, Leftists at Calvin, this nation is very reluctant to use
military force. We try to enforce doctrine peacefully, or through
alliances or multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.
Leftists at Calvin, we must never forget the lessons of September the
11th. The terrorists will strike, and they will kill innocent life, not
only in front of a Red Cross headquarters, they will strike and kill in
America, too. We are at war.
Leftists at Calvin, as Bush said right after September the 11th, this
would be a different kind of war; sometimes you'd see action and
sometimes you wouldn't. It's a different kind of war than what we're
used to. And Iraq is a front on the war on terror. And we will win this
particular battle in the war on terror.
The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waiver, we will
not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. President Bush has
kept his word to the American people and the world on this.]
Leftist Calvin professors also said:
"We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified
war in Iraq."
["Unjust and Unjustified"? Come on, Leftists at Calvin!
Leftists at Calvin, the democrats are looking for détente with the
terrorists...they are playing for a tie. Republicans are playing to
win. Democrats don't believe in a victorious America.
Leftists at Calvin, how would what the democrats are doing now be any
different than if they were openly supporting our enemies?
Leftists at Calvin, pacifism and appeasement, in the face of
unimaginable inhumanity, is not peace. You may think it is, but try
being the victim like the Iraqis under Saddam, and tell me if it's
peace!
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits
of the social group without being willing to pay--and claims a halo for
his dishonesty." -Robert A. Heinlein
Leftists at Calvin, you liberals used to care about atrocities, you
used to care about human rights. Apparently you haven't been moved by
the 300,000 mass graves we found in Iraq...
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/joyce_030514.html
I thought you liberals cared about ATROCITIES!! How can you see men
shredded, then say you don't back war to liberate Iraqis!?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html Saddam
threw people into plastic shredders and fed the remains to fish, Saddam
raped wives in front of their familes.
Leftists at Calvin, what part of tyranny and murder, using WMD on his
own people, hiding WMD production from the UN, and consorting with
terrorists do you NOT consider a good reason to disarm Saddam?
If you go back to the 14 month national discussion about going to Iraq,
you will see many reasons were discussed for the liberation and
disarming of Iraq...and they have all been proven true by events
Leftists at Calvin, you seem to be saying "War is not the answer"
... that depends on what the question is now doesn't it? War ended
slavery, fascism, The Taliban harboring al qaeda, ba'athism, Soviet
totalitarianism, but other than that, it has a limited repertoire.
Apparently your answer is to have America take no action against
barbaric despots who seek America's destruction.
Leftists at Calvin, Saddam and his supporters wished and planned for
the death of every man, woman, and child in America, and Osama has
declared since 1998 that every American, civilian or military, adult or
child, richly deserves to die. And strong linkages between Osama and
Saddam have been documented at:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains of slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course
others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
-- Patrick Henry (March 23, 1775)
Leftists at Calvin ... Slavery is "peace". Tyranny is "peace".
For that matter, genocide is "peace" when you get right down to it.
Are YOU willing to sit by and do nothing and put up with THAT kind of
"peace"?
Leftists at Calvin, remember: PACIFISM IN THE FACE OF AGGRESSION IS
SUICIDE.
Leftists at Calvin, if you love wealth greater than liberty, the
tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for
freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor
your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Leftists at Calvin, the historical consequences of your philosophy
predicated on the notion of no war at any cost are families flying to
the Super Bowl accompanied by three or four trusted slaves and a Europe
devoid of a single living Jew.
Leftists at Calvin, war has never solved anything except for ending
slavary, fascism, and communism, Talibanism, and ba'athism.
Leftists at Calvin, it would be nice if there were a way around this.
History, not merely my opinion, shows us that there is not.
Leftists at Calvin, we must face the hard and bitter truth that good
people can walk away from a fight, but when they do, bad people will
have the field and we have seen the horrors they can inflict. For
example, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin
Laden...
Leftists at Calvin, if all you are willing to do is think happy
thoughts, then those are the consequences. If you want justice, and
freedom, and safety, and prosperity, then sometimes you have to fight
for them.
Leftists at Calvin, the liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam
was justified over 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and
bicameral overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the
American people. We were further justified by the David Kay and Duelfer
reports detailing the WMD capabilities Saddam was hiding and building,
and the linkages found between Saddam and al qaeda.
