My Family was Accidentally Caught Up in the Women’s March on Washington, D.C.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 my family hopped on a train to Washington, D.C. to celebrate the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump and do some site seeing in the nation’s capital. On the morning of Saturday, January 20, we boarded the Metro in Virginia and headed into the District of Columbia for what we thought would be a typical day spent visiting Washington’s museums. We found ourselves accidentally caught up in the wretched [Liberal] Women’s March on Washington. Continue on for what we experienced and photographs of the event.

Hand-Knit Pink Hats

pink hats.jpg

While waiting to purchase our Metro cards my wife and daughter were engaged by the first of numerous people who assumed we had journeyed out to participate in the march. Both were offered hand-knit pink hats. My wife politely declined the offer.

I was at first struck by the fact that by making hand-knit pink hats the symbol of the march those behind it seemed to be perpetuating what the Left considers gender stereotypes since pink is often thought of as a female color and knitting as a woman’s activity. I then realized that the hand-knit pink hats were a conscious strategic decision.

In the last presidential election more total votes were cast for the three Right leaning candidates (Trump, Johnson and McMullin received 49.76 %) than the two Left leaning candidates (Clinton and Stein won 49.1 %.) The 2016 presidential election represented a rejection of the Leftist politics of the Democrat party. Yet to truly understand what is going on in America you have to also examine politics on the state level. In 2017 the Democrats now have less combined state and federal political power than at any time since the Civil War. The American voter has turned its back on the Democrats because the party has adopted the politics of Leftist extremism. The use of knitting and the color pink represented a desperate attempt to draw the average American woman voter who has turned her back on the Democrats to the politics of those marching. Trying to make use of what it considers the gender stereotypes of knitting and pink for political gain is an example of the type of double standard that is present in almost everything the Left says, does and believes.

Our Metro Ride

That the march was to take place that day was not a surprise to me. What I had not realized was the subway car we entered in Virginia that morning lay along a line that took marchers to one of the focal points of the rally that preceded the march. We stepped into a standing room only car. One stop later a few more people got on and the car was packed to capacity. For the next 1.5 hours we stood packed in like sweating sardines. I was very proud of my seven-year-old daughter who handled this trying ordeal without having a meltdown.

A number of people who surrounded us again engaged my family under the assumption that we were traveling to the march. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people like us were in D.C. that weekend who supported Trump and rejected the politics of the marchers appeared to be lost on them. Liberals cannot seem to comprehend that moral, rational people could be pro-Trump and anti-March on Washington and so the marchers took it for granted that we were “with” them.

Our Arrival at the Smithsonian Metro Stop

Metro.jpgWhen we arrived at the Smithsonian Metro stop and the door to the cars opened allowing us to disembark the relief we felt was extreme. We did not know the worst was yet to come. We picked a station exit to walk toward and started moving along with the crowd. When we reached an escalator leading about thirty feet to the surface we found that a D.C. policeman had pulled a gate across the exit that blocked our progress. He told us we had to exit out the other side of the station. It was obvious why. There was no room at the top of the escalators for people to step off. Even though the escalators were shut off it would have been a safety risk to allow us to walk up only to remain stuck in place on the escalators. None of us were happy that we had to turn back around and walk to the opposite side of the Metro station. All but one of us remained calm and understood that we had no choice but to obey the instructions of the cop. One white female college student lost her mind. She hurled a string of expletives at the policeman and ended her tirade by telling him: “You’re not going to tell me I can’t march today.” As I watched and listened I wanted so badly for the self-righteous, self-important twit to go one step too far and get herself arrested for disorderly conduct. I am sure her parents are really proud that they have a daughter who talks like a teamster. She was a class act all the way.

The March

We did eventually make our way to the surface. I asked a D.C. policeman for directions to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. He pointed me toward a building surrounded by a crowd of marchers packed as densely as humanly possible. I picked up my child, grabbed my wife by the hand and we proceeded to make our way through the crowd.

