Political Rage and the Hatred of Free Speech

By Frotho Canutus

I like some of the messages I see on bumper stickers, just not most of the ones that are mass produced with little substance behind them. That’s why I design my own. Unfortunately though, since Hillary Clinton lost the election she was supposed to win, my bumper stickers have become a liability. Apparently some liberals absolutely hate them. Telling the truth about Obama, Hillary and the Democrats has become increasingly dangerous in the United States since November 8th. Making points about politics and policies using facts is just simply intolerable in the minds of the losing Trump-haters.

Here is the first bumper sticker that attracted some miserable Democrat’s cup of joe.obamacare-bumper-sticker-coffe-copy1 I didn’t wash it off, and instead wore it as actual and symbolic proof of the left’s hatred for those who disagree with them. Sad.

Today, I went to the drive thru ATM at my bank. While waiting for the guy in front of me to finish his transaction I noticed a car driven by a man pull up behind me. Wondering how he would take my bumper stickers, I watched him. As he began to read them he at first shook his head, then he became more and more animated. I pulled up to the ATM as the vehicle in front of me pulled away. When I looked back again, the guy behind me was now going ape-shit. He was shaking his fists and flailing his arms wildly. He looked like he was shouting at my car at the top of his lungs. He was absolutely apoplectic. At this point I realized it would not be wise to stick around with my card in the ATM in case this maniac got out of his car and approached me, so I grabbed my card and left the scene before things escalated. You had to see the way this guy was behaving for yourself.

Here are some of the other bumper stickers that have brought out the most hateful reactions in people:

bumper-sticker-trouble-copy

bumper-closeup-copyThe Trump voters have been accused over and over of being hateful people. In my experience it is the exact opposite.

I’ve decided therefore it’s time for the Hillary/Obama bumper stickers to come off. There’s no sense in attracting lunatics to take out their aggressions on me and my family. Besides, Hillary will not be running for President again in three years and Obama is a lame duck who will be gone in three weeks. Good riddance. Onward Trump!

For those of you reading this who don’t like my Obama/Hillary bumper stickers, please, tell me what is factually incorrect about them.

 

Hillary Hacked, or “EmailGate” – why it mattered

By Lucius Cincinnatus

Has anyone else noticed that many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters, now outraged over hacking by foreign governments, expressed little concern for it before the November election? When it came to light in 2014-15 that Mrs. Clinton was conducting her official State Department communications using a private email account on a home-brew server we were told it was no big deal. It was an odd position for some to take given that the Office of the Inspector General* did not see it that way in its official Report:

 “According to DS (Bureau of Diplomatic Security) and IRM (Bureau of Information Resource Management) officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of non-Departmental systems creates significant security risks.” (Office of the Inspector General’s Report, released May 2016, p.26)

“Among the risks is the targeting and penetration of the personal email accounts of Department employees, which was brought to the attention of the most senior officials of the Department as early as 2011.” (OIGR pp. 26-27)

Despite the seriousness of the issue, USA Today ran an opinion piece last June calling Clinton’s decision to conduct official business using an unapproved, in-home server a “non-scandal” and a “pseudo-scandal.” The piece was obviously designed to deflect criticism away from Mrs. Clinton and was very forgiving given that Mrs. Clinton actions may have increased her exposure to foreign hacking. The author of the piece must have slept through key parts of the Inspector General’s Official Report, which the author gave the impression he had read. For instance, he fails to mention the part of the IG’s report that says the Foreign Affairs Manual  (FAM), which is presumably issued to all State Department employees, warns that,

“…sensitive, but unclassified information resident on personally owned computers is generally more susceptible to cyber-attacks and/or compromise than information on government-owned computers connected to the Internet.” (OIGR pp.54-55)

With little more than a month to go before the election, the Huffington Post was still trying to downplay the seriousness of Clinton’s cyber security indiscretions: “Republicans Just Cannot Let The Clinton Emails Go.” It’s a headline crafted to make Republicans look like partisan attack dogs, however the issue was far more than just about some emails. Clinton conducted her official business using a personal email account and a home-based server in direct opposition to State Department policies.

