A response to a Personal Attack

As a frequent contributor to my local paper I often get responses from people who don't agree with me.  Since people are entitled to their opinions, I never bother to reply. However, a letter from a particular critic went too far, and I couldn't let it stand.

 

Dear Editor:

          In a recent letter to the editor I was accused by Catherine Poropatic of writing as if I have never listened to anything President Obama has said since he first entered the White House.  In one sense she is correct:  I have never been taken in by Obama’s masterful oratory or his elegant reading of a teleprompter script.  But I have taken notice of the repeated lies, the empty promises, and the embarrassing pronouncements on the international stage.  Normally, I wouldn’t bother with such an unfounded accusation.  But Ms. Poropatic went on to say that perhaps I don’t like Obama because “he wasn’t experienced or smart enough to understand that White House really means ‘white house.’”  This is nothing less than a scurrilous insinuation of racism on my part, and it must not stand.  The use of the race card by anyone is shameful and dishonest, and doesn’t belong in any debate on issues that affect all races.
          Typical of the Left, Ms. Poropatic prefers to launch personal attacks on those she disagrees with rather than making a case for her point of view.  In this letter she not only implies that I am a racist, she also accuses Calvin Lacy and Warren Boiselle of being haters and sanctimoniously recommends they do some soul searching before facing divine judgment.  While she was at it, she also included State Senator Bill Cook and the Perquimans Board of Elections in her broadside.  Ms. Poropatic is an intelligent and articulate person who should know better.
          By the way, Cathy, I did hear part of President Obama’s Labor Day speech in Milwaukee in which he said, “…by almost every measure, the American economy, the American workers are better off than when I took office.”  In my opinion, that was a grotesque falsehood: poverty is up, household income is down, welfare payments are up, participation in the workforce is down, healthcare costs are up, full-time employment is down.  If you think the President was telling the truth, would you care to debate me on this issue? 

         

Vouchers Shot Down in NC

          A news story out of Raleigh on August 21st should concern everyone interested in education.  The lead paragraph read: “A judge’s ruling on Thursday declaring North Carolina’s school voucher program unconstitutional threw hundreds of families into chaos and struck a blow against the Republican education agenda in North Carolina.”

          Once again we have the Left and the Right doing battle on ideological grounds.  Only this time the victims are children.
          Last year North Carolina’s Republican-controlled Legislature passed an education bill popularly known as “Opportunity Scholarships.”  The bill, signed into law by Governor McCrory, provides vouchers worth up to $4,200 to low-income families that would enable qualified children to attend private schools.  Compared to public school enrollment of 1.5 million students in the state, this program is tiny, offering vouchers to just 1,900 families.  Moreover, the $4,200 cost to the state treasury is less than half the average cost per student in public schools.  So why the opposition?
          Reading the hyperbolic statements from opponents of the program, you would think that Republicans are out to destroy public education.  Organizations like the NC Association of Educators, the left-leaning advocacy group NC Justice Center, and the NC School Boards Association all went ballistic and sued.  Superior Court Justice Robert Hobgood, a Democrat, agreed with them.  His ruling, coming just days before the start of the school year, was particularly cruel to the families who had been approved for the program, leaving them wondering how they would be able to afford the tuition.  The latest news is that most of these families will still send their children to private schools in the hope that the judge’s ruling will be reversed.  They have reason to be optimistic, since other courts have ruled in favor of the constitutionality of school vouchers.
          There are no private schools in Perquimans County, so it not affected by the voucher decision.  My limited experience here has been more than satisfactory, a credit to the administrators and the teachers in this school district.  But this is no reason to be complacent, nor to viscerally oppose new ideas, especially the ones that benefit the poor and the disadvantaged. 
          The North Carolina Legislature is paying attention.  So should we all.

 

Let's All Make Sure

          When I watched NBC’s Chuck Todd interview the President on Meet the Press, I was struck by the number of times Mr. Obama used the locution “make sure,” as in “…make sure we got eyes on the problem…” or “…make sure that the public understands…”  Out of curiosity I went to the full transcript of the interview to see just how many times he used it.  I don’t know if I missed any, but I counted four times when the President spoke about ISIL, six times when discussing his immigration policies, and three more on his relations with Congress.