Signs Carried by the Marchers and the Messages Scrawled on their Clothing

fuck sign.jpg

I quickly noticed that many of the signs carried by the marchers and messages scrawled on the clothing they wore were obscene. I saw numerous examples of the “f” word being proclaimed in association with Trump’s name. One young woman walked past us going the opposite direction with what amounted to a sandwich board covering her body with “F*#K TRUMP” written on it. I told her: “There are children present! Have some decently.” She offered me no response because there was no defending her sign.

pus photo.jpg

Even more present than the “f” word was the slang term for a woman’s genitals that begins with a “p.” As we navigated the crowd and circled the building we had been pointed to in search of an entrance I held my breath. My daughter does not know the “f” or “p” words but she does know how to sound them out. I knew that at any moment she might ask me what “f*#k” and/or p*&&y” means. An even greater concern was for our personal safety. If something caused a panic and a stampede resulted our lives would be at risk.

One twenty-something young man held a sign that read: “Abort!” He presumably felt it necessary to tell the world how much of an enthusiastic supporter he was of the killing of babies inside their mother’s womb. Another twenty-something male’s sign read: “40,000 Children are in Foster Care. Support Planned Parenthood.” He seemly feels it is better to kill babies than hand them over to loving foster families. 

Quite a few of the signs attempted to ridicule Trump on the basis of his appearance. Stopping “body shaming” has been one of the Left’s favorite causes of late. That the marchers felt it acceptable to go after Trump on the basis of his looks is another example of how Liberals embrace double standards.

A good number of marchers used signs and apparel to identify themselves as a “nasty woman.” From the looks of them I had no trouble believing they came as advertised.

A last thought on the rhetoric of the march I wish to share is that it reinforced the notion that Feminists think it is empowering for women to be vulgar. Why would they believe such a thing? It can only be because they feel women should behave more masculine. Unfortunately, it is the worst aspects of common male behavior (vulgarity, promiscuity, aggression and heavy drinking) that Feminists encourage in women.

We Were Going in the Wrong Direction

After what seemed like an eternity of passing through the assembled masses it occurred to me that we had been directed to the wrong building. We had to reverse course and retrace our steps. When we got to a point where the crowd was thinner I consulted a map. We were on the wrong side of the National Mall!

As we headed across the Mall I was able to take stock of everything I had seen. The marchers were 99% white.  All appeared to be middle-middle-class or upper-middle-class. Every one seemed to fit into one of several categories: lesbian couples, elderly hippies and people who were too young to have gained the wisdom and perspective necessary to understand how the world works. I was astonished at how many marchers had brought young children to the march some of whom were just infants.  All large crowds are potentially dangerous. These children were put at risk by the adults who brought them.

As we approached the front entrance to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History we realized that our ordeal was not yet over. The march route blocked our way into the museum! I looked left and right and saw that there was no break in the steel barriers that had been set up to separate the marchers from the spectators. If we respected the barriers we would have to walk either to the beginning or the end of the march before we could cross over. I had a quick conversation with my wife. We agreed that we had had enough of the craziness and need to get off the Mall and into the museum. “We’re going,” we decided. My wife grabbed one of the big barriers and gave a yank. She created an opening just big enough for a person to squeeze through. We dashed into the breach before the D. C. Police could stop us. Since the marchers were moving horizontal to us it was with much difficulty that we crossed the march route. Once on the other side we were again faced with the steel barriers. This time it was me who pulled them apart. Quick as a flash we were through, up the steps of the museum and inside the building. We agreed that we would not be going outside again until the museum closed at 5:30.

Our View from the Museum Entrance

Our Trip Back to Our Hotel

After leaving the museum we jumped on the Metro’s Red Line and began a trip to Metro Station. We again had to stand. My daughter stood facing a sitting women who still held her sign from the march. She assumed we had come from the march and began a conversation with my child. I could only hear bits and pieces of the exchange in the loud subway car but I could tell she was speaking about the politics of the march. In the packed car I was not able to move an inch and so could not politely intervene and steer the conversion toward something non-political.

Two or three stops later we exited at Metro Station. I picked up my child and asked her what she had said to the woman. She said that she had told her about the animals she saw at the museum. “Did you mention we came to Washington, D.C. because we support Trump?” I inquired. “No, I did not want to get into an argument,” was her matter-of-fact reply. She is a precocious little one.

trump rioters.jpg

When we transferred to the Blue Line we were all able to get seats. I sat down across from a woman in her late thirties with a daughter who looked to be about fourteen. The two were having a conversation with a gentleman who identified himself as a journalist. The mom explained that she had been accidentally caught up in the inauguration day riot that had been taken place to protest the free and fair election of Trump and the peaceful transition of power to a new president. A rioter who was wearing a mask and breaking windows with a hammer approached her and threatened: “I will beat your brains out unless you take off that Trump hat.” The Left loves to tell us Republicans that we are intolerant, angry, full of hate and potentially violent. They have it all backwards.

