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.

  • 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.