Connect with us

Culture and Religion

We need to call it Liberty Control instead of Gun Control.

Published

on

The current debate is over Liberty and Freedom, the national Socialist Left wants it to be about scary objects they don’t understand.

“She who defines the terms, wins the debate”

For all of their inherent faults, one must have a begrudging respect for our comrades on the national Socialist-Left in how they exploit language to very good effect. They enforce an iron discipline when it comes to the words they use to frame the discussion to their cynical advantage. An article in The Atlantic exemplified this with: Don’t Call It ‘Gun Control’.  Or more recently in New York magazine: ‘Gun Control’ Has Outlived Its Usefulness

While we will never adopt it’s immoral base ideology of collectivism, it is time we maintained the same discipline in the words we use. This occurs in various instances, with the incorrect use of the term Liberal being the most prominent, but that is for another column.

The debate is rightfully over the cause of Liberty, so why not act like it?

At present the important point is that we use the term ‘Liberty’ in place of the word ‘gun’ in the discussion over the common sense human right of self-defence. It is the underlying issue of the debate over the 2nd amendment. A Pew research poll from last June showed that For most gun owners, owning a firearm is tied to their personal freedom.  The best way to convince non-gun owners of this critical issue [ aside from taking them to the range having fun shooting an EBR ] would be to instantly frame the debate as being over Liberty instead of guns.

It is absurd to ascribe rights or controls to inanimate objects, but that is the implication when using those terms instead of the underlying issue. Consider some other essential topics of freedom such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, would we really talk about a ‘War on ballots’ or ‘assault search warrants’ instead?

Framing the debate over Liberty instead of scary objects the Left doesn’t understand.

The national Socialist-Left would love to keep this debate framed as one over scary looking pieces of aluminium instead of freedom. Even though polling has shown there are about 120 Million gun owners in the country, many have no direct experience with firearms. Still further many gun owners don’t have personal experience with every aspect of the issue. Sad to say, but many people don’t care about subjects that do not impact their lives directly. Never the less, they do care about the subject of Liberty, they can see as something immediately important to them.

Just compare the emotional influence of a polling question with just one word difference Liberty in place of Gun:

Do you favour more gun control?
Do you favour more Liberty control?

That changes the thinking from that of objects to one that personally impacts their lives. This Liberty instead of Gun phraseology also goes directly to the heart of the Left’s deceptive use of the term ‘Liberal’. Even if they don’t know it implicitly, both words have the same underlying meaning – they both come from the same root word after all.

The Takeaway.

It should be obvious why the national Socialist Left does things in a certain way with an iron grip on words being at the forefront. Revealing the underlying issues will cause them to lose the argument. So now, en mass they are playing games with language the use to avoid the word ‘Control’ but still framing the debate as one over inanimate objects. They’ve begun to use the alternative phrase ‘gun reform’ but this is still an issue over everyone’s freedom. Thus a phrase such as ‘Liberty reform’ will nail them to the wall as to their true intent.

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Facebook uncensors Live Action after Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley intervene

Published

on

Facebook uncensors Live Action after Ted Cruz Josh Hawley intervene

Pro-life activist group Live Action has been in hot water with Facebook since last month. They’ve been accused of spreading false news after a fact-check group claimed a video of Lila Rose saying “abortions is never medically necessary” was false. This drew the attention of Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, both of whom have been going after Facebook for anti-conservative bias in their censorship patterns for some time.

As part of Facebook’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a group called Health Feedback used the fact-checking of two physicians with ties to pro-abortion groups. This led to the group’s page and content being censored with reduced exposure and warnings placed on their content as fake news.

Cruz and Hawley sent a letter to Facebook calling for an investigation and noting they’ve already uncovered multiple cases of unabashed bias against conservative content on pages. Facebook replied in an unexpectedly compliant manner.

“We have been in touch with the IFCN which has opened an investigation to determine whether the fact checkers who rated this content did so by following procedures designed to ensure impartiality,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement. “While the IFCN investigates, we are removing the relevant fact checks and have communicated this to the members of the US Senate who brought this specific concern to our attention.”

Facebook removes fact check from anti-abortion video after criticism

The fact check was published by the group Health Feedback, part of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which is partnered with Facebook to crack down on misinformation on the platform. Health Feedback’s reviews rated Rose’s claim as inaccurate, saying, “Certain medical conditions such as placenta previa and HELLP syndrome can make abortion a necessary medical procedure in order to prevent the mother’s death.”

Live Action said that after the fact check was posted late last month, the group was notified by Facebook that its page’s content would be subject to “reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news.”

