Code Red: The Coming Eruption

Check out this article via

Code Red: The Coming Eruption


Is Self-Government and the American Experiment in Liberty Lost Forever?

From: quoting Pope John Paul II.

“Self-government did not imply simply freedom to live as one wishes but, rather, the capacity to fulfill one’s duties and responsibilities toward family and toward the common good of the community. The Founding Fathers, he noted, “clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through which people exist, develop, and seek the higher purposes of life in concert with others.”

The Borg vs. the People

November 23, 2013

The borg vs. the people

An exerpt:

“Government power derives from collectivization of the people’s property. When government – a small group of other people after all – owns or controls vast amounts of the people’s property it is thereby empowered – like the Borg – to employ others to carry out its predictably self-serving desires – where resistance is supposedly futile. Flush with the people’s property, and thereby their power, collectivist government can also redistribute property to a governmentdependentso-called proletariat class in return for votes – while at the same time expropriating property from the laboring middle class – the social engineering of economic class struggle. Total collectivization of property into the hands of a Marxist-type government leads to total government power; thus Karl Marx, in Orwellian fashion, advocated the abolition of private property, not for “social justice,” but as a means to concentrate property, and thereby power, into the hands of a few.”

January 14, 2015

Marxism – deconstructed

By Ronald R. Cherry

“In its essence Marxism, the core ideology of modern Socialism, is an irrationalutopian and coercive perversion of human equality. Marxism seeks equality where equality does not exist, demanding legal enforcement of equal social outcomes, including those related to economics, higher education, athletics, religion and human sexuality. This ideology even extends to international relationships whereby no nation is allowed to excessively prosper or achieve greatness, i.e.: all nations must be “equal.” Never mind that when people are free their human nature leads to inequality of outcomes – some are hard-working and some are lazy – some are more intelligent and some are less intelligent – some are stronger and some are weaker – some are tall and some are short. Unequal results occur naturally without force when people possess rightful liberty. Based on their degree of truly Free Enterprise nations similarly divide themselves unequally into various degrees of prosperity or depravity.”

What the Progressives Want

Progressives divide the world into victims and exploiters, and see themselves as saviors of the underdogs who are incapable of fending for themselves. And that requires greater government power in their hands, to vanquish the exploiters. This perspective explains much of what President Obama is doing with the vast powers at his disposal.


This administration has big business in its sights. While there are a couple of corporations like G.E. who are court favorites because they do the Progressives’ bidding…the current government’s attitude toward commerce is that they exploit the masses as labor or consumer, are run by fat-cats who don’t pay their “fair share”, and should be regulated by the government which is working in “the best interests of the People”.

Only one thing matters to the Progressives-in the Oval Office and in Congress-and that is growing the central government and its power.

Illegal immigration, like abortion is a cause celebre…and Progressives will resist the smallest limitation on the grounds that it might lead to the idea that there are legitimate reasons to control borders.

They use the same “logic” with abortion: Letting live babies die unattended in broom closets after botched abortions must not be outlawed because it might lead to the further limitation of a woman’s right to “choose”.

Progressives offer all sorts of explanations for their bizarre, inefficient, ineffective, illogical, irrational, contradictory, and demonstrably failed theories and policies. But that’s just their puppet show; their circuses for public consumption.

There is one goal, and one goal only for Progressives…Government growth and its intrusion into every aspect of our lives. When you understand that, all their apparently idiotic policies make perfect sense.

During the swine flu scare, the administration did not refuse to close the border because of “commerce”, or because the “horses are already out of the barn” as Obama so creatively suggested. They refused to close the border, regardless of consequences to the citizens and our medical system, because the more illegals in America, the bigger the government required to take care of them. And the higher the likelihood they will re-elect the Progressives who provide them with myriad free government services and promise more, more, more.

That’s the reason for in-state tuition rates, sanctuary cities, social security payments, housing, welfare, food-stamps, and free medical care for illegals. They don’t give a damn about the education, safety, health or financial security of illegal aliens.

Haven’t we all been astonished at the seemingly indulgent care the government shows to illegals but withholds from citizens?

Progressives don’t care about illegals any more than about citizens. They just know their addition to the population and their dependence on government puts a huge sector of the population, immediately and relatively painlessly under their direct control. It would be harder to force tens of millions of relatively self-sustaining and resistant Americans to become dependent on government. Exploiting ignorant peasants is so much faster and easier.

Growing government is the real reason Progressives are pushing socialized medicine. They know perfectly well it doesn’t work. They are neither blind nor stupid. They don’t care about your health, or what healthcare costs you now, or about rationing or low quality care. No arguments about the inadequacy of government-run healthcare will move them. Socialized Medicine grows government, and gives it total power over our bodies. They will literally, with the stroke of a pen, have life and death power over every single person in the country. It doesn’t get more totalitarian than that.

The reason for gun registration is not the safety of citizens, they know perfectly well that most legal gun owners are responsible and, in fact, have fewer accidents with firearms than most police departments. They don’t care if you get shot by a criminal. They don’t care if criminals are the only people with guns. They don’t care if the streets are safe or not. They don’t care if criminals get brazen and bold like they are now in England & Australia where they have confiscated legal guns. What they do care about is that registering guns gives government more power over more people in more ways. And they know guns in the hands of citizens is a direct threat to their power-lust ambitions.

They don’t care about the “Earth”. Controlling energy gives them total control of the means of production. Which translates as total control over food, shelter, goods and services. It’s the perfect, undercover communist/fascist coup…as they wrap themselves in virtue for “saving the planet.” Hitler was an “environmentalist” too.

They don’t care about endangered species. They care about being able to control private property, the single most important bulwark against government tyranny.

Progressives don’t care about children. They care about growing the next generation of zombies believe in, support and trust Big Government. Does anyone aware of the education system in America believe that those who run it care about “the children” when it graduates illiterates, indoctrinates rather than informs, and literally requires that children not think for themselves, that punished “diverse” thought, that discourages excellence and achievement and competition?

Progressives don’t care about women. The only ‘liberation’ they want for mothers, is from husbands who could keep them from being dependent on the state.

They don’t care about blacks. They only want to keep them on the plantation, voting for Progressives en masse while receiving just enough to keep them ignorant, broken, hungry and angry, so they’ll believe they need their masters, the Federal Government, to eat, and despise and fear any path that would make them independent…like God, good marriages, children with fathers, pride of accomplishment, respect for education, or a focus beyond race.

Progressives don’t care about gays. They only want to break marriage, damage the culture, hurt the morals, virtues and culture of a strong and prosperous middle class…which so undermines totalitarianism.

They don’t care about “social justice” or “fairness”. They just want cover to loot and cripple the productive, the independent, the individualists, the entrepreneurs. A strong industrial/businessclass is dangerous to authoritarians. Free-Marketeers are the enemies of tyranny.

The government Progressives’ arguments, excuses, reasons and explanations seem stupid and irrational because they are false. It’s why Obama so often sounds like an idiot, contradicting himself regularly, and why Pelosi keeps getting caught in outright lies.

There is just one goal for Progressives’. No matter what nonsense they spew, bigger government is the real objective.

Every single time.

The Tragic Legacy of Statist Progressivism

3 government “solutions” that have failed miserably (Rita Dunaway)

Posted by Rita Dunaway on July 28, 2017

In their passion to achieve a government-crafted utopia, the liberal/progressive movement often does more harm than good. This is because their tool of choice – the government – can only apply superficial solutions that come with harmful side effects.

Efforts to correct “income inequality” and “fight poverty” through government entitlement programs are a prime example. As columnist George Will recently asked and answered, “[W]hat if large causes of poverty are not matters of material distribution but are behavioral – bad choices and the cultures that produce them? If so, policymakers must rethink their confidence in social salvation through economic abundance.”

Exactly. Even if the government could afford to provide for the basic needs of its citizens from a budgetary perspective (it can’t), doing so would not address many of the root causes of poverty: out-of-wedlock childbirth, divorce and unemployment.

Now consider the push to impose an increasing number and variety of legal restrictions and regulations upon gun ownership. While some basic requirements, like background checks, make sense as a way of making it harder for criminals to obtain weapons, many of the left’s proposals for “gun control” do more to burden law-abiding sportsmen and homeowners than to actually keep anyone safe from criminal activity.

Statistics show that the vast majority of crimes committed with firearms are not committed by the legal owner of the firearm, so it makes little sense to make it more difficult for citizens to legally acquire and carry guns; the citizens who jump through these legal hoops are not the problem.

Nevertheless, liberals like writer Warren Blumenfeld advocate onerous government restrictions upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, including limiting the number of firearms a person can own, the number of bullets a firearm clip can hold and “re-thinking” concealed-carry laws.

Right now, conservative watchdog group 2nd Vote, is conducting a scientific experiment to test its theory that in fact, “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” The group has set up a live “gun cam” to monitor one particular gun for criminal behavior.

It may be a silly stunt, but it makes the point: More rules and regulations aimed at an inanimate object aren’t going to make us safer from criminals intent upon destruction.

Let’s look at one more example: funding for education. We see a continuous push for government to invest more and more money in education. Anyone who opposes it is demonized.

I don’t think anyone would argue about the value of good education and its importance to society, so if increased spending on education translated into better-educated students, then it would make a lot of sense. But a study released by the Heritage Foundation several years ago revealed that the steady increase in funding for education over time has not produced corresponding gains in educational achievement.

What does make a difference? According to another Heritage study, the structure and stability of the child’s family and parental involvement in schoolwork have a huge impact on academic performance.

But, sadly for the government-is-the-answer crowd, these are not factors that can be addressed by budgetary line items.

There is a lot to be admired about the liberal/progressive movement. I believe most of the activists within this camp are truly motivated by a legitimate, noble concern for others. This should be recognized and commended. But there is a gaping hole in their worldview; it’s the vacant place where one looks for a link between the proposed solutions – which invariably involve government – and the problems meant to be solved.

Government is not a tool capable of resolving all human struggles, and in America, that was recognized from the start. As Thomas Paine wrote, in “Common Sense,” “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively, by uniting our affections; the latter negatively, by restraining our vices.”

The role of government in improving human society is a narrowly limited one: to protect its citizens’ rights, to punish wrongdoing and to point people toward the universal Moral Law through basic legal codes that reinforce its fundamental tenets.

When government goes much beyond this, either by using such a broad brush to eliminate harm that it intrudes upon law-abiding citizens or by seeking to become, itself, a positive doer of good in society, the result will invariably be some combination of the following: a contraction of its citizens’ liberty, an erosion of their charitable instincts and personal responsibility, and a colossal waste of money.