What sticks out to me right now is the short attention span of so many people and the lack of giving proper weight to the most important issue. It makes the job of the consciousness manipulators easy.
The false propagandists and professional spinners are trying really, really hard to conveniently leave out that Hillary Clinton flat-out said Russia hacked the DNC when she has zero proof of that.
...we are seeing cyber attacks coming from states, organs of states. The most recent and troubling of these has been Russia. There’s no doubt now that Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know Donald’s very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin, but Putin is playing a really tough, long game here. And one of the things he’s done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee.
I did a Google search on ("hillary clinton" russia DNC -FBI) [less the parentheses]. I added "-FBI" because I suspect that the recent "phone hack" issue is being used to mask searching for ("hillary clinton" russia DNC) without getting the "FBI" results first now (nearly immediately after the debate). Yes, I'm cynical enough to believe the mainstream media manipulates that way. They are mostly neocon, and Hillary is their girl because of it. Neocons hate Russia with a passion. Donald Trump not playing along concerning ramping up the war fever against Russia strikes fear and hatred into the neocons concerning Trump. Nothing else much matters. Trump could be Netanyahu; but if he were to not trash Russia with his all, they'd do everything possible to pull the rug out from under him.
Looking through the Google search results that I filtered for "Past 24 hours" and "Sorted by date," I ran into two post titles/sites that appeared focused on the subject more than the rest:
If you read those, please notice the subtle way in which both leave out that Hillary accused Putin directly for the DNC hack. That's not all you should notice though. The entire subject in the Google results spins the issue away from the issue of war with Russia and its Global Thermonuclear War implications/risks.
I like what Brian Becker, from the anti-war Answer Coalition, had to say; but even he didn't nail the issue (unless he was poorly edited by RT):
“The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it’s manifested itself into something more than just a diversion,” he said.
“Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations,” Becker added.
My Facebook and Google+ post right after the debate sums up my feeling:
Well, if you run in Trump circles, he won. If you run in Clinton circles, she won.
What do I think? They both flubbed and both scored.
THE most important thing to me was Hillary Clinton definitely blaming Russia for hacking the DNC.
Donald Trump handled it better than I expected, and I didn't have low expectations. She doesn't know Russia did it or who did.
He is right that the threat of nuclear war is the gravest immediate danger. He said he would not use a first strike. Bravo that.
Hillary is thumping Russia with her unsubstantiated claims. She's playing with fire: global nuclear incineration and poisoning.
I don't support Donald Trump, but she's more dangerous by far!
Why forget what the Clinton campaign did to the Bernie Sanders campaign? Trump brought it up and wasn't being disingenuous about it.
Why put Trump's unacceptable positions (whatever you feel those are, and people do differ on them of course) higher in importance than the real risk of nuclear war being triggered by the neocon policies and practices toward Russia (which would draw in China and probably others)? Why not give more weight to a nuclear WWIII?
Are you really ready to seriously risk the planet just because you might agree with Hillary Clinton on more issues than you do with Donald Trump? Are you thinking that the risk is low with a Hillary Presidency? Really? She has a proven war-hawk track record and a record of lying about her efforts for peace. She lies by omission. She omits the hawkishness she had during all the times she now claims she was working for peace. She leaves out the finer details concerning how she defines "working for peace." Destroying Syria to weaken Iran to strengthen Israel (regardless of the Palestinian nightmare at the hands of the Zionists) is something she calls working toward peace (Source: "UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015"). She thinks peace will come when Israel is the only regional power there and the only nuclear-weapons holder there. She simply lied and continues to lie about Iran and nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Trump does that too (but in this case, he may not know Iran didn't, and doesn't, have a nuclear-weapons program).
Again, what sticks out to me right now is the short attention span of so many people and the lack of giving proper weight to the most important issue. It makes the job of the consciousness manipulators easy.
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)