Category Archives: Fraud

National Entertainment – Political Soap Opera Lie

☆ The National Blatant – News Entertainment – Political Soap Opera Lie ☆

I know it’s easy to criticize, but when I see or read a story that repeats fiction & drama, packages it as fact on a massive scale, I just have to comment.

I’m referring to this ongoing FBI investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Let me begin by stating the obvious, Donald Trump won the election in 2016 by a simple, well known strategy. He ran a campaign without assumptions on which states “were in the bag”, by visiting those who were supposedly going to vote Democrat. This included among others, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida. His campaign managers knew full well that the key to victory is to win at least 270 votes in the electoral college.

The key to debunking this false story, is to understand how the electoral college vote works. I’m going to quote from an NPR article written 2 November 2016.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
“To win the presidency, you don’t have to win the majority of the popular vote. You have to win the majority of electoral votes — that is, 270 of them.”

“In most states, a candidate wins electoral votes by winning the most voters.

“So. Win a state by just one vote, and you win all of its electoral votes (unless you live in Nebraska or Maine, which divvy up their votes a little differently).”
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

The key is still to win the popular vote. That’s the beginning and ending of this whole national mythical “boogie man”, story. The inherent protection, and incredibly simple, yet intelligent method to select our leadership, is a representative voting system which prevents just a handful of densely populated urban areas as representative of the entire country. It’s possible to gain 270 electoral votes through 11 of the most populated states, such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, for example, but in reality, that’s not how the 2016 election finished.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in some of the most densely populated urban areas such as, New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Seattle, etc. What she didn’t gain though, were the most states and the majority of the electoral vote. There are 540 votes possible, and Clinton won just 232 while Trump won 306 of the electoral vote. Her overall popular vote was higher, but not the electoral college vote. These facts are key to understand just how much fabrication, or unfounded anxiety, there is in the repeated false narrative, “The Russians Hacked Our Election”.

No they didn’t, and if you follow the rest of my explanation, you should be able to see for yourself, the media and the “Intelligence Community”, are weaving a tale.

Forbes_2016_Electoral_College_map_a

Most people who complain about the electoral college, either don’t understand why it’s such a good system, or refuse to believe it even after it’s explained. It also makes it vastly more difficult to affect the outcome of the election by outside electronic “hacked” alterations.

Since there isn’t a single, nationwide, homogeneous voting system, an outside bad actor, can’t alter the outcome of the election. An outside perpetrator may be able to get into a less than secure, local database, but actual voting tallies are performed at precinct levels and differ widely in methods from other localities, even in the same state. Recall the election when George Bush & Al Gore ran against each other, and there was a big dust up over the punch ballots being used in certain counties in Florida. That system wasn’t even state wide, so “hanging chads”, were unique and paper ballots had to be reviewed. That’s just not a system, as flawed as it is, which could have had a rogue state, or spy agency, come in and electronically alter the outcome.

Why is this so important to know? It’s because once you know this information, and take enough time to think about these basic facts, then the repeated news stories, and all the Mueller, Trump drama, can be seen for what it really is, and that’s political Kabuki theater.

CBS 60 Minutes just did a story on the 2016 election hacking, spy-craft. I encourage you to go to the 60 Minutes Web page and watch the video or go to YouTube to understand what I’m saying a little better. I also probably know more about computer networks, and how they function than the average person, since I’ve worked as an IT professional for many years. I’ve also done large scale communications programming, although that’s not a current skill set.

Here’s a summary of the basic 60 Minutes story.

☆ Some Russian cyber-techs infiltrate Illinois state voting records. After about 3 weeks, their outside network activities intensify. Illinois election records IT personnel take note of how much they’re being slammed from outside network traffic. They inform the FBI, and their IT super techs help investigate the penetration. They agree with the Illinois IT team, you’ve been hacked. Meanwhile, at an unknown point in the time-line, Illinois voting records IT personnel manage to stop the breach. Still, they’re pretty sure their voter database information has been obtained by an outside organization.

* The facts behind the Illinois database access; the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and none of the information was expunged or altered.

