Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 543)

Obama-Gun-Control-San-Bernardino-Split

Right: President Barack Obama, joined by gun violence victims, speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016. Left: The weapons used in the San Bernardino attack. (Photos: AP/Carolyn Kaster/Courtesy of San Bernardino PD)

There’s a cycle in this country that goes like this: Shooting, call for gun control, Democratic rail against Republican refusal to pass senseless gun control, and brief lull and calm before the next shooting and gun control storm.
 
The latest in this scene, of course, played in Orlando. Barely had the dead and injured been carted from Pulse when President Obama was making his anti-Second Amendment case, pulling at liberal heartstrings while entering classic scold mode: “This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well,” he said.
 
But actively doing something that’s useless is a decision, too – and one that seems more political back-patting than truly helpful. Not to state the obvious, but once again, guns don’t kill people. People carrying guns kill people. And denying the main reasons why people carrying guns kill people won’t solve the killing problem.
 
Orlando’s shootings seem based in radical Islamism. Obama doesn’t like to admit that, so for a time, the nation has to suffer another round of Who-Dunnit, a game involving the White House, a complicit media and a grouping of equally dopey left-leaning bureaucrats who all join in the reindeer fun and act like passing gun control laws and censoring 9-1-1 emergency calls will stop the jihad. So it goes; the Team Obama version of the war on terror.
 
But deceptions run deeper when it comes to gun control. For instance: The anti-Second Amendment crowd may slide this under the radar, but according to Linda Lagemann, a former licensed clinical psychologist with 23 years of experience who presently serves as a commissioner with the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, dozens of recent cases of high-profile shooters have shared more than an affinity for guns – they’ve shared a pill-popping background that included the taking of psychotropic drugs, some at least which were medically and legally prescribed.
 
There was James Holmes, who was taking Zoloft as he murdered 12 and wounded 70 during an Aurora, Colorado, massacre in 2012, Lagemann said in an email. There was Ivan Lopez, the Army soldier who killed three and injured 16 at Fort Hood in 2014, all while taking prescribed doses of Ambien, the blog DC Clothesline reported.
 
Others are tracking the ties, as well. As CBS News reminded, there was Dylann Storm Roof, the 2015 South Carolina church shooter, found with the anti-pain Suboxone. As Western Journalism pointed, there was Elliot Rodger, the 2014 Isla Vista, California, college shooter on Xanax and Vicodin. And as the Washington Post reported, there was even Eric Harris, from way back in 1999, whose dead body after committing the Columbine High School shootings was found to contain the anti-depressant, anti-anxiety Luvox.
 
There are more – plenty more. So rather than using every instance of gun-related murders in this nation as a jumping point to push more gun control, wouldn’t it seem worthwhile – after ruling out radical Islamism, that is – to at least take a look at psychotropic prescriptions and research whether they’re precursors to violence? Even medical experts admit these drugs aren’t always helpful.
 
In January, the Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of Adzenys XR-ODT, an amphetamine extended-release oral tablet to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in patients aged six or older. Part of its labeling, as described on RxList, warned of its potential to “exacerbate symptoms of behavior disturbance” in those with a “pre-existing psychotic disorder,” as well as its chances to cause a “manic episode in patients with bipolar disorder.” Worse, the label cautioned that even “at recommended doses, [the pill] may cause psychotic or manic symptoms,” including “hallucinations, delusional thinking or mania in patients without prior history of psychotic illness or mania.”
 
But guns are the problem? Seems like pill control might be the better argument.

[mybooktable book=”the-devil-in-dc” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Forget gun control: Dozens of high-profile shooters

Programs about the improbable success of Chile and Estonia already have aired on nationwide TV, and those were joined last weekend by a show about the “sensible nation” of Switzerland.

Here’s the 28-minute program.

[brid video=”49176″ player=”2077″ title=”IS Switzerland 06202016″]

When I first watched the program, I was slightly irked that there was very little discussion of the role of fiscal policy and the importance of spending restraint and competitive tax rates.

Moreover, there was no direct mention of Switzerland’s very successful spending cap, even though the “debt brake” has generated superb results.

