Time for a Serious Discussion about the Insanity that Leads to Tyranny which We Call Liberal/Progressivism


OK, I am setting all partisan politics aside and putting my philosopher/logic hat firmly in place for this post.  Nothing that follows is intended to be satire, hyperbole or partisan politics.  This post is based purely in logic and right reason applied to observed reality.  The subject is the collective break with objective reality (otherwise defined as a form of mental illness) that has been prevalent among Leftist thinkers for years but which is now making itself readily apparent through an ever increasing frequency of public statements by these mentally ill individuals.  And no, I am not meaning to insult these people, only to make the case that they are out of touch with the objective world and, therefore, mentally ill.  I start with this story:

Senate Democrat: “I Want to Disagree With Those Who Say We Have a Spending Problem”

First of all, I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem. And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation are broke. We can’t afford these things any longer. We’re too broke to invest in education and housing and things like that. Well look at it this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are now the richest nation in the world. We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem? No.

Harkin says “wealth allocation” the problem with budget deficit, not spending

“We are the richest nation in the history of the world, we have the highest per capita GDP of any major country in the world. If you look at that you say ‘my gosh we’re rich.’ Well, if we are rich, why are we so broke?,” Harkin asked. “As I said this morning I think the reason we are is we have a misallocation of capital. All this wealth generated by the working people of America has accumulated in fewer and fewer hands.”

Now, when I was writing about the “Obama-Created “Conservative” Utopia,” I was being sarcastic.  But little did I realize that, when I coined the term “otherwise allocated income,” that I was actually imitating real life without knowing it.  No, I didn’t coin the same phrase that Harkin used in this piece, but it was very close.  The sad thing is, I was unaware of this story when I wrote my post, but I know the mindset of these people well enough that I was able to so closely parody what they actually say.  But let’s set this aside and look at the term “allocate:”

Definition of ALLOCATE

1: to apportion for a specific purpose or to particular persons or things : distribute <allocate tasks among human and automated components>

2: to set apart or earmark : designate <allocate a section of the building for special research purposes>

Now, let’s follow up by making sure we understand the definition of the word “apportion:”

Definition of APPORTION

 : to divide and share out according to a plan; especially : to make a proportionate division or distribution of

Now, do you understand what this man is saying? Harkin said that whatever money you make is “allocated” to you by some unnamed, unseen, uncontrolled power or authority.  He is saying you did not earn it and you do not own it, because, if it can be “allocated” to you, it can also be “confiscated” – which is what he is talking about doing to those who he claims have been “allocated” too much. Harkin is saying that you are a child, a slave child, and that everything about your life belongs to this unseen and unnamed power.  The implication is that this power is god (small g).  And the implication is also that the government is this power and – by extension as a representative – him and his colleagues.  Yes, Harkin is claiming to be one of the figureheads of a man-made deity.  It is Hobbes’ Leviathan in practice.

No, he doesn’t actually say it, and that is why Leftists will deny my assertion, but he did say it.  It is inherent in the words he actually used, and I just proved that by showing you the definition of those words.  If you prefer math to grammar, think of it as the “associative property of definitions:” while the words may be different, they often mean the same thing or carry concurrent meaning.  So, you see, my assertion is nothing more than a logical extension of the meaning within the words Harkin spoke and the context in which he used them.  Now, unless you are willing to concede that slavery can be moral and that another person – in this case, Harkin, through the government – can justly place a claim to your life and your labor, then you must accept that – at the very least – this man is advocating tyranny.

Next, let’s look at the assertion Harkin is making: that we do not have a spending problem.  Let’s start by acknowledging that this nation – because of excessive spending – has a national debt of at least $16 Trillion on the books.  This debt was accumulated because our government spent more money than it collected, but Harkin could still spin that into a “paying-for” issue.  However, if we add the off-books debt and the entitlements this nation has promised to this debt, then we have something in the range of $130+ TRILLION in debt!!!  Folks, this means our national debt is approximately 3 times – 3 times the total value of every penny on the planet.  And this is just the national debt: it doesn’t address the States’ debt and retirement entitlements.  This amount of debt cannot possibly be paid.

