Connect with us

Democrats

No, Sen. Schumer, gun confiscation talk is exactly the reason to stop ‘universal’ background checks

Published

on

No Sen Schumer gun confiscation talk is exactly the reason to stop universal background checks

The national socialist left incessantly demands gun confiscation, all the more reason not to ‘go forward’ with its precursors.

Sometimes it’s easy to knock a lie from the left out of the park. This is certainly one of those times. As reported by the Times Union, everyone’s favorite Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently stated:

“I don’t know of any other Democrat who agrees with Beto O’Rourke, but it’s no excuse not to go forward.”

In the retail game, this is known as a two for one special, in this case two lies in one statement. Most leftists obsess over gun confiscation and this is the exact reason to oppose ‘universal’ background checks.

One only needs to consider that none of the other candidates objected to this stance, or that they have offered their own schemes to deprive the people of their inalienable human right of self-defense. Not to mention a quiet perusal of the admittedly outdated list of leftists demanding gun confiscation – Updated to Sep 2018. These facts prove the point that as we have stated numerous times, the left’s liberty grabbing agenda is nothing but gun confiscation or it’s precursor: ‘universal’ background checks.

‘Universal’ background checks have no other purpose than gun confiscation.

Most people understand that ‘universal’ background checks will do nothing to solve the societal violence problem since criminals don’t obey the law. Perhaps that’s a shocking revelation to those on the nation’s socialist left, but most intelligent people know this inherent truth. Thus layering on a new law on top of the old law will only burden the innocent.

Nevertheless, these measures are even worse than ineffective. They will fundamentally change the relation of the people and the government. UBC’s will set the precedence of the government having direct control of one’s private property. Your possessions will suddenly be under the collective purview of the government, subject to background checks, regulation and of course, taxation.

Background checks for keeping your property.

As reported in the Daily Camera, during last November’s certification push before the ‘assault weapon’ ban, each person undergoing this process would have a ‘background check’ run on them for property they already owned:

The police department then performs a background check and, if the owner is clear, issues two copies of a certificate with the owner’s name, date of birth and signature; the make, model and serial number of the gun, and the date of issue and issuer’s name.

[Emphasis added]

Isn’t that special? Not only are you required to get permission to keep what you already own, but you have to undergo a background check for the privilege.

‘Universal’ background checks: Unconstitutional to the core

The current system just barely passes constitutional muster under the much abused commerce clause. As pointed out by the Editors of National Review in their editorial: Against Universal Background Checks.

Upholding the Constitution is a task that falls to all of government’s branches, not solely to the Supreme Court. One cannot uphold the Constitution and pass “universal background checks.” By explicit design, the federal government is prohibited from acting outside of the limited set of powers that the Constitution has granted to it. None of those powers permit it to superintend private firearms transactions that take place between two residents of a single state. Because it limits its remit to the regulation of federally licensed businesses and of commerce between the states, the existing background-check system does not fall afoul of the limits that have been placed on Washington. Because they explode that remit, universal background checks absolutely do. If the federal government is able to control what two citizens of a state do with their already-manufactured and already-purchased property, the federal government’s power has no boundaries. Every election season, Republicans tell us that if they are awarded a majority they will keep the Leviathan at bay. This is a chance for them to prove it.

[Emphasis added]

The bottom line.

In many ways, it is extremely insulting that leftists have so little respect of the citizenry that they ‘serve’ that that would even try to pawn off such an outrageous lie. The authoritarian socialist left has been incessantly demanding gun confiscation in one form or another for years. For once it would be nice if they were to be honest about this obsession of theirs.

But then again, that would endanger all the incremental steps they have to put in place, beginning with ‘universal’ background checks, followed by gun registration. This is why try to downplay the obvious with a lie akin to trying to claim the sky is green.

Back when this was being done to formally free people in other nations, they solemnly promised that controls over civil liberties or registration would not be used to confiscate guns. Just as the left is doing now. Then of course, these were used to confiscate guns, but by then, it was too late. We have the advantage of knowing the tricks and deceptions of the left in depriving people of their inalienable human rights.

That is why we need to stop. That is why we have a resounding NO to these ‘compromise’ demands, no matter which side they are on.

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

0

Conservatism

Stop praising the authoritarian-left as champions of liberty with the term liberal, Part I

Published

on

By

Stop praising the authoritarian-left as champions of liberty with the term liberal Part I

The NBA strife over Hong Kong has laid bare the left’s socialist national agenda and their hatred of liberty.

It’s never more gratifying than when prominent leftists prove several assertions about themselves all at once. Such was the case recently when left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr asserted a false complexity when defending authoritarianism over the cause of liberty.

As reported in the Daily Wire, the prominent NBA coach made the following comments defending the authoritarianism of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’:

When asked about whether he’s ever been asked about China’s record of human rights abuses before, Kerr responded: “It has not come up in terms of people asking about it, people discussing it.”