Indeed, Switzerland is the only nation from Europe or North America that gets high scores from Economic Freedom of the World for both fiscal policy and rule of law (a notable achievement sinceWagner’s Law tells us that it is very difficult to stop government from expanding once the private sector generates a lot of wealth that can be redistributed).

But I confess I’m biased about the importance of tax and spending issues.

And as I thought about what I had seen, I realized that the program’s focus on federalism and decentralization made sense.

Yes, Switzerland has a modest-sized government. And, yes, the debt brake has been a huge success. But those good outcomes are in part the result of a system where most government still takes place at the local (commune) or state (canton) level.

In other words, Switzerland generally still has the type of system America’s Founding Fathers envisioned, with a small central government.

I’ve already pointed out that the level of redistribution in Switzerland is relatively low because of its decentralized model.

But there’s another feature of federalism that’s worth celebrating. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb (of “Black Swan” fame) has pointed out,decentralized systems are much more stable and successful since there’s far less risk of a mistaken policy being imposed on a one-size-fits-all basis.

And countless scholars, including many Nobel Prize recipients, have explained thatsmall, competing nations were a key reason why Europe became a rich continent in the first place.

Sadly, most Europeans have forgotten this lesson and have created the EU superstate in Brussels (which helps to explain why I’m delighted that the United Kingdom voted to escape that sinking ship).

So the moral of the story, from both the video about Switzerland and from all the other evidence in the world, is that federalism is good policy.

Let’s close with an interesting example of Swiss federalism in action. The canton of Zug is known for being a low-tax haven in a country famous for having a reasonable tax regime. Well, the town of Zug is on the cutting edge of digital money.

…the town council has hopes Zug’s trend as a financial tech hub continues  — having embraced the new identity with this legislative move. …As the pilot program is first implemented it will initially allow payments up to 200 Francs, and possibly introducing the ability to pay larger amounts later in the future. …analysis will ultimately determine whether or not the town council will continue allowing Bitcoin payments for municipal services. …Bitcoiners will be taking notice of this small town, and it already has the added benefit of being located in Switzerland  —  which is known for its business friendly environment and relatively small regulatory burden. …In fact, Switzerland’s business environment and relatively free-market economy even helped to convince the Bitcoin wallet and exchange, Xapo, to relocate to Switzerland last year. …the town of Zug itself also provides its citizens with a relatively hands-off approach to the local economy. The Swiss town of  Zug showcases one of the lowest tax rates in the world. This combination of a hands-off approach by the government and large tax benefits has made the small town into a successful economic hub where global trade flourishes.

Wow, this says a lot about the quality of governance in Switzerland that a nation that doesn’t need Bitcoin (unlike, say, Greece or Argentina) nonetheless welcomes it as a competing currency.

Yet another reason why Switzerland is one of the world’s best nations.

P.S. Today’s column is about Switzerland, but I can’t resist pointing out that Hong Kong and Singapore both score highly for rule of law and small government. AndChile deserves honorable mention as well. For what it’s worth, the Princess of the Levant’s home country of Lebanon apparently has the world’s small fiscal burden, but the low score for rule of law suggests that the real story is that the government is simply too incompetent to collect and redistribute money.

Programs about the improbable success of Chile

Bangladesh (Photo: AP)

Bangladesh (Photo: AP)

A police official in Bangladesh told the Associated Press that at least 6 Islamist terrorists and others have been captured following a commando-led raid to rescue hostages. The Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack at an upscale restaurant in the capital of Dhaka, the terror group’s Amaq News agency said.

Several armed Islamic terrorists armed and shouting “Allahu Akbar” detonated explosives and took multiple hostages. An official said there was casualties among the hostages, but did not give specific numbers.

Approximately three hours after the raid began, police Lt. Col. Tuhin Mohammad Masud confirmed that the restaurant’s main building had been cleared and at least 13 hostages had been rescued. However, Lt. Col. Masud noted that “the operation is still going on” also said there were casualties among the hostages, but declined to give further detail.

The nationalities of the hostages are unknown, but the U.S. State Department confirmed all Americans working at the U.S. mission in the area are accounted for.

“We have accounted for all Americans working for the chiefof mission authority” in Dhaka, Admiral John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department said. He called the situation “fluid.” The Japanese government said that 7 of their citizens are unaccounted for.

Bangladesh has seen a significant increase in Islamic terrorist attacks since 2015. ISIS last November called for attacks in Bangladesh in an article published in Dabiq, its online magazine. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has cracked down on domestic radical Islamists and his government has accused local terrorists and opposition political parties–specifically the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its Islamist ally Jamaat-e-Islami–of being behind the violence with the aim to destabilize the nation.

Both parties deny.

A police official in Bangladesh told the

abu-bakr-baghdadi

This image of Islamic State (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was made from video posted on a militant website Saturday, July 5, 2014.

The Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack at a restaurant in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka, the terror group’s Amaq News agency says. Several armed Islamic terrorists armed and shouting “Allahu Akbar” detonated explosives and took multiple hostages.

While the exact number of hostages was not known, some reports claimed there could be up to 60 and others put the figure lower. The attackers entered the Holey Artisan Bakery in the Gulshan area around 9:20 p.m. Friday and were holding customers and staff hostage.

Benazir Ahmed, the director general of the Rapid Action Battalion, or the elite force known as RAB, told eager reporters that security forces were working to save the lives of the people trapped inside. Though he too did not confirm how many, several foreigners are believed to be among the hostages.

“Some derailed youths have entered the restaurant and launched the attack. We have talked to some of the people who fled the restaurant after the attack,” Ahmed said. “We want to resolve this peacefully. We are trying to talk to the attackers, we want to listen to them about what they want. Some of our people have been injured. Our first priority is to save the lives of the people trapped inside.”

The nationalities of the hostages are unknown, but the U.S. State Department confirmed all Americans working at the U.S. mission in the area are accounted for.

“We have accounted for all Americans working for the chiefof mission authority” in Dhaka, Admiral John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department said. He called the situation “fluid.”

Bangladesh has seen a significant increase in Islamic terrorist attacks since 2015. ISIS last November called for attacks in Bangladesh in an article published in Dabiq, its online magazine.

[caption id="attachment_32600" align="aligncenter" width="740"] This image of

Sept. 5, 2012: Former President Bill Clinton addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. (Photo: Associated Press/AP)

Sept. 5, 2012: Former President Bill Clinton addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. (Photo: Associated Press/AP)

By meeting secretly with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former President Bill Clinton might have inadvertently cut his wife’s political safety net. Under mounting public pressure and political fallout, Attorney General Lynch on Friday vowed to accept the recommendation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and career prosecutors at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

First, no one in Washington, D.C.–to include Democrats and Democrat-friendly journalists–believes the former president was hoping to do anything but influence the outcome of the federal investigation into his wife by meeting on her government airplane at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Mrs. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee and former secretary of state, is the subject of two federal investigations.

“I will be accepting those recommendations,” AG Lynch said at Aspen Institute in Colorado. “That will include not only the factual findings in this matter, but the next step.”

As PPD previously reported, the investigation into her use of a private server to conducted official State Department business was expanded in January to include “public corruption” relating to her activities at the Clinton Foundation. Essentially, the FBI is looking into whether Mrs. Clinton sold access during her tenure as secretary of state, in addition to whether she mishandled classified information.

The meeting, which AG Lynch said she “certainly wouldn’t do” again, could have the adverse impact than the former president originally intended.

Sources tell People’s Pundit Daily the FBI agents on the case were very upset with the attorney general’s decision to hold a secret meeting with the former president. Words to describe their reaction included “pissed,” “fuming” and “livid.” The FBI investigation, which is being handled by the “A-Team” and now includes roughly 150 agents, is in fact a criminal investigation that characterizes the former president as a witness. The Clinton campaign has sought to describe the investigation as a “security review,” a claim the FBI director himself disputed.

“We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do here at the FBI,” Director Comey said in May. “I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry’.”

One theory floating around D.C. is that an indictment is imminent and the meeting aimed to create an ethics violation. In this scenario, despite AG Lynch’s announcement Friday, news of the development would lead to more political pressure for the appointment of an independent special council. That would prolonged the investigation beyond the presidential election. While it may seem far fetched, a report by the Daily Caller this week suggests stonewalling has already begun.

