Letters for August 18, 2016
Despite the ad in Craigslist Philadelphia for seat-fillers, I thought Ms. Clinton made a good appearance/speech/moment. I especially appreciated the specific reference to tuition-free post secondary education. If you think that happened for any reason other than Bernie Sanders’ influence, please don’t upset yourself by reading further.
So, tuition free for families under $120,000 or so, that’s a fine thing. But that’s not the end of the story at all, nor even a significant solution. The education industry is as corrupt as its fellow juggernauts. Two examples: I took one introductory Spanish course last fall. I thriftily attended Truckee Meadows Community College, where the textbook mandated three semesters of lessons and cost very close to the amount of the tuition. In addition, the content was airheaded. Not the desired experience and I am sure TMCC is not unique in this situation.
But some textbook companies go further: The GED is no longer available as a paper and pencil test. Yes, computer literacy—and the willingness to go forward and never backward—is expected of test-takers now. In an amazing coincidence, two alternatives have sprung up, one sponsored by Glencoe and the other by ETS (and what took them so long to milk this gravy train?). For these new equivalency tests, there are no state reciprocity guarantees, takes yer chances, and here, too, they pay for three tries just to try once. Ah, the humanity! (This information is a year or so old, but I bet it’s still true.) I pick these scabs to say, please participate in life around you. Corruption doesn’t appear overnight. To a great extent it has flourished because there has been a clear path, minus the balances of spoken or written alternate views.
I certainly honor Army Captain Humayan Khan, who paid the ultimate price in Iraq. Against terrorists. After pledging to defend our Constitution. That’s why I’m disturbed by the recent appearance of his father, Khizr Khan, at the Democratic National Convention. Mr. Khan angrily waved that same Constitution as he attacked Donald Trump. But does Mr. Khan really honor our Constitution to the same extent as did his heroic son?
In a recent Breitbart online article (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/), Paul Sperry, a former Hoover Institute fellow and author, cites several published articles in which Mr. Khan praises and endorses the supremacy of Islamic law, Shari’ah, as based on the Quran. Mr. Khan apparently shares the belief of many other Islamic scholars that “there is no such thing as human rights in the abstract.” They can only be guaranteed through the establishment of Shar’iah’s moral and legal code.
Hopefully we all understand what Shari’ah’s moral and legal code says about the rights of women, gays and non-believers in an Islamic world. There are glaring and irreconcilable differences between our Constitution and Shar’iah law. And Mr. Kahn believes Shari’ah is supreme. So why wasn’t the Quran the prop used by Mr. Khan in his attack on Mr. Trump?
Robert R. Kessler
The nominee’s intent
Re “On the Trump Train” (Let Freedom Ring, July 28):
It was my pleasure to serve Nevada on the Republican Platform Committee in Cleveland. With my fellow committeeman, Jesse Law, we tried very hard to bring more of an “open to everyone” type of platform but to no avail. Our fellow committee of freedom lovers seemed to be overthrown by the less informed. Fortunately, our presidential nominee, Donald Trump, gave an open light, open tent speech which opened his arms to everyone (who are legal). His speech and beliefs were what the freedom platform was trying to achieve. Maine state senator and fellow platform member Eric Brakey tried to make various motions and achieved some to further freedom. Our own Nevada Republican Committeewoman and Rules Committeewoman Diana Orrock along with Platform Committeeman Jordan Ross were able to hold off many challenges to those rules by the “Cruz” members. The platform may not be perfect but our nominee’s intent is.