‘No’ to amendment

Editor, Smithfield Times

The Times editorial on the anti-union amendment to the Virginia Constitution provides a succinct well-thought out map for voters. Some call the amendment a “right-to-work.” Others call it a “right-to-freeload” off the work of unions who bargain for decent wages and benefits.

Also, the amendment is another example of wasteful government intervention, loading up the Constitution with partisan changes while the political party is in power. The amendment simply loads up the Constitution with a proposal that is already firmly on the legislative books. The most this will do is create long lines on Election Day by the people who won’t understand the legalese and reason for the amendment.

Kevin M. Raymond

Dale City

 

Clinton not fit

Editor, Smithfield Times

What bothers me more than the salacious nature of this presidential campaign is how lightly people have treated Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server housing highly classified information in her home, and how she got off scot free for such a serious violation of national security.

During my 24-year military career, protecting America’s secrets was the standard I was bound to uphold and that should apply to everyone entrusted with classified information.

During the vice presidential debate Tim Kaine said, “You don’t get to decide the rights and wrongs of this. We have a justice system that does that…” A justice system without justice for all is not justice.

Hillary Clinton repeatedly says she “takes full responsibility” for her actions. How many times have you heard this from politicians? Taking full responsibility knowing there will be no accountability is meaningless.

The Justice Department didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton because there wasn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information? 

According to The New York Times — “What We Know About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server” — eight chains contained “top secret” information, 36 contained “secret,” eight contained “confidential” and 2,000 emails have since been classified “confidential.”

At a minimum she should have lost her security clearance. Others have not been treated with such leniency.

Bill Clinton’s former National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, lost his security clearance for three years for removing just five classified documents from the National Archives as he prepared to testify before the 9/11 Commission.

If Hillary Clinton were in the military, she would have lost her security clearance and faced disciplinary action — intent or no intent.

Naval reservist Bryan Nishimura lost his security clearance, and was barred from seeking a future clearance for downloading classified briefings onto his personal electronic devices. An FBI investigation revealed no evidence he intended to distribute them. Sound familiar?

Hillary Clinton is not fit to hold a security clearance, let alone be President of the United States.

Joe Naneville
Windsor