All of this means we are not the nation he described.  It means that our nation is bankrupt.  It also means we do have a spending problem.  You see, these numbers are objective reality.  Harkin cannot make them go away simply by coining a new word, ignoring them or willing them away.  And the fact that Harkin cannot or will not acknowledge this and that he is in public saying that reality is not reality is a clear indication that the man has suffered a break with reality.  What’s more, he is not alone: this is a characteristic of nearly every Liberal/Progressive you take time to research.  Pick a Liberal/Progressive and start reading what they have said and written and you will find they all suffer from a similar refusal or inability to acknowledge and accept objective reality.  They simply do not live in the real world.  Instead, they live in some Leftist utopia that only exists in their imagination, yet they are hell-bent on forcing their vision upon everyone around them who doesn’t willingly submit to it.  And that is an indication of mental illness presented as clearly as it can ever be present.

Now, whether the mental illness leads to the desire to become a tyrant or the desire causes the mental illness remains to be determined.  But what needs to happen – and it needs to happen now – is these people need to be removed from office (they are medically incapable of performing their jobs).  But we must be careful to do this legally.  Even if the people we need to have removed from office have no concern for the law, we cannot allow ourselves to become like them.  So we need to launch a concentrated campaign to recall and/or impeach these people wherever we find them exhibiting these clear signs of breaking with reality.  The alternative is to face the real possibility of becoming the next in an historic string of victims who suffered at the hands of people just like Harkin who were not stopped when their nation still had the chance to stop them.


21 thoughts on “Time for a Serious Discussion about the Insanity that Leads to Tyranny which We Call Liberal/Progressivism

  1. I’m not sure if it is a mental illness or not, but I do know that to be a liberal means you can simply make up facts, say the dumbest things ever said, and have no repurcussions for it.

  2. A misallocation of capital? Is this moron on crack? If we’re so flippin rich, why are we in debt? Why did our S&P rating get downgraded? Why do I feel I will be having to learn Chinese?

    If I remember correctly, I believe Sally hails from the great state of Iowa……wonder if she knows of this silly Harkin boy.

    You may thank me, B. I gave you an H.

  3. There are only a few ways to kill cancer. Harsh treatment (violence against it) and prayer or maybe a combination of both. One thing I know for sure you can’t vote and make it go away. You will never overcome the parasites, the news media, hard core progressives in the voting booth. As a nation we have passed the tipping point and there is no return to the good ole days. We all know who the enemy is, how they operate, what they are going to do and when they are going to do it. Question on everyone’s mind is what do we do about it. How far down the road do we go before the wheels come off?

  4. Line In The Sand

    by Chuck Baldwin

    Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass…it’s about learning how to dance in the rain.

    I have been writing this column for over a dozen years, and I can safely say the column I wrote last week, “My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here”, produced more response than any column I have ever written–maybe more than any two or three columns combined.

    And what is even more noteworthy: unlike most columns, the responses to this column were at least 90% favorable.

    In last week’s column I said, “Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy–whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms–especially semi-automatic rifles–in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States.

    That Barack Hussein Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.”

    I also wrote, “Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”

    I concluded the column saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story”.

    It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw! “My line in the sand is drawn here! “Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.” See the column: My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here!

    Among those who wrote to tell me that they had also drawn their personal line in the sand on this issue and that they would also absolutely refuse to register or surrender their firearms were people from virtually all walks of life: attorneys, Realtors, bankers, teachers, physicians, civil servants, salesmen, truck drivers, tradesmen, pastors, law enforcement officers (including federal police officers), and military personnel–even special forces troops.

    Accordingly, I am absolutely convinced that these people are a microcosm of gun owners nationwide. I am also convinced that should Senator Dianne Feinstein’s bill banning semi-automatic rifles become law that there are literally tens of millions of Americans who simply will not comply.