Leftists at Calvin .......the Iraqi people are preparing a constitution
that provides the same level of civil and personal freedoms that
vitually every western country enjoys. Freedom of religion, of
expression, of the press. The idea that this is morally equivalant to a
brutal dictatorship shows a sharp lack of understanding of the horrors
of Saddam's regime, and the freedoms you yourself enjoy.
So the liberal lie you push is that Bush "rushed to war", and this
is an "unjust and unjustified" war. Nothing could be farther from
the truth.
For 14 long years, our country and the world had and open and free
discussion on disarming Saddam. I, for one, am glad that Bush and the
large coalition of countries have liberated Iraqis, and Iraqi citizens
are free to discuss issues without the fear of a dictator torturing
them for speaking up. And I'm glad we have a thoughtful, Christian
President who has thought through all these issues carefully and
thoroughly, along with the best minds we have had in an administration
in a long time. We discussed this issue since way before 9-11-01, at
our kitchen tables, in our churches and schools, in the UN, inside the
Bush Administration and in the US Congress. Senators and congressmen
from both sides of the aisle discussed all angles of this issue and
voted overwhelmingly to authorize the President to use force if
necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein and enforce the 17 UN Resolutions
demanding that he disarm now.
I followed the arguments on both sides through the congressional
debate, and saw the result: two (2) overwhelmingly supported
bipartisan congressional approvals. The first one gave the President
the authority to use force against those nations he determines aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons, in order to prevent an future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons.
On 9-14-01, Congress approved the "Joint Resolution To authorize the
use of United States Armed Forces" (Resolution 23) In this Resolution,
the US Congress gave THE PRESIDENT, George W. Bush, the authority to
use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons HE DETERMINES planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future
acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
http://allen.senate.gov/PressOffice/SJRES23.pdf
House Joint Resolution 64: Passed the House 420-1. September 14, 2001.
Senate Joint Resolution 23: Passed the Senate 98-0. September 14, 2001.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
So President Bush was given the authority, in September of 2001, to use
force against nations that harbored terrorists, which includes Iraq.
But, he wanted to go above and beyond, he wanted to move slowly and
deliberately, and make sure he got the approval of the American people
and both houses of Congress. So Oct 2, 2002, Joint Resolution 114, the
"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq" was overwhelmingly approved by a bipartisan House and
Senate. This joint resolution specifically gave President Bush
authority to use force, "Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War
Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended
to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of
section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
Full text of the October 2002 Resolution:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq.
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of
Military Force Against Iraq".
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions
regarding Iraq.
I watched as President Bush spurred the UN Security council to action
with a September 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly. I then
followed the arguments as Bush, the United States, and the world moved
deliberately and slowly, avoiding a rush to war. In November 2002 the
UN Security Council issued Resolution 1441, the 16th resolution in 12
years, demanding once again that Saddam Hussein disarm.
The Resolution confirmed that Iraq is and has been in material breach
of the 16 previous UN resolutions, and they offered him one last chance
to disarm. He was told once again to actively cooperate with the
inspectors...bring out your Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and let
the inspectors verify their destruction. If not, he was told he would
face the serious consequences of using force to disarm him.
This "final chance" resolution, Resolution 1441, was passed
unanimously in November 2002 by all 15 countries in the UN Security
Council: France, Syria, the United States, the United Kingdom, China,
the Russian Federation, Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Norway, Singapore,
Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius. The vote was 15-0.
Nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to
defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce United
Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN 'MATERIAL BREACH' OF DISARMAMENT
OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING
RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council
resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
long-range missiles poses to international peace and security..."
See the entire UN Resolution 1441 at:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
So, after ALL THAT careful deliberation and overwhelming support for
disarming Saddam, you lefists at Calvin want to go back and rewrite
history. Well, I have news for you: we are not going to let you get
away with it. You will keep losing elections if you keep promoting
these lies, because you no longer have a monopoly on the news sources
like you did in the past. The truth will win out.
After all, before the war, President Bush's foes warn of body bags.
There will be body bags. But the question does not seem to be "invade
and get body bags" versus "don't invade and no body bags." If that were
so we'd all say fine, no invasion. The question is: "invasion body bags
or noninvasion body bags?" Removing Saddam and taking losses, or not
removing Saddam and waiting for the losses that will no doubt follow.
Saddam is a body-bag bringer. Where he is, loss follows.
