HILLARY GETS UGLY (invokes "white supremecists" to cover her union pandering)

NY Post ^ | February 24, 2006

[presidio9]

Every now and then, Hillary Clinton lifts the curtain and gives the world a peek at her real views. It's not pretty.

New York's junior senator spoke this week to the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp., raising the issue of tax-funded school vouchers — which many reformers see as a key tool, one that gives parents immediate alternatives to public schools that are failing to educate their kids.

Now, vouchers face a major obstacle in New York: The state constitution's Blaine Amendment arguably bans sending public funds to parochial schools.

Then there' the implacable opposition to vouchers of the United Federation of Teachers and its Albany-based parent, New York State United Teachers — politically potent unions that are entrenched in the failed status quo.

Any alternative to the present system is anathema to the unions and their bought-and-paid-for political minions.

However vouchers have succeeded in Milwaukee, Cleveland and parts of Florida — even if the unions claim that they simply take away precious resources from the public schools.

Hillary could have used that approach — dishonest as the argument may be.

But no, she had to go one step further.

One major demagogic step further.

Hillary waved the specter that vouch- ers would lead to a publicly-funded racist "School of the Church of the White Supremacist" or a radical Muslim "School of the Jihad."

"I won't stand for it," she added.

Of course she wouldn't.

No one would.

Certainly the hypersensitivity that informs public debate in New York and the nation is such that a hate academy of the sort Clinton conjures wouldn't last 10 seconds on the public dime.

-snip-

Nearly 60 percent of New York City eighth-graders can't pass eighth-grade state math tests, despite the incremental progress of the Bloomberg regime. -snip-

[freedumb2003]

"School of the Church of the White Supremacist"
OK WHAT CHURCH IS THIS?

[moog]

They will indeed. But then I will hit them up come funding time so I can get money for my personal choices too, especially for the fundamental one that they already have in raising a child in the way that they see fit. Children's futures rest in the way their parents raise them and their own efforts later on already.

I just get upset when I hear people complain about their "choice" or lack of "choice" when they already have the choice of having the greatest privilege of them all--that of raising kids. And then doubly so, when they expect me to pay for their "lack" of choice. If I even just have the "choice" of raising one child, I will be forever happy and you can bet I won't complain about it. I will be thanking the man upstairs for that "choice" if and when I ever get it and I will make sure that my child won't forget how appreciative I am to have that "choice" of raising him or her. If you have that "choice" already, especially with MORE than one child, I think that one should do the same and count their blessings.