          This wasn’t the first time Obama used this expression; he uses it in practically every speech he makes.  More than an odd habit, I think it reveals something about his mindset that I find very disturbing.  For instance, when Todd asked Obama if he was preparing the country to go back to war, the President answered, “I’m preparing the country to MAKE SURE that we deal with a threat from ISIL.” 
          What does this answer tell me?  First of all, it evades the question, just as State Department spokesmen have been evading the same direct question from the press.  It denotes a lack of forcefulness, an indecision on policy and tactics, a vagueness that does not reassure us that the President is committed to action—or to anything at all. 
          The President also said we have to “MAKE SURE we have a good policy.”  But you, Mr. President is the one who sets policy.  How long will you continue to dither before telling us what your policy is, or whether you even have one?  Was it part of your policy to admit publicly, to everyone’s cringing embarrassment, that you have no strategy for dealing with ISIL?   
          MAKE SURE, then, is a sign of hesitation, weakness, and timidity, and an inability to deal with reality in concrete terms.  And that is not something we want from the leader of the free world when asked if he is preparing the country for war.  If the President leads, we will follow.  But first he must lead.

           

Let's Convene

          Congress’s popularity ratings are down in the dumpster, yet we don’t seem to be able to throw the bums out.  Taxes and spending are out of control, but no one is capable or willing to rein them in.  National debt is unsustainable and threatens to bankrupt this country, yet it keeps growing.  The economy is stifled by thousands of pages of regulations written every year, but no controls are placed on regulators.  The president should be impeached for making his own laws and ignoring the ones he doesn’t like, but politics makes impeachment unrealistic.  So the people are powerless to stop the insanity.  But are they?

          What if we could impose term limits on Congress?  What if we could require a balanced federal budget?  What if we could prevent regulators from governing every aspect of our lives?  What if we could make the president accountable for his unconstitutional actions?
          These measures would require constitutional amendments, but that route is blocked by Congress, because we could never get three-quarters of self-interested legislators to commit political suicide.  But there is another way that puts the power in the hands of the people.  And that way is spelled out in the Constitution.
          Article V of the Constitution gives the states the power to call a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments.  Two-thirds of the state legislatures are required to call the Convention and three-fourths are needed to ratify proposed amendments.  This would take the power out of the hands of Congress and place it squarely in the hands of the people through their elected state legislatures.
          Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have been talking about this for years, but what we need is someone to take charge and rally the troops.  And now I think we have just the man in Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.  Senator Coburn, who is suffering from cancer, has decided not to run for re-election.  Instead, he is going to devote his remaining energies to persuading states to approve a Constitutional Convention.  Florida, Georgia and Alaska have already done so.  Only 20 more states are needed.
          It’s never been done before.  But, as the saying goes, there’s a first time for everything.  Just imagine a giant earthquake shaking Washington to its very foundations: term limits, a balanced budget, control of regulators, executive accountability…Just Imagine.

Asians and Education

          When my wife and I lived in Michigan in what seems like ages ago, she spent time tutoring two elementary school students in Spanish after school.  The boy and the girl were children of Chinese immigrants who were committed to giving their children the best and broadest education.  The kids spoke Chinese at home, English in school, and Spanish with my wife.  In the evenings the girl practiced the violin for two hours and the boy piano.  By now I imagine they have completed high school and college, and are well on their way to being productive members of society.

