Ideology Over Identity

Posted on March 24, 2019 by Tom Folden

In a recent “man on the street” survey conducted on a university campus, millennials expressed that they are fond of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and support his decision to put his name into the proverbial hat of Democratic presidential contenders for 2020. However, many expressed that he is too old and feel the next president should be a woman, and if at all possible, a woman of color. In other words, not an old white man. But Kamala Harris fits the bill.

This very issue was a point of contention in the 2008 presidential election when, unfortunately, Barack Obama was elected. It is never important that we elect the first black president or the first female president or the first minority president. What always matters is that we elect the best person for the job, no matter the race, gender or identity.

But in 2008 more Americans elected the first black (well, half black, half white) man over an old white man. And as is usually the case when Americans choose identity over ideology, Americans lose on so many levels.

In 2016 Americans expressed their distaste for the status quo, for the same political rhetoric of career politicians and for the wasteland that is government. They wanted someone different so they elected Donald Trump. For two years, even as the resistance, hate media and anti-Trump machine have tried to derail the presidency, things have changed for the better and there is still work to be done.

The ideology of the Trump administration, for the most part, is preferable to the identity politics so many Democratic contenders are peddling. Americans still want ideology over identity in 2020.

Tom Folden is a political strategist, conservative thinker, and Editor of RightWingWriter.com, a website for conservative viewpoints. A human rights activist, he is a firm believer in the Constitution and the rule of law. He is also a singer/songwriter and recording artist. For interviews and/or appearances, please contact him at spencergroup@hotmail.com.

Beware of Democratic Voter and Election Fraud

Posted on November 22, 2018 by Tom Folden

The 2018 midterm elections went as expected resulting in Democrats taking the House and Republicans holding the Senate, even gaining seats. But it comes as no surprise that for many elections that Democrats lost, whether handily or closely, they have tried to contest and steal elections from Republican winners. This is an epidemic among the left.

In Florida where Senator Ron DeSantis edged a win over Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum in the race for Governor, Gillum conceded only to rescind his concession since the margin was narrow, sending the contest to a recount. Similarly, Governor Rick Scott won his election for Senator over Bill Nelson. But since this race was also close it went to a recount. Fortunately for Floridians DeSantis and Scott both prevailed as winners.

Not so fortunate for others, however. In California, which is a Democratic stronghold, both GOP candidates Mimi Walters and newcomer Young Kim won their races only to have them overturned as more votes were somehow found. GOP Incumbent Walters had a lead of 6,233 votes and after further counting well after election night her opponent Democrat Katie Porter mysteriously led and won by 6,203 votes. Similarly, Republican Kim had a 3,900-vote lead but somehow lost to Democrat Gil Cisneros who ended up with a 941-vote lead.

Likewise, in Arizona, American Air Force hero Martha McSally led the race on election night over uber-liberal Kyrsten Sinema, but lo and behold days later half a million ballots kept coming in and Senima eventually won.

Something is very suspicious about these elections that are followed by recounts. The recounts usually result in wins for Democrats. How strange that no Republican that lost contested, asked for a recount and ultimately won the race. Only Democrats do this.

In Florida, Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes, who has regularly been at the center of election fraud controversy, has again been found to be incompetent, to put it lightly, by botching the vote-counting process. How is it that this person is allowed to have anything to do with our elections after what she has done in the past?

We have seen clear evidence of voter fraud where votes are cast by illegal aliens, deceased people and fictitious persons. Also, there have been multiple votes cast by legal registered voters. But Democrats aren’t phased one bit about it as long as the outcome is in their favor. Not only do they ignore it, they deny it happens.

There needs to be thorough investigations at the national, state and local levels for voter and election fraud. While the left claim there is no voter or election fraud, why are they so afraid to make certain there isn’t?

The Oppositism of the Russia Collusion Scandal

Posted on November 2, 2017 by Tom Folden

In the psychology community we have a term called “projection.” It is a defense mechanism wherein one person projects his/her own negative attributes onto somebody else to make something seem the opposite of what it really is. For example, a person who has a drinking problem might accuse another person as having a drinking problem.

In the case of the Russia Collusion Scandal, Hillary Clinton and her team have accused President Donald Trump of colluding with Russia when, in fact, she actually did engage in collusion with Russia, as evidence continues to mount, thanks in large part to the reporting of John Solomon of The Hill and Sara Carter of Circa News, as well as Peter Schweizer’s best-selling book Clinton Cash.

Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are now up to their ears in controversy, whether they admit it or not. PR firms must be working overtime trying to perform damage control. For over a year Clinton, the mainstream media and other willing participants have done their best to spin, or actually reverse, the story, or stories, they don’t want told about their own misdeeds.