Both mother and daughter made the mistake of attending the march. Both believed the that the march was to be by all women and for all women. In reality it was an anti-Trump march conducted by Liberals most of whom were women. After arriving at the start of the march the daughter was told by a person running the march that she was not allowed to march because she wore a Trump hat. The mom and her daughter exited at the Crystal City stop with the journalist so he could interview both of them with his phone. I hope to find the video and post a link here.

Our Return Trip Home


I Love My Little Girl So Much!

On Sunday we began the day with a visit to Union Station to purchase some inaugural souvenirs. We bought my daughter a hat that read: “Future President.” We later visited the Smithsonian Museum of American History before returning to Union Station to catch an Amtrak train for the journey back home. My child’s wearing of the hat elicited positive comments from five different female strangers. One woman took my daughter’s photograph and three told us they would vote for her. Because of the buttons they wore, their general appearance and the things they said, I judged all to be Hillary supporters and march participants. They again assumed we shared their politics. Did they believe that no Republican family could possible purchase such a hat for their daughter?

Our train trip back to work and school was long and tedious. As we pulled into New York’s Penn Station, the isle of the train car was full with people getting ready to disembark. It was obvious that a number of them were women returning home after participating in the march. One woman noticed my daughter’s hat, leaned over, put her hand on my child’s back and asked both her and my wife if they had participated in the march. I had kept my politics to myself and held my tongue in public about them for two days. Now I could not resist. I conjured up my best Trump imitation and responded in a voice loud enough for everyone around us to hear: “Wrong!” My wife could not control herself and laughed so hard she almost pied her pants.

So closed the book on a fun family vacation and a living civics lesson for my daughter. Click here for my blog about my family’s experiences at the pre-inaugural concert and Donald Trump’s inauguration.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See:

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

boxed signs.jpg

Boxed Up Signs Outside of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History

Assertion that Hillary Clinton Won Popular Vote, While True, Amounts to Propaganda

trump clinton.jpg

In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election, the Democrats have taken up the mantra of “Hillary won the popular vote.” A careful analysis of the election results indicate that this claim, while true, is very deceptive and typical of the dishonest political tactics of the Left.

The Libertarian Vote is Key to Understanding the Election

As of February 11, the popular vote percentages are as follows:

Hillary Clinton (Democrat) 48.03%

Donald Trump (Republican) 45.94%

Gary Johnson (Libertarian) 3.27%

Jill Stein (Green) 1.06%

Evan McMullin (a Conservative Independent) .53%

Other 1.15%

Since Libertarians are closely linked with the Right, Greens with the Left and Evan McMullin is a Conservative who ran as an Independent, it is fair, for the sake of analysis, to add the Libertarian vote and McMullin’s votes to the Trump’s total and the Green vote to Clinton. When the popular vote is counted this way, we end up with 49.74% of the popular vote being cast for the Right and just 49.09% for the Left. This gives the Right a .65% edge.

Since the nation as a whole is about equally divided between the Right and the Left, it is probably safe to assume that the “Other” vote was equally divided between the Right and the Left as well. If we add half of the “Other” total to the Right and the Left totals we end up with 50.32% for the Right and 49.67% for the Left. We can assume, therefore, that in a two person race Trump would have won the majority of the popular vote and carried the additional states of Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Nevada (which means every swing state except Minnesota, Maine and Virginia) and won by  a nineteen larger electoral vote margin. This would have given him 325 electoral votes to Clinton’s 213.

The bottom line is that the popular vote in this election represented a rejection of Left Wing politics of like those Clinton and the embracing of Right Wing politics like those of Trump. Clinton bested Trump in the popular vote only 2.09 percent. Clinton’s popular vote “victory” came by just a hair. If the Libertarian party had not more than tripled its .99% of the popular vote it earned 2012, and instead won less than 1.18%, she would have lost the popular vote as well. If McMullin had not run, Clinton still would have lost the popular vote if the Libertarian party had received no more than 1.71% of the vote.