The Inspector General’s Report states the issue very clearly:

“Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System, yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO (Chief Information Officer) and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS (Bureau of Diplomatic security) and IRM (Bureau of Information Resource Management) did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.” (OIGR pp. 36-37)

hillary-clinton-sworn-in-as-secretary-state

Honest Hillary with her hand on the Bible. Secretary of State-Designate Hillary Rodham Clinton is being sworn in as the next Secretary of State after approval of her nomination. Photo: U.S. Department of State

“I was permitted to and used a personal email…” Hillary Clinton on Iowa Public Radio August 14, 2016

Is that so, honest Hillary?

“During Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU information and that, if they needed to transmit SBU (sensitive but unclassified) information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to non-Departmental addresses, they should request a solution from IRM. However, OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU.” (OIGR p. 37)

“One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to guard against cybersecurity incidents….Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.” (OIGR p. 32)

“The use of personal email accounts to conduct official business has been a particular concern over the past several years. For example, on March 11, 2011, the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Secretary Clinton.” (OIGR p. 33)

The fact is that after repeated warnings about cyber security and the multiple threats to it, Hillary and her staff continued to intentionally disregarded State Department guidelines.

“DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA (Federal Information  Security Management Act) and the FAM.” (OIGR pp.36-37)

“…OIG interviewed other senior Department officials with relevant knowledge who served under Secretary Clinton, including the Under Secretary for Management, who supervises both DS and IRM; current and former Executive Secretaries; and attorneys within the Office of the Legal Adviser. These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff.” (OIGR p. 37)

If Hillary’s supporters are so concerned now about foreign hacking and cyber security (as they should be) why were they so unconcerned when it was discovered that our Secretary of State was flouting the federal government’s own cyber security rules and regulations?

Unfortunately, double standards are used all the time by people who are careless with the truth.

*Part of the OIG’s mission is to perform “specialized security inspections and audits in support of the Department’s mission to provide effective protection to our personnel, facilities, and sensitive information.”

It’s Official – Trump Wins!

trump-towerMore importantly, the country wins. Despite the death threats and intimidation, the Electors have voted. Donald Trump will be our next president. Even though they will never admit it, even Democrats will benefit from the new administration. Obama was a disaster.

AP news is reporting that Trump received 304 electoral votes, Hillary Clinton received 227. Trump lost two votes to “faithless electors,” while Clinton lost five. Sorry, Hillary.

Frotho

Hypocritical Hillary or, the Altruism of Jill Stein

hypocritical-hillary

Hillary Clinton

The Clinton/Stein campaigns are coordinating with each other to request vote recounts in three states where Donald Trump seems to have won by a slim majority. Stein’s support nation-wide was miniscule, she only got approximately 1% of the popular vote and did not pick up any Electoral College votes. Stein defended the recounts by saying,

“What we’re doing is standing up for an election system that we can trust. We deserve to have votes that we can believe in,” Stein said in a video on her Facebook page. “This is a commitment that Greens have expressed — that we stand for election integrity, that we support voting systems that respect our vote.  We demand voting systems that are accurate, that are publicly controlled, that are not privatized.”

“This initiative is not about helping one candidate and hurting another,” she said. “We said over and over, we don’t support either of them. In this recount effort, we’re not attempting to overthrow Donald Trump, and I don’t expect that will be the outcome.”

(Source: Detroit Free Press@ http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/25/michigan-preparing-potential-hand-recount-48m-presidential-votes/94429196/)

Stein is being disingenuous. She is only looking for recounts in states where Trump appears to have the lead over Clinton – in Wisconsin by 27,257 votes, in Pennsylvania by 68,236 votes and in Michigan by 11,612. If Stein does not favor one candidate over another as she claims then why does she not demand a recount in New Hampshire where Hillary only seems to have won by less than 2,800 votes, or Maine where she is ahead by only 20, 035 votes? The answer is that Stein, who is far more aligned with Clinton when it comes to politics and public policy, is doing this at the request of Mrs. Clinton. Of course, Stein prefers a President Clinton to a President Trump.

Even though their efforts won’t change the outcome of the election, the Clinton/Stein strategy seeks to fan the flames of Democratic voter discontent. It attempts to plant the seed of election illegitimacy in the minds of their supporters. One unfortunate outcome of all this is the destabilization of our U.S. presidential voting system. The left never loses quietly or with grace.