The Department of Justice filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday requesting a 27-month delay in producing documented communications between former Secretary Clinton’s four top aides, officials at the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, which is a closely associated public relations firm that Mr. Clinton helped to establish.

If the court agrees, the American public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, or if she wins in November roughy 22 months into her first term as President of the United States. The four senior Clinton aides involved were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

The latter two are involved knee-deep in Mrs. Clinton’s potential violations of the Federal Records Act and Espionage Act. Interviews conducted by the FBI resulted in Mrs. Mills repeatedly storming out of the room and consulting with her lawyer.

Yet another theory speculates whether Mr. Clinton was not only pleading for his wife during his meeting with AG Lynch but also for himself.

“He is a person of interest officially to the Department of Justice,” former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova said.

President Clinton became a pivotal figure behind Lynch’s federal career when he appointed her U.S Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1999. The post is not only one of the most coveted prosecutorial posts in the country, but also thought to be a launching pad to her current position. He also played a pivotal role in the potential acts of public corruption under investigation, including his relationship with Frank Giustra.

Mr. Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate, gave $100 million of his personal wealth to form two projects with Bill Clinton, known as the “Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” and the “Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership.” Mr. Giustra secured approval for a waiver from the office of the Secretary of State for Rosatom–the Russian atomic energy agency–to invest in Giustra’s Uranium One, a company that owned uranium ore mines in Eastern Europe and in the United States. The materials, for obvious reasons, are considered a national security concern and resource.

The deal was closed with the help of former President Bill Clinton and it awarded “one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States,” as reported by the New York Times.

But cynics claim AG Lynch would never have taken her hands off the wheel–to effectively allow the wife of the man who started her federal law enforcement career to be prosecuted–unless the fix was already in. The Clintons, the cynics argue, would never waste one of the get out of jail free cards they spent years collecting in excuse for favors in the political arena. Whether we find out the answers to these questions before the presidential election in November is far from certain.

Director Comey, a Republican with a strong reputation for independence and fairness, could put an end to speculation after a year-long probe by recommending to the Department of Justice whether or not to pursue an indictment. While Director Comey has repeatedly said the Bureau doesn’t operate on political timelines, sources have told People’s Pundit Daily a decision is “close,” though provided no timeframe.

By meeting secretly with U.S. Attorney General

Hillary Clinton gives an economic policy speech aimed at women and women's rights in Ohio. (Photo: Reuters/Darren Hauck)

(Photo: Reuters/Darren Hauck)

Let’s put aside all of these new Islamic terror attack headlines and take a look at the women’s rights record of Crooked Hillary Clinton. Let’s look the other way and close our eyes to the outrage of her lying to the victims’ families of the Americans murdered in Benghazi because it did not fit the president’s narrative or help her future presidential ambitions.

Let’s also turn the other cheek to her using a home-brew server to conduct official State Department business and email highly sensitive classified information for reasons, at best, of personal convenience. Let’s do so with the knowledge that General David Petraeus, a national hero, pleaded guilty due to mishandling classified information because he had a notebook on a table in view of another person with a security clearance.

Crooked Hillary Clinton did far worse, but let’s simply not take notice to the multiple hackers from here to Asia claiming to have hijacked her server. Instead, let’s focus on the positive professional accomplishments of Secretary Clinton, more specifically her astounding record of being a champion of women’s rights.

I’m With Her! Women for HRC! Our champion.

In 1975, Mrs. Clinton agreed to defend Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old male accused of raping a 12-year-old little girl. In an interview with journalist Roy Reed, Mrs. Clinton would later reflect on how she got Mr. Thomas off pretty much scot free with a plea. The judge reduced the sentence to four years probation and a year in jail–time served.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Hillary said in the interview just before taking a moment to laugh and giggle.

Worth noting, there is a serious question about how she knew the polygraph result was inaccurate. If she believed her client was innocent she never would have made such a comment. Nevertheless, despite her claims to being forced to defend a man who–according to her own belief–raped a 12-year-old little girl, this is how hard Mrs. Clinton will fight for women’s rights.

Hillary is our champion.