The Electoral College System

When considering the significance of her popular vote “victory,” one must keep in mind that we decide our presidential election by the Electoral College system. Neither of the candidates conducted an election strategy designed to win the popular vote by maximizing the number of popular votes received. Therefore to proclaim that Clinton won the popular votes is like declaring her the winner of a game in which neither she nor Trump even participated.

While it may be technically correct to claim the Clinton “won” the popular vote, it is pure spin to use this fact in an attempt to delegitimize the mandate won by Trump and the Right on election day. Clinton did not “win” the popular vote because the people favored her but because the Libertarian candidate did so well at the polls and the Right Wing vote was divided among three candidates.


Since the above was written on November 12, 2016, it has been edited several times to reflect the changing vote tally.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

trump thumbs up.jpg

The American Left’s Belief that Ideas are Dangerous is Very Scary


The belief that ideas themselves are dangerous is a theme in American politics which has been growing in importance for some time. It is a cherished ideal of the American Left. It is also a belief all reasonable people should find very scary.

“Angry Republicans”


For the last seven and a half years the Left has pushed a narrative of angry Republicans who oppose President Barack Obama and have been saying and writing “dangerous” things (“hate speech”) and espousing “dangerous” political ideas. Implied in the narrative is the notion that if Hillary Clinton does not win the next election we will instead have a Republican president who is a racists, sexist, homophobe who wants the homeless and poor people in general to suffer while dying a slow death.

The Thought Police


The concept that ideas can be dangerous is actually very scary. One example are “hate crimes.” If a person murders someone for money they receive a certain amount of jail time. In some states, someone who is convicted of the exact same murder will receive many additional years of prison if they were motivated to commit the crime by hatred of a particular group of people. This means that individuals are being kept behind bars for what goes on inside their heads. The thought police have arrived and are prosecuting people for thought crimes.

The insanity of thought crimes can be easily seen in the example of a case that worked its way through the justice system not long ago. A man was arrested for a series of muggings of gay men. He admitted that he was singling out homosexuals and was charged with hate crimes. However, he said he only robbed gays because he assumed there was less chance they would fight back. Should he have been charged with a hate crime even though he did not act out of a hatred of homosexuals?

Attacks on Free Speech


The notion that ideas can be dangerous also plays out in the Left’s attacks against free speech. The Left justifies speech codes that restrict free speech on university campuses because of this notion. The same can be said for efforts that have been made to bar Conservative speakers from addressing college students and shouting down those that have made it on campus and tried to speak.

Donald Trump

bigger3.jpgIn the last several months Leftist have made a concerted effort to, in their own words, “shut down” Donald trump’s campaign events. They wish to deny Trump the right to speak and his audience the chance to hear him. The protestors argue that it is dangerous to allow Trump to speak and his audience to listen.

Another manifestation of this twisted logic is the Left’s belief that people who dare to do things such as speak out in opposition to gay marriage should not just be fired from their jobs but be blacklisted and never be able to work again. Many examples of people which this has happen to could be cited.


I wish I could be optimistic and suggest that one day the American Left will realize that believing Conservative beliefs are dangerous is just as bad as the McCarthyism and blacklists of the 1950s. I would be lying if I wrote this. One day the question may be asked: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Conservative.”

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

 I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.


Not Much to See Here: Thoughts on “The Walking Dead” Season 6, Episode 15: “East”


Episode 15 of season 6 of “The Walking Dead” (“East”) was most disappointing and probably the worst installment of the season. It could have been titled: “Not Much to See Here.” The show nonetheless offered much to write upon.

The Symbolism of Maggie’s Hair Cut


In the first few minutes of “East” we see a shower scene with Maggie Greene (Lauren Cohan) that highlights her exceptional feminine beauty.


In the last several minutes of the episode we are shown Maggie’s gorgeous long brown hair being chopped off and her ending up with a man’s haircut.  Of her new hairdo she remarks: “I have to keep going and I don’t want anything getting in my way.” On the surface, what she refers to is the possibility of her long hair getting in the way. However, what “The Walking Dead” is really telling us is that for Maggie to become successful as the leader of the group she must give up her femininity. The underlying theme behind this position is one that has been featured in other installments this season. It is the strongly held Leftist notion that women should become more masculine. A corollary is that men should be more feminine. This idea is once again given expression in the character of Tobin, portrayed by Jason Douglas. When his love interest, Carol Peletier (Melissa McBride) leaves Alexandria, he remains behind the safety of the community’s walls rather than go out after her. Before leaving this subject, I must mention that having a cast member who is a teenage girl (Katelyn Nacon as Enid) cut off Maggie’s hair made the haircut some sort of a weird goddess ritual.