As is usually the case with leftists, he deflected the deliberate oppression and mass murder of the socialist-left side of the rational political spectrum model in the guise of the Communist Party of China (CPC) with the red herring of the actions of criminals in the states. He then asserted:

“We can play this game all we want and go all over the map. There’s this issue and that issue. The world is a complex place and there’s more gray than black and white,” Kerr concluded. “I realize that what’s popular these days is making it black and white. You’re either good or you’re evil. It’s convenient to do things that way, but not realistic.”

In actuality, those words of deflection are only meant to confuse the issue and hide that the socialist-left favours control over liberty, authoritarianism over freedom.

Most complex systems are based on elegant formulations.

While the world is a complex place, most of it’s workings can be explained by relatively simple but elegant formulations such as Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. While there are vast differences between the physical and political sciences given that the latter deal with very complex and changing phenomena and the actions of people in large populations. Both have certain basic precepts that can be used to generally model the political spectrum. In the case of modelling the political spectrum, it’s imagined complexity can be broken down into several basic assertions that correctly explain the situation.

The key difference between the development of the formulations in the field of engineering and those of politics is that there are no groups [perhaps aside from ‘flat-earthers’] that argue over the parameters of Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. No one really has a reason to argue over the law of gravity in non-relativistic sphere.

Unfortunately, this is not the case when trying to model the political spectrum, primarily because the groups that make up the various factions have a vested interest in obscuring the true situation.

The right prefers liberty, the left prefers control.

In general terms there are just two sides of politics – left and right. Despite attempts by the left to muddy the waters and confuse the situation, that is the generic formulation. These two terms were born out of the historical events surrounding the French revolution, but have gained different meanings along the way. Howbeit this was the source of the terms, it is incorrect to use the context in which they were coined. As is the case with analyzing most complex systems, it’s best to start with first principles. In the case of any political spectrum model we begin with a statement that sets forth the primary difference between left and right, as engineer and author, Robert A. Heinlein so eloquently termed it:

“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire”. Robert A. Heinlein

Stating it in as basic terms as possible the right favors liberty over control while the left favors control over liberty. In other words, the right favors minimal government and maximum liberty, while the left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.

The left will of course object to this kind of generalization simply because it casts them in a bad light as authoritarians at heart. One only needs to look at their socialist national agenda to confirm this assertion, in that they prioritize control over the cause of liberty.

The right favors individualism, the left favors collectivism.

We can also consider the two sides in terms of the two basic political philosophies of individualism and collectivism. This also affirms the precepts of rational political spectrum model.

The Oxford English dictionary defines individualism:

1The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
‘a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth’

Synonyms: independence, self-direction, self-reliance, freethinking, free thought, originality

2A social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
‘encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit’

The Oxford English dictionary defines collectivism:

1The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
‘the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism’

Synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism

1.1The ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system.
‘the Russian Revolution decided to alter the course of modernity towards collectivism’

Please note that these principles are of giving a group priority over individuals. The problem is that since groups or collectives happen to be arbitrary constructs, the rights imbued to them are also arbitrary, or non-existent. It logically follows that only individuals can have rights.

Individual rights, liberals and liberty.

Consider how the Oxford English dictionary defines liberal:

1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’
1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.

Origin
Middle English via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’.

[Emphasis added]

While the definition refers to ‘moderate political and social reform’, it clearly shows that true liberals favour individual liberty, free trade, placing them on the pro-liberty side of the rational political spectrum model.

This in essence ties everything together, clearly placing liberals in the camp of favouring individual rights and freedoms. While also demonstrating that liberty and liberalism are tied together, having the root word from Latin: liberalis.

Thus, we have set out the basic parameters of the rational political spectrum model:

  • The right favors minimal government and maximum liberty.
  • The left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.

The actions and policy agendas of the left confirm these general assertions, despite the false protestations of complexity by that side of the political spectrum as exemplified by the words of Left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr.

In part II we will examine in greater detail why it’s important to properly identify and cut through the confusion propagated by the authoritarian left. As well as distinguish their precepts with those of the pro-liberty right.

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

Democrats

Whatever happened to Betsy Herring?

Published

on

Betsy Herring

Chances are you don’t recognize that name. Neither did I until today. I usually don’t do Democrats, but I’m going to make a brief exception this time.

I can honestly tell you that I would have been less surprised to learn that Massachusetts Senator and Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren was born on Mars than I was to find out she actually came from Oklahoma. I had just seen her as a typical East Coast Ivy League liberal.

There have been other strong women born in the 46th state who made a name for themselves far beyond where they grew up. The most memorable one, I think, was U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick who served during Ronald Reagan’s first term. Interestingly, her political route was from Socialist to Democrat to Republican rather than from Republican to Democrat. She was one smart and influential lady.