The FBI compares their collected network data, to the patterns (signatures or fingerprints which they like to call it, but that’s not a technical description), to other states voting records IT management, and at least 20 other states are likely to have been penetrated. In addition to that, the Democrat National Committee data records have been hacked. Understandably, because if you know anything about network spy-craft, your weakest links are usually the same everywhere. The biggest, most important users, are often those with the patterns sought out by hackers. They’re not IT disciplined, they don’t like to follow rules, and they seldom use strong, secure passwords. This isn’t always the way ‘hackers’ get in, but it’s a common recurring problem, and even the lead IT person can only politely suggest that the head honchos follow their rules.

We saw that huge security problem play out on national TV, when Hillary Clinton faced a Congressional committee and insisted she was justified in using her own private servers. No matter which side of the issue you found yourself on in that past extravaganza, it’s a prime example of how arrogance and power always win over any technical support opposition. Public or private, any tech person, if they want to keep their job, will go along with their bosses requests, no matter how impactful those decisions are on security.

So, we know there were multiple breeches performed by clever outsiders. The information they gave us through the media outlets are, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and Huma Abedin, emails revealed the Democrats in power, and under the influence of the Clinton campaign undermined the campaign of Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primary runoff. This was later confirmed by Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile in her Tell-All Book.

And we know that some of Donald Trump key people conducted meetings with influential Russians, to see if there was any dirt they could dish on Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

Overall conclusion’s by the 60 Minutes story? Russian hackers broke into some of our voter record databases and emails (NEWS FLASH: they’ve been doing that to large US Corporations for a couple of decades – including our banks). Even 60 minutes, and the people they interviewed were careful enough with the facts to not make the false claim, that success in breaching voting records changes the actual vote, in November. What they did claim was, “it undermines the integrity and the confidence Americans might have in our Democratic system.”

And here’s the final point I wish to make. That’s a far stretch, our politicians have been successful in undermining our country and election process for decades. Can anyone recall, Watergate? If you wish to remain ignorant on how votes are cast, collected, and counted; then you’re going to believe that somehow the Russians set the fox loose into the chicken coop, and rousted all the chickens, making them (this implies you), to change your vote for Trump. I’m quite certain you didn’t decide to change your mind on who to vote for because those rascally Russians have your name, home address, and phone number.

In case you want to know something more, the IP address they revealed in the 60 Minutes story can be traced to the following. No, they didn’t give you this info, but I found it out of curiosity.

registered person: Vilko Damianov
address: 4000, Bulgaria, Plovdiv, 2 Lyuben Karavelov, unit 5.

☆ Don’t be an unwitting pawn ☆

I just found this related information on “Hacking the Vote”.

_____________________________________________________

A Life Change That Helped My Happiness

I came across this brief announcement in the news…

Mormon church excommunicates leader for first time in nearly 30 years

James_Hamula_photo_a

James J. Hamula – excommunicated Mormon leader

In some ways, a big part of me says, “not significant enough to comment on.” Another part of me, prompts me to use what little abilities I have to speak my mind clearly.

I hope he and his family find their way. I refer back to my own 20+ years experience as an active member of that religious organization. In that time, I went from devout follower, to an enlightened person who is grateful to be out of that organization. Perhaps this will be the break they need to extract themselves from such mind befuddlement, into an understanding of the lies, distortions, historical chicanery, counterfeit scripture, and the “guilt hold” this religion can have over someone’s supposed, free will.

Fortunately my immediate family has also worked their way out from under the social pressure, the repetitious pronouncements, and the circumventing of rational thought. They too realize how isolated from reality someone can become as long as they’re so heavily invested, in which their personal happiness can only be achieved by reinforcing their commitment to the organization, and most especially to its leadership.

The desire for people to be part of a group in which they identify with common beliefs and functions, and to elevate its leaders as special, set apart with distinctive insight, dates back to the earliest periods of tribal affinity and survival against hostile elements, infirmity, uncertainty, creatures, people, and to repel those things that would undermine their survival. It didn’t take long for humans to fill in the knowledge gaps with superstitious lore and set aside some people who pretend to know more than the common person. This becomes comforting, as we try to express our deepest feelings of devotion, ritual, compassion, and explanation into what happens after we die.

