Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Crooked Trump Is Right About Crooked Hillary and her crooked friends!

Donald Trump and some of his right wing allies may be as corrupt as Hillary Clinton but that doesn't mean they're wrong when they call her "Crooked Hillary."

(Since this was first posted the list of corruption and scandals involving Hillary or her allies continues to grow, which isn't surprising since her scandals have been growing almost non-stop since she's been a public figure. Some of these have been added below, including an incident where one of her delegates shot another one who also happened to be her husband.)

They may be exaggerating some of them, or in some cases making things up, but in most cases after checking facts there are enormous problems with her and her friends and it is clear that even if a few aren't true or are being exaggerated there are plenty that are and she is incredibly crooked and so are some of the people she associates with including some that are now being sent to prison or that have been previously in prison for white collar crime.

I can only cover a fraction of her corruption here including Travel-Gate, White-Water, connections to Sheldon Silver and so many more, since there's so much that hardly anyone can possibly remember them all; and there are as many problems with Donald Trump and many of his allies as well.

Perhaps the bigger problem is why the entire political and media establishment has been giving her the coverage she needs to win or rig the election even though she's an incredibly flawed candidate. Donald Trump is as bad but they gave him obsessive coverage portraying him as an outsider even though he obviously isn't, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten the coverage he needs to become so well known and popular.

There are plenty of potential candidates that don't have all these problems but the traditional media refuses to cover them so that they might have a chance.

The reason we may have two incredibly corrupt candidates that have record breaking negative polling isn't a major unsolved mystery as the media seems to imply.

It's because they refuse to cover candidates that don't collect enormous amounts of money from corporations including the six conglomerates that control the media.

The only exception is when a rare candidate like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein gets so much grassroots coverage that they can't avoid providing some coverage without being too obvious about their attempts to rig elections. Actually they are too obvious anyway to anyone paying enough attention; but they seem to be relying on complacent people to get away with it.

A recent article A brief guide to Clinton scandals from Travelgate to Emailgate 05/17/2016 reminds people of over a dozen of the past scandals that the Clinton's have been involved in and it is almost certainly only a small fraction of the total which would take weeks if not months to research, and would probably still be incomplete.

There are so many that it is impossible to keep track of, which makes it surprising that she boasted about people not being able to "name one example where donations changed her vote," ignoring the widely known fact that most so-called "Quid Quo Pro's" aren't quite so obvious; however when she helped stop a bankruptcy reform bill as first lady, then took enormous amounts of money from the banking industry as Senator she voted for virtually the same bill, as Elizabeth Warren pointed out in her book "The Two Income Trap" and several interviews while promoting it over ten years ago.

A couple that are only slightly less obvious include Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department 05/26/2015 and Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons, 07/31/2015

Of course, these are only a few of many examples although most of them don't seem quite so clear cut. However she clearly favors the views of her donors on one issue after another often supporting one position while running for office and another, that benefits her campaign contributors while in office. On just about every issue including NAFTA, TPP, the Keystone pipeline and even CAFTA, which she bragged about voting against, she was on the opposite side when in power. She may have voted against CAFTA but E-mails showed that she lobbied for it and only changed positions when she realized that it wasn't going to win any way and she didn't want the blame for a losing position. The same went for the TPP and Keystone pipeline which she hedged on for a long time after lobbying in favor, but then reversed herself when it was clear the the public wasn't going to vote for her if she supported them.

Ironically Obama campaigned as the more progressive of the two when he ran in 2008 and she had a record that indicated that he probably was; but then after getting in office he also flipped with her help as ?Secretary of State and on at least one occasion she and one of her supporters argued that she only favored the TPP because she was working for him and had to be loyal, ignoring the fact that she supported trade agreements even more than him during the previous campaign.

Her support of Wall Street corruption including Sheldon Silver and many other lobbyists and politicians is just the beginning. Corruption also clearly runs in the family; keeping children off limits including her daughter in the 1990s is reasonable but now she's an adult and married to a son of a felon convicted of white collar crime according to Chelsea Clinton’s ‘father-in-law’ lives down criminal past 07/29/2010 and her husband seems to be following in his fathers foots steps using her mothers connections while working at the State House to increase profits according to Clinton intervened to benefit son-in-law while at State. 12/09/2015 When children become adults and start participating in epidemic levels of corruption then it is no longer inappropriate to keep them off limits especially when her daughter is now campaigning for her and often lying while doing so like when she said that Bernie Sanders wanted to take away the Affordable Care Act, without mentioning that he clearly didn't want to do any such thing without replacing it with a much more efficient Single Payer system, which isn't written by insurance companies. And now her husband is losing enormous amounts of money for his clients according to Marc Mezvinsky: Clinton Son-In-Law Loses 90 Percent For Clients, Closes Hedge Fund; 05/11/2016 but to the best of my knowledge he's not taking the loses himself.

We're supposed to believe she's going to stand up to hedge fund managers, including her own son in law and many others who have donated to her campaign when she's done no such thing in the past, instead doing the opposite.

She's also closely connected to an enormous amount of corruption in New York, although the media somehow manages to avoid blaming her for much if any of it. This includes investigations into her political allies Sheldon Silver, Bill de Blasio, Andrew Cuomo, and more including several others in addition to Silver that were sentenced to prison, some of which was described in the following article:

NY is a corruption-filled cesspool — and we have ourselves to blame 05/04/2016

Mark the date, remember the moment. The corruption eruption in New York is reaching new heights — and depths.

From City Hall to Albany, the sewer runneth over. It is no longer adequate to talk of a few bad apples. We are suffering through a bumper crop of rottenness.

In normal times, the fall of Sheldon Silver, sentenced yesterday to 12 years in federal prison, would be drama enough. Yet the former Democratic leader of the Assembly is joined in infamy by Dean Skelos, the former Republican leader of the state Senate, whose sentencing comes up next week on the con- man calendar.

The comeuppance of the bosses of both legislative houses and both parties in the same year is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented in modern times. Even the legendary thieves of Tammany tended to leave space between dramatic downfalls.

Yet the Silver-Skelos scandal is just part of the worst of times.

Mayor Bill de Blasio is in a serious jam, as both state and federal prosecutors have his fundraising-and-favors operation in their cross hairs. Another sordid chapter would be written if the mayor himself is hit with criminal charges.

Then there’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who looked as if he had escaped a federal probe only to see a close friend and former aide suddenly land in very hot water about money paid to him by companies with state business. There’s no telling where the case will lead. Complete article

As I explained in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? New York is one of eighteen states with voting irregularities that haven't been explained and almost certainly helped her get her enormous lead, although the rigged media coverage should have done the trick without the need for cheating; but her record is so bad that it doesn't seem to have done the trick. An article written before the primary, Hillary Clinton urges New York state Democrats to aid in decisive primary victory, 04/04/2016 should raise additional questions about whether she used her political connections to win by large margins when she needed a win on several occasions including the New York Primary which had some of the most extensive voter suppression which was quickly forgotten by traditional media.