>From "Gut Time - Colin Powell has persuaded me" by Peggy Noonan
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003048
Thank God Bush made the right decision to disarm Saddam and liberated
the 25 million people of Iraq. Saddam will NOT be passing any
dangerous WMD through terrorist groups to have them show up in American
cities, which would have killed 10s if not 100s of thousands of
innocent Americans. Liberals, have you forgotten 9-11-01 already? If
so, Shame on you.
But let us address this accusation of an "unjust" war directly.
Liberals like to say that the war to liberate Iraq and disarm Saddam
did not meet the long established standards of a "Just War" Just
War doctrine or tradition was formulated and promoted 1,600 years ago
by Augustine, refined by Aquinas and de Vitoria must address the
criteria of:
· Last resort with all other means to resolve the conflict being
exhausted,
This WAS the last resort, we tried diplomacy for over 12 years and he
continued to build and use WMD. We didn't want to wait until we see
a mushroom cloud over an American city before we disarm him.
· Sanctioned by the society and outsiders to the society, a
recognized legitimate authority,
We have a large coalition of countries with us, including many Arab
countries. The US Congress voted overwhelmingly for the use of force
against Iraq for not complying with UN resolutions, and the UN voted
15-0 to use force if they didn't comply given one last chance.
Furthermore, the Iraqi people themselves wanted to be liberated from
this madman that was terrorizing their families.
· Redress of "wrongs" suffered - - - with the "right"
intentions (revenge is not in the list of right intentions)
We did not disarm Saddam out of "revenge"...we disarmed him to
protect the citizens of the United States and our allies. This
redressed the wrongs of his 12 years of contempt for the will of the
UN, and his continued torture and building and proliferating WMD
through terrorist groups.
· Violence employed must be proportional to the violence suffered
(proportionality),
We only used the proportional, necessary force needed to disarm Saddam
for the sake of peace.
· There must be a reasonable chance of success; lives lost in
hopeless causes are not morally justifiable,
No one doubted the US and our allies would be successful, and we have
been. In fact, the war has been an overwhelming success. If you only
listen to the liberal mainstream media, you may not know this, so read:
A Look Back (Victor Davis Hanson)
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200503110746.asp
and
How Far We've Come (Victor Davis Hanson)
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200412030809.asp
and
Better or Worse? (Victor Davis Hanson)
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200401230840.asp
· Peace established after the war must be preferable to the peaces
that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought,
Peace after the war, without Saddam in the picture, is much more
preferable to the non-peace we had when Saddam was in power...we had
torture, mayhem, tyranny, and starving of citizens for the express
purpose of building more weapons of mass murder, like chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons.
· Risk to innocents / noncombatants of injury must be minimized and
avoided. Combatants and noncombatants role must be distinguishable to
avoid civilian casualties.
Risks to innocents and noncombatants was minimized in this war, America
has the best technology available and did everything possible to avoid
civilian casualties.
Michael Novak is a conservative Catholic theologian and author of
numerous books. He addresses the "just war" issue in an article
attached below. He points out that the Catholic Catechism assigns
primary responsibility not to distant commentators, but to public
authorities themselves. This makes sense because "First, they bear
the primary vocational role and constitutional duty to protect the
lives and rights of their people. Second, they are closest to the facts
of the case and - given the nature of war by clandestine terror
networks today - privy to highly restricted intelligence. Others have a
right and duty to voice their own judgments of conscience, but the
final judgment belongs to public authorities"
"What is new in the world of Just War theory in the 21st century is
the concept of "asymmetrical warfare." This concept has been developed
by international terrorist groups that are not responsible to any
public authority."
"No one today denies that international terrorism is a deliberate
assault on the very possibility of international order, or that public
authorities have a duty to confront this terrorism, and to defeat it.
Either the world community now upholds international order or it backs
down from its own solemn agreements. In the latter case, individual
sovereign nations will refuse to be complicit in the policy of
appeasement. To do otherwise would be to join Saddam's conspiracy
against international order, and to accrue responsibility for anything
he might do.
Let us hope that Saddam Hussein as a last resort decides to obey his
solemn obligations under the negotiated peace of 1991, and thus at last
meets the minimum requirement of international order. In that case,
there will be no war. In that case, the policy of the United States
will have succeeded without the need for war."
Michael Novak, The London Times | February 13, 2003
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6133
Now, back to the POMP AND POLITICS IN GRAND RAPIDS article:]
More than 800 students, faculty and alumni also have signed a letter
protesting Bush's visit that will appear Friday as a full-page ad in
the Grand Rapids paper. The ad cost more than $9,500. [you have
wasted your money...America rejects your Bush bashing and America
bashing]
"We are alumni, students, faculty and friends of Calvin College who are
deeply troubled that you will be the commencement speaker at Calvin,"
the letter states. "In our view, the policies and actions of your
administration, both domestically and internationally over the past
four years, violate many deeply held principles of Calvin College."
