Columbia Shames itself by hosting Ahmadinejad

This Monday, Columbia University, largely considered one of the best in the world, hosts the visiting President of Iran. Ahmadinejad’s visit has largely been hailed with criticism and opposition, and rightfully so. Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, shames himself and his university by not only allowing, but actively inviting Ahmadinejad to speak.

Those who are not familiar with Ahmadinejad should know this: he is not only a radical Islamofascist who supports terrorism against the US, but he is also a leading anti-Semite. In addition to calling the Holocaust a myth, he has called for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. I find it unbelievable at best that Bollinger would allow such a man to speak at a university with such a significant Jewish population, when, if it were up to Ahmadinejad, those very students wouldn’t be alive to listen to him speak.

This should not only be an outrage to every Jewish student at Columbia, but to every man and woman who believes in freedom of religion and pluralism, regardless of religious background.

Perhaps Bollinger should follow the lead of the City of New York, who declined Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero. This request in itself is outrage enough to deny providing a speaking opportunity to Ahmadinejad at Columbia. The president of Iran essentially slapped this country in the face by making such a request in the first place. Do not be fooled: Ahmadinejad did not intend to pay respect to any American had he visited the WTC. Instead, any wreath he laid would have been in commemoration of the terrorists who murdered three thousand Americans, and not the victims who died.

There have been two main arguments advanced in support of Ahmadinejad speaking. The first contends that students (and everyone else who hears his speech presumably) will have a valuable educational experience. This is hogwash.

Any one who truly wishes to understand Ahmadinejad’s views needs simply read speeches he has made in his own country. Speeches that include things like, “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” and “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” Fortunately for Ahmadinejad, Lee Bollinger is making it just a little easier for that Islamic revolutionary wave to reach NYC.

The second argument that has been advanced is that Ahmadinejad has a right to speak. This argument is even worse than the first. As the head of a member nation, Ahmadinejad has the right to speak at the United Nations. This right does not extend, however, beyond the physical walls of that establishment.

The President of Iran is not an American. Our first amendment does not apply to him, nor should even the notion of free speech be applied so. If you do think Ahmadinejad has a right to speak, then I challenge you to go ask the many Iranians he has had murdered for standing up to his regime how they feel about it. But wait, it doesn’t really seem like Ahmadinejad felt that freedom of speech applied to them, does it?

Bush Betrays Basic Conservative Principles

Alan Greenspan, recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve and life-long Republican, recently lambasted President Bush and the former Republican Congress this past weekend. In his new memoir, Greenspan accuses Bush and company of betraying “principle for power”. He writes, “The Republicans in Congress lost their way. They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”

Unfortunately, Greenspan’s criticism is both accurate and true. Over the past six years, the former Republican Congress and President Bush have betrayed basic conservative principles.

Greenspan specifically criticizes “runaway deficit spending” and in particular the fact that the White House and Congress allowed a Clinton-era produced budget surplus to turn in to a Bush-era produced deficit.

One should note my wording. While President Clinton held office when the federal budget moved from red to black (the Clinton-era), it is not fair to say this was his achievement alone. Bush-opponents love to forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping him in line. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and later Denny Hastert wielded a legitimately conservative Congress who practiced what they preached: fiscal discipline.

It appears that the partisan divide in Washington at the time actually produced good policy (at least from Congress). The election of Bush seemed to usher in a new Congress-White House relationship, however. While this new partnership was given the opportunity to execute conservative principles and fix a number of problems once and for all, it failed miserably.

According to Greenspan, Bush “…didn’t want to challenge former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Apparently, Bush thought that he could control Hastert better by “not antagonizing him”. Believe it or not, Mr. President, even Republicans need to be antagonized sometimes.

It seems that since Bush did not want to antagonize the Speaker, nor likely, be seen as fighting with other Republicans, that conservative principle fell by the way side, and Republicans, drunk with power, started acting like Democrats.

Unfortunately this behavior extended beyond fiscal discipline (or lack thereof). The collective congressional Republican Party started acting like Clinton and Monica (only with male pages and prostitution rings of course) and government has grown larger and faster than even FDR could have dreamed of.

Perhaps being out of power is the best thing for the Republican Party right now. It’s almost like when your parents sent you to your room when you were younger. You thought about your actions and came out a better person (or at least better behaved). The only difference is our American parents have sent us to our room for at least two years.

Political Season off to a (not so) Great Start

If the last the Congress wasn’t ethics and scandal ridden enough for you, don’t worry, because this summer and fall are shaping up to be stellar shows in their own rights. Of course in typical Washington DC fashion, partisanship is expected, but in the case of ethics (or the lack thereof), it appears both Party’s can agree. On the right we have the Senator Vitter and Senator Craig scandals- the former caught in a prostitution ring and the latter who, of course, just has a “wide stance” relieving himself. On the left there’s Senator Hillary Clinton- the leading Democratic candidate for her Party’s nomination- accepting campaign donations from 15 year-fugitive, Norman Hsu.

Vitter, a Republican senator from Louisiana, recently admitted to “serious sins” in his past after it was revealed his name was present on the phone records of the DC Madame- a woman charged with running an escort service (read: high class prostitution ring). His quick admission of guilt seems to have spared him the gallows, because the Senate Republican leadership did not call for his resignation.

The same can not be said of Senator Craig of Idaho, who recently plead guilty to disorderly conduct after he allegedly sought sex from an undercover police officer in a public airport bathroom. Senate Republican leadership quickly jumped on the matter after news broke, calling for Craig’s resignation.

If it sounds funny, that’s because it is. Both Senators plead guilty to equally serious moral and ethical lapses, yet Senate Republican leadership only called for the resignation of one of them. The reason? Some speculate that the calls for resignation were based, sadly, on sexuality. That being Vitter, caught in a “straight” scandal, was “pardoned” by Senate Republican leadership while Craig, caught in a “gay” scandal, was almost forced to resign. I find it difficult to believe Senate Republicans would base their calls for resignation upon this alone, however.

Instead, I find it far more likely that Republicans called for Craig’s resignation because he would be replaced by a Republican (Iowa has a Republican Governor- the appointing authority) and failed to call for Vitter’s because- can you believe it? - he would be replaced by a Democrat!
Unfortunately the Senate Republican leadership has decided to put politics over ethics. From the get-go they should have allowed the judicial system to sort these matters out, but since they decided to call for one resignation, it is only to right to call for two. Craig and Vitter were both caught in equally morally reprehensible acts. There is nothing more immoral about Craig’s “gay” antics than Vitter’s “straight” ones, and interestingly enough, Craig is defending his innocence a hell of a lot more than Vitter.

Senate Republican leadership calls in to question their motives when the scandals are so similar, and make this entire episode reek of hypocrisy.

Of course, Hillary Clinton is caught in a scandal of her own. The difference between her scandal and the Senate Republican leadership: the latter is guilty of hypocrisy; Hillary is just doing business as usual.

Hillary may believe that giving the $23,000 she accepted from Hsu to charity will somehow wipe her sins clear, but the fact is that Hsu has been a fugitive from the law for the past 15 years!

Perhaps best of all, Clinton’s scandal prompted CT Senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd to release a statement saying he would, “…refuse to accept or possess campaign contributions raised, solicited, or delivered by fugitives from justice.” Genius! Maybe that will matter, Senator, if anyone every actually donates to your campaign!