Let’s move on to Hillary’s trust fund–strike that–I obviously meant the family’s charitable organization. The Clinton Foundation is funded largely by such pro-women’s right activists like Nasser al-Rashid, one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest and an adviser to the royal family. He has reached “elite status” at the Foundation, which means Nasser donated millions of dollars. Al-Rashid raised a wonderful bunch, one in particular that pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife. He donated roughly $600,000 to various Democratic candidates and causes.

Do Hillary supporters get so vivacious when fighting for the cause of women’s rights that they get carried away in all of the excitement and end up beating and raping women?

We should all understand that when we vote someone into the Office of the President of the United States we are also inviting their spouse to have some influence on the presidency. Everyone knows who former President Bill Clinton is; everyone is aware of Bill’s pro-women record. Mr. Clinton cares about women enough to have several mistresses. Those who were not willing mistresses–a.k.a victims–quickly became the target of character assassination campaigns and shamed into hiding.

Mrs. Clinton played a pivotal role in the Clinton slut-shaming campaign and terrorized Bill’s victims, including Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones and even Bill’s long-term mistress Gennifer Flowers. Jones, the former Arkansas state employee who sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment, recently demanded Hillary apologize for “allowing” her husband to “abuse” and “sexually harass” women.

During an interview with weekend talk radio host Aaron Klein, Jones slammed Hillary as a “two-faced” “liar” who waged a war on women by trying to discredit “predator” Bill’s sexual accusers.

“And how dare her. You know what? She don’t care nothing about women. Because if she did she would believe what I had to say,” Jones said. “She would believe what the other women had to say.”

Hillary is the type of person who will wear a blindfold so long as she can turn it into a political gain, much like the case with Mr. Taylor.

Let's put aside all of these new

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch in Phoenix on Tuesday. A private meeting at the city’s airport between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political uproar. Credit Nancy Wiechec/Reuters

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch in Phoenix on Tuesday. A private meeting at the city’s airport between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political uproar. (Photo: Reuters)

On Friday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced she will accept the recommendation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business. The announcement by Lynch is an effort to eliminate the appearance that a political appointee would overrule investigators and follows a heavily-scrutinized secret meeting between AG Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on Monday.

“I will be accepting the recommendations,” AG Lynch said at Aspen Institute in Colorado. “That will include not only the factual findings in this matter, but the next step.”

Republicans said the meeting compromised the integrity of the investigation and called on the attorney general to recuse herself.

“In light of the apparent conflicts of interest, I have called repeatedly on Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel to ensure the investigation is as far from politics as possible,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement on Thursday.

When asked about the decision to have the meeting, AG Lynch said “I certainly wouldn’t do it again… The important thing to me is the integrity of the Department of Justice.”

Worth noting, Lynch was only qualified to be appointed U.S. Attorney General due to her qualifications as U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. And how did she get that appointment? Then-President Bill Clinton. Further, there are two tracks in the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s activities.

As PPD previously reported, the investigation in January was expanded to include potential “public corruption” relating to her activities at the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at the State Department. Essentially, the FBI is looking into whether Mrs. Clinton sold access while serving as secretary of state.

AG Lynch said she doesn’t have a timeframe for a conclusion to the investigation–whether Mrs. Clinton will be indicted or not–because she is not the one conducting the probe. She has repeatedly stated that career investigators are handling the matter. Meanwhile, FBI Director Jim Comey said the Bureau doesn’t have a deadline, despite presidential elections.

Mrs. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, had sought to explain away the criminal investigation as a “security review,” a claim the FBI director himself disputed.

“We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do here at the FBI,” Director Comey said in May. “I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry’.”

Director Comey, a Republican with a strong reputation for independence and fairness, could put an end to speculation after a year-long probe by recommending to the Department of Justice whether or not to pursue an indictment.

An internal State Department audit conducted by the agency’s Inspector General (IG) found Mrs. Clinton broke federal record-keeping rules regarding her email practices while serving as secretary of state. It also shows the former secretary of state’s top aides at the State Department refused to cooperate with investigators and, as did Mrs. Clinton, failed to comply with the Federal Records Act.

There were roughly two thousand emails found on Mrs. Clinton’s server the FBI has identified as top secret. Two specific emails were deemed top secret classified “at birth,” by the originating agencies, including a satellite image showing the movement of North Korean missiles and a top secret U.S. drone strike. That’s a violation of the federal Espionage Act.

The dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level at birth–which is Mrs. Clinton’s political defense–is a “settled matter.” Further, those with knowledge of the investigation who spoke with PPD were quick to point out that a political defense is not a criminal defense.

The agencies that owned and originated the intelligence–the CIA and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or NGA–reviewed the emails in December to determine how they should be properly stored. The emails were marked “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” even to this day.

Worth noting, the State Department continues to challenge the intelligence community’s conclusions, though they are aware of the review of all the emails. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the State Department has no authority to change or challenge the classification because the emails and content in question did not originate at their agency.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is expected to

Austrian Presidential candidates, Alexander Van der Bellen, left, and Norbert Hofer, right. (Photo: EPA)

Austrian Presidential candidates, Alexander Van der Bellen, left, and Norbert Hofer, right. (Photo: EPA)

Austria’s Constitutional Court ruled on Friday for a repeat of the country’s recent presidential election, setting up a rematch between the Green Party candidate Van der Bellen and Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer.

Mr. Hofer was leading the polls when they closed on May 22, but wound up losing by some 30,863 votes, or less than a percentage point, after the roughly 700,000 mail-in ballots were counted. Reports of voter fraud and irregularities began to pour in via multiple districts.

During two weeks of hearings before the court, Hofer’s Freedom Party challenged the results, arguing that the mailed in ballots were illegally handled in 94 out of 117 districts. The party also alleged that thousands of votes were opened early, and that some were counted by people unauthorized to do so.

“The challenge brought by Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache against the 22 May election… has been upheld,” Gerhard Holzinger, head of the Constitutional Court said. “The decision I am announcing today has no winner and no loser, it has only one aim: to strengthen trust in the rule of law and democracy.”

In its ruling overturning the election results, the high court said that election rules were broken in a way that could have altered the result of the contest, even though they found no definitive proof the results were manipulated. This marks the first time an election in Austria has been re-run since 1945. It will likely be held in September or October.

Austria's Constitutional Court has ruled there will

State-Department-Hillary-Clinton-AP

State Department headquarters in D.C., left, and, right, Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters on Tuesday, March 10, 2015. (Photos: AP/Seth Wenig)

Am I fantasizing even to hope that Hillary Clinton will finally be held accountable for her lies and corruption — to say nothing of her actions in her role as bimbo-slayer for her libidinous husband?

Perhaps so, but to borrow an underused cliche, hope springs eternal.

Hillary has operated above the law for so many years that her disinclination toward humility has ripened into unbounded hubris, which was particularly on display in her comments about the recently released House Select Committee on Benghazi report on the tragedy in Libya.

Clinton said the committee found nothing new and it is time to move on. Among her many liberal apologists, the panelists on “The View” united in outrage over the Republicans spending $7 million and “finding nothing new” against Clinton.

Joy Behar, after proclaiming that The New York Times “is the paper of record in this country, no matter what they tell you,” indignantly noted that the cover of that paper reported, “Benghazi Panel Finds No Misdeeds by Clinton.” She said, “So, I mean, that should be the last word.”

Oh? To quote The Church Lady, “Isn’t that special?”

I remember this painful song and dance well from the 1990s. Each time the Clintons were rightly accused of wrongdoing, they denied and attacked and slandered their accusers and then delayed long enough to claim that enough time had passed that we should just move on. For those who care anything about the rule of law, it was a frustrating period.

Over the years, the unglamorous power couple has become even more deceitful, brazen and defiant. Everyone, including Democrats, knows how corrupt the Clintons are, but they just continue to transgress with impunity. Hillary even had a phony smile on her face when she lied that the committee had found no misconduct on her part and demanded that it move on.

Let me just share a few highlights from the report that shed light on the Obama administration’s and Clinton’s overt malfeasance during the Benghazi attacks and in covering up their sins. Forgive me for going directly to the report rather than to The New York Times for my information to demonstrate that Rep. Mike Pompeo is correct that the administration, including Clinton, put politics “ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”

–Though the administration was aware at the time of the terrorist attacks, no military assets were deployed to Benghazi when the last two Americans were killed, almost eight hours after the attacks began. Members of a fleet anti-terrorism security team sat idly on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours during this ordeal, changing in and out of their uniforms four times.