Her political corruption extends to many of her allies beyond New York or Arkansas of course including Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe who is under federal investigation for campaign contributions 05/24/2016 and this investigation is also related to the Clinton Foundation. Ironically Terry McAuliffe Took $25,000 From Donald Trump 05/2/2016 which means that both corrupt establishment candidates may be connected to this scandal.

Now not surprisingly Donald Trump is bringing back some of her previous scandals including her alleged attempts to intimidate several of the women that accused her husband of misconduct or even rape. Contrary to what Clinton supporters have claimed this has not been proven false although many of the allegations haven't been confirmed either. However some of them have been confirmed including of course Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones, indicating that a candidate that says women should be believed when they make accusations can't hold the high ground while claiming the opposite when it comes to her husband.

Another incident which has almost certainly been exaggerated that Donald Trump is bringing back up again is Vince Foster's suicide which contrary to the most extreme conspiracy theories is almost certainly not a murder; however there was some evidence to indicate that files were also allegedly removed from Foster's White House office before investigators were able to secure it as part of the official probe into his death. This isn't conclusive either but another one of the past scandals that was mentioned is the alleged drug running out of Mena Airport which Bill Clinton may have known about. There has been more reporting of this at the local level than in the national media since it first began including an old article, The Lonely Crusade of Linda Ives 04/18/1996 which indicates that Governor Clinton may have been heavily involved in a cover up removing a medical examiner that might have exposed a murder and replacing him with one that was less inclined to do so.

There is almost certainly more to this than the majority of the public know about and some in depth research may confirm it, although it will take time to sort through it. However some of the strongest evidence includes the Kerry Committee report which was a government investigation headed by John Kerry. The strongest additional evidence, that I know of, tying Bill Clinton to the drug running operations with at least tacit support from the CIA is probably evidence described by Terry Reed in "Compromised" where he discloses his activities with the CIA and how they included drug running some of which took place at Mena Airport, and he provides testimony indicating that Bill Clinton knew about it and that he met him.

Terry Reed's book is mostly personal experience but he does provide some documentary back up and there are plenty of additional whistle blowers and researchers that have confirmed that the CIA has been involved in drug running or at least looking the other way when their allies did it for causes they supported including the Nicaraguan Contras. Gary Webb author of "Dark Alliance" is one of the most extensive researchers providing enormous evidence including the Kerry Report and lots of other testimony that was in a court of law and compiling research done by many other reporters.

When he reported this attempts to discredit him were extensive often smearing his character; however they avoided research into his sources which he cited to back up his claims. This is clearly not an appropriate way to discredit a story if it is false but effective if they want to make it appear false. Alfred McCoy author of "The Politics of Heroin" also did a lot of good research into this subject and Celerino Castillo author of "Powderburns" is a former DEA agent who also blew the whistle on these operations and there are many more, although most of them don't get much if any attention in the traditional press.

No doubt there will be plenty of people that would be skeptical of claims about the CIA running drugs, especially if they rely on traditional media, which treats this like a fringe conspiracy theory; however those that take the time to sort through some of the research might conclude that although some of this does include misinformation, which shouldn't be surprising considering the subject matter and sources researchers have to deal with there is an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that a lot of it is clearly true. However even if many people are still skeptical I have provided a long list of their other corrupt activities from reliable sources, including collecting an enormous amount of money from media corporations and other industries for the Clinton Foundation in a previous article, Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this? the list of corrupt activities they've been involved in is so long that it's hard to imagine how anyone can keep track of it all.

Ironically Hillary Clinton could have pointed out that Donald Trump is as corrupt as her recently but instead ridiculed him for not making enough money in the Casino business when she said, "I mean, ask yourself, how can anybody lose money running a casino? Really." She could have easily pointed out that his Casino business is as corrupt as Trump University, actually corruption is one of the core principles for the Casino and organized gambling industries. If an organized gambling industry doesn't rig the odds in their own favor they can't cover their expenses let alone make a profit. Unfortunate it isn't politically correct to mention the basic principles of gambling in politics as I pointed out in The tragedy of gambling politics in United States. Hillary Clinton may not want to point this out anymore than most politicians since she also want to get in on the scam when it suits her purposes and there's no political gain in informing the victims of organized gambling institutions that they're being scammed.

If the media wasn't as corrupt as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump then they would have done a much better job covering the issues and there would be no doubt that other candidates, which they refuse to give fair coverage to, including Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, and probably many more that would be available if they could get coverage, are far more qualified to be president and Trump and Clinton would have been forced to drop out long ago due to lack of support.

Unfortunately that isn't the case, and the media gives corrupt candidates an enormous advantage by giving them obsessive coverage and the best candidates only get fair coverage in alternative media outlets for now. This could change if we get media refome enabling diverse coverage and election reform enabling the public to control the interview process.

The following are a few additional stories about epidemic levels of corruption by the Clinton's:

Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich continues to pay big 01/17/2016

Bill Clinton pardon controversy

Hillary Clinton is unraveling quickly 05/10/2016

Dean Skelos Is Sentenced to 5 Years in Prison in Corruption Case 05/12/2016 includes list of longest prison terms for NY lawmakers

Lee Camp: The Elections Board was paid MILLIONS before the NY Primary??, Hillary's new money laundering, and much more 05/10/2016

Peter F. Paul v. Hillary Clinton

Hillary whistleblower: 'I'm a political prisoner' 05/0/2016

Clinton Superdelegate Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison for Corruption 05/04/2016

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had 'regular' orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times 09/06/2014

Clintons Return White House Furniture 02/08/2001 Members of both parties also have criticized Clinton for granting scores of eleventh-hour clemency requests, including the pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive in Switzerland from 51 counts in the United States of tax evasion and fraud.

Clintons Began Taking White House Property a Year Ago 02/10/2001

Edit 08.19/2016 the following are some additional stories about Hillary Clinton's scandals or those of her allies:

11 Items from Clinton Foundation’s Dealings with Russian Uranium That Should Have Americans Worried April 2015

Former Clinton Aide Arrested – Hillary Left Rattled 08/05/2016

Hacked Emails Prove Hillary Sold Weapons To Terrorists, Worse Than You Think 08/02/2016

Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban 10/20/2015

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal 04/23/2015

Watchdog group releases 44 new Hillary Clinton emails, highlighting Clinton Foundation ties 08/10/2016

Conservative Group Releases Additional Hillary Clinton Emails From Aide’s Inbox 06/27/2016 “I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?” Mrs. Clinton wrote early in her term to both Ms. Abedin and another State Department employee. Ms. Abedin responded: “We’ve discussed this. I can explain it to you when I see u today.” March 22 2009 exchange

Huma Abedin left Secretary of State Clinton's schedule on a bed in her UNLOCKED hotel room despite the top aide testifying that her boss burned her daily agendas 08/09/2016

New emails show Huma scheming for Hillary 08/09/2016

Billionaire Clinton Foundation Donor Caught in Illegal DNC Voting Scheme 07/08/2016

One Of Hillary Clinton’s DNC Delegates Literally Tried To Murder Someone, But Media Are Silent 07/20/2016

Couple give conflicting accounts in Fayette County official’s shooting 07/18/2016

Fayette County Commissioner's wife resigns as Democratic convention delegate after shooting arrest 07/19/2016

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience is a disaster

It's fairly well known that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War when it counted; but later said it was a mistake.