[OK, I addressed the liberal canard on the war above, but this is a new
one! "Domestic" policies and actions violate many deeply held
principles of Calvin College? Really? How dare you speak for "Calvin
College" in public! Next time please say "violate many deeply held
principles of liberals and Leftists at Calvin College."
Besides, what "domestic" policies could possibly be construed as
"violating deeply held principles of Calvin"? You mean Bush's tax
relief for all working Americans? That let working Americans at ALL
income levels keep more of their own wages, to be spent on what THEY
deem important to their families. Is it a "deeply held principle"
of "Calvin" that the government should confiscate more and more of
our money and waste it on government programs as they see fit?
What other domestic policies are you talking about? Bush's No Child
Left Behind program, with record high funding for education that uses
testing, accountability, and high standards to help ensure educational
excellence for every child. What is wrong with that?
Or was it Bush's policies and actions on abortion that go against
Calvin's deeply held principles? The last time I checked, one of
Calvin's and Christ's principles was to respect life created in the
image of God. Bush has fought hard to promote a culture of life,
against the aggressive pro-abortion stance of Democrats and their
strong supporters, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, People for the American
Way, National Abortion Federation, NOW, The Democratic Party, Emily's
List, and so on. See the details and linkages at
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org ]
And about 100 students are expected to adorn their graduation gowns
with armbands and buttons bearing the slogan: "God is not a Republican
or Democrat."
[Are these Calvin students really going to wear armbands with THAT
slogan? "I know
Liberals always try to impugn and ridicule Bush's faith, and try to
scare-monger that he is waging war somehow because "God told him
to". This reflects a misunderstanding about Mr. Bush's faith. Bush
actually prays for guidance, for wisdom, for strength. Mr. Bush told an
audience the other day that he thinks the most generous gift one person
can give another is a prayer. Bush said, "I pray for strength. . . . I
pray for forgiveness. And I pray to offer my thanks for a kind and
generous Almighty God." This doesn't make Bush strange. It puts him in
the normal range of Americans.
Bush doesn't think 'I'm God's guy, he agrees with everything I do'.
If he did it would be disturbing to say the least. But Bush is not John
Brown saying God himself told me to start this war, and he's not an
ayatollah saying death to the Great Satan. Bush is just a Christian
asking God for help and trying in turn to do what is helpful. When you
do this you're acknowledging your inadequacy and dependence. It's a
declaration not of pride but of humility. To a Christian it's like
declaring reality. It's like saying, "There's weather outside."
So Mr. Bush doesn't shy from conclusions and he isn't embarrassed that
he asks for and needs God's help." From "Gut Time"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003048 ]
"I'm definitely worried about a Christian school being affiliated with
the Christian right," said Elise Elzinga, a 22-year-old Lambertville
resident who will graduate Saturday with a degree in political science
and international relations.
[What worries you about a Christian school being affiliated with the
majority of Christians in America, Elise?]
Elzinga sometimes has felt isolated during her years at Calvin because
of her views. She volunteered for Sen. John Kerry's presidential
campaign last year. In a poll before the 2004 elections, 80 percent of
Calvin's student body said they planned to vote for Bush.
[Elise, maybe you should examine you soul. ]
But the visit from Bush also has aroused [liberal] alumni and faculty.
David Crump, a professor of religion at the college for the past eight
years, said even though he's not scheduled to get tenure until this
summer, he felt he had to speak out.
"The largest part of our concern is the way in which our religious
discourse in this country has largely been co-opted by the religious
right and their wholesale endorsement of this administration," he said.
[David: there is no "wholesale endorsement of this
administration"...just a thoughtful analysis of the facts, and the
application of intelligence guided by experience.]
Others said they're concerned that the Bush speech will politicize the
event.
[Oh really! Well, if the unhinged left wants to make a big fuss, they
can. But don't blame it on Bush or his supporters, please.]
"I can see that the Bush administration is gaining capital from this
appearance, but I don't see what it does for Calvin," said Dale Van
Kley, who was a history professor at Calvin for 28 years before he
joined the staff at Ohio State University in 1998.
