Publisher’s Note: Hillary is a monster and she doesn’t differ in philosophy one bit from Venezuelan Bernie and his communist nonsense. She is the ultimate product of a political spoils systems that thrives on violence, planetary meddling, and domestic suffocation of any individual initiative.
Peter is a long-time friend. Enjoy.
I dread that my long-time observation on the increasing likelihood of a 4GW mutli-layered and mix of regional insurgencies may be rearing its ugly head. I hope my prognostications are completely wrong-headed and ill-founded.
Update 171301JUL16: I will be going to dark until the first week in August to finish some projects and complete the seemingly never-ending editing process on two books. I recommend you take the time to inventory your G3, conduct PCIs and get ready for the coming Endarkenment. -BB
As of this writing, the question of whether Hillary Clinton violated the law with respect to her official emails while Secretary of State remains in the hands of the FBI investigators. Some, most notably (former) Judge Andrew Napolitano, have opined that there is no doubt she broke federal law and that an indictment is certain. Others have suggested that Hillary will never be indicted for no more specific reason than the Clintons have a virtually unbroken record of escaping accountability for their misdeeds spanning more than 25 years in public office.
M ost recently, and as no surprise, President Obama publically endorsed Hillary for President. As this clearly suggests that he cannot be unbiased with respect to her guilt or innocence, some have suggested it is time for a special prosecutor to be appointed to objectively investigate her actions with respect how she handled or mishandled classified (or, at least, very secret) email as Secretary of State.
Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor with the Department of Justice, writes in National Review, June 11, that a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary’s email scandal would be a bad idea. He argues that a truly independent prosecutor would not be a part of the Executive branch of the government and would therefore be unconstitutional, since all prosecutorial power is given to that branch. On the other hand, were Obama to appoint a special prosecutor within the Executive branch, such a person could not be independent since he or she would ultimately answer to Obama. What McCarthy argues in favor of is impeachment of Mrs. Clinton. While she obviously cannot be removed from an office she no longer holds, impeachment in the House of Representatives, followed by conviction in the Senate, could officially preclude her from ever holding federal public office again. McCarthy, however, concedes that it is highly unlikely that the Republican controlled Congress has the will to begin such proceedings, given their inability to stand on principle against any of the actions of the Obama administration over the last seven years, which they oppose.
Andrew Napolitano, quoted in World Net Daily, June 9, argues for a special prosecutor stating, “An independent counsel would alleviate conflict because an independent counsel is not answerable to the director of the FBI, is not answerable to the attorney general and is not answerable to the White House.” He claims that an independent counsel could be established by giving the selected individual his or her own budget.
Who is right? If, indeed, Hillary has committed even 5% of the crimes of which she is publicly accused, how could her political career be ended once and for all? Perhaps neither McCarthy nor Napolitano have the right prescription for dealing with a former high-level government official accused of wrongdoing. Despite the claim virtually all Americans have heard ad nauseam since elementary school, there are no “checks and balances” within government. That our federal government is a monolith of unrestrained power is evident to anyone, American or otherwise. The hope that one part of the government will reign in or hold accountable another part (individual or group) is worse than a bad joke. No one in government, elected or appointed, will admit that his or her power and budget comes at the expense of those who are not in government. In fact at this point in history, even few people outside government will publicly admit what is painfully obvious to anyone who gives it a moment’s thought: all government is based up threats of violence against anyone who doesn’t want to comply with its dictates or fund it. Perhaps the only real way to deal with any would-be-president is to allow the know-nothings to “elect” her and then those of us fed up with the charade of government could promptly refuse to uphold the state which she proclaims to lead. Imagine, for example, if initially a trickle of Americans refused to pay income tax henceforth, refused to use phony-baloney Federal Reserve notes, and refused to obey all other laws that are morally repugnant to them? Imagine if that trickle became a creek, a stream, and finally a roaring river of civil disobedience to the very people who have undermined our security, destroyed our economy, and impeded progress in countless ways? Imagine, if Hillary became the President of a government that, within a few weeks, dissolved under her very feet? That would be a fitting end to her political career.
Peter H. McCandless Las Vegas