Democrats vs Democracy

The Democrats assaulted democracy in Wisconsin and Indiana, saying by deed, “No democracy for you until we get our way.”

Now they’re taking their assault to the nation.  No democracy for us until they get their way.  And then it’ll be their version only.  Recall the Democrats’ assault on democracy as they tried to shut down the Congress of the United States because they couldn’t get their way on gun control.  They’re threatening to block our democracy more permanently unless they get their way.  When Congress reconvenes,

Democrats plan to pick up with their particular firearms attack precisely where they left off in late June with an unprecedented sit-in on the House floor.  From a memo from the Congressional Black Caucus leadership [emphasis added]:

Rep Robin Kelly (D, IL) would like CBC members to be present for Floor activities on gun violence when the House returns to session on Tuesday, July 5, 2016. The plan is to be as disruptive to (House) Speaker (Paul) Ryan (R, WI) as possible next week.

This is part and parcel with the FBI’s decision to whitewash Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, obeying his instructions from Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Barack Obama (D).

Elections have consequences.

Italy, EU, and Bank Bailouts

In a Wall Street Journal piece about Italy’s banks in general, are these two items that illustrate both the Nanny State nature of Italy and the cultural differences in attitudes toward personal responsibility among the various constituent nations of the EU.  The backdrop includes the EU’s rule, enacted in 2014, that requires banks across the EU that face bankruptcy to have the banks’ stakeholders (as the WSJ calls them)—shareholders, bond holders, and depositors (but only some of those last…)—to take the losses first and foremost.  The backdrop also includes the trouble Italy’s banks, in particular, are in:

17% of banks’ loans are sour. That is nearly 10 times the level in the US, where, even at the worst of the 2008-09 financial crisis, it was only 5%. Among publicly traded banks in the eurozone, Italian lenders account for nearly half of total bad loans.

What to do, then?

The Italian government has sought EU permission to inject €40 billion [$52 billion] into its banks to stabilize the system.

Rome argues that bending this rule would be a small price to pay for erecting a firewall against possible bank contagion stemming from Brexit.

Because those responsible for a bank’s business strait shouldn’t have to bear the burden—taxpayers should have to pony up, too.

Rome has criticized the EU’s new banking regime and doesn’t want to use “bail-in” rules that prescribe the order in which stakeholders must bear losses for winding down an ailing bank, in part because of the peculiarities of the Italian banking system. About €187 billion of bank bonds are in the hands of retail investors, whose holdings would be wiped out by a bank resolution under the new rules.

Because personal responsibility—on the part of everyone in the society—should be waivable at convenience.

Other nations of the EU—Germany, for instance—demur from this exception-making and from this walking-away from responsibility of those involved.  Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, referring to that 2014 rule:

We worked to set down certain rules about bank resolution and bank recapitalization. We can’t do everything again every two years.

Stick to the rules and hold those stakeholders responsible—as they are—in other words.

Add to this, the Italian government’s direct responsibility for a failing system of handling bankruptcy:

One reason for the low valuations [of bad loans] is the enormous difficulty in unwinding a bad loan in Italy. Italy’s sclerotic courts take eight years, on average, to clear insolvency procedures. A quarter of cases take 12 years.

This sort of basic difference on the nature of responsibility is a major part of why the EU as its comported will fail, and it’s the sort of thing that underlies Great Britain’s citizens’ decision to Leave.

Integrity, DoJ, and the FBI

FBI Director James Comey has obeyed his orders from his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and her boss, President Barack Obama (D), and he’s recommending no charges be filed against ex-Secretary of State and Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her…mishandling…of classified material via her unsecured email server.

This after saying in his presser announcing his recommendation,

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

In other words, lesser people should be prosecuted, at least administratively, and (not or) have their clearances lifted.  But not Democrats.

John Fund had some questions about Comey’s acquiescence; below are some of them.  It’s important to note that Comey didn’t have the moral courage to stay past his statement and answer any questions, much less these.

You said that anyone in Hillary Clinton’s position would have at least faced administrative or other sanctions for their behavior.  Would you outline what is type of sanctions have been applied in the past?  Would someone like Hillary Clinton be granted a security clearance after violations of this kind?

You stated that the handling of top secret classified material by Hillary Clinton and her aides was “extremely careless.”  Lawyers say that is the definition of the “gross negligence” statute that provides for prosecution of anyone who allows classified information to be mishandled.  What is the difference between those terms in your opinion, and is there a legal difference?

You mentioned that some of the classified information was marked as classified when Mrs. Clinton handled those emails.  Is that not the definition of “gross negligence” that should trigger the statute mandating prosecution of those mishandling sensitive information.

There is a parallel investigation into Mrs. Clinton being conducted by the FBI into possible corruption involving the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.  What is the status of that investigation and do you believe that probe will be finished before Americans go to the polls to elect a president in November?

Did any of the deleted emails recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s email server bear on the investigation of the Clinton Foundation?

It appears that roughly one-in-15 of the work-related messages that Clinton sent or received on the private server have been classified at some level. A total of 22 emails were classified as top secret—the highest level of secrecy.  You said that we should expect some of that information is in the hands of others. Would you characterize how bad the damage to national security would be if that information be compromised?

There’s integrity, Democrat style.

Whose Money Is It?

Another in the annals: what is OPM—the EU’s use of money earned by European national citizens and paid over to the EU in the form of taxes?  Or is it the EU’s money, and it’s the citizens who are using OPM—the money the EU allows the citizenry to have?

This one comes from the world of (Spanish) sports.

Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, and five other Spanish soccer clubs will have to return tens of millions of euros to Spain’s government after benefiting from illegal tax breaks, the European Union’s antitrust regulator said Monday.

The European Commission said the tax breaks, property deals, and loans and bank guarantees granted by the Spanish government gave those clubs an unfair advantage over their competitors.

Because the worthies of the EU Know Better what the Spanish should do with their money than does the Spanish government.

Schedule Destruction

In the course of a court-ordered (because the lady was unwilling to talk otherwise) deposition before Judicial Watch pursuant to a FOIA lawsuit (because the State Department was refusing otherwise to follow the law and provide the requested information or any reason why not), Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s close aid Huma Abedin said that Clinton had destroyed—”burned”—several pages of her Secretary of State calendar’s schedule.

If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that…that certainly happened on…on more than one occasion[.]

Only copies?  That likely would be OK.  But how do we know that only copies were burned?  After all, Clinton already has said she destroyed 30,000 emails that she claims were personal—with no way anyone else can know these documents in fact were personal; Clinton did the destruction by herself, without so much as a fare-thee-well to State before she’d done it.

With an honest DoJ, this would raise questions of evidence tampering.

Hmm….