–When Ambassador Christopher Stevens was missing, the White House convened a two-hour meeting and agreed on 10 action items, five of which focused on a YouTube video that the administration, with malice aforethought, intentionally used as a scapegoat to cover the abject failure of its policies. In fact, the State Department had access to eyewitness accounts to the attacks in real time, and there were no discussions about any video. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s command center was in direct contact with its agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out many updates, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” Diplomatic Security well knew that it was terrorism and that there was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground.

–President Obama skipped his intelligence briefing the day after the attacks.

–Also, the morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s spokeswoman emailed some two dozen people from the White House, Department of Defense, State Department and intelligence community directing that they all refer to the released statements of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton “to ensure” they were “all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day.”

–Minutes before Obama’s Rose Garden speech on the attacks, Clinton aide Jake Sullivan emailed deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes and others and informed them: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted over inflammatory videos.”

–Surely knowing it was untrue, Rhodes and Obama adviser David Plouffe prepped then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to say on her five Sunday talk show appearances that the attacks had spontaneously occurred and then evolved as a result, in part, of this anti-Islam YouTube video.

–After Rice’s command performance, Sullivan reassured Clinton that Rice had made clear the “view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” From Clinton’s retrieved emails, we know that she knew otherwise.

–The State Department was in shock and disbelief over Rice’s statements. One officer said, “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” Another said, “Off the reservation on five networks!” Yet another said, “(White House) very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.”

–A headline on the CIA’s intelligence assessment two days after the attacks stated, “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but the text said it was Cairo, not Benghazi. This obviously deliberate deception helped the administration falsely message the attacks.

It is indisputable that the administration, including Obama and Clinton, knew, at the very time these events were unfolding, that this was terrorism and concocted — and then disseminated — the outrageous lie that the attacks were spontaneous and based on a video. Members of the administration coordinated a scheme to deceive the American people and implemented it. Their motives were to cover up their gross negligence in failing to protect American lives and to preserve their bogus narrative that the administration had adequately contained the terrorist threat — in view of the upcoming election. Adding insult to injury, they lied to the parents of the men who died in the attacks.

So no, Mrs. Clinton, it is not time to move on from your callous and cavalier behavior. It is time you were indicted for your email felonies, and it is time for all Americans to understand just how abominable your actions were on Benghazi and to vote against you in November.

[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Hillary Clinton said the committee found nothing

Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party celebrates and poses for photographers as he leaves a "Leave.EU" organization party for the British European Union membership referendum in London, Friday, June 24, 2016. (Photo: AP/Matt Dunham)

Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party celebrates and poses for photographers as he leaves a “Leave.EU” organization party for the British European Union membership referendum in London, Friday, June 24, 2016. (Photo: AP)

I realize that there are important issues to analyze, but it’s utterly depressing to focus on Trump’s protectionist agenda or Hillary’s redistribution agenda. So let’s escape the dismal reality of American politics and enjoy some laughs about Britain’s glorious decision to escape the sinking ship of the European Union.

We’ll start with a parody video featuring the head of the National Socialist Workers Party (PG-13 warning that there are some naughty words).

[brid video=”44087″ player=”2077″ title=”Hitler finds out the UK has voted to leave the EU”]

Very well done.

Not let’s enjoy some more clever satire.

We’ll start with this depiction of what was supposed to happen according to the statist practitioners of Project Fear.

Speaking of Project Fear, here’s some related humor.

And I very much enjoy this cartoon showing that Obama’s attempt to convince Britons to remain in the EU was about as successful as his efforts to convince Americans to like the failed Obamacare program.

Last but not least, I can’t resist sharing this image since I’ve repeatedly used the escape-from-a-sinking-ship metaphor.

P.S. If you enjoyed the Hitler parody, other examples of this genre include:

P.P.S. And if you enjoy European-themed humor, here’s my collection (some of it involving – GASP! – stereotypes):

P.P.P.S. This is sad rather than funny, but here are examples of government-created human rights in Europe. Similarly, if you compare bizarre statements and behavior from the two leading bureaucrats at the European Commission, you’ll understand why the Britons were wise to escape.

Let’s escape the dismal reality of U.S.

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial