Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, recently created a media flap when she said:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you!

But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Conservatives and libertarians took offense at Warren’s claim that the government has a superior claim to “a hunk” of people’s earnings merely because every individual lives in and benefits from a society to whose creation many other people have contributed.

The critics might well have been grateful for small blessings, however. Warren was prepared, rhetorically at least, to let people keep “a big hunk” of their earnings.

U.S. government officials in earlier times were sometimes unwilling to admit that people had a right to retain any of their earnings, and forthright in their declarations that everything people possessed really belonged to the government.

Striking examples of such views may be found in the recently published book by Burton Folsom and Anita Folsom, FDR Goes to War. There the Folsoms present a meaty discussion of the congressional debate that occurred in 1943 in regard to bills eventually enacted in compromise form as the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943—the statute that, among other things, established income-tax withholding at the source. In that debate, the following statements were made in Congress:

Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.)—The government can at any time make income taxes as thumping big as the necessities of war require. Thus, if any plan does not raise enough money, taxes can at any time be increased. The government always has a moral if not actual lien on all our income. (p. 200, emphasis added)

Sen. Happy Chandler (D-Ky.)—[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future. (p. 200, emphasis added)

Rep. Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.)—The public, with money in its pockets, will inevitably try to use this money to buy what it wants, what it may need. . . . [T]o check the forces making for inflation, we must direct our tax policy toward diverting an ever larger part of the funds of persons above subsistence levels into the Public Treasury. (p. 201, emphasis added)

So, lighten up, small-government friends. Be grateful that you must contend only with Warren, and not with the likes of Celler, Chandler, and Mills. Maybe there is progress after all.

Make no mistake, the primaries are where each party – when not in incumbency – needs to critique and evaluate their prospective candidates. A hard-fought primary, when devoid of “it’s my turn” establishment national party politics, usually results in the fielding of the best candidate, and a candidate who is sufficiently prepped to engage in the “main event.” But there is a difference between an intellectual meeting of the minds, where policy differences and a juxtaposition of experiences are proposed, examined and debated, and the childish, nonsensical “braggateering” (to coin a word); of trading insignificant insults; of executing a campaign of personality-based mudslinging.

As we approach the actual start of the primary cycle – yes, we haven’t begun the cycle just yet – this act of political stupidity is coming into play, yet again, among the front runners for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination.

During the most recent GOP primary debates, each and every candidate has engaged in non-policy related attacks against their Conservative and Republican on-stage brethren. Perry has attacked Romney. Romney has attacked Gingrich. Bachmann has attacked “Newt Romney”…everyone has attacked everyone. Even Mr. Gingrich, who began his rise to the top of the GOP polls refusing to attack anyone but Barack Obama, has devolved into a tit-for-tatting, sound bite tosser. In reality, all this does is prove that even intelligent, thoughtful people, when goaded by the shallowness of the mainstream, feeding frenzy media, are encumbered by the societal penchant for acquiescing to the lowest common denominator.

Meanwhile, the opposition – in this case President Obama, his re-election team and his legions of Progressive political operatives – is getting a breather from the critical glare of the campaign spotlights. While the media’s undivided attention focuses on the GOP candidates’ talk of who is a flip-flopper, who performed poorly in the private sector, who performed better in the private sector and who is more Conservative than whom, Mr. Obama’s non-record is being given a pass, just as it was before the 2008 General Election.

Think back to the 2008 General Election. All the talk was about Sarah Palin. The media obsessed with Palin. The Obama Campaign obsessed with Palin. Even the rank-and-file Republicans and Conservatives obsessed with Palin. Meanwhile, no one but a precious few (Sean Hannity, Laurie Roth, Erik Rush and myself included) was focusing on the fact that Mr. Obama had no political bona fides, that his political ideology was to the Left of any previous President and that he routinely gravitated toward the most anti-Capitalist, anti-American radicals the counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s had to offer.

Are we on the right – are the candidates vying for the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination – so stupid, so ignorant to this perennially redundant Progressive tactic of deflection, that we, and they, would fall for this yet again? Are we? Are they?