Maggie as Leader of the Core Group of Survivors

This season we have been introduced to the notion that Maggie has been stepping up, has demonstrated her capacity for leadership and has been recognized by the entire group, including Rick, as being the person who should lead them. I have never missed an episode of “The Walking Dead” and yet I never recall Maggie showing any unusual leadership qualities. Rick has always been the obviously leader. Could it be that the concept of Maggie as leader has been clumsily shoehorned into the series this season because Hillary Clinton has long been the favorite for the Democrat nomination for president?

Carol, the Saviors and Firearms


Carol again going to pieces when she encounters the Saviors represented more disheartening and non-believable out of character behavior for her. The worst was yet to come as far as a lack of believability that took the audience partly out of the show.


Carol’s rigging up an automatic weapon inside her jacket was not just childish in its absurdity it was a downright impossibility. The same can be said for her firefight with the Saviors.


One has to assume that the creative people behind “The Walking Dead” are typical of the entertainment industry and have never even held a working firearm let alone fired one. Such people do not understand that unless one is shooting at a very close range or has the luck of a lottery winner, hitting a human sized target is not going to be accomplished unless a weapon is aimed properly.

I explain shooting thusly: Imagine a taunt rope that extends from the center of your eye to the target. First bring the weapon up to eye level and level it along the line of the rope. This is done by closing one eye, looking down the barrel of the weapon and sighting the firearm using front and rear sights. All that is left is to exhale, hold your breath and keep the weapon as still as possible while pulling the trigger. Things get more complicated at long ranges but for the purposes of this discussion it is not necessary to go further.



That Carol could fire an automatic weapon from waist level and considerable distance and kill two Saviors outright and wound another two seriously was laughable. It was only the most recent example of a great many instances of characters from “The Walking Dead” firing off weapons without properly aiming them and still managing to hit what is being shot at.

The idea that knowing how to handle firearms expertly is a key to survival has been a constant theme in “The Walking Dead.” It is therefore an embarrassment that the people in charge of the show apparently feel such hostility toward “those NRA types” that they have never hired one to teach the cast how to consistently wield weapons in a realistic manner. A firearms instructor could also rid the show of the numerous annoying scenes in which individuals who are dipicted as having had expert firearms training are seen holding and carrying loaded weapons in ways that are contrary to good gun safety.

“The Walking Dead” and Religion


It is surprising that the show adopted a plot line in which Carol’s Catholicism has moved her to go to great lengths in an attempt to avoid having to do any further killing. It is unusual for television to say anything positive about Christianity and even more rare to depict the Catholic faith in a manner that is not condemnatory. After the conflict with the Saviors, Carol’s rosary is found on the ground by a surviving Savior. Has she abandoned her faith? Between the Saviors, Jesus, Morgan Jones (Lennie James)  and Carol, I still fail to see what “The Walking Dead” has been trying to tell us about religion this season. Perhaps the series’ writers are conflicted about religion and it is for this reason that they have offered us a number of different and conflicting themes about the subject.

Morgan as the Conscience of “The Walking Dead”


Morgan tells Rick Grimes, played by Andrew Lincoln, (and the audience): “All life is precious.” I must call out the show for being hypocrites. I do so because people in television usually have very little regard for the lives of unborn children inside their mother’s wombs and consider abortion to be no more serious than cutting one’s toe nails.

Daryl Dixon


For six years now Daryl, played by Norman Reedus, has been depicted as the ultimate woodsmen and tracker and a person who is more at home outdoors than in. It strained credibility that he could be not just snuck up on by Dwight (Austin Amelio)  but shot from behind from close range.

Ending the episode with the audience uncertain about whether Dwight has murdered Daryl was a cheap stunt that was unbecoming of a successful and wonderfully entertaining series such as “The Walking Dead.” I do not believe fans of Daryl have anything to worry about. Daryl has always been the most popular character on the program and so it seems highly unlikely that he would be killed off. There is precedent for actors on hit shows becoming bored and wanting off to pursue other professional opportunities. If this were to be the case with Reedus, I would guess that what we would see is an arrangement similar to that struck between David Duchovny and “The X-Files” as the first run of that series wound down. Duchovny wanted to leave the show but was convinced to agree to appear in one out of every three or four episodes during the last one or two seasons of the program. Duchovny’s limited appearances in the show was a major reason why the quality of “The X-Files” trailed off so much after he ceased to be a regular cast member. Because “The Walking Dead” has had an ensemble cast, I do not think it would suffer all that much if Daryl becomes just a semi-regular character going forward.