Donald Trump was battered by the Hillary, her supporters and the mainstream media for saying he would have to wait and see if he would accept the election results. Hillary has flipped – it is she who is not willing to accept the election results. As recently as October 20th Hillary characterized the position she is now taking as “horrifying.”

Opportunists who will do anything to get what they want have no shame when it comes to taking hypocritical positions.

Lucius Cincinnatus

Source for vote tallies: CNN @ http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

Hillary’s Soul Food Tour

By Mosby Sharp-tone

Every four years Democrats make the rounds to court African-American and other minority voters, which is fine. Hillary has been spotted lately in precincts with large minority populations doing just that. Blacks voters as a whole overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. But do the Democrats’ promises to Blacks and other minorities ever materialize? My sincere hope is that all voters reflect on the past eight years of the Obama administration and ask themselves two important questions: Am I better off now than I was before Obama took office? Obama says it is necessary to elect Hillary Clinton to continue his policies. Who will help or hurt my situation more, Clinton or Trump?

The first question is more easily answered than the second question. Since I am not a minority, I cannot answer for anyone who is, but on the first question there are statistics and the statistics that I think are the most telling are the ones gathered on poverty, employment and crime. These statistics contain strong evidence that minorities have suffered under President Obama and his policies.

For instance, in some urban areas (generally controlled by Democrats), violent crime is skyrocketing. According to WLS-TV in Chicago:

“The newest crime numbers from the Chicago Police Department are staggering.”

“Police said Tuesday there were 78 murders, 353 shootings and 427 shooting victims last month (October 2016). That means there have been 605 murders, 3,003 shootings and 3,633 shooting victims so far this year. In October 2015, 31 people were killed.”

Most of the victims are black men. The violent crime spike in Chicago has taken place on  Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s watch. Emmanuel is, of course, a Democrat and a man who has been closely associated with President Obama.

Again WLS-TV: “In August – the only month to record more homicide victims than October – more than 90 people were killed in Chicago, marking the highest number of murders in a single month in the city since August 1996, according to police records. Chicago has not seen more than 600 homicides in a year since 2003 and not more than 700 homicides since 1998, records show.”

Lets look at the labor participation rate for Whites, Blacks and Asians. These statistics are from the U. S. Bureau of Labor and are seasonally adjusted. In 2006 the number of White people over age 16 that were unemployed was 62.3 million. In 2015 that number had increased to 73.7 million, a jump of about 18%. The number of Black people over the age of 16 that were unemployed in 2006 was 9.7 million. In 2015 that number had increased to 12.2 million a jump of nearly 25%. For Asians over 16, those unemployed had jumped from 3.5 million in 2006 to 5.4 million in 2015, a whopping increase of about 54%.

According to statistics provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation the poverty rate in 2015 for Whites was 9%. For Hispanics the poverty rate in 2015 was 21% and for Blacks it was 24%. It doesn’t look like Obama’s policies have lifted up minorities very much despite the hope and change that was promised.

The fact is that President Obama’s bad economic policies have hurt Blacks and other minorities far more than Whites. If Blacks and other minorities like what Obama’s policies have done for them, then I guess they’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton.

 

Author’s note to the reader:

I hope the reader will forgive me for this imperfectly written blog post. I could spend days trying to improve it, but by then the election will be over and so I offer it up as is. Some will say I have cherry-picked data. For those who are doubtful of my conclusion that Democrat policies have been bad for minorities, I encourage them to do their own research and back up it up with real data, not just opinion. And putting racial divisions aside for a moment, I encourage people to find out how many Americans are on food stamps now and if that is a measure of success for the Obama administration. When it comes right down to it we are all Americans. The liberal/progressive economic policies of Obama have hurt us all. According table #24 of the Census Bureau, the overall poverty rate for all Americans during Bill Clinton’s presidency (1994-2001) was 12.86%. During the Bush years (2002-2009) the poverty rate for all Americans was only slightly better at 12.77%, but under President Obama on average 14.67% of all Americans have lived in poverty from 2010-2015. No wonder many Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction – they are the ones who are paying attention and are not falling for the spin coming from the Democrat Party and the Obama Administration.

Watch Out! The Democrats have your back.

