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’:

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:

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:

The Oxford English dictionary defines 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:

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.

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.

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.