Although we do not witness Daryl getting shot by Dwight, we do see Dwight fire in Daryl’s direction and then hear a thud suggesting a body hitting the ground.  Dwight’s remark after the shot is clearly a clue to the viewer: “He’ll be alright.,” he states. Expect to see Daryl in next week’ season finale alive but seriously wounded. He will be back next season in some capacity or other.

Blood Splatter


Just after Daryl is shot we see stage blood splattered on the camera lens. This pointless gimmick was annoying when we first witnessed it. Now it is intolerable.

I predict that next week’s season finale will be one for the history books and make us forget this very weak episode. Five days is too long to have to wait! Watch it with me and check back in with my blog if you are interested in my thoughts on the episode.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

 I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.


Final Thoughts on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandal

Clinton email 5.jpg

Last month I wrote a very long blog post about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. I received good feedback on the piece, but was told that I had written too much for a single post. I therefore decided to break up what I wrote into three different segments and repost it. This last part represents my final thoughts on the issue.

The Operable Question

One month ago I wrote: “Despite her obvious misconduct, Clinton and her supporters have tried to defend her behavior with regard to email. For the longest time Clinton had been saying that she never sent or received any classified material on her personal account and personal home server. Just this month she revised her position and stated that she “never sent or received any material marked [italics mine] classified ….”

“The operable question is did Clinton send or receive on her personal email server emails containing any information that was not “releasable” and therefore restricted. Both career civil servants and the President Barack Obama appointee and Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles I. McCullough have already answered this question in the affirmative. Just four days ago it was reported that McCullough declared twenty-two of her emails were restricted at the highest level possible. In fact, they are of such a sensitive nature that not even a single word from them can be released to the public.

What Clinton Did and How She Characterized It

“Before I predict how things will ultimately shake out I want to back up a bit. Clinton stated that all of the emails on her personal email server were examined in order to determine which constituted federal government records and which were purely personal in nature. Clinton wants the voters to believe that it was up to her, or in this case her attorneys, to decide which met the criteria of a federal record. Both federal law and regulations make clear that it is not within the authority of any appointed government official, government employee, or government contactor to decide what is and what is not a record. The definition of a federal record is spelled out in federal law and regulation. It is the duty of every government official, employee and contactor to preserve all federal records because these records are the property of the government and the people of the nation and not the government official connected with them. The argument I am making is more than just semantical. I believe Clinton may have chosen to characterize things in the manner she has to cover herself just in case it is shown that she failed to print and thereafter attempted to delete any federal records from her personal email server.

Clinton’s Personal Attorneys

“Clinton assigned to her personal attorneys the task of reading through the emails on her personal email server. When I learned this it struck me as odd. I had not known that it was even permissible for a government official, employee or contractor to pass of their legal obligation to preserve federal records under federal law and federal regulations to other individuals. Did Clinton’s personal attorneys have security clearances? Where these clearances high enough for them to see the information on her email server? I do not know the answers to either of these questions.

Clinton and Other Government Employees and Contractors

“If you have read this far, you are probably revisiting the question of how Clinton allowed herself to get in this mess. She has stated that she used a personal email account on a personal email server to send and receive all of her government-related emails for convenience sake because she did not want to carry around more than one phone or handheld device. I think it is safe to assume that every government employee and contractor connected with the government agency with which I am associated maintains both a U.S. government email address and a personal email address. Accept for an occasional message to our significant others informing them when we are coming home late from work, we do not send nor receive personal emails through our government email accounts because we know that it would be both against policy and unprofessional to do so. Since none of us have any trouble keeping two simultaneous email accounts and keeping our personal email separate from our government email, regardless of whether we carry one or two phones or handheld devices, I have to conclude Clinton would have had no trouble doing the same if she desired to do so. Furthermore, one of the many people who surround the Secretary of State seemingly at all times could have relieved Clinton of the burden of carrying around those oh so heavy  phones and handheld devices.