Thomas_Monson_LDS_President

Thomas S. Monson Mormon President

Religion can and often does fill in the blanks when we don’t know, whereas a lengthy education process seems too complicated for many people to understand. As we become further initiated, inculcated, and fully brought “into the fold”, we replace objections and logic with prepared phrases from supporting text or the words of others within the same organization. We not only worship the unexplainable, unfathomable, unknowing, rejecting doubt as insufficiently devoted or not passionate enough, and substituting guilt and recrimination when we don’t meet group expectation or total acceptance.

It’s relatively easy to observe the leadership of these organizations say the same things, they speak in similar controlled tone, they look-alike, and often are educated at the same schools. Acceptance comes through adherence. There are numerous phrases or words defined to mean unique things for the group. Intolerance, bigotry, character assassination and rumor generalizations have been directly loaned, re-translated with euphemism.

The only safe thing for your mind, and for the benefit of others within your family, is to have the courage to recognize the self-deception and the group think mentality, and get out.

 The dishonest financial appeal frequently recited by these money grabbers.

-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦
| 08 August 2017 | “On Tuesday morning, James J. Hamula was released from his position in the First Quorum of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after disciplinary action.

LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins provided no details about the removal. But the church did confirm Hamula was no longer a member of the church and that his ouster was not for apostasy or disillusionment.

In cases involving members of Mormonism’s presiding quorums — rare as they are — the faith’s governing First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles form a disciplinary council to consider such actions.

Hamula, 59, who could not be reached Tuesday for comment, was born in Long Beach, Calif., and served in many positions with the Utah-based church — including as a full-time missionary in Germany, bishop, stake president (overseeing a number of LDS congregations), mission president and Area Seventy.
-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦-♦

♦⊗⋅ωℜº∞

Influencing People Through Fear

People who wish to influence or control others have long since understood one of our prime motivators is the use of fear. It drives our instinct to survive, fight or flight. No normal person wants to sign up for pain & suffering. Secondary control factors include, financial incentives (reward), social status & peer pressure (ego).

torture-devicesGovernments, especially those who have unlimited power to do what they want, have used fear to motivate or control the populace. Torture was part of their tool kit, and the thought of ending up humiliated in shackles, or placed on a rack, was enough to instil fear in most people.

burn_in_hell_graphic

Christianity found their tool with the word, “hell”. You don’t behave, or do what the group thinks, you’re going to end up in a highly undesirable zip code, for eternity.

We see it’s more than peer pressure to influence predictions of climate change, we have government grants for educational and research institutions which measure and computer model predictions. The arsenal of control and scaremongering is reinforced through sympathetic media on “global warming“. If the latest trends don’t follow “scientific prediction”, than it’s called “climate change”. You places your bets, then change the predictions based on latest trends.

Which ever way the thermometer and weather, especially severe weather patterns change, it’s always based on “climate change”. Therefore if you have a drought, a flood, a grouping of tornadoes, it’s attributed to climate change.

Who Decides?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), states the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95–100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers

We’ve been here before – More Lies

In November 2009, hackers gained access to a server used by the CRU and stole a large quantity of data, anonymously posting online more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents.

A series of independent public investigations of the allegations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report exonerated the scientists, but found “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA”. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged.

In 2011, an analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, of whom some had stated they thought it was possible the CRU had manipulated the data, however concluded that “these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions”.

So, the hacked emails supposedly didn’t reveal anything that pointed out a bias or a skewing of results. Here’s what some of the email said, you decide. See
University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate

You can click on the above link to see more of these emails.

More critical background and science history of Michael E. Mann found here.

Here we go again!

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth?
| DailyMail February 11, 2017 | The following is an excerpt from their post.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.
Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.

The ongoing battle between a radio host and author vs. the scientist.  | Michael E. Mann v. Mark Steyn

ipcc_2001_tar_figure