          My neighbors Primo and Rose Viray survived the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, went to school to earn degrees in nursing, and then emigrated to the United States.  They raised seven daughters and managed to scrape up enough money to send them to college.  All seven now enjoy distinguished careers.
          I thought about both of these examples of parents who were determined to see their children succeed, when I came across some stunning statistics.  High school graduation rates for blacks is 62%, for Hispanics 68%, for whites 80%, and for Asians 90%, with some Asian sub-groups as high as 96%.  Some 50% of Asian-Americans also have bachelor’s degrees, and 21% advanced degrees.  No other ethnic group comes even close.
          When we look at family income by race, we see the same kind of disparity.  Asians earn an average of $68,636, whites $57,009, Hispanics $39,005, and blacks $33,321.  It would be difficult to deny that there is a direct correlation between education and income levels. 
          Race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would have us believe that the playing field is tilted against blacks because of discrimination.  Perhaps it is to some degree.  Yet other blacks like Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, and Dr. Ben Carson point to fatherless families, the high rate of births to unwed mothers, and the influence of drugs, gangs, and street violence as causing the deterioration of family values.  For them it’s not a racial issue, but a social issue.  At the same time they point to education as the salvation for these kids who have such a difficult struggle against the odds.  Education is not a “white thing,” they say.  It is the secret to success. 
          Ask any Asian family.        

Ferguson Bias

          Would anyone be surprised if our left-leaning media continues to obsess about the Ferguson incident until the November elections?  Why not?  Time needed to cover a white on black killing is a perfect excuse for not digging into the Administration’s multiple domestic scandals and its failures in Ukraine and the Middle East.

           In the same weekend as Ferguson we had 26 shootings in Chicago.  Did Al Sharpton rush to Chicago?  Of course not.  Chicago has blacks killing blacks, but Sharpton’s eyes can only focus on Ferguson, because it has a white police officer “murdering” a gentle and unarmed black teenager with his hands up.  As Jason Riley (who happens to be black) of the Wall Street Journal said, “Al Sharpton didn’t head to Chicago.  He headed to St. Louis because he has an entirely different agenda, which is to continue to blame whites.”           
          What was CNN’s Andrea Mitchell’s response to Riley?  “That is not actually his agenda, because he’s actually there on a peace mission today.”  How ridiculous a response is that?  But how typical of biased media?
          Let’s face it.  Too many journalists are just as bad as the race hustlers.  They give us round-the-clock coverage of looters and haters, but have little interest in peacemakers and those who cry out for the truth.  When the governor of Missouri demands a vigorous prosecution before the facts are known, and Eric Holder, a racist in a class by himself, is fanning the flames of racial injustice, reporters on the scene give them full coverage, while studio talking heads wallow in their prejudice.
          Meanwhile, black teenagers are dying by the dozens in Chicago, but nobody goes there.  After all, it’s only blacks shooting blacks.

Re-inventing Hillary

          It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton.  Her history before and during her husband’s occupancy of the White House is less than flattering; her reported vulgar treatment of the Secret Service and people in uniform is especially troubling.  We also have to recognize that her record of accomplishments as U.S. Senator and Secretary of State is rather thin.  But now that she is running for high office in 2016, she is trying very hard to put on a new face.  I think we are seeing the re-invention of Hillary Clinton.

          I am pleased to see Mrs. Clinton take a hawkish stance on foreign affairs.  She mocks the President on his minimalist policies, while advocating a stronger stance against terrorism in Syria and Iraq, getting tough on Iran, supporting Israel, and taking pride in America’s universal values.  All these positions are in sharp contrast with Obama’s and signal Hillary’s decision to distance herself from her former boss.  But is her latest metamorphosis genuine?
          As Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal has said, “The political opportunist always lacks the courage of his, or her, convictions.  That’s not necessarily because there aren’t any convictions.  It’s because the convictions are always subordinated to the needs of ambition and ingratiation.” 
          That last word—ingratiation--rings true.  The mainstream media is flooding us with images of Hillary smiling and waving as she strides to a podium or to a seat next to yet another late show host.  Book signings and interviews with left-leaning reporters are all meant to erase the public’s memory of her defiant testimony before Congress (“What difference, after all, does it make?”) and enhance her new phony image as a warm, affable, all-loving woman.  Even President Obama, whom she has never forgiven for denying her the presidency in 2008, gets hugs from her now.
          For those of us who see her as a power-hungry politician we have one wish: Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up!