Why Clinton Did What She Did

“The only conceivable reason why Clinton would have wanted to use a personal email account set up on a private server for all of her government-related emails was the desire to be able to control, and possibly restrict and or prevent, access to her communications in a manner that would not have been possible if she used her government email address and email account for all of her work-related communications. Keep in mind, those reading this, that as explained previously, all emails related to Clinton’s job are the property of the government and the American people.

Did Clinton Really Never Have a Government Email Address?

“The subject of government email addresses and accounts reminds me of how surprised I was to read of the claim that no government email address was ever created for Clinton. I believe that the way things have worked at my agency for as long as I have been associated with it has been that a government email address is automatically created for each and every new employee, contractor, and I would assume appointed official as well, as soon as a she or he comes on board. Could it be the truth is that Clinton had a government email address all along and just did not want to use it?

55,000 Pages of Emails

“Before I wrap up I want to make a few last points. Clinton stated that there were 55,000 pages of emails on her personal server and they were divided about equally between government emails and personal emails. Does anyone with a fulltime job send and receive the same amount of personal and work emails? I estimate that I send and receive ten times as many work emails as personal emails. Should we believe that Clinton’s situation was that different?

The “Everybody Does It” Defense

“On numerous occasions Clinton and her supporters  have attempted to defend her handling of email by comparing her to other government officials. I do not allow my six-year-old child to get away with the “everybody does it” defense. We should not allow Clinton to get off the hook by using the same excuse.

“The reader can now breathe easy knowing that I am going to finish with a prediction of what will happen next. It is without question then, that the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s email scandal will result in its recommendation to the Justice Department that she be indicted for her improper handling of restricted information found on her personal email server. What follows will be one of the most interesting chapters of American political history. I will blog about it very soon.”

In my original blog post on Clinton’s email scandal I asserted: “Journalists and commentators have done a poor job….Key details have been left out of the story. The true significance of certain facts has not been made clear. If you believe that I have proved my case, check back in with my blog again soon for I plan to write about what I think will be the ultimate resolution of Clinton’s email scandal.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

 I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

clinton email 6.jpg


What Happen at Donald Trump’s Planned Chicago Rally Represents a Declaration of War Against All Republicans

Even if you support one of Donald Trump’s GOP rivals, you must understand that what happen at Trump’s planned Chicago rally last night represents a declaration of war against not just Trump but all Republicans. It should be looked at as a call to arms by every patriotic American. and Black Lives Matter

Untitledtrump2.pngIt was very disheartening to hear Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio and Governor John Kasich blame Trump for the protests that led to the cancellation of his Chicago campaign event. The evidence is overwhelming that and Black Lives Matter were behind what was a planned effort to deny Trump the right to speak and his audience the chance to hear him. Some of the protesters were paid to disrupt the rally.

Cruz, Rubio and Kasich are delusional if they do not understand that the protests we saw last night will not just continue but escalate regardless of which Republican ultimately secures the nomination. The reason is simple.

Barack Obama won two presidential elections despite a record low percentage of the white vote because he motivated minorities to turn out for him at were likewise record rates. The politics of racial division won for him eight years in the White House.

Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street


The supporters of Secretary Hillary Clinton realize that she has no hope of winning any more white votes than Obama did and she may very well lose the general election if minorities do not cast ballots for her in similar numbers to what they did for Obama. The Occupy Wall Street movement was secretly funded by wealthy Leftists and was a conspiracy to motivate the Democrat base to go to the polls. This is why the Occupy movement disappeared literally the moment the last votes were cast on election day, 2012. Black Lives Matter is secretly funded by the same people who financed Occupy Wall Street. It is a conspiracy to drive minorities to vote for Clinton at the same high rate they turned out for Obama.

The Left Will Get More and More Extreme, Dirty and Uncivil


The protests that shut down Trump’s cancelled Chicago rally were just the beginning. As we move closer to November the tactics of the Left will get more and more extreme, dirty and uncivil. This will be true, as previously mentioned, no matter the particular person the GOP settles on as its presidential candidate.

