SKI PANTS ON FIRE
Re: Jay Homnick’s Lie, Lady, Lie!:
That was really funny!
— Doug Santo
I don’t know when I have enjoyed an article as much as “Lie Lady, Lie” by Jay Homnick. I started laughing at the title, with due thanks to Bob Zimmerman, er, Dylan (he lied about his name!). I didn’t stop laughing until the end. Well done, indeed! At the end, when I stopped laughing, I started really, seriously thinking about Hil and Bill. The sure sign of a great article. Thank you Jay, and thank you American Spectator!
— Bill Margeson
This article is fabulously rich in humor. I almost fell off my chair laughing. No lie!! The author keeps humor in the same league as James Thurber to make great political points.
— Tom Cretella
Jay D. Homnick has written one of the brightest, most clever essays I’ve read in a great while. Even the liberals in my office appreciated it. Or at least they told me they did. But then again, they ARE liberals and their lips WERE moving.–
— Dennis Bergendorf
When did Hillary’s mother confess to “the lie” she told her daughter? Better yet, how did she do it?
Is her mother alive today? If she is not, did Hillary just recently “find” a note from her explaining why she refined the truth — to raise her daughter’s self esteem? Mom knew even then her girl was destined for bigger and better things!
As Paul Harvey would say — what we need is “the rest of the story.”
Eastern Shore, Maryland
Hmmmm… This, from the most intelligent woman in the world? Not only is she a liar, she is a bad one at that. All her education and travels and she did not get that little nugget of information BEFORE the meeting with Sir Edmund Hillary?… what a load! Republicans… get out and VOTE… if you do not… it will be MADAM President… VOTE!
— Sandy Bellomo
What ho, there.
I guess I’m a little confused about the dearth of perspicacity attached to the liars in the early Rodham household, such as it was.
As a kid I can recall, at three years old, the first climbing of Mt. Everest by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay, as a result of the wild ballyhoo attached to their accomplishment. Of course my family enjoyed a subscription to the National Geographic, which the Rodhams may not have enjoyed. And we had access to a television, however primitive, though I suspect the Rodhams may have enjoyed the likes of one as well.
Are you going to tell me that a six or seven-year-old child, with the raw virtually limitless genius commonly attached to Hillary in all areas of measurable intellectual accomplishment, is going to buy into the fraud of a hoax of a sham that she has been named after a mountaineer who has just climbed the highest peak on earth after seeing it so widely trumpeted on TV, radio, in the newspapers, and in the leading periodicals at that late date in her development?
Please sirs, I detect the most ripe of distasteful hokey-pokey on a grand scale from the very get go in the early Rodham home, to say nothing of the wild attributory nonsense which would later fly so freely around the noisome and disturbing Clinton nest.
Hillary has always operated on the cusp of cozenage.
— John Burtis
Derry, New Hampshire
OK, so here’s just another rock on the piles –sorry, the mountains — called Lies the Clintons Have Told. But that genuinely disappointing and ugly, though predictable and insulting, behavior of hers, as well as William J.’s, bothers me less and less. It’s just symptomatic that she has no real relationship to those to whom she lies.
What bothers more and more, however, is how so many Americans either don’t care that Hillary the Prevaricator lies and still believe and support her, or justify her lies.
But, then, given books such as Al Franken’s Lies (and the Lying Liars who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, and Hillary’s years-long mantra about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” that’s not so surprising, is it?
— C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia
If you see one of the Clinton’s lips moving, you know for sure they are lying.
— Elaine Kyle
WRECKING THE REST
Re: Philip Klein’s Constitutional Mulligan:
I believe Mr. Klein is correct concerning the mechanical advantages of our Constitution. Though, I do wonder why he feels Republicans as a minority would be inclined to use the tools available to them when they were so disinclined to use the tools available to them as a majority?
— John Jarrell
San Antonio, Texas
Philip Klein is far too pessimistic about a Constitutional Convention. Regular surveys demonstrate that most Americans have shockingly conservative views on what our current Constitutional actually says — often they are quite opposed to interpretations of the Bill of Rights that liberals take for granted. Just take a look at what results from most referenda and you’ll get the idea — a new Constitutional Convention would almost certainly turn into a liberal’s worst nightmare. These people simply don’t know the country they live in.