One story in short is called Uranium One. It goes back as far as 2009 and involves the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI director Robert Mueller along with Rod Rosenstein, James Comey and so many others.

In Uranium One the FBI uncovered a scheme wherein millions of dollars were apparently being laundered by Russian nuclear officials to the U.S. which benefited the Clinton Global Foundation. As a result, President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the exchange of 20 percent of the United States’ uranium supply to the Russians. In addition, former U.S. president Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech he gave in Moscow, twice his usual speaking fee.

Since the mainstream media is a perpetual campaign machine for the Democratic Party, it goes without saying that they will fiercely defend Obama and the Clinton’s at any cost. That’s why, with the exception of a few credible news outlets, the public hasn’t been able to hear the real truth. Plus, if mainstream journalists had integrity, real reporting would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s scandals before or while she was running a campaign to become the first female president of the United States.

In an effort to cover up the scandal that surely would have derailed and devastated the Clinton campaign, her team retained Fusion GPS, a Democratic opposition research firm, to dig up dirt on then candidate Donald Trump. Oppo-research is all well and good, but instead of digging up actual dirt, they paid Fusion GPS to hire former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to manufacture an anti-Trump dossier, which contained false allegations of Trump involved in extreme sexual scenarios.

To date, there has been not one iota of evidence that President Trump and his team conspired and/or colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 presidential election. There has been, however, mounds of evidence of collusion between Hillary Clinton and Russia dating all the way back to 2009 and more recently in 2016. This is the Oppositism of the Russia Collusion Scandal. The real story is about collusion on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, not Donald Trump and his campaign team.

The Case for Implementing a Voter Identification Law

Posted on September 10, 2013 by Tom Folden

There’s nothing controversial or racist about implementing a voter identification law. It’s a necessary safeguard and a precaution to ensure that only United States citizens who are registered to vote get to vote. Does that sound unfair? Of course it doesn’t. It’s perfectly reasonable, rational and sensible. Anyone not in favor of having a voter ID law in place is not in favor of fairness.

Given the massive amount of voter fraud that is prevalent in America today, it is easily understandable that there should be measures that protect the integrity of the voting process. In fact, I would take it a step further and endorse a voter test as a requirement for eligibility to vote. But instead of getting too ambitious, I’ll settle for just a voter ID law.

The voter ID law should state that anyone who wishes to take part in the voting process must possess and present a valid voter photo identification card in order to cast a vote. When the voter photo ID card is presented, it would be scanned for authenticity.

The necessary components of a voter ID law would include setting up a voter ID database which keeps a record of all eligible voters who are registered. Another component of the law would be the actual card. It would need to be designed so that it can interface with the database. In order to receive a voter photo ID card, a person must have proof of citizenship, a birth certificate, a valid social security card and other verifiable identification (i.e. driver’s license, state ID card, etc.).

The system would be able to recognize a social security number and tell if it is valid. So if someone with an invalid social security card attempts to secure a voter photo ID card, the system would reject it. That person would then need to be investigated and/or arrested for possessing an invalid SS card. This would prevent illegal aliens and felons from receiving a voter photo ID card. If a voter photo ID cardholder becomes a felon, that person’s status would be updated in the voter database system.

Proposing the implementation of a voter ID law has inevitably attracted opposition from the likes of the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world to the mainstream media, who are all on the left of the political spectrum. They all want us to buy into the notion that voter ID laws are racist. Would someone please explain to me how a voter ID law is racist? The law wouldn’t say that minority voters are not allowed to vote. It would merely ensure that those who are legally eligible to vote get to vote and those who are not legally eligible to vote do not get to vote. Again, what is racist about that? The aim is to bring integrity back to our voting process.

One complaint among opponents is that a voter ID law will impact minority voters and that, therefore, is racist. Again, how is this racist? Minority voters will have every opportunity to receive a voter photo ID card if they are, in fact, eligible to receive one. A photo identification card is required to fly, get into nightclubs, purchase liquor and more. How on earth is it unfair to require one to vote? This argument is weak at best. Because Republicans and those on the right champion this law, the left will come up with any excuse, however inane, to thwart common sense.

Much has been documented regarding voter fraud in this country, from illegal aliens casting votes to actual U.S. citizens casting multiple votes, often using the names of deceased persons. Why would anyone oppose such a measure that would bring an end to this kind of corruption? Anyone who would oppose such a measure surely must want the corruption to continue. I submit this is the very way that Obama was re-elected.

Implementing a voter ID law is in the interest of fairness and integrity. If we can put such a system in place, America could be closer toward becoming the country it was meant to be.