Poyhonen's Blog

stories and commentary

Questions for American Security Officials Concerning the Russian Hacking of the Election

leave a comment »

There is public information available decrying ‘hacking’ being performed by the U.S., Russia, China, and North Korea. The current and most prominent complaint in the U.S. accuses Russians of hacking the presidential election.

Our government’s accusation does not concern ballots, voting machines, or the counting of votes but is targeted at the release of emails ‘hacked’ from the DNC and John Podesta’s emails. The emails demonstrate some interesting items:

Hillary Clinton supports fracking and thinks opposition to is a Russian plot supported by Russian oligarchs.

The DNC and Hillary campaign conspired to defeat Bernie Sanders

Campaign debate questions given to Hillary prior to the debate

Pay for play regarding Cisco

The Clinton Foundation received many millions for Saudi Arabia and Qatar after Hillary had full knowledge that those countries covertly funded ISIS.

There are many, many more emails that demonstrate corruption, hypocrisy, collusion, and deceptive activities. The leaked emails led to the resignation of Democrat National Committee Party Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as well as several other high ranking members of the DNC. The loss of so many officials, exposed as being corrupt, might be thought to have had a significant impact on Hillary’s campaign efforts but Debbie Wasserman Schultz was hired by Hillary to be an honorary chair of Hillary’s 50 state program to elect Democrats around the country so the DNC loss of Debbie can be viewed as a gain to Hillary’s campaign.

Voters review of the leaked information, leading to the disdain of the candidate, seems to be the key complaint and result of alleged Russian hacking – even though Wikileaks denies Russian or any State involvement.  The Russians, however, are still being blamed for Hillary’s loss of the election. They are accused of releasing ‘hacked’ emails whose review by voters discredited Hillary as a candidate.

The content of the emails needs to be considered. No one has disparaged the DNC for Podesta’s risotto recipe, (also leaked in the emails), but the legitimate and validated content disclosing corruption and dishonesty seems to have had an impact of some level as yet to be determined. There has been no quantitative analysis on the level of voter response due to the release of the emails content.  Some questions to our security operatives may bring some light to the (Russian?) hacking operation regarding the presidential campaign:

If the content is unimportant – why is this hacking considered so appalling? For example: There is no interest in bank camera surveillance until something illegal or unethical transpires during the video.

Were the initiators of the emails paid by Russians? Did Podesta, Hillary, and DNC operatives get remunerations for writing the content of the emails?

Is there a money trail from Russia to the content writers of Podesta’s emails? Perhaps they were coerced in some manner?

Did the content providers actually mean what they wrote?

The same can be said for James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas videos that exposed Hillary and DNC funded operatives fomenting violence at Trump rallies and other disingenuous activities. The Democrats railed against the videos because they were surreptitiously garnered but the content of the videos exposed many lies, misinformation, and negative propaganda created by Democrats and Hillary campaign officials to mislead the public in regards to D. Trump. Was O’Keefe paid by the Russians to make the videos or were the persons being recorded being paid by the Russians?

Will President Obama also force O’Keefe to leave the United States?

So far, the only money trail discovered from Russia leads to the Clinton Foundation – but the provided questions are for those investigators of the great election hacking propaganda production being foisted upon American citizens.   Unfortunately, the answers would provide a much needed focus on actual election campaign problems inherent in the DNC, News Media, Academia, and our Executive branch of Government in terms of honest discourse, and as such, they will never be asked.

Nevertheless, in regards of this article, be aware that many states governments, even allies, have hacking endeavors and your technical and private information should be protected with vigor.

———————————————————

There are many avenues to explore and the following list of reference sites is not even a beginning foray into exposing the corrupt activities of Hillary Clinton.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/how-hillarys-campaign-chief-hid-money-from-russia/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/the-russian-hack-absolute_b_13656802.html

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/12/13919702/russian-hackers-donald-trump-2016

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13308108/wikileaks-podesta-hillary-clinton

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/

Written by poyhonen

January 4, 2017 at 4:25 am

Ideas to Support Draining the Swamp

leave a comment »