    Furthermore, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan recently told John McLaughlin that should the federal government attempt to confiscate the guns of the American people, “There would be a revolution in this country!” See the report: ‘There would be a revolution in this country!’.

    What most people fail to realize (because they are not taught it) is that the match that ignited America’s War for Independence was not excessive taxes, or the lack of representation, or trade restrictions, or the lack of trial by jury (as important as these issues were). The match that ignited America’s War for Independence was ATTEMPTED GUN CONFISCATION.

    On April 19, 1775, British troops, some 800 strong, were dispatched to Concord, Massachusetts, to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock and to seize a cache of weapons known to be stored at Concord. When Dr. Joseph Warren sent Paul Revere to warn Pastor Jonas Clark (in whose home Adams and Hancock were staying) that the Crown’s troops were on their way to arrest the two men and seize the guns at Concord, he alerted his male congregates. About 60-70 men from the Church of Lexington stood armed on Lexington Green awaiting the Red Coats. Upon spotting the citizen militia, a British officer demanded the men throw down their arms. They refused; and the British troops immediately opened fire.

    Eight of the Minutemen were instantly killed. The colonists returned fire in self-defense, and the shot was fired that was heard ’round the world. By the time the troops arrived at the Concord Bridge, just a few miles away, hundreds of colonists were waiting for them with muskets in hand, and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Make no mistake about it: attempted gun confiscation ignited America’s War for Independence. And I am convinced that Pat Buchanan is absolutely right. If the federal government attempts to confiscate the guns of the American people, “There would be a revolution in this country!”

    One more observation regarding The Battle of Lexington which opened America’s War for Independence: not only was attempted gun confiscation the match that ignited the war, it was the pastor of the Church of Lexington and members of his congregation who were the Minutemen of Lexington Green. That is another fact most historians conveniently leave out of the story.

    If there is one element missing from today’s liberty fight, it is the lack of participation from America’s pastors. By and large they are MIA. How many pastors today are warning their congregations of the threat against their Second Amendment liberties? Every pastor in America, regardless of denomination, should have already started proclaiming “the spirit of resistance” (Thomas Jefferson) to their church congregations; they should already be extolling the Biblical mandate to resist tyranny; they should already be warning their congregations of Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein’s plan to disarm them.

    Let me ask my church-going readers: has your pastor said one word from the pulpit regarding the impending gun ban now being drafted? Has your pastor explained the Biblical principles of lawful resistance? Has your pastor exhorted his church congregation to not surrender their firearms and to do everything in their power to demand that your senators and legislators hold the line for the Second Amendment?

    And my next question is if your pastor has not done any of this, why are you still attending that church? Ladies and gentlemen, there would have been no United States of America had it not been for Rev. Jonas Clark and the other patriot-pastors of 1775 and 1776. There would have been no Lexington Green and Concord Bridge; there would have been no Bunker Hill; there would have been no Declaration of Independence; there would have been no British surrender at Yorktown.

    And I would dare say that if a significant percentage of pastors would stand up this Sunday and encourage their people to stand firm against this gun ban bill, the bill would never see the light of day.

    The time is late, folks! We no longer have the luxury of straddling the fence or putting our heads in the sand. If your pastor refuses to take a public stand for YOUR liberties, and the liberties of YOUR CHILDREN, vote with your feet and walk out the door. Find yourself a pastor who will defend your liberties and the liberties of your children–liberties that other pastors and patriots purchased at the cost of their very blood.

    I repeat what I’ve already said, “Whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw! “My line in the sand is drawn here!”

    And so are the lines of millions of Americans. In response to Pat Buchanan’s prediction of revolution should the federal government attempt to confiscate our guns, John McLaughlin replied, “Baloney!”

    I’m sure that’s what King George III said when he was told that would happen if his troops attempted to confiscate the guns at Concord.

    This is where I stand.