[Dale, how arrogant of you! Bush is not doing this to "gain
capital"! It is an HONOR for Calvin to be chosen as one of two
schools where Bush will make a commencement address. And as President
Byker said, "It provides an opportunity for Calvin to communicate its
distinctiveness to a broad audience."]
"What it will mean for the students is that they will be objects of a
kind of campaign appearance."
[Dale!? A "campaign appearance"?! Are you familiar with the 22nd
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Bush is not running again! You
may not have ever read the U.S. Constitution, or you may see it as an
obstacle to implementing liberalism, but here it is just in case:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html ]
Many faculty members don't share those views.
Randall Bytwerk, a communication arts and sciences professor at Calvin,
said this week that he's thrilled that the president will speak to
students. [As are most Americans.]
"It will make commencement memorable. Unless it's somebody really
interesting, it's low on people's list of memories," he said. "But no
one is going to forget this." Administrators at the college tried to
address concerns raised about the Bush visit in a letter to parents of
seniors.
In the letter, President Gaylen Byker said it is an honor for Calvin to
be chosen as one of only two sites where Bush will speak to graduates.
The other is the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.
[Yes, thank you President Byker, and thank you for not backing down to
the radical left.]
"It provides an opportunity for Calvin to communicate its
distinctiveness to a broad audience," he wrote. "Please know that
accepting this request from the White House does not identify Calvin as
an institution that is necessarily aligned with the person or the
politics of the president."
Nick Monsma, a junior at Calvin, will return to the college Saturday to
volunteer at the commencement ceremonies. He views the president's
visit as a historic opportunity for Calvin.
"It will be a neat opportunity to get close to a sitting president,"
the 21-year-old Hudsonville native said.
[Thank you for your work, Nick! You are a great American!]
He said he's disappointed that students, faculty and alumni are
protesting the visit.
[Yes, Nick, we are all disappointed with the embarrassing students,
faculty and alumni that are protesting the visit. Hopefully they will
examine their souls and rethink their mistakes, or at the very least
show some civility and maturity.]
"There's a certain forum for that kind of discussion and I don't think
this is the right forum."
[You are 100% correct, Nick. The forum was the campaign for the 2004
election, and liberals lost the argument. They can express their views
in other forums but please don't disrupt this happy Calvin Graduation
occasion and this great American president, George W. Bush.]
JohnC
Deloree
try this:
CalvinCollege FullPageAd.PDF (75.2KB)
jvandiver
http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/CalvinCollege_FullPageAd.PDF
JohnC
anti-American propagandist, Michael Moore?
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=899
Examine your soul. Whose side are you on? See the write up on Michael
Moore and the rest of the Shadow Democrat Party, George Soros, Hillary
Clinton, etc. at http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
Michael Moore:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation [i.e., U.S.,
British and other democratic coalition forces] are not 'insurgents' or
'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen,
and their numbers will grow - and they will win." -- Michael Moore
Like other Moore documentaries, Fahrenheit 9/11 was, in fact, packed
with lies and calculated distortions, a cheap and shoddy Swiss cheese
fabricated with more holes than substance. One of Moore's biggest
claims in his film was that members of Saudi Arabia's bin Laden family
(in which Osama is one of 53 children, a disowned black sheep born not
to the patriarch's wives but to a concubine) had been allowed by Bush
to fly out of the U.S. unquestioned only hours after 9-11. In fact,
they did not leave for at least six days, after being questioned by the
FBI, and permission for their departure was given without any outside
prompting solely by Bush critic and Fahrenheit 9/11 hero, Clinton
counter-terrorism holdover Richard Clarke, as Clarke himself
acknowledged.
At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Moore was treated like
royalty and given a seat of honor at the side of former President
Carter in his presidential box. (Mr. Carter's toppling of America's
ally the Shah of Iran precipitated the Iran-Iraq War, the military
buildup of Saddam Hussein, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that
empowered Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, led to the oppression of
millions of women and opened a Pandora's Box of other problems,
including America's incursion into Iraq. But Moore was proud to sit
next to the Democrat whose incompetence had paved the way for all this
horror.)
Democratic leaders such as then-Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota
embraced him and joined other prominent Democrats at the premier of
Moore's documentary that trashed President Bush. Moore was invited to
write columns from the conventions for the newspaper USA TODAY.
Propaganda and the left had carried Michael Moore a long way from
Flint, Michigan.
How far left is Michael Moore? "Capitalism is a sin," said Moore on
the Cable News Network (CNN) show Crossfire in 2002. "This is an evil
system."