Obama’s Gun Grab Will Make Americans Less Safe

Obama’s prescription for gun control is the exact opposite of what is needed. He can claim all day long that he is preserving our Second Amendment rights, but the plain and simple fact is that he would like nothing better than to disarm American citizens. It’s exactly what Nazi Germany did in order to carry out Hitler’s demented vision, thereby keeping people from being able to defend against the tyranny that he brought about. A lesson lived is a lesson learned. We hope, anyway.

Shamefully, this administration has used just about every mass shooting tragedy as an opportunity to promote gun control. As they parade the families of shooting victims on stage as a backdrop for an impassioned speech on the need for disarming citizens, most Americans aren’t fooled.

Most Americans know that taking guns away from law abiding citizens serves only to make it easier for criminals to carry out the atrocities Obama claims he wants to cease.

Most Americans know that guns save more lives than take them. As the National Rifle Association’s executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre says, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The statistics don’t get reported by the mainstream media because the statistics don’t fit the leftist narrative, but according to a study conducted by Criminology Professor Gary Kleck, 2.5 million lives are saved each year because someone was able to ward off criminals using a gun, whether that gun was fired or not. When a criminal hears or sees a gun, that criminal is not likely to stick around.

Most Americans know that “gun-free zones” are the most unsafe areas to be because criminals count on the lack of resistance when they seek to carry out evil.

Most Americans know that hiring trained and skilled armed guards and properly stationing them at schools will prevent a lot of senseless school shootings.

Most Americans know that many, if not all, of the shooters who carried out mass shootings in the past several years are mentally unstable. The focus should be on keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people, not law abiding citizens.

Most Americans know our Second Amendment rights supersede any law or executive action Obama tries to make.

But all this fails to stop Obama from his massive gun grab. He continually defies common sense when he proposes gun-control measures, measures that are going to make American citizens less safe.

Surely Obama knows that criminals are going to be able to access guns no matter what legislation is put forth.

Surely he knows that when law abiding citizens are able to arm themselves more lives are saved.

He must also know that designated “gun-free zones” attract criminals who actively look for these areas in planning their massacres.

Certainly he knows that putting trained and skilled armed guards (retired police officers and former military personnel, for example) in schools will go a long way toward saving innocent students’ lives.

Undoubtedly he realizes that most, if not all, of those who go on killing sprees are mentally deranged individuals who need help and need to be off the streets.

As a Constitutional lawyer and former editor of the Harvard Law Review, Obama knows that the Second Amendment protects Americans from impulsive gun grabs by over-zealous and narcissistic US Presidents as well as entitled partisan members of congress and activist judges.

There’s a reason the US Constitution is written the way it is. America’s founders warned against government tyranny and even anticipated it. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States explicitly states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Reads pretty clear to me.


Tom Folden is a political strategist, conservative author, and Editor-at-Large of RightWingWriter.com, a website for conservative viewpoints. An original participant in the Tea Party, he takes part in pro-America rallies when his time permits. He is also a singer/songwriter and recording artist. For interviews and/or appearances, please contact him at spencergroup@Hotmail.com.

Hillary Clinton’s Economic Lie

On at least two occasions now former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has outright lied about a specific issue regarding the economy. The lie, which she has been telling on the campaign trail, most notably to Wolf Blitzer in an interview on CNN and also at a Democratic Convention in New Hampshire, is that the economy is better when a Democrat is the President of the United States. This isn’t just a bald-faced lie, it’s a major fallacy designed to deceive low information voters who are often and easily duped by Democratic candidates as well as pundits at leftist propaganda outlets such as MSNBC. The scary thing is that so many ordinary citizens, never mind liberals, have fallen for it.

The lie that Hillary tells over and over again is laughable and provably false.

“I will say this. I think if you look back at the last 35 years, actually going back further, I think it’s pretty indisputable that having a Democrat in the White House is good for our economy. Better for the economy than the alternative,” she told Blitzer.

No doubt she remembers that for a time during her husband’s presidency the economy was okay, not great, just okay. But this was not due to her husband, then President Bill Clinton, being a great president on economic issues. He was not. If he had his way the national debt possibly would have skyrocketed several more trillions of dollars because the Clinton’s and the majority of Democrats back then were lavish spenders with the American taxpayers’ money as they continue to be today.

