Skip to main content

Hillary, Emails, and the Status Quo

    If you live in a hole or rely upon "traditional" media for your news (newspapers, cable news, etc.), you may not have heard that Wikileaks has released a few emails that are detrimental to Hillary Clinton's campaign.  Your classic liberal networks have done their best to ignore the heck out of these revelations, but less biased networks and the good ol' Internet have made sure the American public have heard about them.  Inundation feels like an appropriate word here.  Wikileaks has dumped thousands of emails over the past couple of weeks.  Some have been Hillary's own emails, while many are of her staff communicating amongst themselves.  Americans have become privy to the type of information that government officials have long assumed would stay hidden.

    Is this really that much of a revelation though?  Did you really not know that Hillary has more skeletons in her closet than a mob boss?  Did you really need these emails to tell you that she is an elitist snob who has a sharp disdain for the American people?  Did you not know that money talks in Washington?  I did.  I guess I'm a cynic.  I have no delusions about the goodwill and sincerity of politicians.  To be sure, there are some who are honest folks (I'm looking at you, Ron Paul!).  Others are doing their best to juggle special interests and their consciences (you're probably in this group, Ted Cruz).  The rest, which is probably a majority (at least at the Federal level), are snakes who are professional election winners.  Their own agenda and financial well-being determine the decisions they make.  Hillary Clinton is no different.  In fact, she is the epitome of this group.  She has spent the last 40 years ensuring that her political career is advanced and her pockets are lined.

    So, needless to say, I have yet to be surprised by a single thing I've read.  In fact, I probably assume she is worse than she really is (if that's possible!).  She is a liar, to be sure.  Even her supporters have to find a way to justify her testimony before the Supreme Court and her flip-flopping on every issue over the past three decades.  I, for one, am 100% confident that Hillary Clinton has received money for political favors.  That's not even a question at this point.  I'm also extremely confident that Hillary Clinton has had people killed.  There's just too many coincidences, conveniences, and witnesses for all the tales to be political smears.  The recent unearthing of these emails has only provided documentation for what many already knew about one of the most crooked families in the history of our nation.

    The question with which are are left is, "When will it be enough?"  The Clintons have gotten away with a whole lot for a whole lot of years.  When will people hold them accountable?  When will the media stop protecting them?  When will the American public wake up and realize that they're crooks. Here's why I'm a cynic.  I don't think they ever will.  I think Hillary will win the election.  She'll spend four years continuing her policy of advancing her career and bank account by any means necessary.  She'll continue to destroy the foundations of our country and increase animosity towards Christianity.  Our only relief will be that she won't even run for re-election because of her health.  Meanwhile, Bill will be using his time in the White House to accrue cash and STDs.

    You look back at some of the iconic political families and you see a pattern.  The Kennedys and Clintons of the world don't play by the same rules.  The biased media, couple with an ignorant populace, let them do anything they want to do because they are royalty.  Is the age of transparency finally here?  Will the Clintons finally pay for their years of abusing their positions?  Will America wake up and realize that the system is broken?  If history is any indicator, the answer is no.  Perhaps technology and political expectations are forging a new era.  Maybe the time is right for change.  We can always hope, but I'm not holding my breath.    

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary