How Can You, in Good Conscience, Vote for Hillary Clinton: A Gigantic, Existentially Dangerous, Proven Liar?

I've been writing, week after week, that Hillary Clinton's been blatantly lying about a Russian hack of the DNC. She's been emphatically stating that there is no doubt the Russian government did it and that the order came from the top, meaning Vladimir Putin. I've been writing, as have others, that there is zero proof or evidence on offer from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to substantiate her claims. Then, the Obama administration (obviously President Obama authorizing it) started backing Hillary Clinton's claims. Hillary went on to claim (in the 3rd debate with Donald Trump) that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed her claims, which is false, a lie, in a long series of lies, all designed to manage the perceptions of the American and world public into falsely believing it is a proven fact Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian government/intelligence to hack the DNC and the Russian government carried out the Russian President's order.


Tom Usher

On October 20. 2016, when it came out, I read, "No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails." I had/have some issues with that article, so I didn't post on it earlier. Having reflected on it for awhile, I now post this snippet, with which I fully agree:

What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks

. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Saying we think the hacks "are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts" is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.

My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence.

That's from the National Review. I don't agree with the National Review's ideology. However, and even though the National Review would likely not shine the spotlight as brightly on one who agrees with their ideology, the quoted portion is accurate.

I also don't agree with James Corbett's atheist, anarcho-capitalist ideology, but he's nearly 100% accurate in his assessment of Hillary Clinton in the following video he produced: "Hillary Clinton Is A Threat To All Of Humanity."

Over the last few days, I've been thinking intermittently about Jesus and the Gospel of John and what Jesus says. Certain of the Jews were not absorbing what Jesus was teaching. Those certain Jews claimed to be upset at Jesus because Jesus was "making himself God" and claiming to be the "Son of God." Jesus then referred them to their own Holy Scriptures, Psalm 82, verse 6, to be exact:

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psalms 82:6)

What does it mean? How are we to read it/comprehend it/interpret it?

According to "The Treasury of David," by Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) ("Charles Haddon Spurgeon was England's best-known preacher for most of the second half of the nineteenth century."):

"I have said, ye are gods." The greatest honour was thus put upon them; they were delegated gods, clothed for a while with a little of that authority by which the Lord judges among the sons of men. "And all of you are children of the Most High." This was their ex-officio character, not their moral or spiritual relationship. There must be some government among men, and as angels are not sent to dispense it, God allows men to rule over men, and endorses their office, so far at least that the prostitution of it becomes an insult to his own prerogatives. Magistrates would have no right to condemn the guilty if God had not sanctioned the establishment of government, the administration of law, and the execution of sentences. Here the Spirit speaks most honourably of these offices, even when it censures the officers; and thereby teaches us to render honour to whom honour is due, honour to the office even if we award censure to the office-bearer.

I think that's a pretty decent understanding. Of course, God will, as part of His plan, even allow the removal of offices and even whole governments, nations, and states that become too offensive.

What about "voting for the lesser of evils" because it's somehow safer, etc.? What did the disciples do?

Before Jesus was crucified, Jesus told his disciples in no uncertain terms that they would be persecuted and killed for being Jesus's disciples. As far as we know (aside from Judas who betrayed Jesus and died for it), only John of the original twelve was not killed.

None of the eleven walked back from Jesus after Jesus's crucifixion. They were initially afraid; however, after Jesus appeared to them, they stood up openly as Jesus's followers and were, as foretold by Jesus, murdered for it, as Jesus was murdered while not being guilty of any crime.

The disciples did not go off to follow some "safer" leader (whether or not a lesser evil than the worst of the worst) who would see to it that they were not persecuted and killed. Would they vote for Hillary Clinton today were they here and "qualified and registered" just because they might think Donald Trump a greater evil? The answer is that they would not. They would preach Jesus's teachings just as they did before, and Jesus's teachings are not in the least consistent with Hillary Clinton's message or plans.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.