Breaking news, as well as the most pressing issues of political, economic and social life. Opinion and analysis. Programs produced and made by journalists from Sputnik studios in the US.

Should We Welcome Our New Overlords - the Clintons?

Should we welcome our new Overlords-the Clintons?
Society, as we know it, is changing at faster pace, but not necessarily for the better. Laws are for the little people and those at the bottom continue to suffer and even die. Is this the dawn of a new epoch?

The happy, carefree man, hunting in the jungle with his son, saw a group of people and went to talk to them. The leader of the group begged the man to allow them to cross his land, and the man consented. Little did he know that behind the group of people was a war party, and immediately the man’s life changed. His village was destroyed, his friends and relatives were captured as slaves, his pregnant wife was imprisoned in a hole in the ground, and the man was chased through the jungle. After some time, he was captured and led to the capital city, ultimately to be sacrificed to the gods. As fate would have it, nature intervenes, and an eclipse of the moon temporarily leads to the man being saved, if only he can escape by running the gauntlet. The man ends up killing a boy in his bid to escape, which happens to be the chiefs son. Once the chief finds out, he makes it a point to chase the man down, to avenge his son. Except that now, the man was back in his native jungle, and was able to slowly kill off the warring party, one by one. Now, if this sounds familiar to you, that is because this is the plot of Mel Gibson’s epic movie, Apocalypto. In the climax of the movie, as the men face off against each other, ready to fight to the death, they look up, and see a Conquistador ship off the coast, with Europeans rowing ashore. Life, as the Mayans knew it, would never be the same.

The past week in America has been huge in so many ways. Kicking it off was a supposedly chance encounter between Bill Clinton and Lorretta Lynch, the US Attorney General. CNN reports that — “…Lynch and Bill Clinton met privately in Phoenix after the two realized they were on the same tarmac. The encounter took place ahead of the public release of the House Benghazi Committee's report on the 2012 attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya.” CNN continued by noting-“The meeting is raising questions about whether the independence of the Justice Department, which is conducting an investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server, might have been compromised.” Sounds fishy, right? The woman that is in charge of the agency investigating a person for possible crimes is randomly visited by that person’s partner, an ex-president, just days before the final report is released.

Just to clear up the air — a local news website reported that — “Lynch confirmed the meeting and denied the two spoke about any matter pending before the Justice Department or the Benghazi probe. She also said the former president "did not raise anything" about an ongoing case or anything of that nature. In fact, Lynch specifically said- “I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane. Our conversation was a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix." See, nothing to see here, right?

Well, not according to Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog. They released a statement that read in part — “Attorney General Lynch's meeting with President Clinton creates the appearance of a violation of law, ethical standards and good judgment. It continued by saying — "Attorney General Lynch's decision to breach the well-defined ethical standards of the Department of Justice and the American legal profession is an outrageous abuse of the public's trust. Her conduct and statements undermine confidence in her ability to objectively investigate and prosecute possible violations of law associated with President Clinton and Secretary Clinton."

Only a few days later, the head of the FBI, James Comey, made a public statement in which he said — “that he will not recommend an indictment against Hillary Clinton, though he found “evidence” that she might have violated laws pertaining to the handling of classified information.” So, if you find yourself confused by the comments that he made, you wouldn’t be in the minority. Not only did his words fly in the face of previous statements made by Clinton only a year ago, in which she specifically noted that none of her emails contained classified data, Comey basically attempted to pull a jedi-mind trick by waving his hand in front of the collective media and saying-“these aren’t the crimes you are looking for”, which, apparently worked.

However, the most interesting part was the follow-up comment, where he effectively stole the Justice Department’s thunder by preemptively decreeing that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be charged because — “although there is evidence of potential violations,” no reasonable prosecutor would take on the case.” That’s right. Apparently, everything the collective public thought was wrong, because no longer does the FBI only investigate crimes and pass on the info to the lawyers at the Justice Dept, where they in turn charge people. No, dear citizen, the new reality is that FBI not only investigates crimes, it also gets to determine who gets charged. Feel safer yet?

Of course, the plot grows stranger yet still, when the next day, the Attorney General, Lorreta Lynch, agreed with Comey’s recommendations, and ended the investigation, without charges. Immediately, there was a public outcry, and Comey was called to testify before Congress. And here the story becomes even more twisted. Apparently, according to Breitbart, — “FBI Director James Comey stated that the FBI’s interview with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not under oath or recorded….” Comey then also noted — “…that he did not personally interview Clinton, and did not talk to all of the “five or six” (people) who did interview Clinton.” So, there you have it. Laws are for the little people.

And speaking of little people, and laws, and lawlessness, this past week saw different policemen shoot to death two black men, apparently without cause, or superficial cause at best, although the investigations are still ongoing. Seemingly in retaliation, several snipers shot to death 5 policemen on live TV. And that is the real story. While those at the bottom of society are dealing with unemployment, falling wages, ever increasing restrictions in the form of petty laws, socially approved drug addiction in the form of doctor approved pharmaceuticals, in addition to illegal narcotics- more fuel is being added to the flames in the form of racially based tensions. The fact remains that those in the 99% have more in common with each other than they do with those at the top, and yet, a specific political doctrine is being deployed by the 1% to divide society among the various naturally occurring fault lines of race, income, education, sexual orientation and political views. If you don’t think the system is rigged, just ask a Bernie supporter what they think about Hillary Clinton winning the nomination.

As Ayn Rand once said — "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

So, what do you think dear listeners — “Should we welcome our new Overlords — the Clintons?”

To participate in the discussion
log in or register
Заголовок открываемого материала