The success of the economy during President Bill Clinton’s terms was not due to any great understanding he or his advisors had of the economy and how it worked best. It was his party that started running it into the ground during President George H.W. Bush’s term from 1989-1993, to the chagrin of the Republican base. Indeed the economy started turning around once the Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate in 1994 with Newt Gingrich as the Speaker. Of course Clinton took credit for the economy’s upturn but he didn’t want to give in to the sensible agenda of the Republicans. The Gingrich-led Congress put into action many much-needed reforms such as Welfare Reform.

If Hillary Clinton wants us to go back 35 years or more to see for ourselves how the economy was, then why don’t we? Let’s start with President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, in the late seventies. Anyone alive at that time should remember the failing economy we had. There was a scare of a shortage of oil causing long waits in lines at gas stations and a system that allowed people to fuel up only on alternating days. It was also during Carter’s term that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was initiated, where banks and savings institutions were encouraged to write mortgage loans to unqualified applicants. A potato farmer did not a great economic president make.

When former Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan took office, after soundly beating Carter in 1980, he took measures to turn our economy around. It didn’t happen overnight, but successfully lowering corporate taxes from 70% to 28% caused a prospective optimism in the business world that allowed entrepreneurs to open small businesses and spawned a major housing boom. He did this with a Republican controlled Senate and a Democratic controlled House. Our economy had become so strong that the country voted him back into office in 1984 by a landslide.

The strong economy ceased near the end of Reagan’s second term as Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress and began their regime of taxing and spending. The economic slide continued into President George H.W. Bush’s term starting in 1989. Congress forced Bush’s hand until he caved and reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge. So upset with him for breaking a campaign promise that he failed to have a successful re-election bid. That and the fact that wishy-washy independent candidate Ross Perot managed to divide the Republican vote.

After Bill Clinton and company entered the White House things got really out of control economically. Two years later Republicans, fed up with the taxing and spending that began to sink our economy, took over Congress and made a resounding statement. A far left President Clinton triangulated by moving toward the center and worked with Gingrich and the Republican congress. Things got moving in the right direction and the economy again started an upward trend.

It should be noted, however, that it was under Bill Clinton’s presidency that the Community Reinvestment Act was reformed and banks were further encouraged to lend to unqualified applicants. With so many Americans taking out loans (especially Adjustable Rate Mortgages or ARM) they would eventually not be able to pay back, our economy would suffer consequences during the next presidency.

During President George W. Bush’s two terms in office, the economy did fine. Although the War on Terror was waged against America and cost our country several trillions of dollars, our economy continued to remain strong until the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in 2007. That, along with the mortgage loan housing bubble that recently burst, caused a recession and TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) was enacted to further exacerbate the economic situation, not a shining moment in Bush’s legacy.

In 2008 the Democrats were able to run a successful presidential movement campaign based largely on the fallacy that the war on terror was started fraudulently. However, they were also able to use the failed economy, that they were mostly responsible for, to their advantage by insinuating that this was the fault of Republicans. Since establishment GOP Senator John McCain was the Republican nominee, he and the establishment GOP let this falsehood go on without a fight or an argument. This is in part how Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th President of the United States.

Without having been properly vetted Obama began his presidency in 2009 with control of both houses of congress and an economic recession, which he soon turned into an economic depression. Programs such as Cars For Clunkers and shovel-ready jobs couldn’t lift the economy out of the slump it was in, yet dishing out billions of dollars to “green energy” corporations sunk our economy even further. Seven years of the Obama administration and its executive ordered mandates has not done a thing to progress the economy in the right direction, unless, of course, the goal is to ruin the economy and the country in the process.

Obama and Democrats continue to lie about how wonderful the economy is doing while a willing mainstream media continue to perpetuate that lie. While the economy may do well when a Democrat is in the White House, it’s because of Republican policy that makes it so. Democrats merely take advantage and credit for it. Given the ruinous policies of Democrats throughout the years, it’s usually Republican leadership that continuously gets the economy back up and running.

So Hillary, do you still want to make those claims?


Tom Folden is a political strategist, conservative author, and Editor-at-Large of RightWingWriter.com, a website for conservative viewpoints. An original participant in the Tea Party, he is active in pro-America rallies when his time permits. He is also a singer/songwriter and recording artist. For interviews and/or appearances, please contact him at spencergroup@Hotmail.com.