Readers Write (Sept. 4): Clinton Foundation, refugees in Minnesota, 'Better Together,' 'South Pacific'

The Star Tribune wrote in its lead editorial Aug. 28 that the Clinton Foundation should be shut down now to avoid the terrible conflicts of interest that existed while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state that should not be allowed if she becomes president. My belief is that the foundation does good things and that it should not be shut down. I also believe that we should not tolerate the conflicts of interest and, therefore, the solution is to shut down Hillary and Bill Clinton from participating in our government.

It boggles my mind to imagine the conflicts that would arise with Hilliary as president and Bill in charge of the economy, which she has promised. The best answer for America is to shut down the Clintons from our government and let the Clinton Foundation continue its good work. Clearly, the foundation's value to America far exceeds the damage to America that would result from Clinton leadership of our government.

• • •

I'm a suburban piano teacher. I vote in all national, state and local elections, but that is about the extent of my political activity. I'm trying to wrap my head around the Star Tribune's contention that a philanthropic foundation conflicts with political office. Leave aside the issue that, if this foundation shuts down, innumerable people — the majority probably being children — will suffer. (Apparently, those calling for its demise are unconcerned about this consequence.) The Clintons are not benefiting financially from contributions to their foundation. What dicey scenario might be imagined? Let's say a contributor country expects a return on an investment. How would that threat work? "Give us what we want, or you'll never get that school for underprivileged children built." What absurdity!

• • •

The Clinton Foundation has provided life-saving assistance all over the world. Over the years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised from countries far and wide. If organizations like the Clinton Foundation didn't exist, more of our tax dollars would be used to assist those who are in extreme poverty and oppression.

If, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had the ability to access billionaires who are willing to contribute to make the world a better place, I admire her ability to do so. I see it as an asset that she has these kinds of connections. But now it's a crime?

Thanks to the Star Tribune Editorial Board for the courage to clearly articulate what I and, I would guess, many others, have been thinking.

It is time to stop the dance of obfuscation and niggling, and to decisively apply openness, honesty and integrity to an "elephant in the living room." In the words of my ethics professor, there is a greater good at stake. It is the image and execution of the duties of the presidency!

Any politician — or citizen, for that matter — who feels the need to discuss the dangers presented by refugees entering our country should be required to sit in a quiet room and read the Aug. 28 article "90 days to find a way in a wary America." Only the most cynical would fail to recognize the admirable courage, strength and resilience displayed by the Abdullahi family in making their way to Minnesota. New citizens with these qualities enrich our state and country, in much the same way our country was enriched by welcoming my grandfather from Poland 100 years ago.

• • •

The reactions from some groups that decry government support to refugees are normal. But, overall, the financial aid is an investment that eventually returns more than it takes. A not totally measureable benefit is delivered after refugee children become productive adults. Their modeling yields even more return when their children and successive generations add vitality to America. That's the history of this county, and most of us can point to family trees that display that history.

Of added significance is an article in the Sept. 5 issue of Time magazine. It highlights six characteristics of nine so-called ordinary families that have consistently produced high-achieving children. The first two characteristics are "Immigrant Drive" and "Parent-Teachers." The Ismail family detailed in "90 days" is an example-in-waiting. An easily overlooked paragraph points out that Mr. Ismail taught social science to 50 students in his refugee camp.

I'd love to see a follow-up article about the four children in this family after 20 more years.

Dane Smith ("The high road to 'Better Together,' " Aug. 28) is correct in noting that Minnesota has arrived at a crossroads concerning the statewide allocation of resources. However, the benighted "rural folks" that he describes would be well advised to steer clear of Smith's "pan-regional statewide equity agenda."

Besides burdening Minnesota's rural communities with the progressive social engineering that has already eroded the quality of life in the Twin Cities, the adoption of Smith's agenda would subject them to the equally dangerous prospect of having to endure more of his sociobabble-laden commentaries.

• • •

It was with great anticipation that I began reading "What Minnesota can learn from 'South Pacific' " by John C. "Chuck" Chalberg (Aug. 28). I had seen the production and thought it did an excellent job of being both a brilliant musical and reminding us of a time when opposing racism in a play was just going too far. Much to my consternation, the article plunged into a confusing abyss of, I think, 1) condemning movies and plays with a message, 2) arguing that progressives support the awful notion that prejudice can cause a lack of opportunity for minority communities and 3) condemning Minnesotans for looking down on white Southerners. This was not the message I took from "South Pacific." The message I took was that racism and prejudice can become part of us without our knowing (even Minnesotans, and even today) and that we are lucky that artists like Rodgers and Hammerstein had the courage to address this in 1949, when "South Pacific" was written.