Her mistake costed an enormous number of lives.

Well informed members of the public could have, and did,  recognize the propaganda the media and Bush administration was based on lies without inside information that clearly should have been available to members of Congress.

For some reason she's still considered experienced at foreign policy because of her record as Secretary of State; however what isn't reported as widely by the traditional media is that her experience is one disaster after another, following a pattern of behavior established by many other war mongers including Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney who have both complimented her on her record, which is almost as bad as theirs.

She has supported disastrous policies in Libya, Syria, Haiti, Honduras and many other places.

She has an incredibly long history of making atrocious decisions which the media only reports briefly before forgetting it and reporting positive propaganda about how much experience she has over and over again.

The people that pay the price for it tend to be the poorest people around the world and the veterans who sacrifice their lives or get abandoned once they come home, despite an enormous amount of propaganda glorifying them.

The following New York Times article describes just one of her disastrous decisions about Libya followed by more about Syria, Honduras, Haiti and more:

Hillary Clinton, 'Smart Power' and a Dictator's Fall - The New York Times 02/27/2016

The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven.

By the time Mahmoud Jibril cleared customs at Le Bourget airport and sped into Paris, the American secretary of state had been waiting for hours. But this was not a meeting Hillary Clinton could cancel. Their encounter could decide whether America was again going to war.

In the throes of the Arab Spring, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was facing a furious revolt by Libyans determined to end his quixotic 42-year rule. The dictator’s forces were approaching Benghazi, the crucible of the rebellion, and threatening a blood bath. France and Britain were urging the United States to join them in a military campaign to halt Colonel Qaddafi’s troops, and now the Arab League, too, was calling for action.

President Obama was deeply wary of another military venture in a Muslim country. Most of his senior advisers were telling him to stay out. Still, he dispatched Mrs. Clinton to sound out Mr. Jibril, a leader of the Libyan opposition. Their late-night meeting on March 14, 2011, would be the first chance for a top American official to get a sense of whom, exactly, the United States was being asked to support. .....

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.

This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. ..... Complete article

Just a few years earlier Hillary Clinton met with Qaddafi's son, Mutassim Gaddafi as part of the resumed diplomatic relations from several years earlier; however once they faced opposition it didn't take her long to turn against him and laugh at his death.

There could be a good argument why we have to try to get along with tyrants from time to time but Hillary Clinton was amazingly callous about it treating his death along with his father's as a joke when she said, "We came, we saw, he died," laughing as if foreign policy was a joke. This is especially outrageous when considering that it turned into a terrorist haven that contributed to the deaths of many people including four American's at the embassy, which should be considered a serious problem even if Republican's treat it like a political issue for their own gain. The truth is that both parties have an incredibly long history of fighting one war after another based on lies and selling weapons to many people around the world including an enormous amount that eventually get turned against us maintaining a permanent state of war.

Her record in Syria wasn't any better as indicated in the following article about it demonstrating her hypocrisy taking credit for a ceasefire she opposed before they attempted to implement it; perhaps if she did try to implement it as she claims it might have had a better chance:

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath 02/15/2016

In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:

"But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together."

This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton’s intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan’s peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton’s insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. Complete article

Her hypocritical attempts to deny blame also became clear in her record in Honduras. According to Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracy, 06/08/2015, the State Department was more concerned about maintaining relations with the new government and even seemed to support them preventing the democratic government from being returned to power. According to Democracy Now, Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres, a Honduran environmental activist, Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup. 03/11/2016 she later denied this but a close look at the record raises major doubts about it; unfortunately the traditional media doesn't take this look.

To make this even worse the refugees from the Honduran coup were among those Unaccompanied Minors Hillary Clinton said 'Should Be Sent Back' (06/18/2014). This was hardly reported at all when she was campaigning in Nevada and took a little girl in her lap and told her she would worry about preventing her parents from being sent back to their country.

I have no doubt that well informed immigrants were shocked by this incredibly obvious hypocrisy; however she's clearly relying on complacent people and media propaganda presenting her as the inevitable nominee; and she's still having a lot of trouble locking up what should be an easily rigged nomination.

Haiti was another one of her hypocritical claims for foreign policy success stories but according to the New York Times story, High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti, 03/14/2016, it was actually another one of her disasters. They report, '“You see all these people here?” said one of the Haitian-flag-draped protesters, Jean Renold Cenatus, 32, who said he was unemployed. “It’s because of what Mrs. Clinton did five years ago that we are facing this situation.”'

This was just part of the problems with her claims with Haiti; in addition to this she supported their president who didn't hold election when promised allegedly collected enormous amounts of money for them through their charitable organization, the Clinton Foundation, but most of it didn't get through to the people, leaving them desperate after the media stopped paying attention, and much more.

Why is she getting so much credit for her "experience" with this outrageous record? Presumably because the majority of the public simply doesn't research foreign policy very well and the media only reports the most important details very briefly and repeats positive propaganda over and over again.

An enormous percentage of the public often seems baffled about why so many people around the world "hate us," or at least that is the impression the political establishment often gives us. However the vast majority of the people around the world probably doesn't "hate us" at all, or at least not the majority of us; however they do hate it when our government bombs people all over the world based on lies and uses their clout to support tyrants and corrupt governments around the world that oppress their own people, often for the benefit of multinational corporations that donate to political campaigns and profit off of disastrous foreign policies.

If we were being bombed or treated like them by a foreign government we would hate it too; and when we portrayed ourselves as victims it is routinely used as justification for oppressive actions overseas that they hate.

The amazing double standard would be obvious if more people checked the details.

Amazingly, when it comes to foreign policy both parties are often almost identical, especially the politicians that have the most "experience" and a couple of the most bitter rivals of the democratic party, Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney, have spoken highly of Hillary Clinton's outrageous foreign policy "experience." Hillary Clinton once wrote, "Kissinger is a friend and I relied on his council when I served as Secretary of State;" (Hillary Clinton’s Ties to Henry Kissinger Come Back to Haunt Her 02/12/2016); and Dick Cheney once said, "I have a sense that she's one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president," (Dick Cheney heaps praise on Hillary Clinton 09/05/2011) These are a couple of the most outrageous war criminals that supported numerous wars and coups based on lies over the decades.