Philip Klein may celebrate the fact that the U.S. Constitution was designed to contain the power of any one political faction by allowing for the existence of opposition within government. The problem for conservatives is that, for the most part, the Liberal faction has long been the only one in the game — hence, for example, Klein’s admission of the triumph of big government.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia, in a recent filmed debate with an ACLU representative, repeated his assertion that he will not impose his views on the legal system, suggesting that it is up to politicians to persuade the public of the need for legislative change. It appears, however, that previous conservative justices have not been so reticent about where they were coming from. Journalist Lawrence Auster recently cited as an example the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Mormon Church v. United States” (1890), which includes the following observation: “The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”
If conservatives like Scalia fail to honor their own professed Christianity in the same way — by acting within government as a faction against Liberalism — how can they expect a “mere scrap of paper” to resist the tide and reverse the effects of the latter’s savagery? It is not enough to ask the only faction in town to kindly straightjacket themselves in order to ease conservative anxiety — nor does the Constitution itself create any such obligation.
— Kevin O’Neill
If the only thing required to remove a sitting president from office was low approval ratings, impeachment proceedings would most likely be a regularly scheduled bi-yearly event. I suspect that Mr. Levinson does not intend to subject every president to public lynchings of this type, just the ones whose political philosophy he loathes. I wish that liberals would just be honest for once and admit they really don’t like the Constitution because it impedes their ability to foist their utopian pipe dream upon the rest of us. Since progressive ideas usually fail in the court of public opinion, these folks are constantly figuring out other means to increase their advantage. The barriers imbedded in our founding document are there to help prevent our lawmakers from meting out swift retribution to their opponents out of political spite or making rash decisions in an effort to appease a vocal minority they feel beholden to. I am sure, given the current climate in Washington, that convening a Constitutional Convention to discuss changing our most cherished instrument of governance could be the prelude to our nation’s second civil war. The push to treat the Constitution as a “living” (make it say what liberals want it to say) document has always been an attempt by social progressives to force average Americans to comply with their demands by circumventing the ballot box. Most Americans recognize that our Founders created for us a framework of self-government unparalleled in the world and they don’t want to tamper with it just because some self-serving ideologues can’t stand the fact that they are unable to convince the rest of us to see things their way.
— Rick Arand
Lee’s Summit, Missouri
The deconstruction of sacred American fundamental values continues unabated by all segments of the liberal intelligentsia. While not surprised that a liberal Constitutional law professor could proffer a theory that totally misunderstands the genius of the very document he purports to be a scholar of, I am however, troubled by the nihilism that lurks behind Levinson’s thinking. I, for one, no longer dismiss professor Levinson’s academic nuances as just another of the “smartest guy in the room” trying to be noticed (or published) syndrome. That would belie the pernicious paradigm that Mr. Klein seeks to warn us about. The liberal insistence on dismantling the Constitution, partly due to their situational ethics, but more with their insistence on a complete remake of America, has been constant and at times successful. It is noteworthy that Mrs. (not named after Sir Hillary, after all) Clinton’s first legislative act as a senator, albeit more grandstanding than serious, was to introduce a bill to do away with the Electoral College. Five liberal members of the current Supreme Court openly flirt with foreign law and international mores and defiantly insist that they are justified in using same in their Constitutional interpretations. If you’ve ever watched Justice Scalia debate Justice Beyer on C-Span on this topic, it would immediately disabuse any recalcitrant Republican from the notion of sitting this election out. During one session, Justice Beyer smugly inferred that “America does not exist in a vacuum”. But flirting with foreign law is just for starters, the recent Supreme Court’s Hamden decision is an abomination of leftist political theory disguised as a legal opinion that strikes at the heart of Article II powers of the President, during wartime. No foreign law needed here, just good ole 1960s radicalism. Suffice to say, there are significant other examples, both from the Left and from the self-righteous elite right, i.e. Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham, joined recently by Colin Powell. Did I forget to mention McCain’s campaign finance debacle which shredded First Amendment political speech?
The point being, as Mr. Klein accurately suggests, the assault on the Constitution is multi-faceted and right in front of our faces. McCain & Co. notwithstanding, cede this election to the Democrats and Professor Levinson won’t need a Constitutional Convention to shred the Constitution, Congress and the Courts will finish the job quite nicely.
— A. DiPentima
May I please suggest an outcome to abandonment of a Senate in its present form that Mr. Klein does not mention, nor does Prof. Levinson? It would seem to me that going to a unicameral or bicameral system in which all bodies are based on the individual states’ populations, COULD lead to fewer states, a consolidation of states. We are essentially engaging in a “what if…” exercise, soooo. Maybe the 6 or 7 (depending on inclusion or exclusion of Connecticut) New England states consolidate to increase their influence in the federal legislature. What would happen with the Mountain West states? Could we end up with a state named Rocky Mountain, or would some consolidate with some mid-continent plains states and others perhaps with the northern Midwest states? Would several states band together to form the state of Great Lakes? Would Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico consolidate to form the state of Hispania?
Let your mind expand on the various combinations and re-alignments that might emerge. Heck, we could end up with a United States of considerably less than 25 total states. How ’bout them apples, Prof. Smarty Pants?
