Hillary Clinton still says the Iranians had a nuclear-weapons program when sanctions were placed on Iran and even though she was fully aware (I was) that US Intelligence had made perfectly clear the Iranians had no such program. In fact, the Obama administration had to back off the claim and rather start saying "alleged" and "suspected" nuclear-weapons program.
Hillary Clinton emphatically accused Russia of hacking the DNC even though she is fully aware of (I am) that all truly credible experts on the subject qualify their position with the fact that absolutely nobody working on the side of the United States has proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.
Hillary Clinton has been behind the push for war after war after war (mostly based upon proven pretexts) and wars we haven't even gotten into yet. She signed off on gigantic weapons deals to the most draconian regimes in the world, especially the Saudi regime. She did that after her Foundation received huge donations from those same Saudis.
Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, didn't just happen to follow her or be just in front of her in numerous countries right where Bill gave lucrative speeches, those nations gave big donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary then signed off on various US governmental deals for those nations. The odds against those things all being mere coincidences are astronomical. There is causation, and the cause is corruption. It is not just the appearance of conflicts of interest. The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming.
Hillary Clinton is deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex and US global imperialism, where the truth always takes a backseat. Money, power, and control is always first and foremost. It is always an elitist enterprise. Democracy, therefore, also always takes a backseat.
The Clinton's set out to build a personal empire. They are now multi-multi millionaires. If she is elected President, that trend will continue well into the next generation of Clintons. They are not about promoting the general welfare of Americans except in ways that they can use that to amass more personal wealth, power, and control for their Clinton-family members. That's not good government at all!
Hillary Clinton had a corrupt deal going with the Democratic Party where money would stealthily flow back into her campaign.
Hillary Clinton blatantly lied about being under sniper fire and having to run for cover when landing at an airport. Videos prove that she was instead warmly received after landing at the airport. The entire event was calm. There was no gunfire.
Over the years, Hillary Clinton has shown a clear pattern of records destruction when she is under investigation and then faining ignorance of various sorts. The most recent case concerns her private email server where she commingled private and governmental communications, some of which governmental communications were marked [C] for classified "confidential" and definitely should not have been handled via that server.
Hillary Clinton claimed to the FBI that she thought those "[C]" markings stood for the alphabetical order of the paragraphs in the communications. (http://theduran.com/hillarys-excuse-c-classified-marking-referenced-paragraphs-marked-alphabetical-order/)
However, Julian Assange's WikiLeaks has definitively shown that Hillary Clinton's answer to the FBI was disingenuous. It is either that or she's suffering from rather severe dementia or some other mental problem causing major lapses in memory.
Julian Assange states that WikiLeaks has thousands of documents showing Hillary Clinton signing off on "[C]" communications where there is zero possibility that those [C]'s were indicating alphabetical order of paragraphs.
"We have thousands of examples where she, herself has used this C in brackets and signed it off. And more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this C in brackets." ~ Julian Assange
Then you wonder why the Hillary Clinton campaign and her vast network of neocon supporters have been trying to change the subject to Julian Assange as a Russian agent and other such nonsense.
Now, some Hillary apologists may seek to jump on the notion that the [C]'s in the text of messages and the [C]'s on the sign-off documents are completely different settings and that, therefore, Clinton's claim is plausible. However, the FBI was investigating what Hillary thought those [C]'s meant. It is not plausible that Hillary Clinton would completely disassociate the use of the [C]'s on the sign-off documents from the [C]'s in the message-text margins, not after tens of thousands of messages.
So, many people don't want Donald Trump to win. When are those people going to stop being conflicted by their own self-fulfilling prophecies? They claim that Bernie Sanders' and Jill Stein's and other's platforms are superior but that too many others just would never go along with those better platforms. If everyone who says that it's the other guys or gals ("centrists", "moderates") who are the problem would simply vote for the best platform instead, we'd finally get good government on the way and not some "incremental" improvements that, in reality, are coupled with mega-corruption and needless and ceaseless wars, etc. One step forward and two steps back is not progress.
Things have gotten better in many areas. Things have gotten much worse in others. Those others are vastly more existential: war with Russia and/or China (likely both at once) and others joining in against the US and yet others the US would call on for support simply backing off, all leading to WWIII and likely global thermonuclear exchange making the entire exterior surface of the planet uninhabitable without super hazmat suits for quite limited times. Billions, the majority, of us would die for reasons ranging from direct annihilation and incineration to nuclear poisoning and cancer.
What does the Hillary Clinton campaign, loaded with neocons, attempt to do on this issue? They attempt to paint Donald Trump as the more dangerous of the two even though they simultaneously paint Trump as a Kremlin agent. How can he be both? It's very dumb on its face. If he's with Putin, he's not going to go to war against Putin. Only ignoramuses and idiots will fall for the neocon-drivel again!
Remember, Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction! Also remember that the UN knew that and that tens of millions of people around the world marched in the streets protesting the planned neocon war on Iraq. Then finally remember that after the neocons had attacked (especially under the dual pretexts of a Saddam-9/11 connection and the yellowcake memo, they knew at the time was a forgery), they admitted that Saddam had no 9/11-al Qaeda connection, quite the contrary, and that there were no WMD's in Iraq but masked over the fact that the world knew that going in. Instead, those neocons to this day pretend that "nobody knew," etc.
They are liars through and through. It's their stock and trade.
Now are you going to vote for their candidate? If you do, how will you escape damnation?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)