Yesterday's News-Sentinel letters page reminds me why I don't read that far-right rag anymore:
Ronald G. Ross in his letter of Feb. 22 takes me to task for stating what the law is, as I understand the law to be, from the results of a U. S. Supreme Court ruling in the Grutter v. Bollinger case. The decision given in that case on June 23, 2003 was that an open position should go to a black male who had less opportunity than a white woman who had more opportunities. I did not make that ruling. It was the U.S. Supreme Court that made that ruling. If Mr. Ross wants to make the case that Mrs. Bill Clinton, as First Lady of the United States had less opportunities than a senator from Illinois, have at it.
Mrs. Bill Clinton is making every effort that she can to become the president. of the United States, the Chief executive of The United States and, just as important, the chief law enforcement officer of The United StatesShould a person who does not accept the letter or the spirit of the law be elected the chief law enforcement officer? Should a person who brings trumped-up charges against people in the White House travel office be our chief law enforcement Officer? Should a person who illegally orders 1,200 to 1,500 raw FBI files be delivered to her in the White House? Should a person who was co-president at the time that our nuclear secrets were transferred to China for campaign cash ever be allowed any where near the White House again?
Fremont Stewart
Rome City
Kookery of the highest order. Granted, it's what this guy does - remember any of his other letters? He's outright psycho-kooky-nutso.
First, notice he never refers to Hillary Clinton by her actual name, only as "Mrs. Bill Clinton". This is employed in his letter for two reasons: First, it marginalizes her as a "man's property", nothing more than a footnote of a man's existence; second, it reminds everyone that she the wife of Bill Clinton, a person that Mr. Stewart outright hates with a vitriol most of us reserve for child molestors and terrorists.
Secondly, his argument is utterly unsound. He tries to argue that, since one case shows that affirmative action would prefer an African-American man over a Caucasian woman in the case of being given a job, that this must apply to being President. This makes absolutely no sense, but I don't expect better from someone looking for a straws to grab.
Third, he keeps making wild, unfounded accusations about Hillary Clinton with no basis in facts. My guess is that these were claims spewed by the hate-talkers of right-wing radio, and Mr. Stewart is faithfully parroting them into the media.
Fourth, and most importantly, he asks, "Should a person who does not accept the letter or the spirit of the law be elected the chief law enforcement officer?" Of course not - which is why George W. Bush, a man who has spit upon the law and the country himself and through his many, many cronies, should be brought to justice.
I hope Mr. Stewart is proud of his insane, indefensible letter. To me, it proves two things: That he is completely detached from reality, as are all those who follow his so-called logic, and that the News-Sentinel is more interested in hateful, mindless screeds than any actual thought. I will continue to not read the News-Sentinel because it's a far-right rag created to serve the interests of the WOWO crowd.
