The Texas Standard

Posted on November 20, 2017 by Tom Folden

When a good citizen grabbed his gun and rushed to prevent more carnage in the mass shooting two weeks ago at a small church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, he displayed to the country just how things should be in every state. Indeed, if all Americans were able to carry their own firearms, American communities would be much safer.

Despite the push for a widespread ban on certain firearms, modified or otherwise, guns in the hands of responsible owners would do much to protect lives. The logic of ‘less guns equals less crime’ makes sense only to those who don’t understand the nature of criminal activity. As authority on the subject John Lott points out, more guns equals less crime.

The argument should therefore be directed toward keeping guns out of the hands of felons, criminals, ex-convicts and mentally unstable people, not law abiding citizens. Although criminals will always be able to access guns on the black market, penalties should be stiffer when they’re caught.

In situations where a person with a gun, or several guns, enters a building or approaches a crowded space, more armed citizens would make it much less likely for the deranged person to carry out a mission of destruction. Those who are determined to cause crisis and chaos intentionally seek out densely populated areas that have strict gun laws. Knowing a community espouses common sense gun laws, the kind which allow citizens to carry their firearms, would-be mass murderers are likely to stay away and find a liberal-run city that is a gun-control haven.

Fortunately, some areas in Texas are safer because sensible people do sensible things like carry firearms in the public space and are able to keep the public protected. If only every city was modeled this way.

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.

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.