If President Obama or any other liberal Democrat at the national level promises you that they have “got your back” you better watch out. The part they left out was, that if it suits them politically, they will stab you in the back with a knife.

I have two very good examples to prove that what I say is worth heeding.

One: The coal miners in West Virginia and other places who faithfully vote Democrat, yet who are now in the unemployment line because of Obama’s extremely radical environmental policies. I remember the Democrat lady running against Mitch McConnell for the U. S. Senate in Kentucky. To get their votes she told the coal miners she would protect their jobs, while at the same time she indicated to the party bosses and the radical environmentalists that she really had no intention of doing so. She needed to say it to get their votes. In other words, she admitted that she had to lie to the coal miners to advance her political career. Hey, I’m no Mitch McConnell fan, but I am glad she lost. Most of us don’t tolerate liars in our personal lives, why should we tolerate them in politics.

Two: Israel. Obama publicly stated that he had Israel’s back. Nothing is further from the truth. He clearly does not like the leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and has shown a severe weakness in dealing with Israel’s sworn enemies, the mullahs of Iran. Obama is the laughing stock of Iran’s leadership. He has given Iran’s terrorists everything they wanted, for nothing in return. They are more belligerent towards the U. S. than ever. They recently captured a dozen or so of our sailors and publicly humiliated them in order to humiliate Obama and the U. S. Pretty soon they will have a nuclear weapon thanks to the help of the Obama administration. It will be a world game changer. But don’t worry people of Israel – Obama has got your back. He said so.

I’ll throw in one more for good measure. Blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama twice. The campaign messaging from Team Obama was clear – “I’m a black candidate, therefore if you are black it is in your best interests to vote for me, just cuz I’m kinda like you.” Some of these voters proudly admitted they voted for him simply because he was black like them. It’s a really dumb way to decide who to vote for. Same mentality that says – “I’m a woman, therefore I must vote for Hillary.” Well, look at how Black Americans have faired under Obama’s leadership. Generally speaking it has gotten a lot worse for them. Just look at the unemployment statistics for Black Americans. Look at the spike in violent crimes and black homicides on Obama’s watch, most of it Black on Black crime. But Black people shouldn’t be concerned – I’m sure Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary and the other Democrats have their back.

The Democrat party’s policies have lately harmed many and helped few.

Hortentius

Sacramento Bee asks: Why so many Hillary Haters?

The cartoonish author of the Sac Bee piece thinks he has people like me figured out. Too bad he is wrong. There are many very good reasons why thoughtful people do not want Hillary to be our next President.

I don’t hate Hillary, nor do I hate women. Nor do I only like women who are “10’s.” That’s not it at all. But it was a nice attempt by the cartoon man to paint with a broad brush those he disagrees with politically as being bigoted sexists.

Here’s what I emailed to the author of the Sac Bee piece and his boss:

“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” –Aesop (620 BC – 560 BC) Greek slave & fable author

Dear Sirs,

She was Secretary of State while raking in millions from foreign interests to the “Clinton Foundation.”

Wall Street banks paying her $150,000 – $200,000 for an hour speech – who is worth that? It’s obvious those banks expect to get something in return – they didn’t get rich by wasting their money now did they?

Routing her official emails through a private server in hopes of maintaining control over information that might be used to incriminate her.

No, nothing fishy about the way she operates!

What scares me is not that corrupt politicians exist, they always have. It’s that the American people have become so confused about what is in the best interests of their country, thanks in large part to the liberal-progressives in media.

I could have gone on about Hillary’s bad behavior, but didn’t. Either you see Hillary for the corrupt person she is, or you won’t.

Not long ago, I sat with a liberal Democrat at a dinner gathering. When asked if he thought Hillary is corrupt he did not hesitate – “Of course she is,” he replied emphatically. This, after expressing disbelief that my wife would not vote for her. “You’re a woman – how can you not be voting for her?” he wanted to know. Eiye yigh yigh. Hey, at least he was honest about corrupt Hillary.

Meanwhile, many of Hillary’s cheerleaders try to convince the rest of us that she is actually an ethical, good person, who has merely been lied about and misunderstood – as if we are too stupid to make up our own minds about her even though we have been observing her bad behavior for well over 20 years.

An American