This is the candidate we're supposed to be the more rational compared to Donald Trump who is a "loose Cannon?" It is often hard to tell but "loose cannons" seem to be standard operating procedure for those that control foreign policies; however some do a better job arranging for propaganda to make them appear more rational or "experienced."

Both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are far more rational when it comes to foreign policy; but the entire political and media establishment portrays rogue actions as rational and refuses to give adequate coverage to more rational views and how they could do much more to avoid foreign policy disasters.

These are just a handful of the problems with her "experience" in foreign policy. There is much more, including stories about these countries and many more, which are almost all disastrous if the details are examined. Like other members of the political establishment and media she's far more concerned about the profits and benefits for those with political connections than the safety of the vast majority of the people around the world, including people at home who might be targeted with retaliation for her atrocities abroad, as indicated in the following articles, among others:

What Does Haiti Have to Show for $13 Billion in Earthquake Aid? 01/12/2015

NYC: Protesters Target Bill Clinton over Conditions in Haiti 6 Years After Earthquake 01/13/2016

Press Conference in front of Hillary Clinton’s midtown Manhattan office to denounce the lies and the plunder Bill & Hillary Clinton have done in Haiti 03/32/2015

Haitians protest outside Hillary HQ in Brooklyn 04/04/2016

Hillary Clinton’s Fraudulent Actions in Haiti 02/29/2015

Hillary’s State Department Pressured Haiti Not To Raise Minimum Wage to $.61 An Hour 01/18/2016

The Deposer in Chief: Hillary in Honduras 01/17/2016

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracy 06/08/2015

Slain Activist Berta Cáceres' Daughter: US Military Aid Has Fueled Repression & Violence in Honduras 03/18/2016

Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup 03/11/2016

Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras. It should be as scandalous as Libya 04/15/2016

"She's Baldly Lying": Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton's Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup 04/13/2016

Hear Hillary Clinton Defend Her Role in Honduras Coup When Questioned by Juan González 04/13/2016

Hard choices: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath 09/29/2014

Libyan Weapons Arming Al Qaeda Militias Across North Africa, Officials Say 21/02/2013

Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was 04/02/2016

The Libya Gamble: Inside Hillary Clinton's Push for War & the Making of a Failed State 03/03/2016

How Hillary Clinton Helped Turn Libya Into a ‘Terrorist Haven’ for Islamic State, According to NYT 03/01/2016

In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA 03/27/2016

Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton Email Archive NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC

Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton Pitched Iraq As 'A Business Opportunity' For US Corporations 09/30/2015

Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks 03/07/2016

Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News”Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News” 02/22/2016

Obama Went From Condemning Saudis for Abuses to Arming Them to the Teeth 04/19/2016

The Clintons Earned Over $3.5 Million in Paid Addresses to Pro-Israel Organizations: Bill Clinton said he “would grab a rifle” and fight for Israel during paid speech. 02/11/2016

Leaked Clinton email reveals plans to overthrow Assad were undertaken for Israel's benefit 11/30/2015

Rosario Dawson slams Hillary Clinton for her hypocrisy about Israel’s wall vs. Donald Trump’s Mexican wall 04/14/2016

Hillary Clinton attacks her church over Israel divestment vote 05/10/2016

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Resumé: What the Record Shows 05/06/2016

Hillary Clinton And Arms Deals — She Loses Support When Voters Learn These Details 05/09/2016

The Violent Crimes and Shady Dealings of Hillary Clinton 12/13/2015

Is Hillary Clinton more dangerous than Donald Trump? 04/14/2016

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Media Downplaying Two Police Killing Sprees Ignoring Solutions

People relying on traditional media could have easily missed it but two federal law enforcement officers went on killing sprees in the last five weeks.

One of them was the shooting spree last week in Maryland which got plenty of coverage but the vast majority of the stories I saw on national TV didn't mention that it was a Homeland Security Officer that only recently was put on administrative leave for domestic violence complaints that has been going on for over a decade. The other one was a former FBI agent involved in a murder suicide in Texas last month. Most reports of this one didn't disclose he was a former police officer, saying that it wasn't their policy to disclose names of shooting victims and perpetrators.

I've looked at a lot of reports about both police shootings and veteran shootings including many base shootings and few if any of them claimed this was their policies; however this base ah another incident three years ago, listed below, which still hasn't disclosed the people involved, that I could find on the internet.

When ever there is a police or veteran shooting there are always people trying to defend against efforts to make it seem as if all police or veterans are damaged goods, and that it is only a small minority of them that go on killing sprees; and this is true. However there are far more that the media is letting on and there appear to be statistics and additional research that indicate that both military veterans and police are more prone to violence than the general public and have greater problems with domestic violence. I have gone into this in several previous posts listed below.

Also, the media and political establishment also fail to cover the best research about preventing violence from escalating early by recognizing and preventing the root causes of violence. One of the most important root causes of violence is child abuse or corporal punishment which teaches children to deal with their problems through violence. It also teaches children to go along with the crowd even when it is racist or supporting wars based on lies. This often escalates in military or police academies where cadets are hazed as part of a process to teach them to blindly obey orders without question.

Not all police trainers agree with this, including David Couper former police chief of Madison Wisconsin, who recommends different methods; however, in some cases this is almost certainly a major contributing cause why some veterans or police officers become more violent. More about this below as well.

One thing that everyone should agree on is that if preventing the root causes of violence protects police, their families and the general public more effectively in the long run then much more should be done to do this.

As I've said in previous posts some of the people doing the most to reduce police or veteran violence are other police or veterans, or their families. In many cases when police or veterans become violent the victims are often other police or veterans and their families.

The incident last week clearly indicates that Eulalio “Leo” Tordil became overly obsessed with military training even at home with his own wife and children as indicated in the following article:

Man arrested in Md. killing spree allegedly menaced his wife, stepdaughters 05/06/2016

When Gladys Tordil went to court in March to plead for protection against her husband, she portrayed him as a man who had menaced her and her two daughters for at least a decade.

Eulalio “Leo” Tordil, 62, a career law enforcement officer and former Army reservist with a black belt in aikido, subjected his stepdaughters to “intense-military-like discipline — push ups, detention in dark closet” and used violence against his wife, Gladys Tordil said in a petition for a restraining order filed in Prince George’s County District Court.

During one fight in 2010, she told the court, “He slapped me so hard during our altercation, my glasses broke on my face.” On March 2 of this year, she said, “He threatened to harm me if I leave him.”

The protective order was granted. Eulalio Tordil’s superiors at the Federal Protective Service took his gun and badge as a result of the complaint and put him on administrative duty. But that didn’t save Gladys, a 44-year-old chemistry teacher at Parkdale High School.

Instead, it allegedly set off a two-day rampage of violence across suburban Maryland that left her and two others dead and drove her daughters into hiding until Eulalio Tordil was taken into custody at a Boston Market on Friday afternoon. ....

He may have meant to be the final fatality, allegedly telling colleagues that he wanted to commit “suicide by cop,” according to two people in law enforcement. Complete article

The following two articles, especially the second also seems to imply that the military hazing of recruits which was "a little bit of a shame culture" almost certainly contributed to a potentially violence environment:

Former FBI agent identified as gunman in Texas base murder-suicide 04/10/2016

DALLAS – A former FBI agent who later enlisted in the U.S. Air Force was identified Saturday as the man who killed his commander at an air base in San Antonio before turning the gun on himself.

A statement from the Air Force identified the two men as Tech. Sgt. Steven D. Bellino and Lt. Col. William A. Schroeder. The statement did not name the gunman, but a federal official close to the investigation said Bellino opened fire Friday at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the person isn't authorized to speak publicly about the case.

The official said Bellino was an FBI agent for less than two years before resigning in 2013 and later enlisting in the Air Force. Authorities have not confirmed why Schroeder was targeted. He was commander of the 342nd Training Squadron. Complete article

Gunman in Texas Air Force base killing had gone AWOL, then taken mental health exam 04/12/2016

A former Green Beret and onetime FBI agent who committed suicide after attacking his commander at their Air Force base in San Antonio had received a military mental health evaluation after going AWOL last summer, his attorney confirmed Monday.

Tech. Sgt. Steven D. Bellino, 41, of Parma Heights, Ohio, is believed to have opened fire early Friday in a training building at Lackland Air Force Base, killing his squadron's commander before apparently turning the gun on himself. ....

Bellino joined the Army after graduating from high school in 1992, training first as an Army Ranger at Ft. Stewart, Ga., then as a Green Beret at Ft. Bragg, N.C., according to his attorney, Daniel Conway. In 2002, he left the Army and joined the Army National Guard, serving with a special forces unit based in Ohio, according to Conway and military records.

During his time in the Army and National Guard, Bellino served multiple tours in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and Kuwait, Conway said. From 2004 to 2007, Bellino also worked as a civilian contractor with a private security firm, the lawyer said. In 2011, Bellino left the military, went to work as an FBI special agent in the New York office but resigned after less than two years, according to an FBI statement.

He then tried to reenlist in the Army or join the Navy, but eventually settled on the Air Force because it involved the least amount of red tape, Conway said.

Bellino took advantage of a program that allows veterans to assume jobs that are hard to fill, including special operations pararescue training. That made him a technical sergeant after serving for less than a year, the highest-ranking trainee in his group.

But shortly after Bellino arrived at Joint Base San Antonio on June 30, trainers found he had "physical problems," especially swimming, said a source who asked not to be identified because he is not authorized to speak about the case.

"There was a little bit of a shame culture down there," the source said. "There were members of the staff there that were belittling him in a way that was borderline appropriate."

On Aug. 3, the day he went absent without leave, Bellino's troubles seemed to come to a head. During a water endurance test, the source said, an instructor made him repeat an underwater swim, saying he had failed. Later, the source said, the trainer ordered him to say — while being videotaped — that he had quit the training program. Complete article

The same base also had a domestic shooting incident about three years ago according to, Army captain shot, wounded on Fort Sam Houston 06/11/2013 this one was the first shooting incident this base had in twenty years since another hostage incident took place when an employee took a supervisor hostage; but there have been plenty of other shooting incidents in bases around the country. As I said above this base doesn't seem to be slow releasing the information about either of these incidents, but most other bases don't seem to do this although they report each incident as an isolated one and rarely report on more than a handful of them so the majority of the public never realizes how common these incidents are.

An internet search at any given time often turns up more incidents which could quickly turn into long lists; after just looking at the first page of a Google search for "police officer arrested on duty" I found at least two more recent incidents by police which probably should receive a lot more attention, DC Cop Arrested After Allegedly Assaulting Civilian In Bizarre Road Rage Incident 04/22/2016 Off-Duty Officer Shot, Arrested After Firing At Deputies In Bel Air 04/21/2016. Variations of this search would almost certainly turn up many more incidents that don't get much attention, which is how I compiled some of the lists in articles cited below, and there are always a lot more.

One of the rare occasions where they do report more than two or three of these incidents at a time is, A History of Shootings at Military Installations in the U.S. 07/16/2015, which lists twenty shooting incidents at military bases going back to 1994, but seventeen of them were between 2008 and 2015, and there are many more that they don't cover.

I compiled long list of additional incidents where both police and veterans went on additional shooting sprees in A Brief History of Cops Convicted of Murder and Teach a soldier to kill and he just might. Most of these weren't on military bases but I'm sure that given time to organize them they will turn out many more than the twenty listed in the previous article by traditional media. I also went into some of the contributing causes for these shootings in these articles. A couple of the highest profile killing sprees that were both police and veterans were Manuel Pardo and Christopher Jordan Dorner.

More important than the lack of reporting on how common this is by the traditional media and the political establishment is their refusal to adequately address the best research on how to prevent these incidents by addressing the root causes. Contrary to the impression the media gives the public we do have adequate information on how to dramatically reduce, and possibly, eventually eliminate these incidents. One of the contributing causes of police shootings is almost certainly their training according to Hazing and Bullying in the Police Academy by David Couper, former police chief of Madison Wisconsin, which has had below average murder rates for quite a while especially compared to Milwaukee which is where David Clarke is sheriff and he uses a much more authoritarian manner to police and has higher rates, typically three to six times higher than Madison.

However police training isn't the only contributing cause for violence or even close but there is plenty of research on all the other contributing causes but the media and political establishment refuses to discus most of them either. In most cases the most effective way to reduce crime is to address the long term contributing causes before incidents escalate. The vast majority of reporting about how to prevent shooting incidents in the media focuses on one or two possible contributing causes. One of the causes that receives the most coverage is gun control which never leads to any action and it is almost certainly not the most important issue or even close, although there is a clear correlation between lax gun control laws and higher murder rates, and a much bigger difference when it comes to suicides.

Last year I did a series of over half a dozen reviews of various contributing causes to crime, listed below; the most important long term contributing cause of escalating violence is almost certainly child abuse and corporal punishment leading to escalating violence later in life as I explained in, Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows and numerous additional articles about this subject. In most, if not all cases, when researchers look into the past of violent felons they find that they've come from abusive childhoods where their parents, or other caretakers, often abused them, which taught them to use violence to solve their problems. Dorothy Otnow Lewis did an enormous amount of research into killers in prison and claimed that she found evidence of early abuse in every single incident, when she took the time to do enough investigation. However most researchers don't seem to be willing to look to deep and often assume that since they didn't find anything it must not be their, often even dismissing claims from defendants as biased and unreliable. Dorthy Otnow Lewis didn't rely solely on claims from defendants and even found they often denied the abuse. Instead she often found police and hospital records or other additional independent sources to support her research.

Additional contributing causes that the media inadequately reports on include poverty education, gambling, religion, gun control, income inequality, the death penalty, even life insurance, union busting and political affiliation. Republicans usually claim to be the toughest on crime but the states with the highest murder rates are controlled by Republicans, and the Democrats often try to copy the hard on crime policies of the Republicans. the areas with the lowest murder rates are often the ones with the most active grassroots efforts to recognize the best research and ensure that their elected officials don't push policies that have routinely proven to fail. My previous reviews of these contributing causes are listed below.

The states with the highest murder rates rely heavily on corporal punishment to raise their children and often fall for appeals to emotions that lead them to pursue policies that have been proven not to work by enormous amounts of evidence, including the death penalty, instead of efforts to reduce crime by reducing poverty improving education and addressing other necessary social needs.

A major part of the reason why the political establishment doesn't address many of these problems is because they're making an enormous amount of profit off of many of them. The media sells an enormous number of ads for both gambling and insurance and politicians collect campaign contributions from both of them so they have incentive to avoid discussing how they both lead to higher crime rates, including murder. The same goes for poverty and income inequality or inadequate education.

The political establishment is far more interested in control than they are in minimizing crime or war. Both of these enable them to use fear to scare the public and enable them to get the votes they need to promote policies that simply don't work.

The hazing and military indoctrination is part of that control efforts and it also leads to escalating violence. This leads to many incidents which some veterans like Chris Kyle often write about in their memoirs that don't fit the propaganda about many veterans by the media at all. He often admits that they get in lots of fights and even that the military and police often go easier on them than civilians. It shouldn't be surprising when occasionally they escalate so much the media can't ignore it like 'One hell of a pillow fight' West Point tradition turns violent; 24 concussions 09/06/2015

When it comes to military discipline they're often more concerned when potential challenges to authority take place like when West Point Cadets At Center Of Storm After Raising Fists In Photo 05/09/2016

Amazingly there appear to be an enormous amount of outrage over this incidents from people responding to this in Nice. Black Female West Point Cadets Raise Black Power Fist for Graduate Photo 05/07/2016. Aren't minorities included among those that our military is supposed to be protecting? The military doesn't protect us from massive economic inequality or pollution or many other problems; instead boot camp indoctrination often teaches people to blindly obey orders instead of addressing the root causes of violence, so instead of protecting people the military and police often do the opposite of what they're intended to do.

These are some of the pat articles about contributing causes to escalating violence posted previously:

A Brief History of Cops Convicted of Murder

The threat to police is greatly exaggerated

Debunking “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”

Is the militarization of the police leading to escalation of violence including Vegas shooting?

Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows

Does lack of education increase violent crime? Religion?

How much does Income Inequality Affects Crime Rates?

States with high murder rates have larger veteran populations

Teach a soldier to kill and he just might

The tragedy of gambling politics in United States

How does gambling and gun control impact violent crime?

Politics, not technology, caused botched executions

Democrats do a bad job on crime; Republicans and the Media are worse!!

Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit

Life Insurance and media companies are encouraging lots of murders

Union Busting adds to corrupt bureaucracy and incites crime

Friday, May 6, 2016

"God's Not Dead" But Is He Nice?

I haven't watched the new "God's Not Dead" movie but the ads for it seems to imply that it is almost certainly a rehash of the same debate over and over again with appeals to emotion for believers and a failure to review some of the most basic principles. Often even the skeptics that don't address them because they're more concerned about proving that "God" Doesn't exist while believers are trying to prove he does exist and is benevolent and merciful.

Neither side seems to consider the possibility that some form of advanced intelligence might exist that people have come to view as "God" who has an ulterior motive, no matter how far fetched it might seem.

The common claim that the existence of "God" can neither be proven or dis-proven may be close but it probably isn't quite right. At a minimum some assumptions about "God" can be confirmed or refuted, possibly narrowing down the nature of this "God," assuming he exists. Even most if not all of the high profile authors leading the "New Atheist movement" admit that they can't completely rule out the possibility that some form of "God" exists, including Victor Stenger, author of "God the Failed Hypothesis."

Stenger probably makes the most detailed argument against the existence of the God that Christians Muslims and Jews believe in, and claims that this "God" can't possibly exist; however he does this by defining the characteristics of their "God" then proves it isn't possible, but allows for the possible existence of another "God" which would need to be defined and exposed to prove that he does or does not exist.

His argument is basically very simple. If there is a God and he is all-knowing, all-powerful Omnipresent and benevolent then he could have prevented an enormous number of the disasters in history, including many of the religious wars supposedly inspired by him. The fact that he hasn't done this proves that either he isn't as powerful as religious people claim or he isn't benevolent.

For someone that isn't trying to prove the existence of a benevolent all powerful God this would probably be adequate to prove that if an advanced intelligence of some sort known as "God" exists then he can't be as good as most people want to believe. And of course there is the common claim by rational skeptics that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The evidence to prove the existence of "God" might not be adequate; but there is extraordinary evidence proving the existence of a major unsolved mystery that has been around for thousands of years and could possibly be related to the creation of religion and an unknown advanced intelligence, although additional evidence would be required to fill in the details.

As I explained in 107 Wonders of the Ancient World there are numerous ancient wonders that can't be explained and the clearest one is the large number of enormous megaliths, some over 700 tons, that experiments to replicate them with ancient technology didn't come close to succeeding without cheating. Most of these ancient wonders weren't done by Christians, Jews or Muslims; however one exception is the ancient Egyptian obelisks, several of which were relocated by Christians including the 455 ton Lateran Obelisk which was moved by Constantius II in the fourth century and re-erected by Pope Sixtus V. Efforts to replicate this feat didn't come close to succeeding. Experiments with limited technology only succeeded with megaliths up to ten tons; and additional experiments had limited success, although they involved cheating with megaliths up to forty tons, as I explained in previous post about 107 Wonders of the Ancient World.

There are also other possible unsolved mysteries surrounding so called "Mystics" or "Prophets" from more recent history, mostly in the twentieth century, including Leonardo Da Vinci, Michel De Nostradamus, Joseph Smith Jr., Bernadette Soubirous, Gregory Efimovich Rasputin, Edgar Cayce, Lúcia Santos and the incident at Fatima, Edward Leedskalnin, Padre Pio, José Arigó and Uri Geller. None of the mysteries surrounding any of these people or events are as clear cut as the megaliths that can't be moved with ancient technology, however a close look at most if not all might indicate an unsolved mystery of some sort. In most if not all cases the believers seem to jump to conclusions that won't stand up to scrutiny; and the skeptics also make obvious blunders when they try to dismiss aspects that aren't so easy to explain. This probably means that most if not all of these mysteries haven't been fully explained and an open mind for other possibilities might be appropriate.

If there is something to some of these stories then they indicate a possibility that some unknown advanced intelligence might be able to influence some people in mysterious ways the way "God" allegedly did in biblical times. Skeptics would be right not to rule this in without further evidence but they shouldn't rule it out either.

Without an explanation for these unsolved mystery, and others which and more which would take more time to go into, it is hard to see how the existence of an unknown advanced intelligence that might have been what people know as "God," can't possibly exist, although many of the assumptions about this "God" can be easily ruled out, assuming people think about it rationally. However even though many pseudo-skeptics aren't going to admit this; and many faithful people are still going to keep their faith in a "Good God," the evidence may not support either side. Further consideration of the "God" religious people choose to believe in, based on the Bible, may be worthwhile, even if the evidence proving the accuracy of the bible isn't as strong as the hard evidence provided by ancient wonders, since even if it isn't true religious people choose to believe it.

Ironically if you consider the hypothetical Biblical version of "God" it doesn't portray him as being merciful at all, although there are passages where he says he is merciful; but he doesn't demonstrate it with his alleged actions.

In Catholic Bible Exodus 14:4 it says, "I shall then make Pharaoh stubborn and he will set out in pursuit of them; and I shall win glory for myself at the expense of Pharaoh and his whole army, and then the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh.' And the Israelites did this" Other translations Bible Exodus 14:4 This is how "God" justifies the atrocities he allegedly commits against the Egyptians to convince them to let his people go. If he was as merciful as religious people and some Bible verses often claim then he could simply not "make Pharaoh stubborn" and convince him to let his people go without all these alleged miracles.

Instead he commits obvious entrapment and threatens to retaliate against anyone who doesn't blindly believe what they're told to believe. The entire book is full of threats to those that don't obey authority. Instead of teaching people how to get along with others the Bible describes one war after another often because the enemy isn't worshiping "God" in a manner that pleases "God."

And it routinely describes times where those that he previously blessed are being punished with atrocious events for not being devout enough while worshiping "God." Many people allegedly don't fully understand why they're being punished and often believe they're supposed to worship one "God" or another with their actions.

They do have some morals in it; however they're very selectively applied and more concerned with obedience to authority than respecting the rights of others. The first three or four commandments are about worshiping God and the fifth is about obeying parents as an authority figure. Then they get to the ones about respecting the right of others; but when it comes to outsiders or those who "God" disapproves of violating these commandments is not only not required but recommended in the Bible. It's full of orders to kill people for a variety of reasons, often what rational people would consider trivial, like working on the Sabbath, or they often recommend deception like when Jacob deceived Issac to get his blessing and "God" approved.

The commandment not to create "Graven Idols" to worship always seemed reasonable to me because worshiping hype often leads to a distorted thought process that distracts from rational thinking; however the Bible doesn't explain it that way and almost immediately after that God orders them to create and elaborate Ark which they worship; later on it describes how Solomon created a temple for "God" with huge megaliths, that sounds like the Temple Mount, although historians don't consider this conclusive, which has at least one megalith over five hundred tones. This is often part of their worship of "God" which serves no practical purpose for the people and does nothing to improve their quality of life.

Throughout the Bible they encounter at least three or four other cultures that worship unapproved "Gods" that also created massive monuments that experiments weren't able to replicate. They include the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Romans, and probably the people who created the temple at Baalbek, assuming they're worshipers of Baal, which has three megaliths over seven hundred tons and a dozen or more over two hundred tons. This site also has megalithic columns with drums that weigh sixty tons and architraves that weigh a hundred tons, although historians believe this was probably done by the Romans hundreds of years after the foundation was built.

These megalithic monuments were almost certainly built more for their ability to encourage cult worship and control their people than to provide any practical benefit. They seem spectacular but take so much effort that they contributed to the decline and fall of many civilizations that considered them more important than basic functions that do benefit society.

Evidence of cult worship continues in the New testament of the Bible where in Matthew 10; 34-7 (Additional translations) Jesus says "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword. For I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law; a person's enemies will be the members of his own household. No one who prefers father or mother to me is worthy of me. No one who prefers son or daughter to me is worthy of me." and in Luke: 14;26 which says, "Anyone who comes to me without hating father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, cannot be my disciple."

These are tactics that you might expect from fringe cult leaders like Jim Jones, Charles Manson or David Koresh that use coercion to control their followers and often lead them to bring about their own destruction. Many people may not realize it but they have their roots in the Bible which mainstream religions worship. Beliefs like 9/11 was retaliation from "God" for tolerating gay people also have their roots in the Bible which has verses about curses that involve arbitrary punishment after the fact when people won't even know what they're being punished for or why, assuming the Bible is the literal truth.

Verses like this might raise doubts about whether or not most Christians actually read their own Bible. Many of them almost certainly don't. Before I read it I mentioned a couple portions of it that I heard of indirectly including the story of David and Goliath and the one about the Good Samaritan to someone that was much more religious than me and claimed to know the Bible well. He expressed outrage saying the story of David and Goliath wasn't from the Bible and the Jewish people didn't look down on Samaritans at that time. I didn't argue since he had read it and I didn't but later confirmed that I was right.

Throughout most of Christian history most people weren't even supposed to read the Bible. Priest were supposed to read what they saw fit to the people and they read it in Latin which many people didn't even understand. This didn't change until the Protestant divide when people like Martin Luther and other reformers said it should be read by everyone. Since then a lot of people really did read the Bible, although most may not fully understand it. But they seem to go about it with the assumption that it is divine therefore they must always find a way to justify everything which leads to enormous contradictory justifications which constantly change.

The Bible also has an enormous number of verses that treat women like property and justifies atrocities against them including when a father in Sodom offered to let the mob rape and abuse his daughter as long as he left angels from God alone and a similar incident in the book of Judges among many other sexist verses. It is hard to imagine why someone like Grace Wesley would welcome his judgement. It is also hard to imagine why anyone who understood the Bible where he entraps the Egyptians and intentionally incites many other wars could possibly believe this "God" was trustworthy enough and qualified to pass moral judgement.

However, in all fairness it is worth considering the possibility that this isn't the literal word of "God" or an accurate portrayal of history, which it almost certainly isn't. Many religious people don't believe in Biblical literalism but still believe in a benevolent "God," that may have inspired their religion.