  1. Delete 30% of all civil service positions.
  2. Limit new regulations and laws to only 2 pages of documentation.
  3. Move the United Nations to a Montana wilderness area. Beautiful setting and a boom for construction in Montana. Attendant countries, diplomats, and administrators would have to pay the local economy for buildings, homes, airports, transportation, and energy. (The current UN building can be employed as a homeless shelter).
  4. Many of those laid off civil service workers can be temporarily employed by deleting or reducing existing written laws to conform to the two page rule. All federal laws should be written so any common citizen can understand the content and desired results of the laws and regulations.
  5. Combine Homeland Security with the FBI and reduce/replace the two top management tiers of most agencies, (CIA, NSA, FTC, EPA, FCC, DIA, DEA, etc.).
  6. Delete BLM, and return 80% of all current Federal lands to the States.
  7. Make English our national language and stop printing other languages at taxpayers’ expense.
  8. Fund inner city Pod transportation for an infrastructure upgrade that will be the envy of the world. (The construction will also provide good jobs for depressed areas and one way to improve inner city problems is to offer a method of escape not provided by local government).
  9. Curtail Request for Changes in existing and future government contracts and ensure that knowledgeable professionals perform design, (not necessarily some military ranking officer with little or no understanding of technical issues). Review the contract process in its entirety. I would suggest a review of the Lockheed Skunk works process that built the SR-71 in 20 months, (1962 and it is still the highest flying, fastest man operated airplane ever built).
  10. Cut existing agency contracts by 50%. Seems harsh but there really is a LOT of fat and it is growing. The personnel cuts in suggestion number 1 will help in this regard. Some contracts may expire under this edict. Good. Rewrite the requirements and issue another contract at a more reasonable price.
  11. Sell unused government buildings or give them away – stop maintaining them.
  12. Exile many criminals instead of incarcerating them – (violence related crimes). Rehabilitate others that demonstrate merit. Long prison terms deserve exile instead of incarceration.  This ‘out of the box’ list comprises only twelve areas of potential improvements. Such changes cannot all be accomplished immediately or simultaneously because of the massive disruption that will be caused by thousands of people losing jobs but when the draining begins, it must be done with a full commitment to lowering the cost and adverse effects of a bloated government. Many more bipartisan opportunities exist. What are yours?

The Election in Terms of Two Candidates

leave a comment »

Well, what/who do you really believe?

If you believe the candidates description of themselves – they are both wonderful.

If you believe the candidates description of each other – they are both despicable.

Most news agencies agree with Hillary’s description of Trump.

The FBI, however, agrees with Trump’s description of Hillary.

Our media generally describes Trump as being a racist, sociopath, misogynist, who hates Muslims, Mexicans, and free speech.  They even printed front page stories about women being mistreated by the billionaire. Unfortunately, the stories were debunked by the very women described in the interviews.  Their rebuttal was largely ignored.

The media reported that Trump didn’t pay his taxes but that was also not true.  The IRS, proven to be corrupt and prejudiced, would definitely go after any conservative who didn’t pay taxes.  The liberal led IRS minions even go after conservative groups based on conservative identification but there are no tax fraud charges against Trump. He must have obeyed the rules – something not mentioned by Hillary’s legions too busy making ad hominem attacks to be concerned with details and platform descriptions that provide an antithesis to their reporting.

It may be difficult to understand how trying to establish jobs and education for inner city citizens and immigrants is considered to be racist by the media and other Hillary supporters, because any Trump proposal to improve economic growth for all Americans is also largely ignored by the media.  Ignored unless they call him a racist for having a willingness to compete with Mexico and China for manufacturing and exports based upon fair trade practices.

Trump’s hatred and despicable attitude for women is surely represented by his campaign organizer who is, allegedly, a woman.  People are expected to believe she runs the campaign for a woman hater.  Her views of him defy the mainstream news by agreeing with the views of other women, the first woman to build a skyscraper, employees, and of course, the women that rebuked the NYT article describing how he mistreated them.  Still other women have come forward to claim his misconduct. Claims of payment from Hillary advocates for the timing of their oddly opportune accusations are being investigated.

In an election cycle where platforms and past accomplishments of one candidate cannot be addressed without embarrassment, only character assassination can be employed in order to convince voters that the opposing individual should not be elected.  Honesty has been abandoned in this arena.  The media supports Hillary’s misleading statements as true, her dishonest facts as being verifiable, and her distortions as benevolent revelations.  The FBI has publicly testified against many of her prior statements but her lies are still described as honest by liberal agenda driven pundits and media.

Nevertheless, Trump hardly portrays a statesman.  He mouths ‘off the cuff’ proclamations, often making inane statements and embellishments that are contrary to specific details and offering fodder to his enemies who really do understand the gist of his spurious comments but pretend dismay and offer the worst possible interpretation.  He very obviously is not a polished politician and too often blurts out his honest feelings in public venues. He has done so in a manner that can be taken out of context and used against him as propaganda by his opponents.

His opponents are everywhere.  DNC, Republicans, news media, and liberal school educators all decry his candidacy.  They teach divisive hate and the DNC has even hired people to inspire violence at Trump rallies.  Hillary audaciously accused Trump of inciting and encouraging violence at rallies when she knew her minions had hired the protesters directed to incite violent acts.  They even bragged about closing a Chicago Trump rally.  The media pays scant attention to distributing such information. Knowledgeable voters may not support their chosen candidate so a plethora of negative attention is reported against Trump while Hillary enjoys myriad reports that demean her opponent, his supporters, and potential voters.  She describes them all as racist ‘deplorables’.

Trump, in turn, responds aggressively against the disparaging charges of racism and misogyny.  His inexperience shows in his being actually angry at all the lies being told and supported by a corrupt media.  The left wing strategy of dividing voters by sex and race, popular and successful for years, seems irksome and surprising to him.  It seems like he almost expected an honest discussion of platforms and solutions to problems caused by current and prior politicians.  He even promised to ‘Drain the Swamp’ of Washington D.C government corruption.  With an ego about the size of the Atlantic, he may certainly try but our congress will become inspired to grow a spine in self defense of their hierarchy in the swamp.  There will be no emperor Trump but he may yet succeed at improving our economy, education, health, while ensuring a semblance of world peace.  This has yet to be determined as it seems fairly obvious that the swamp dwellers do not yearn to support his goals.  Besides, he would have to win a ‘rigged’ election.

Trump has been married three times and he has admitted to saying some nasty words.  He has had some failures in business and has been involved in many suits.  Business fiascos can be explained by a depressed economy and suits are rampant in public buildings where a slip on ice or debt on a gambling bill can result in a lawsuit. He, obviously, has had more successes than failures.  His family does him credit but none of them demand the level of payment for speaking fees that have been rewarded to the Clintons in return for ‘favors’ supplied by the American government.

Hillary reminds one of the Boy Who Cried Wolf story – How would anyone know if she is telling the truth?  Her supporting media lowers the value of all public information.  The corrupted Department of Justice manages to retain Hillary as a viable candidate even when the facts display actions that can easily and appropriately be described as criminal.  Most of these comments can be verified by viewing short videos and longer articles.  Perform succinct searches on topics and review sources outside of areas you normally address.  Confirm the veracity of these statements to your own satisfaction.

So – believe ABC, CNN, NYT, Huffington Post, NBC, et al – or the FBI, but if you don’t know what the platforms are or what is at stake for the future of your republic, please refrain from voting.  Our system has plenty of flaws but ignorance in the voting booth can only be individually conquered.

Life

leave a comment »

So you really want to know the meaning of life?  Why you are here?  What’s going on anyway?

If someone gives you an answer you like – you can go away appeased and feeling knowledgeable. You might wish to share this new knowledge with your friends, or just anybody you meet.  You might wish to force your new found knowledge upon someone, in their best interest, of course.

But what if you get an answer you don’t like?  What if you think the knowledge you just received cannot possibly be the right answer?  You asked for the meaning of life and all you got was the knowledge that someone you know is delusional, insane, or worse.

So many people profess to know the answer, but there are so many different answers to the same question it is difficult to even know just who one should ask.

It may be that you are asking the wrong people.  If you really want to know – find the answer for yourself.  It may take a lot of effort.  You may have to listen and read a lot.  And get a mirror.

Written by poyhonen

September 8, 2016 at 7:09 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Arguing with Ideologues

with 10 comments

Any discussion with an ideologue about an opposing point of view may appear futile because there seems no possible prospect of changing an ideologue’s dogmatic belief in their self-serving opinion. Every argument you offer will be dismissed as a distortion, your facts will be disclaimed as dishonest, and even your sources will be criticized or smeared. It may seem that continuing such avenues of conflict offer little enlightenment and perhaps the best alternative would be to simply ignore the ideologue and their entire line of thought as something to have been derived from a person brainwashed by misinformation and propaganda. Their arguments could also appear to be the result of a successful training indoctrination program for weak and/or susceptible minds but there is no way of confirming such a disparaging evaluation without stepping into the ideologue’s source of information and becoming susceptible to the same techniques that oppose your own point of view.

To not accept the risk of reviewing the sources of opposing beliefs, however, virtually guarantees you will find your next ideologue in a mirror. Avoiding this debacle requires that you must always allow antagonists an opportunity to discover the truth for themselves instead of coercing them, cornering them with clever words, logic, or even insults – to succumb to your view of reality. Dominating another should never be the goal of an argument.

Nevertheless, we often argue with the wrong person. Submit your statement and be sure to investigate the opposing view and be honest about applying an uncluttered analysis of opposing information and logic. Your analysis should question every point of view. When you have the information needed for an argument – include the logic of all sides you can imagine, provide the facts, and have a discussion with the only person capable of changing your mind – that is yourself.

Written by poyhonen

July 22, 2016 at 8:45 pm

Justice for All

leave a comment »

A suggestion concerning justice:
At a time when American justice is openly defined by political and financial power, why can’t we decide to offer succor to poor people trapped in a system where capable legal representation is far too expensive? Public defenders are often overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases they try to support and the advice of pleading is often the most expedient alternative to significant incarceration. When the entire weight of our ‘justice’ system is brought to bear against an individual who cannot afford a capable attorney the result is often a documented legal record, loss of livelihood, home, and family, that leads to a downward spiral of behavior. Who can afford a lonely fight against charges levied by the ‘state’?

Suggestion for the UCMJ

leave a comment »

No military member shall be punished or suffer reprisal in any manner for refusing an order to harm any American Citizen. The acceptance or refusal of such an order is entirely the choice of the individual soldier.

Written by poyhonen

July 4, 2016 at 10:54 pm