Censorship by Big Tech is an ongoing issue that requires both lawmakers and conservative users to stand out ground. They are protected as unbiased platforms by Section 230. They need to play fair.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Two presidential candidates attended conference conducted by gay- and Jew-hating Islamists

Published

on

Two presidential candidates attended conference conducted by gay- and Jew-hating Islamists

America’s mainstream media is following around the major presidential candidates like ducklings chasing after their mothers. They cover every move they make, word they speak, and hand they shake. But there are times when the media goes silent and selectively omits an activity from being reported. Such was the case for those covering Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro, who spoke at the ISNA Convention two weeks ago.

Oh, you didn’t hear about that one? It’s because the ISNA Convention included a who’s-who list of known jihadists, anti-Semites, and people who call for the death of all homosexuals. That’s not the kind of event the mainstream media likes to publicize for their puppetmasters.

Bernie Sanders Attends ISNA Convention With Islamists Who Backed Killing Gay People

When ISNA, an Islamic group accused of supporting terrorists, announced a presidential forum for ISNACON 2019, the expectations were low. The Islamic Society of North America had been created by Muslim Brotherhood members and was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas Holy Land Foundation trial.

And even if the 2020 Democrats were willing to overlook the minor matter of murdering Jews, which they usually are, Muzammil Siddiqi, ISNA’s former president who chairs its Fiqh Council, which dispenses Islamic sharia law, has assented to the death penalty for homosexuality.

At the 2019 ISNA convention, Siddiqi spoke on “Strengthening Our Connection with Allah.”

Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, was there at an Imam Round Table. Wahhaj has repeatedly endorsed violence against non-Muslims. That wouldn’t bother Democrats, but Wahhaj has also declared that “masculine women” are “cursed”, claimed that the “feminist movement” is headed by “lesbians” and then offered a reminder of Islam’s LGBT position.

“And you know, brothers and sisters, you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both,” Imam Wahhaj said.

Democrats who want to win the nomination need the Muslim vote. But many of the thought-leaders in Muslim communities promote an agenda that is antithetical to the Democrats’ stance, particularly as it pertains to the LGBTQ community. It’s for this reason we do not see reports of these activities in the mainstream media. They’d rather take an extended coffee break or bash on President Trump while major Democratic candidates speak to Islamists.

The symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party and radical is not based on shared values, only a shared enemy. Both want Trump and as many Republicans as possible out of Washington DC in 2020.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Jerry Falwell Jr.’s closet endorsement of gay marriage

Published

on

Jerry Falwell Jrs closet endorsement of gay marriage

On of the largest faces of Christian Conservative political activism is Jerry Falwell Jr who emerged in the age of Trump by being one of the first evangelical leaders to endorse Donald Trump. Since then he has been one of the most vocal proponents for Trump among Big Eva. Falwell has acquired a fair amount of political influence in that last three years, and is under fire from Christians for endorsing a Republican Congressmen, Denver Riggleman, who officiated a gay wedding. His endorsement below:

There’s a lot of BS in this endorsement letter, so let’s only look at the critical highlights.

“I was told they are assuming that because you officiated at a gay marriage recently, that you are not socially conservative.”

That’s not an assumption, that’s a logical conclusion. He officiated it, not merely attended. Therefore, we can conclude that he is not socially conservative. Now Jerry Falwell Jr. then makes an argument about the futility of resistance to gay marriage. But I challenge you to replace gay marriage with abortion.

“I was told they are assuming that because you officiated at a[n] abortion recently, that you are not socially conservative. I believe that excluding other conservatives over issues that have already been decided by the US Supreme Court does nothing but help the liberals gain more power. There is nothing that anyone in the House of Delegates or the Virginia Senate can do to change the law on gay marriage or abortion until the US Supreme Court reverses its previous decision”

So basically what he is admitting is he is no better that National Right to Life, who would refuse massive pro-life legislation because of the courts. While Jerry Falwell Jr is trying to be a strategic shill over the issue abortion, he does not trivialize the issue like he does gay marriage. In fact, he makes no effort to rebuke, disagree, or even empathize with why Conservatives, Christians would be have been outraged enough to censure him at a local party level. He either has no care in the world about pertinent religious issues in politics or secretly supports gay marriage. Let’s not forget, he went out of his way to endorse Riggleman prior to the primary because of this issue. How else is this to be taken as a closet endorsement of gay marriage, in the name of pragmatism.

He is the face of Liberty University. If he is unwilling to rebuke a mediocre low-notoriety Congressmen in his state, then what lengths will he go to to advance poor politicians who perpetuate our nation’s rejection against God. If he was unwilling to stand up against Denver Riggleman because he’s a Republican, then what is the point of him having any sort of sway in politics. Jerry Falwell Jr may fight against the Social Justice Gospel that is corrupting the church, but he is idolizing the Republican Party which is causing him to stumble on key issues. This shortcoming deserves rebuke. Our focus is to be on serving God, not the Republican Party.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending