Defending the State from the Sec. of State - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Defending the State from the Sec. of State

Re: Quin Hillyer’s Don’t Confirm Her!

There is also the matter of Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”

Mrs. Clinton is not eligible to take the office, but evidently, despite how the Democratic Party likes to say that President Bush “trampled” the Constitution, they are willing to ignore it now.
W. B. Heffernan, Jr.

I offer two thoughts on this excellent article.

First, the lack of ethics in not only condoned by her party, but unethical behavior is lauded. Democrats always work for the betterment of the “people.” Ergo, whatever they do is done in furtherance of that goal and thus crimes can go unpunished as Democrats are forced into criminal behavior to defeat conservative notions. So Ms. Clinton’s behavior comports with the highest norms of her party.

It has long been the objective of Democrats to rid this country of as much of it’s sovereignty as is possible as we, the “people” are not as enlightened as are Europeans. Each freedom surrendered is a freedom gained. For example, the ending of a market economy where one had the freedom to begin his or her own business, to live in a government controlled economy carries with it the freedom from choice over what to buy. There won’t be any. We have seen our rights to worship almost completely disrupted, but with the diminution of that freedom, we get the freedom to murder our unborn children, and so it will go. There are no surprises, the Democrats move ever onward towards totalitarianism. Hillary’s path is probably moderate when compared to Obama’s or Pelosi’s.
Jay Molyneaux
North Carolina 

When (not if) Senator Clinton is confirmed, she will be an extremely odious, unethical and ultra-liberal Secretary of State; simply stated, with Clinton power, covert and otherwise, she will be confirmed for whatever damn well pleases her. Cold comfort can be found in that she might serve only one term at Foggy Bottom. (How long can even the sainted Obama put up with Billary?)

Things could be worse: HRC could have asked for a lifetime SCOTUS seat. The damage she will do at State is probably of a lesser magnitude than the havoc she would wreak if confirmed to the Supremes.
Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York 

Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Lying at State

Hillary’s scurrilous character reminds me of so many back-stabbing careerists found at the head of the Foggy Bottom table. If anyone figured out what Madeleine Albright was saying they’d know it was somehow false. And don’t count on Colin Powell to stand up for the truth. Or how about the why-lie-when-you-can-just-roll-over strategies of Cy Vance and Warren Christopher? Kissinger was such a blowhard he had to be lying…or let’s hope so. Condi Rice’s stand-up character ruined the grading curve for Secretaries of State. My concern is nobody in the Senate has the cajones to embarrass her during her confirmation. Could Bill Clinton even get a security clearance since his disbarment? Her track record on safekeeping records should be introduced and relished. Delightful stuff if someone would just exploit it.
Christopher Roberts
Brattleboro, Vermont 

Re: Ralph R. Reiland’s Out of Gas

Of course the Big Three should be allowed to fail.

And once they do, the companies should neither be revived nor dismantled. Instead, venture capitalists or such could buy up the physical assets and trade names and then start entirely new companies with an entirely new labor force. 

Now that’s the ticket for saving the domestic automotive industry. But to do it, the UAW and the incompetent management that kowtowed to the union must be purged.
Peter Skurkiss
Stow, Ohio 

Re: Gretchen L. Chellson’s letter (under “We’ll All Live in Obamavilles”) in Reader Mail’s Fumbling Around:

Reader Gretchen L. Chellson writes that FDR’s New Deal did not end the Great Depression but rather the massive spending caused by the Second World War did. (This seems to be a widely held belief.) If massive government spending was successful in ending one depression, why would not massive government spending now on roads and bridges end this one?
Harrell Huff
Montgomery, Alabama

Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!