The ancient Greeks had a political practice called ostracism by which they could rid themselves of any citizen for a period of time. If only the U.S. had such a procedure. We could use it to banish the Benghazi Liar (a.k.a. Hillary Clinton) and her perjurer husband, Bill Clinton.

Yes, this country has been cursed with other politicians who serve in Congress for decades and practically have to be carried out feet first, and a Bush has served as president for twelve years, but these examples involve a low profile or intermittent presence whereas the Clintons have inflicted themselves on us nonstop for the last quarter century. And the end is not in sight.

Hillary Clinton has a new book coming out called “Hard Choices.” Clinton doesn’t actually write the books she publishes, but liberals nevertheless pretend she does. Most politicians include the names of the writers on their books, but not Hillary (see here). She evidently considered adding the ghostwriter’s name to this book and decided against it, no doubt as one of her harder choices.

According to Politico, Clinton devotes a whole chapter in the book to the 2012 attack on the American embassy in Benghazi (see here). Clinton claims that Republicans are exploiting this tragedy over and over as a “political tool,” and self-righteously proclaims that she

will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.

This coming from a person who joined President Obama and then UN Ambassador Susan Rice to lie repeatedly about the cause of the Benghazi attack solely because the truth was politically inconvenient to Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign.

After Clinton stepped down as secretary of state, liberals tried without success to find examples by which they could praise her performance. Indeed, liberals absurdly defined travel as accomplishment so that Clinton’s one million miles of travel during her tenure could qualify.

As Clinton gears up for a presidential run in 2016, liberals are suddenly discovering new accomplishments. For example, there is praise for Clinton’s support for the raid on Bin Laden’s compound, as if anyone in her position would have argued against the raid (well, Joe Biden apparently argued against it, but Biden is usually on the wrong side of major foreign policy decisions anyway).

Walter Russell Mead writes that Clinton struggled at the State Department to create a coherent set of policies, and suggests that Clinton’s ideas may have caused Russia and China to become more aggressive toward the U.S. (see here). But the ideas he has in mind are those that promote “democracy activists and movements,” so at the same time he criticizes Clinton, Mead also shows how one might compliment her.

When Clinton’s book comes out, I won’t acquire a copy unless it’s free. It’s hard to justify giving money to Clinton for a book written by someone else. Not to mention she earns $200,000 to $300,000 per speech and has made millions more pretending to write books. And her husband has earned $106 million by giving speeches since he left office.

This kind of income makes the Clintons part of the 1%, yet they’ve done nothing to create value and earn their wealth. Think of all the goods and services that people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have provided to society and contrast their activities with those of the Clintons. Bill and Hillary are economic parasites and accomplished scammers.

The ancient Greeks used ostracism, but limited its term to ten years, which would be woefully inadequate for the Clintons. For them, we would need at least twenty, no, make that fifty years. And even that probably wouldn’t stop those two from coming back.