If this is true then why didn't this benevolent "God" maintain an open line of communication and inform the people that the message delivered by religious leaders, that often led to wars and propped up the authority of tyrants, was never what he intended at all?

If he was as benevolent and merciful as religious people claim this is the least that he could have and would have done.

If religious people can avoid addressing this question it is much easier to maintain their belief; if not they will almost certainly come up with irrational justifications for their God and might even respond in anger scaring many people into avoiding the discussion. This can be interpreted as winning the argument even though they never address the obvious problems.

Some philosophers might consider whether God or some other advanced intelligence might really be moral, as religious people believe or either immoral or amoral. The difference may be trivial to many. Moral means respecting the rights of others; immoral means having no respect for the rights of others; amoral means having no concern about morality at all. Nature or weather might be fairly considered amoral under this definition since it has no intention to either harm or help people and no consciousness; however if there is an advanced intelligence known as "God" that influenced the creation of religions and the creation of monuments from ancient civilizations that wouldn't have been possible otherwise this advanced intelligence does seem to have an agenda and billions of people have been paying the price for what ever that objective has been for thousands of years.

If many religious people come to the conclusion that there really is a "God" but he might not be so merciful as they previously chose to believe the most likely assumption for many of them might go to the opposite extreme, that "God" commits atrocities for amusement or evil purposes. Technically it might not be so easy to rule this out since it may seem to fit the facts but this is almost certainly another emotional assumption. If there is an advanced intelligence known as "God" he is probably accomplishing his goal, what ever that might be, in the most effective way he knows how, regardless of how much damage he does to people and animals.

In addition to experiments that prove that it should be impossible to move massive megaliths with ancient technology; it might be highly unlikely that ancient leaders would have understood advanced psychology that enables them to control large numbers of people, either for the construction of structures that provide them no benefits or to fight one war after another.

If our history, including the creation of megalithic monuments that shouldn't be possible based on experiments to replicate them, and the beliefs allegedly inspired by "God" are his way of accomplishing his goal what could that goal possibly be? How could this possibly help him accomplish it?

How can we avoid obvious denial from both skeptics and believers about many of the major flaws they routinely ignore?

The closest relatively high profile attempt to explain all these unsolved mysteries, without falling into these two categories of skeptics that rule out or virtually rule out a God or believers that insist on a God that is worthy of worship, that I know of is the Ancient Alien theorist that have been on several science and history channels including the series by that name on the History Channel. However they make their own share of blunders, often so obvious that it is hard to imagine how they could possibly miss them.

In my previous UFO Hypothesis with rational use of Occam's Razor I indicated that if there has been some evidence of UFO activity or their past involvement in our history they may have released reliable information though unreliable sources and unreliable information though sources that seemed reliable. There seems to be a lot of evidence to support this possibility, although it takes a lot of time reviewing different sources to recognize it. This theory, as described further in the previous post, indicates that if there is a UFO presence of some sort that arrived thousands of years ago they probably rely on artificial intelligence and travel that takes hundreds if not thousands of years.

If that is the case then they probably can't commute, as most science fiction films imply they can. What would they accomplish so far from their own planet?

One possible consideration might be that they might conduct large research projects that they would never allow on their own planet. This could include research into manipulation of DNA, although they might be inclined to do a lot of that on their own planet, but if their environment is different it would be a different kind of research; or research on Climate Change, which they almost certainly wouldn't intentionally do on their own planet if they understood it. However they could conceivably gone through similar problems with Climate Change on their own planet and done some research without initially intending to, which is what is now presumably going on now with the research on Climate Change. However if we were responding to it in a rational manner the establishment would have already taken much more drastic measures to reverse it, assuming they were rational. If they're trying to allow it to continue, at least long enough to serve the purposes of a specific experiment then they might might need an excuse to avoid addressing the problem.

The current establishment is acting in an insane manner that is destroying the planet with little or no sincere attempt to reverse it. This seems to be because of ideological fanaticism, and for many people it almost certainly is; however there should be many more well educated people doing a much better job trying to raise the alarm. However instead the entire political and media establishment is trying to convince the public to go along with and ideology about expanding the economy with no limit. this is obviously flawed; and unless the most powerful politicians are suicidal they should be taking this much more seriously instead of just pretending either that it isn't a problem at all or they can get by with minor changes.

This sounds insane.

It is insane.

However even if this hypothesis isn't true there are an enormous amount of things happening that are just as insane like the media and political establishment providing the coverage that enables Donald Trump to get the Republican nomination and trying to rig it so that Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination and we have no choice but to go for lesser of two evils who won't try to do much if anything or go for a seemingly impossible option with either Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, since the media refuses to cover the majority of rational candidates for any given office.

The political establishment has demonstrated that they know how to do a much better job manipulating the public without driving them to absurd extremes; yet they're doing it anyway. The current political campaign is as absurd and insane as any fringe conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory that explains this would have to be huge!

This one is. However it would be foolish to pursue a course of action that would only work if it were true. A political reform movement that brings in better education reverses economic inequality and reverses the enormous amount of environmental destruction would be rational whether this is true or not.

What our current political leadership is doing is insane whether this hypothesis is true or not.

Also whether this far-fetched hypothesis is true or not we're pursuing an insane course of action with the agenda set by the political establishment based on hard facts that aren't so speculative; but those in power don't seem willing to acknowledge it.

Also, if we described the rapid development of genetically modified organisms possible manipulation of DNA, advanced computer technology and weapons technology to skeptics decades ago they would have considered it science fiction or fringe conspiracy theories. However it is now science fact. Could we really develop all this technology this fast without reverse engineering from alien technology or perhaps a direct line of communication?

If Philip Corso did share some form of alien technology with corporations, as I mentioned in UFO Hypothesis with rational use of Occam's Razor then it would mean that the GMO research being done by Monsanto would be with the help of knowledge they received directly or indirectly from aliens. It would also mean that advanced weapons and aircraft technology being developed may also be with the help of alien technology. Whether this technology was developed with alien technology or not it is being used to maintain a permanent state of war very much like the wars fought for religious reasons for thousands of years.

This seems farfetched and reasonable skepticism is advisable; however if current explanations either by religious people that portray the Biblical version of "God" as benevolent continue ignoring the atrocities he allegedly commits in the Bible and the negligence he commits by refusing to advise against religious war; and the skeptics continue to pretend unsolved mysteries like how the ancient megaliths were moved and other mysteries mentioned either in this article or elsewhere don't exist; then it would be appropriate to consider different theories that do address the flaws in existing beliefs including this one.

Whether you consider this hypothesis rational or not it is hard to believe that a "God" that allegedly says (Exodus 31:14) "You will keep the Sabbath, then; you will regard it as holy. Anyone who profanes it will be put to death; anyone who does any work on that day will be outlawed from his people," should be considered a reliable source of morality.