But there was a generational difference as she was born during the Roaring 20’s. Elizabeth Ann Herring is a baby boomer like yours truly. Perhaps that’s why the contrast between her political development and my own seems so striking to me.

She married at 19 and then pursued her education and political career mostly back east. I was only 6 years old when we moved out west to Oregon. I was back in Oklahoma a couple times briefly between ages 11 and 13.

I’m interested in what it was that motivated the candidate now known as Liz to embrace far left politics. Either she is a hard left ideologue or an opportunist. Both, in my book, would disqualify her from becoming President and Commander-in-Chief.

We are both of the same vintage and both come from working-class Oklahoma families. The Vietnam War is probably what drastically altered the course of my life. After spending teenage years in Southern California, my military service took me overseas and interrupted my pursuit of higher education.

I’m purposely not saying much about my own background because it isn’t the issue and you have no reason to care. But what was it during the education and career of Elizabeth Warren that changed her life trajectory so drastically?

I did a little research but it’s fascinating to consider what her own immediate family and childhood friends think now about her so-called progressive views compared to her former ones. If I were in their position, I suppose I would be harping at her to reconsider.

I guess the way I found out that she was originally from Oklahoma was when I heard that she claimed to be of Cherokee ancestry. I knew the Cherokee homelands were in the southeast and that they were forcibly relocated over the Trail of Tears to Indian Territory.

I was surprised that she had never spent more time finding out about her alleged Native American heritage. I went so far as to obtain a citizenship card from the tribe to which I belong. A majority of my classmates during the brief time I was back in Oklahoma during 6th and 7th grades all said they were part Indian.

I will interject here that I am not thrilled about conservatives using mischaracterizations of indigenous people to refute and ridicule Elizabeth Warren’s claims. I would ask that they simply respect Native American culture and focus their criticism upon the candidate herself.

This curiosity about how a girl from Oklahoma could become a powerful woman from Massachusetts, along with recent indications that she may soon be the front-runner for the Democrat nomination, are what led me to look at her more closely. I also live in a deep blue state. A Republican has a far better chance of getting elected in Massachusetts than here in Hawaii.

But I’ve always been one to buck the trends. As an Okie kid in the smoggy urban jungle of West Los Angeles, I took every opportunity to reinforce and reemphasize my identity because I already knew who I was before I got there. So, Liz Warren, at what point did you begin identifying more with the progressive politics of New England than the red-state mentality of your native Oklahoma?

I have not lived in Northeastern Oklahoma Green Country since 1962. I am long overdue for a visit with my cousins there. Unlike Ms. Warren, I do not have siblings who still live there. But there’s a lot more than just a taste for the fried okra my mom used to fix that gives Oklahoma a very special place in my heart even now.

Hawaii is my home and will continue to be. Despite the Democrat one-party machine that controls virtually all elected offices in the 50th state, there is hope for an infusion of common sense conservatism.

Then I see how Elizabeth Warren has become part and parcel of the blue state mentality in Massachusetts. She is being swept along by the tide rather than swimming against it. It comes down to whether this was due to political expediency or a true change of heart.

I would recommend she engage in some serious introspection and articulate the origin of her political views, especially those of a social nature which contravene the family values of the majority of Oklahomans with whom she grew up. I have also brought up the same issue regarding U.S Congresswoman and Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii who has likewise done a 180° turn.

When did the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman become negotiable as a campaign issue? Did you experience an epiphany that revealed a new truth? Or did blue state politics override your good judgment and common sense?

So, Betsy… errrr, Liz … you’ve got some explaining to do. Better SOONER than later!

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

Conspiracy Theory

Alexandra Chalupa, the woman nobody (other than Glenn Beck) is talking about in the Russian hoax

Published

on

Alexandra Chalupa Glenn Beck Russia Investigation

Have you heard the name, “Alexandra Chalupa” or the political and communications consulting group she founded, “Chalupa and Associates”? Probably not. Well, if you’ve been paying attention to the news at all for the last three years you’ve probably heard of the DNC, Russia investigation, Clinton Foundation, Ukrainian scandal, and CrowdStrike. All of these are separate organizations or events that are loosely tied together with some being closer to others. But they all share a common thread: Alexandra Chalupa.

Of all the players in the ongoing series of strange circumstances surrounding President Trump’s 2016 election and on through his presidency, Alexandra Chalupa appears to be the one connected to just about all of them. It’s a testament to the weak, biased nature of mainstream media that she hasn’t really made the news at all despite all of these connections.

Where does she fit in? Right in the middle. But nobody has been talking about her for three years other than brief mentions here and there. That all changed this weekend when Glenn Beck and his team tied the strings together to paint the first clear picture of how this lobbyist and progressive activist has been squarely involved in efforts to take down the President since before his big election.

Our investigation into Chalupa starts now, but it’s through the efforts of Glenn Beck and his team that we get a head start on it all. What role has Alexandra Chalupa played in the Russian and Ukrainian scandals? We’ll soon find out.

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