    • Chhelo,

      I admire the sentiment, but I have a serious question for you. When it comes time to fight or surrender time, how many people do you think actually have it in them to face death — or worse — watch their family and friends being killed in the defense of their freedom. As one who has seen combat with trained, seasoned troops, I can tell you, I do not hold out much hope for this nation — not any more. We are no longer the people our founders were. For one thing — a BIG thing — too few of us look to Heaven as the greater good/goal, thus too many will chose life at any price over death in the pursuit of liberty.

    • All True.

      I am continually surprised and amazed how most people do not know the basics and basis for the founding of our country, America, the greatest nation/society every created. I am dumbfounded as I try to explain the concept of liberty and freedom, and common people look at me with the “deer in the headlights” stare …. Hell, they don’t even know what the “deer in the headlights” stare is do they?

      Everyone should read this book:
      “Paul Revere’s Ride” by David Hackett Fischer, 1995

      Maybe, just maybe, the curious can discover liberty.

  5. Joe,

    My wife and I have discussed this and are prepared for the day we have to make the final decision. Having served 20 plus years in the US Army I find it hard to set back and let this madness continue. It is also my belief that most of the US Military will be in our camp not theirs. We have been praying about this issue and a lot of thought has gone into whether it is a sin to resist tyranny. It is hard to believe are founding fathers were sinful for standing up for their God given liberties. The time for kings and tyrants ended when the Republic was formed under the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. When the time comes we will gather with like minded people and resist. We are firm believers in the pre tribulation Rapture of the Church, our preferred option. We look to The Lord first for our salvation and do the best we can until then. If we are wrong then The Lord will convict us in the error of our ways.

    • Our founders prayed BEFORE they took each move, asking God for His guidance and, if they were doing His will, success. The point is, the founders sought Him every step of the way. They begged His guidance before, during and after everything they did. They gave Him praise and they fasted nationally. NONE of which we do or could possibly do today.

      We are no longer the moral people required to govern ourselves, so any armed resistance must be measured in terms of the harm that would cause to those who would perish before having the opportunity to hear the Gospel and accept Christ. If the founders perished, this was not a problem: they already had. But if we cause a fight now, we may not be on the side of right this time.

      It’s got to be about others more than just ourselves. That said, I hear you, I understand, and I don’t know what to do any better than the next person. I just know that we are past the point of any return/salvaging of what once was… 😦

      • WE would not be causing the fight Joe.

        Those who thwart the Bill of Rights would be.

        Some (many) would be intimidated …..others ( also many) would become “Beyond angry” at seeing Federal Agents ( Troops ?) slaughtering US citizens defending their rights.

        It is NOT a monochromatic affair……many would look to Folks like you and others who’ve served for Military Knowledge and guidence Joe ……Chhelo is ABSOLUTELY correct, the decision will /would have to be made….do you advize staying on the reservation….or Concord……. At that point ….It will be that simple.

        • Don,

          This is a conversation I am very consciously trying to avoid, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t thought about it. Let me just ask you two questions.

          First, do you think all of the reasons you just gave for why people would resist might have applied to the Germans in the 1930’s?

          And do you think we — as a people — still possess that one thing that set our founders apart from the rest of the world: an unshakable faith in God?

          Be honest about your answers, then consider their ramifications….

          One more thing: when (not if) that point comes, should we fail – and I fear we will — then all of humanity falls, forever. The next time the world plunges into darkness will be the last time. Technology will make it impossible for anything like a resistance in the movie V. What resistance there will be will come in the form of Winston in 1984, and it will end in the result. There is one — ONE path that leads to “safety,” and the majority of Americans no longer believe in Him — not even the ones who claim they do. 😦

          • At the time….1776….most of the World believed they had an unshakable faith in God…..including the Redcoats and even in what we Today call Saudi Arabia…..and in India etc….

            The Germans were effectively divided by the PTB at the time…..as they are doing to us in America today. But even more importantly Germany had no tradition like the Founding of America….or even the Swiss….. the Germans were still mentally ruled by the Cult of the Rulers …an aristocracy mindset.

