Michael,

Well done! I enjoyed this article. How many ways are there to say this? There have been numerous articles examining the difference between Progressives and Founders and with me, each one strikes a chord as being fundamentally obvious. I sometimes become disheartened when I see that a small yet still significant minority of people ignore objective, critical thinking in favor or an emotional responses.

One positive thing has developed with all of the treasonous activities going on in government today. People are re-discovering the fundamental truths expressed by our wise and timeless documents produced by our founding fathers. These truths hold that government should be (very) limited so as not to get in the way of (or tread on) the absolute power of liberty, freedom and free markets. Government meddling beyond the original intent of the founders has created the very problems that government officials now think they have to solve. None of these Progressives is a student of history or systems theory, and in fact, they ignore it unless they can make it serve their purposes.

Thanks again!

For the past few weeks, I have been trying to put myself in the shoes of a progressive. I know I shouldn't because it is a scary place, but I'm trying to understand the mentality it takes to desire a nanny state.

Our government (like every other government known to mankind) is inept and incompetent. Do Progressives think they will live the lavish lifestyles that only the "well off" now posess? Do they believe that Cadillacs and mansions are just around the corner? Do they think they will be rubbing elbows with the likes of George Clooney and Meryl Streep? At best, having an all controlling government will allow you to sit on your couch all day, maybe have a meal or two, and take your drug of choice for that daily high. Wow! - Sign me up...(just kidding).

What I hear and read is that the progressives are either promised or think they will achieve equal housing, equal income, high standard of health care, and a high education. How will government give this to them? Do they really think Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry is going to lower their standard of living to bring up many poverty level families? Are you kidding me?

I just don't understand the end goal for the progressives. You can talk about "social justice" and level the playing field...but what is it going to look like in the end?

You're going to have more crime and more corruption.

You are going to completely stifle innovation.

There will be no accountability.

You're still going to have wars. But why would Americans want to fight? What are we defending if the government owns everything?

Understanding progressives is easy. IT'S ALL ABOUT TAKING. Taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive. Taking from the independent and giving to the dependent. And most of all it's about taking power from the people and keeping it for themselves.

Progressive is just a more palletable, politically correct term for Marxist.

Michael,

For those Republicans that wish to lead the Tea Parties, they need to understand that we, the "Free People" of this great Nation do NOT want any politician that is going to go to Washington to find a home there forever. We want solid leaders; people who can think and act in the best interests of this country. Not whiny spoiled little brats that are going to entrench themselves on the public dime.

We want, NO WE DEMAND, less government and more freedom to pursue our dreams and our goals and our lives. What the whiny-crats are discovering is that the vast majority of the people in this country do NOT want the government's help. We DEMAND that the government do ONLY AS MUCH AS IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to "provide for the common defence and promote the General Welfare."

I hope this never happens; but, at some point, some government lackey will tramp up to some citizens door and tell that citizen that the citizen is going to have to move for the good of goofy idea. That government lackey is going to get hurt very, very bad when the citizen tells the lackey NO!!!, HELL, NO!!!

All of these so called elitists have never had to work in a factory, on the street, or in any occupation where they would have to sweat and get dirty. These so called elitists think they know all of the solutions; and, maybe they do know all of the solutions. The problem is that they are solving problems that have never and do not exist today.

Duke

We do not need some political puke trying to assume a leadership position for the people of the tea party movement. Those who assume to be our leaders need to smell the coffee, we will only accept those who wish to serve and uphold the constitution. OUR PROBLEMS ARE THOSE IDIOTS THAT ASSUME THEY ARE OUR LEADERS AND CAN SPEAK FOR US. The only speech I care to hear from our represeative that serve the public are those who understand and uphold our God given Liberty and Rights. All others take you socialist crap somewhere else.

The difference between a progressive and a communist is that the progressive hasn’t confiscated all the guns…YET.

Apparently we have too many congressmen and women who have never read, nor understand, both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

State legislatures should propose an amendment to the Constitution that forces all current and future Federal legislatures take the "United States Constitutional Law 101."

They must then pass a 100 question true and false and a 10 essay question based on the original amendments on the exacting verbiage of the US Constitution.

And if at any time after passing Constitutional Law 101, they break their oaths, the law should stipulate stiff fines, imprisonment, and immediate removal from office without prejudice.

Let's get this started immediately! Who can we get to propose this? It really is a simple and logical request, isn’t it?

Barrack Obama, Max Baucus, and Adam Sharp should be the first to take the course. If they fail the course, they will have one more opportunity to pass the tests. Fair enough!

I'm going to beat this horse till it dies.

If you want to solve a majority of the ills IN Washington.....REPEAL THE 16th AND 17th AMENDMENTS

No flat tax, no fair tax, just get rid of 16 & 17

Why do we defenders of our U.S. Constitution call those who would destroy it "progressives"? How can destruction of our God given Constitution be called "progressive"? Call them what the are:

"Marxists/socialists/anarchists"! Until we stop "being nice" they will prevail. "If it walks like a duck . . ."

Will "Truthful" comments pass your 'censorship'?

Sam

There has been long talk about how Social Security is in dire straits and bankrupt. Now when SS was first enacted back in the early 30s it was supposed to be a limited retirement security for those who paid into it. Since then many have drawn from it including many who NEVER paid into it.

So it is a NO BRAINER that to save it those in charge need to STOP paying out to those WHO NEVER paid into it. SIMPLE SOLUTION!!!! A first grader could figure that one out!!!!!

Mr. Barone,

Though I absolutely agree with the points of your article and am an ardent "Tea Partier" and Constitutionalist, I do take exception with the way you and many other conservative commentators are presenting the problem. This didn't start with Barack Obama; he has simply stepped on the accelerator of what both George Bush's were advancing.

Under George W Bush those whose paychecks, coupons or subsidies were printed by the federal government either as employees or dependents grew by more than 31%. His Medicare Prescription policy which gave enormous funding to Big-Pharma while bankrupting America was as heinous as anything we had seen to that point and was accomplished with a total Republican majority. Bush was also the President who pushed the first stimulus, and both Bushes have pushed us steadily toward one-word governance and away from national sovereignty. (we won't even address the borders issues)

Let's not pretend the Republican party in Washington D.C. is a conservative party for, though there are noteworthy exceptions, most of the Republicans have pushed big government and unfunded spending.

Both parties better be listening to the Tea Parties!

To echo Sam Ponticello's point, we need to get clear about our terms and "Progressive" can only apply to one who contributes to progress. When you are on the wrong course, the only way you can make progress is to turn around and go back and get on the right course, and the sooner you realize that and turn around the more PROGRESSIVE you are.

Forget the euphemisms and speak plainly. If one is a Marxist or Communist, then call him a Marxist or Communist.