Letters to the Editor

continued from page 1

Question of the Day

Should Congress make English the official language of the U.S.?

View results

Given the track record of U.S. aid programs in FATA, will more U.S. dollars create greater security or more instability?



Hypocrisy and home-schooling

I appreciated Cheryl Wetzstein’s analysis in the article “Home-school ruling centers on protection,” (Nation, Thursday) for exposing the real motivation for a California court’s proposed restrictions for home schooling. Previously, home-schooling advocates denounced the ruling as government meddling that would stifle the innovative home-schooling community. As I expected, this response was one-sided and opportunistic. Unlike Ms. Wetzstein, many advocates failed to mention what provoked the ruling.

The Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles intervened on behalf of two home-schooled students who sought to escape abuse and neglect in a home-school environment. The intent of the ruling was to provide children with education, safety and well-being, regardless of their choice of schooling.

Curiously, home-schooling advocates fail to practice what they preach in regard to government meddling. I have met many advocates locally who work for the dreaded government or a contractor whose livelihood depends upon the government. Also, let us not forget Rusty Yates, whose ex-wife killed all five of their children in 2001. While the Yateses home-schooled their children and complained of government influence in the public schools, he had earned his living from NASA, a government agency, since graduating from college. Mrs. Wetzstein finally highlighted the advocates’ contradictions and duplicity.



Clintonian dissembling

To Michelle Malkin’s excellent account of presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton’s propensity for “congenital dissembling” of the truth (“Truth deficit disorder,” Commentary, March 29), I would add that the multifaced senator from New York also finds herself in a threefold political mess of her own making, from which she may not be able to exit gracefully.

In her many ploys to win the Democratic Party’s nomination, Mrs. Clinton portrayed herself in contradictory terms: first as a strong woman who is the most eligible because of her alleged experience, then as a frail woman brought to tears by boorish male opponents and finally as a victim again, this time at the hands of debate moderators who, in her view, were unfair to her. When these ploys failed dismally, the Clinton machine embarked in a scorched-earth campaign to bring down the upstart Sen. Barack Obama by injecting fear of a black candidate in Muslim dress whose middle name is Hussein.

In dismissing Mr. Obama’s win in the South Carolina primary simply as a fairy tale and equating it to another black candidate’s win there years ago, former President Bill Clinton effectively introduced race and identity politics into the campaign, obviously designed to define Mr. Obama as a black candidate who could win only in states with predominantly black populations. This, however, only succeeded in exacerbating race issues, thus mobilizing the black community and thousands of young people to vote for the young and charismatic senator from Illinois.

Also, while Mrs. Clinton criticizes Mr. Obama for associating with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, she still has not denounced a diatribe by the Rev. James Manning, a supporter of hers, for calling Mr. Obama “trash” because he was born to a “trashy white woman.”

Trying to boost her foreign policy credentials by falsely saying she was under sniper fire in a war zone in Bosnia during her 1996 visit may prove to be Mrs. Clinton’s Waterloo. In her desperate attempt to portray herself as a brave and courageous woman “ready to lead from day one,” she shows her disdain for the military she often uses as props.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
blog comments powered by Disqus