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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton Lies: In Context

You need to read this! If true [and WikiLeaks hasn't been wrong yet], this is why Obama is lying about Russia (falsely blaming Russia for hacking the DNC right now: he has zero proof, and everyone who knows anything about hacking knows it full well!): to take the spotlight off REAL news that's being released.

... the email that will likely cause the most damage to Clinton’s campaign is titled “HRC Paid Speeches.” This email exposes transcript excerpts from her paid speeches which were closed to the public and the press, including those given to Goldman Sachs. They confirm what many have long suspected about Hillary’s real political views. In the transcripts, which you can read here, Clinton expresses that she is both pro-KeystoneXL and pro-TTP (free trade) – positions she has declined publicly. Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street banks will likely be very difficult to “spin”, as she told Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank that Wall Street were held accountable for the 2008 crisis for solely political reasons and to appease the public. Clinton said that the blame placed on the United States banking system for the crisis “could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened.” She also said that public perception of the rigged system must be controlled in order to maintain public trust. She also said that financial reform “really has to come from the industry itself,” expressing her view that Wall Street should police itself. She also said she “did all I could to make sure [Wall Street] continued to prosper” after 2008 and also said that she depends on Wall Street money for funding.

Most concerning of all to Clinton’s campaign is that she explains away her misrepresentation of her views to public as being born out of the necessity to have “a private and public position on policy.” To quote directly from Clinton’s words: “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.” She said the public/private position dichotomy is “necessary to be successful, politically” and said this was true throughout all of American history. Essentially, Clinton admits that everything she says publicly is done so for political gain and does not reflect her true, “private” views. [That's exactly the neocon philosophy/ideology: lie! That's what they do. They lie and lie and lie.]

Other emails will have implications for Podesta himself as some emails on Podesta’s server were overtly racist. [Source:

If you read the emails without context, then you can come to a benign conclusion. However, Hillary lied about not knowing the CIA was shipping weapons from Libya through Turkey to jihadis in Syria there to overthrow Assad's secular government to install an Islamic state with rather hardline positions to say the least.

That's only one thing out of many, many.

If you want to ignore what she did in Honduras (she gave the public position that it was not a coup while knowing it was most certainly a coup), then you can read the email as benign rather than more circumstantial evidence mounding up to "preponderance," as in guilt.

The "complex and ever evolving political strategy" is "liberal interventionism" often in direct opposition to democracy here and in other nation-states.

I don't know of anyone suggesting that she can't have a confidential discussion. I have confidential discussions without having a public versus private position. Don't you see the difference?

My public views are my private views. If I'm formulating or negotiating, etc., then my public position will be that: "I'm in discussions and will make a public statement about my position when appropriate." That's not Hillary's style and isn't remotely what the emails suggest she's about.

All of that said, I found the bit about interpreting Hillary's statements as meaning that "Essentially, Clinton admits that everything she says publicly is done so for political gain and does not reflect her true, “private” views" is stretching too much. I don't, however, agree that Hillary is not a proven liar whose lies promote people jumping to overly stretched conclusions.

While we're on the subject of jumping to public conclusions, let's not forget that Hillary Clinton has been lying and lying and lying that Russia hacked the DNC, etc. Now, Barack Obama has joined in with the lying in a highly timed fashion. The US government has only reason to suspect. It does not have proof. Yet, the propagandists have been set the obvious task of painting the story as if the US as definite proof. They barely mention that they don't. When they do mention it, it's only to be able to say "we didn't lie," which is a form of dishonesty. You know that.

Plus, Hillary continues to lie that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program/plan. She has no such knowledge and can't pretend she hasn't been told that the US intelligence community issued a formal review stating that Iran has no such program and didn't have one while the US administration was claiming otherwise.

Now, you can believe she's a complete ignoramus and idiot and bad listener when the spooks and hacks say no about Russia and Iran, etc., but if you read all of WikiLeaks' leaks about her statements made during and after Honduras and see her sign off on tens of thousands of emails with "C" for confidential/classified, then I suggest that you're stretching things to arrive at the conclusion that there's no beef in the recent release.

She destroyed tens of thousands of emails while under investigation. She, and those around her, made a deal with the FBI to destroy computer drives that may well be needed in the future.

Then there's the "Clinton Cash" issue and the huge conflicts of interest with Bill following her or leading her from country to country making millions on speeches and gaining huge donations, etc.

We still don't know where all the money went for Haiti. Bill refused to show the trail. Meanwhile, Hillary backed a Papa and Baby Doc element to lead the country.

Is Trump bad? He's a mess. Is Hillary better? At least Trump has refused to lie about Russia to rev up war and war profits. You do know that Hillary is about the military industrial complex and US, corporate, Wall Street empire, right?

Don't compartmentalize to the extent that you don't see the big picture and what's at stake: WWIII! She's dangerous, more dangerous in that regard than even Trump. That's my view; and I say it's backed by the facts, many of which I've just cited.

I could go on and on and on about Bill and Hillary and Wall Street and all the other issues down through the decades (and there's "beef" there aplenty). Do I need to, to convince you that you should not be supporting her but should be supporting someone who better fits your real views: perhaps Jill Stein?

At least Jill has the brains to know that a "no-fly zone" enforced on Russia in Syria is an invitation to war. Putin knows it. He knows that the neocons and Hillary have planned for him and for Russia what has happened in country after country after country and even though Putin and Russia have been by far the saner parties in this US-Russia conflict.

Fuller context:

Add the DNC working for Hillary against Bernie.

Add the "Victory Fund" sleight of hand.

Add Hillary claiming she was under sniper fire and had to duck and run. It's endless.

You know about Mena, Arkansas, right? Why do you think the Bushes and Bill get along so well? It was about CIA drug running and using proceeds in class and race warfare right here in the US. I studied it in great detail. It happened! Read Daniel Hopsicker and others on it.

Remember the Church Committee? Remember all the stuff that came out? It was just more of the same. There's tons of it.

Do you know the true story about Serbia? That was a railroad job to Balkanize Tito's Yugoslavia. It all came out later, but the US corporate mainstream media (now backing Hillary) didn't want to shine a light on it. Why not?

Didn't the Pentagon Papers radicalize you? Do you think things have changed, that Barack Obama isn't on board with "the imperial plan," isn't benefiting from it, isn't going to become richer and richer and richer because of it?

Do you know what really happened in Georgia and Ukraine? It wasn't Putin's doing. That's a fact. It was the neocons, just like in Iraq, just like in Central America before that.

You know that Hillary wants Bill to run the economy, right? He's still saying the legislation he backed didn't cause the problems: Great Recession:

If Hillary wins the election, are you really going to think that it wasn't because she was the more powerful of the two in the corrupt system? Honestly?

What will Donald Trump do now that he's been constantly attacked by Hillary Clinton's team and supporters, including the media and her GOP fellow-traveler neocons?

Well, here's a hint:

I can't say exactly where the truth starts and stops in all of this Clinton v. Trump stuff, but I do know that whatever Trump has done or said, it pales next to what Hillary and Bill Clinton have actually done. Are these women totally lying?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nitpick Trump, Ignore Hillary "Killary"

It is simply astounding to me how people who are opposed to Trump nitpick him (though he has made some relatively major errors for a private citizen and is difficult to definitively read/understand) while lauding Hillary by ignoring everything she has done making the world vastly worse during her time as a public official.

Her asinine choices resulted in the needless death of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them innocent women and children, the infirmed, the aged....

She helped overthrow democracies and install fascists!

She now blatantly lies about Russian hacking in her bid to rev up the replacement for the Cold War against the Soviet Union that risks nuclear WWIII more so than even the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Do you know how easy it is to get a high rating as a charity while not showing where the money really ends up? I do.

She's rich, very, very rich, and became that way mostly by money from sources she claims to stand against. They weren't paying her to tell them what they didn't want to hear from her. You know that.

I could go on and on, but people don't hear what they don't want to hear. They want to pretend that they know she's the lesser of evils. Well, I don't know that she is the lesser of evils, far from it! Neither do you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment