Connect with us


Why it is critically important to call it ‘liberty control’ instead of ‘gun control’



Why it is critically important to call it liberty control instead of gun control

The inalienable human right of self-defense is the keystone of liberty, so why aren’t we treating it that way?

Two recent stories that involve freedom of speech and the right of self-preservation illustrate why we have to be precise in the words we use to frame the issue. The arch of liberty is built upon the keystone of the inalienable human right of self-defense. This critically important concept buttresses our other human rights, that is why it is the first target of tyrants. Taking away the people’s ability to resist oppression always invites more oppression.

It is a severe mistake to couch the issue in terms of inanimate objects with nonsensical phrases such as ‘anti-gunners’ or similar terminology. Using the term ‘gun’ misdirects the argument away from the true purpose of gun control. This is a debate over liberty, not inanimate objects of aluminium or steel.

The left loves that we use the gun instead of liberty.

It is always advantageous to use the proper terms in a debate, this is why the national socialist left puts so much effort into controlling speech and the words we use. In the debate over the inalienable human right of self-defense, we of the pro-liberty right put ourselves at a severe disadvantage when we couch the issue in their terms. Consider this list of common phrases from the issue and how they sound in terms of liberty than on inanimate objects:

  • Gun control – Liberty control
  • Gun reform – Liberty reform
  • Pro-gun – Pro-liberty
  • Anti-gun – Anti-liberty

Note how the second set using the term liberty sets the proper tone. Most leftists would be proud to announce that they are ‘anti-gun’, but it would be doubtful that they would say they are anti-liberty, even though they mean the same thing. They still like to pretend to be supporters of freedom, they cannot face themselves as being against the concept. They like to think of themselves as liberators, not tyrants, although that is effectively what they have become.

Abuse of the 2nd Amendment leads to abuse of the 1st Amendment.

We can prove that the debate over the inalienable human right of self-defense is really over liberty and not inanimate objects. With two stories that show the 2nd Amendment debate has expanded into a debate over the 1st amendment.

The first comes from Yahoo Lifestyle about a liberty prevention advocate who has her knickers in a twist over some humorous signs being sold in her local Hobby Lobby. Apparently her disdain for the inalienable human right of self-defense extends to the freedom of speech as well.

The second story hails from the New York Times entitled: Free Speech Is Killing Us. That begins with the absurd line: “There has never been a bright line between word and deed.” Continuing on with the idea that since we’re restricting one inalienable human right, why not do the same to another?

As in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the restrictions on 1st Amendment demanded by the authoritarian socialist left will only redound to others. Leftist politicians and celebrities will always have their armed security, just as the birdcage liner of record will always be able to exercise their civil liberties and rights. It will only be those left deems to be beneath them that will have rights sacrificed.

The bottom line: Rights are like potato crisps, the left can’t destroy just one.

This is what happens when the ever-virtuous people of the national socialist left begin restricting everyone else’s liberty. Leftists depriving the people of some of their rights in their Utopian quest will always result in other liberties ending up on the chopping block. It begins with an obsession with gun confiscation, morphing into speech controls, then having to get rid of basic privacy rights.

This is why this is an issue of liberty and not inanimate objects. While oppression starts with assaults on weapons, it quickly expands into other areas. People tend to take their inalienable human right of self-defense seriously and want to speak out on the subject, so the ever oppressive left will make the counter move in taking away those rights as well as was illustrated. Soon enough the right to privacy [at least in this realm] will soon need to be addressed, with the government having vested interest in what everyone is doing in private, lest it have a negative effect on the ‘greater good’.

Properly calling it liberty control frames the argument against those on the national socialist left who only pretend to be liberal. It also keeps the issue under one label as the left lifts their sights on other freedoms. That is why the term should be liberty control and not gun control.

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



Whatever happened to Betsy Herring?



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



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


Stench of impeachment must stick to Democrats in 2020



Stench of impeachment must stick to Democrats in 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has one goal. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not impeachment of the President. She’s supporting it now because she has to for various reasons ranging from a revolting left within her own caucus to acting as a smokescreen to protect Joe Biden and other Democrats (possibly including herself) who have engaged with the previous corrupt government of Ukraine. But it’s not what she wants because she knows it will fail in the end.

Her actual goal is to clear the stink of impeachment off the Democrats before the 2020 election. Yes, it’s going to stink. Thanks to the antics of Adam Schiff and others, it’s already stinking pretty badly and it hasn’t even had very much time to rot in front of American voters. She wants to get in, check off the impeachment box on her list of “accomplishments” as Speaker, and move onto the next component of obstruction that she’ll hope to ride into the 2020 election.

We cannot allow that to happen. This stink must remain firmly attached to the Democrats who support impeachment all the way through to election day next year. They need to wear impeachment like an albatross of shame around the necks, and they must not be allowed to shed it until they’re ousted from office.

This is important. The press is going to help them “move on” after it’s done. But conservatives must keep pressing it. We cannot allow it to fall off the radar as we’ve done so many times in recent elections. Benghazi should have sunk President Obama, but he was let off the hook. The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation debacle should have helped Republicans expand their control of the Senate, but it was old news a month after his confirmation just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Time and time again, Democrats hand Republicans something that stinks, and Republicans fail to capitalize on it during elections.

If former FBI Director James Comey had let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her email scandal a month earlier than he did, she might have won the 2016 election. That’s how bad Republicans are at capitalizing on Democratic mistakes. Impeachment is such a mistake, a huge one. And if Republicans don’t handle it right, they’ll let it slip into the history books instead of letting it carry them to big gains in the House and Senate.

President Trump will be fine. He’ll capitalize on it without even trying and will use it to win his reelection. Down-ballot races must do the same. Any Republican running against a Democrat who supports impeachment should use that as the anchor that sinks the incumbent into a dark electoral pit. They should hammer this debacle until their opponents’ names are synonymous with “impeachment” among their constituents.

We must help them.

If your representative supports impeachment, make certain everyone you influence knows just how bad that really is. Today, it is allegedly popular with many. But it’s going to end up stinking very badly, and that odor must stick to Democrats like glue.

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