The only hope Republicans have to win the White House in November and the ideological war for the future of the U.S. is not just to fight fire with fire but take things even further than their political opponents. It the Left closes down one Trump event Republicans need to stop two Democrat rallies. If the Left forces the firing of one business leader who contributed to a Conservative cause we must make sure two executives who support Liberal causes get blacklisted. If one Republican gets terminated from her or his job for expressing Conservative views on social media we must make certain two Liberals suffer the same fate. If the Left prevents Ben Shapiro from delivering one lecture we must make certain a Leftist is prevented from giving two talks. If the Left targets anadvertiser of some Conservative-themed media content we must go after two who support content with a Liberal focus. If the Left pays one hundred people to protest at a Trump event we need to pay two hundred to interrupt a Democrat rally.

Monuments to Moderates are Only Found in Cemeteries


The only monuments you will find to moderates are found in cemeteries. Republican moderates need to stand aside and stay out of the way of those of us who are pragmatic enough to use whatever tactics the Left uses to try and beat us against them. I hereby pledge myself to the fight. Where do you stand?

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

 I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.



Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandal and the Records Management and Information Security Awareness Training Mandated by the Federal Government

Clinton email 3.jpg

In February I authored a lengthy blog post about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. In return I received good feedback on my work, but discovered that I had written too much for some to ingest at one time. As a consequence, I decided to partition what I wrote into several separate segments and repost all of it. This second part concerns the records management and information security awareness training mandated by the federal government.

Records Management and Information Security Awareness Training

A month ago I wrote: “I have been associated with a particular U.S. government agency since about the time Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. Every year I have been on the job I have received training and had to be certified in records management and information security awareness.

“The training for both consists of a series of PowerPoint slides with a narrative audio track. After working through the slides one must take a multiple choice quiz. If one receives a grade of at least 85% certification is granted. A lower grade means the quiz must be repeated until the requisite score is achieved. Each year every federal government employee and federal government contractor (and I have to assume every appointed federal government official as well) connected with my agency is notified that they must again sit for the trainings, take the quizzes and be recertified. Failure to become recertified by a fixed deadline means that a person is locked out of and therefore cannot use and access any of the applications and databases needed to do our jobs. New hires are barred from doing their jobs until they complete the trainings for the first time.

“For the purposes of this discussion I am going to lump records management training and information security awareness training into one. The training has always included a slide that explains the U.S. government policy on using personal email accounts to conduct government business. In the most plain and simple language possible government employees and government contractors (and I have to assume every appointed government official as well) are told that they should never use a personal email account to conduct government business unless they find themselves in a situation where they temporarily have no alternative. In such a circumstance, government workers and government contractors (and I have to assume appointed government officials as well) are instructed that they must, at the first available moment, forward a copy of all emails sent and received that relate to government business to their own government email address. (This has always been a part of the training and for this reason I was surprised when on November 26, 2014 President Barack Obama signed into law an update of the Federal Records Act which spelled out the fact that these messages must be forwarded to government email address.) The training has always made clear that this requirement is in place because government email accounts are the official repository for emails that constitute active federal government records.

“The training likewise has never failed to cover how to properly handle documents that are not “releasable” to the public and therefore restricted for any number of reasons. Potential threats from hackers both foreign and domestic always received good coverage and the importance of using secured government computer networks to protect such restricted information is driven home. Applicable federal government laws and regulations regarding records management and the proper handling of restricted documents is another feature of the training that has always been present. We are even provided with links to additional resources for those who cannot understand basic English sentences.

Clinton email 5.jpg

Records Management and Information Security Awareness Training Provided to Hillary Clinton

“The records management and security awareness training provided to Secretary Hillary Clinton, who never used her government email account and only used her personal email account to send and receive emails related to government work, and a number of high-ranking State Department officials who reported to Clinton and very often used a personal email account to conduct government business as well, was undoubtedly much more detailed and intense than that described above. I also have no reason to doubt that Clinton and the others were required to be retrained and recertified yearly just as they would be if they were connected to my agency.

“I therefore do not hesitate to state unequivocally that Hillary Clinton and the others not only were entirely cognizant of the fact that the manner in which they utilized personal email accounts in the course of performing their jobs was absolutely indefensible but they were reminded of this fact on a yearly basis.”

In my initial blog post on Clinton’s email scandal I asserted: “Journalists and commentators have done a poor job….Key details have been left out of the story. The true significance of certain facts has not been made clear. Important inferences that can and should be made have not been.” Check back in with my blog again soon for the rest of my opinions on Clinton’s email scandal.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

 I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

ugly hillary.jpg