— Ken Shreve
Mr. Klein wrote that “Levinson also faults our system for not having ‘mechanisms by which leaders who lose the public’s confidence can be removed’ (i.e. Bush is still president despite low approval ratings).”
So the professor doesn’t just believe the Constitution is worthless, but that democracy also is? Or maybe the fellow’s a bit rusty on civics? After all, there is a primary mechanism by which leaders who lose the public’s confidence can be removed. It’s called the ballot box.
— C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia
Re: Lawrence Henry’s The Tribes Vote:
In “The Tribes Vote” Lawrence Henry says: “I am unable to think of a polity one could describe as a ‘single-party corrupt Republican fiefdom.'” Try Nassau County, NY (at least it was when I was living there 15-20 years ago). Other than that, he’s got a point.
— James Milliken, Jr.
Re: Reid Collins’s Good Night and….:
I’m also sorry to hear of Mr. Glenn’s passing. But perhaps to the consternation of Mr. Collins (Oct. 20), my favorite Christopher Glenn works were maybe his shortest stories. People of my age remember Glenn as the narrator who brought us short news stories during commercial breaks of Saturday morning cartoon shows. The segments, called “In The News,” were concise and interesting and are my first memories of watching TV news. R.I.P.
— Mark Smith
Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s The Battle for Britistan:
Hal Colebatch’s article “The Battle for Britistan” has me discouraged and enraged all at the same time. Enraged at the author — no, but certainly discouraged at the news that four British soldiers returning from service (this being the operative word) in Afghanistan have been “advised” by their own kind to look elsewhere for a roof over their heads because of the possibility of inflaming racial violence in the area in which they rightly chose to live. Putting myself in their shoes, my response to this questionable “order” from on high, would have been to tell them to shove it. Not only where, but also demand the apprehension of the thugs responsible for the crime and either have them locked up in one of Her Majesty’s prisons or better still sent or returned (take your pick) to those nations in which the mindset behind this mediaeval and unacceptable behaviour is prevalent, encouraged and sustained as a means of fulfilling their idea of destiny, worth and reward.
In relating the incident of soldier harassment in our hospitals, I believe the practice of closing military specific hospitals started with the last Conservative government. The New Labour party (this being the operative word), understandably elected after the circus performance that was the previous Tory leadership, is therefore merely pushing through, but with a vengeance, a policy handed down to them; on a plate so to speak. I often feel sorry for PM Tony Blair having the Labour party millstone hanging around his neck.
I am a little cynical when I read of a so-called revival within the Church of England’s corridors of power, recently evidenced by the so-called “Cohesion and Integration” document that Mr. Colebatch refers to. I wonder why it has taken so long for the top brass in the C of E to catch on to and communicate their suspicion that efforts to label Britain a “multi-faith” society is a consequence of some dark plot. Wake up Bishops! Whilst you argue over whether or not women should be ordained, the country lurches towards the possibility of endorsing euthanasia, it rolls over in the face of EU policies that further facilitate divorce and promote same sex marriage and it watches as millions of abortions have been completed, in the space of 40 years. What else does the C of E need to get its act together?
Leadership doesn’t just rest in the heads of the church, or government for that matter. It rests in us. It is up to us to recapture what we believe in and to build on our heritage. A reader asks, “when is something going to be done in this country to readdress the unbalanced tolerance of Islamic extremism?” My answer is when we really want it to happen and not before. We can all choose to write to, canvass and collar our MPs and ultimately choose through the ballot box. We can also teach our children and learn from and honour our elders. If we don’t, Hal Colebatch’s and other eloquent commentators will be providing history lessons on how this once green and pleasant land has metamorphosed into being what is currently widely predicted to occur. Over to us then!
— Graham Constable
FRIENDS AND ENEMIES
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s reply to Russell Seitz’s letter (under “Class Acts”) in Reader Mail’s Facing the Enemy:
If Mr. Lord wishes to be seen as “Facing the enemy” (Letters response, 20 October 2006), he’d best desist from biting the ankles of his friends. He graciously thanks me for “illustrating the problem with the modern American left.” This is an odd construction at best, as the views he deplores are ones I originally expressed in The American Conservative.
If he inquires, he will discover that as he was seconding the administration’s judicial nominees, notably Judge Bork, I was briefing President Reagan’s science advisors, Doctors Keyworth and Graham, and working at the NSC’s behest, here and abroad, to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan and into the SALT talks. So pardon my pique at his asserting, “The one thing you would have going for you up there in those Harvard precincts is that you are (presumably!) a Red Sox fan.” If Mr. Lord presumes that, he will presume anything — which is indeed how our disputation began.
— Russell Seitz
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.