Skip to main content

Will Hillary Finally Get Her Comeuppance?

    Newsflash--Hillary Clinton is a corrupt Washington politician!  Wait...we already knew that.  This week's revelation of serendipitous emails being uncovered has yet to tell us anything new.  None of these emails, if we're being perfectly honest, has told us anything that wasn't already suspected by honest people in the know.  This latest trove has simply made it more difficult for people to cover the Clinton tracks any longer.  The question is, then, whether or not it is finally enough.  Have her skeletons finally caught up to her?  Has she tempted fate too long?  Has technology finally trumped the corrupt politician?

    So I ask, Will Hillary finally get her comeuppance?  Will the manipulative elitist finally come back down to Earth?  Will the Clintons finally be forced to play by the rules?  Will Hillary Clinton finally pay the type of penalty we plebeians would pay if we had committed her crimes?  Will the house of cards finally come down?  Will any cliche satisfy the frustration we "normal people" experience?

    No.

    Call me a cynic, but I refuse to believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton, former First Lady of the United States, Senator of New York, and Secretary of State, will ever truly be brought to justice.  She will never know what it means to suffer the consequences for the heinous crimes that she has committed against this country and against humanity.  She will never get her comeuppance.

    You know why?  She's an insider.  Above all, that was what struck me about all of this.  The "Weiner" thing seems coincidental, but it's not.  It's the way Washington works.  It's not what you know, and even less what you believe, that gets you ahead.  It's 110% whom you know that advances your career in American Federal politics.  When I first read about the source of these new emails, I was confused.  How does Anthony Weiner (the most appropriately named human being since our Lord Himself) play into all this?  Wait, he's married to whom?  She works for whom and is related to whom?  Say what?  Yeah, that's the kind of stuff that was swimming in my brain.  It lasted only momentarily, however, as I remembered once again that everyone in Washington has connections to everyone in Washington.  The Bushs, the Kennedies, the Clintons, and the [fill in the blank]s are all interwoven in a web of lies, favors, and back scratchings.  It's like a political novel or film, only worse.  Hillary won't go down because that would bring them all down, and that will simply never happen.  The only people will the power, money, and influence to do so are similarly connected.

    As a brief aside, this is why I'm convinced Trump will effect no significant amount of change.  He is connected to all of the same people.  If he weren't, he would have never garnered the nomination. Ron Paul, anyone?  Ron Paul's campaign never gained any steam because he isn't connected to all the people who make the decisions in back rooms over cigars and stiff drinks.  Trump is.

    Anyway, where we were?  Oh yeah, equality is for plebes.  Hillary isn't a plebe.  Therefore, she will never be treated fairly.  You read that correctly.  Hillary Clinton will never get a fair day in court. She is a "special" interest player.  She is above "fair"!  If I'm bursting your bubble, I'm sorry.  That's just the way American and international politics work and have worked for the history of the world. Hence the French and American revolutions.

    Let's be frank here.  The worst case scenario for America is that this, too, is swept under the rug and that she goes on to be the President of the United States of America, formally making this the stupidest country in the history of the world and the laughing stock of industrialized nations.  I hope and pray we're past that, however.  Too much has been uncovered.  Still, the best case scenario only sees her ushered ignominiously into a corner, hushed up and hidden from sight.  Is that enough?  Will that satisfy the craving for equality that swells in the working man's breast?  It probably won't, but it will have to do.  It would be some kind of relief.  It would restore some semblance of faith in the system.  It would demonstrate that maybe, just maybe, there are some limits to the depravity and corruption in Washington.      

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