            If we keep saying “we will fail “….then we certainly will. In an odd way it is a little like the GOP itself ( Traitors at the Top NO DOUBT )…..but a strange ambience of defeatism amongst the rank and File followers of the GOP Blue-bloods….NOT the TP and other Conservatives….but rather the Blue-hairs and life-long Republicans who keep putting the likes of John McCain in……an odd similarity for a Jeffersonian Liberal.

            I sense you want me to agree with you, saying something to the effect … “it will all end in a whimper, after the kill-off of those like Chhelo and myself who will make a valient but stupid stand…….” .
            But I can’t say that….even tho I agree with what’s at Stake in the event of failure.

            I do think technology, as it always has, can and will be harnessed by both Good people and the Evil side. One will never convert me with pacifism in the service of ‘inevitabilities’ .

            The liklihood of failure was the odds-on-favorite in 1776 and at Agincourt….and Very few supported Jesus and his followers. But the message has always been to stand and fight for what is right ( with words too as you are doing). Even though history also records the Masada’s of resistance.

            • Don,

              I don’t want you to agree with me. Nor am I happy with what I see as the “likely” outcome. Mind you, my conclusions are also based in Biblical prophecy and a fair reading of the temperature, so to speak, of where we are on that timeline. But, if God wants to give us more time, then we’ll be given a leader/revival that will work His will and things will get better — even if only temporarily. But we KNOW how this is going to go before it finally gets resolved, and we KNOW that “we” will not be the ones who resolve it.

              That said, be careful with your reading of the Germans in 1930. remember, Hitler cursed his fate that the German people were Christians and not Muslim or of the Code of Bushido. He thought Christianity made them weak and that either of the other two faiths would have been more suiting the warrior society he desired/envisioned. So I ask again, couldn’t everything you asked apply to the Germans? But more pointedly this time, are we — TODAY — closer to them then, or our founders at the time of the founding?

              • The Germans gave up their Guns …. because of their Conditioning to follow the orders of their superiors, their ruling Class ( the Modern English / Australians similar with a heavy dose of Progressivism mixed in )…..the Swiss wouldn’t have. Also,The Germans had ( and HAVE no) tradition of self-rule and rebelling against authority.

                I addressed the issue of lack of leadership. And I say again….Like begats like.

                With respect …. I think you missed the point (s) of my post ….. but I’m not sure further recitation will make them “speak” at this time.

                • Don,

                  No, I get it. I apologize for talking past them. Please accept that I am suffering from a frustration born of not knowing how to reach more people. But rest assured, if I had given up, you and I would not be speaking. Nor would I bother to take the time to write posts like my last two on the collective and cooperative. I am still a part of the struggle, I just understand we are trying to dog fight zeros in Buffalos (sorry, a little WW II reference there). I’m just looking for the modern-day version of the Thatch weave (still stuck in the WW II metaphor).

              • The other I get….don’t know “thatch weave….”

                Ace of Spades seems to be taking it on the chin these days too….as was Utah’s last post….. I feel the Despair and Pit-of-Calcutta hopelessness too……you hear it Trapped words and other places widely.

                I understand….. But We (collectively on the Right ) are each other’s support posts.

                • Don,

                  I know. I get it, and I appreciate it.

                  As for the thatch Weave, he was a Navy pilot and one of our first Pacific aces. He developed a technique where two fighters would weave back and forth with each other so that, if a zero got on the tail of one plane, the other would be able to shoot it down when the planes crossed during the weaving maneuver.

                  So you see, my metaphor is aimed at trying to stay alive long enough to figure out our strengths on the right and develop effective tactics that employ them effectively against our opposition. Hey, seriously? I was a marine. Do you REALLY think I even know how to give up or give in? Dude, that’s not in our blood. Remember the Chosen Frozen, baby 😉

    • Chhelo,

      If only I possessed said wisdom, I’d be happy to share it. But alas, experience has taught me that what wisdom I once thought I had was folly: a chasing after the wind. 😦

      But I pray for His understanding every day.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.