This election – the 2012 General Election – is arguably the most important election of our generation; of our lifetimes. The quintessential questions being decided are these:

• Do we want a leader who will affect limited government, or a nanny state?
• Do we want a fiscally responsible leader and a federal government that budgets successfully, or a spendthrift federal government, enabled by a partisan politician, that refuses to craft and pass budgets annually – even if mandated by law, while bleeding the productivity of our nation?
• Do we want a leader that oversees a federal government that protects equal opportunity for each and every American citizen, or a political operative and federal oligarchy that embraces crony Capitalism and special interest groups?
• Do we want to a leader, an administration and a federal government that is dedicated to preserving, protecting and defending our Republic and our Charters of Freedom, or a political ideologue who, with his crony activists, successfully completes the transformation of the United States from that of sovereign Republic to a kow-towing Socialist Democracy?

In his 1990 autobiography, An American Life, President Ronald Reagan attributed the origin of his now famous “11th Commandment,” to then California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson:

“The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: ‘Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.’ It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.”

The point of the “11th Commandment” was to prevent a repeat – in any election cycle – of what happened to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Liberal and Progressive Republicans assaulted Goldwater with personal and non-policy related attacks, attacks that maligned Goldwater as “an extremist” for his Conservative positions, attacks that contributed to Goldwater’s defeat.

I am at a loss for why, today, Republicans and Conservatives find it acceptable to break the “11th Commandment”; to move away from a strategy that would allow for the spotlighting of Barack Obama’s radical political agenda and so-called “accomplishments,” “accomplishments” that have moved us toward becoming a nanny state Socialist Democracy.

We, as Conservatives; as people who are trying to advance solutions to the myriad dangers facing our country, should expect our candidates to dedicate themselves to a set of guidelines that literally forces them to focus on policy and opponent, instead of political gamesmanship and personal attacks. Moving away from the strategy of presenting solutions and identifying the opposition’s goals as antithetical to a prosperous America is exactly what the American people don’t want. It is precisely what we are tired of.

That understood, the opposition, sirs and madam, is Barack Obama. Now, knock it off with attacking each other and put your country ahead of your egos. For if we are stupid enough, if we are short-sighted enough, to lose sight of who the real opposition is, you lose, the country loses and the world loses.

There are two types of socialism. One is authoritarian socialism seen in the Eastern Bloc countries (many of which are now free-market economies) and some nations in Central and South America. It’s used by harsh and oppressive authoritarian regimes that repress their people.

The other type of socialism is a big-government philosophy that uses wealth redistribution to fund a massive nanny state of cradle-to-grave entitlements. We see this type of socialism in many Western European and Mediterranean countries that are friends and allies of our country, such as Spain, Italy, France, and Greece.

Governor Perry was referring to this Western European socialism. Those who support Western European-style socialist policies don’t understand the power of private markets, or government’s inefficiency and incompetence. President Obama believes that government has all the answers if led by enlightened leaders (as he fancies himself), and believes he will improve everyone’s lot. Perry referenced Obama’s infamous exchange with Joe the Plumber, where Obama infamously said when government spreads the wealth it’s better for everyone.

The term “socialism” is misunderstood by many, and the Left spins it as if calling someone a socialist is a personal attack. They do this to avoid serious discussion of socialism’s impact.

There are two components to socialism. It’s a philosophy that government owes to everyone in society a certain standard of living. It includes government-provided or subsidized food, housing, education, and healthcare.

Socialism provides entitlements through massive taxation, and socialists believe that heavy government regulation leads to a better society. The ideology does all this in the name of “social justice.”

No honest person can deny that President Obama’s policies fit these criteria. Government-run healthcare (and calling it a fundamental right, despite the fact that it’s nowhere mentioned in the Constitution), federal control of education, government picking winners and losers in the economy–these policies are textbook socialism.

History repeatedly shows that free markets work over time, and socialism does not. But we don’t need to plumb the depths of world history. We have our own recent history.

Since Obamacare, employers have reported that they will have to drop insurance policies covering tens of millions of Americans, and Medicaid spending will increase by $434 billion by 2020.

After (partially) bailing out the housing market, housing remains a depressed and failing sector, and Fannie and Freddie have the gall to ask for $6 billion in additional taxpayer money while paying $13 million in bonuses to their executives.

And this administration deludes itself that it knows how to invest in business. Thus, it gives $535 million in loan guarantees to Solyndra as a good investment, only to see the company promptly go bankrupt. Just for good measure, the Energy Secretary illegally restructured this scam to pay off President Obama’s fundraisers and stick taxpayers with the bill.

Arrogance and incompetence are a toxic combination. This White House and its cronies are overflowing with both. So Governor Perry argues that America needs someone new in the White House.

The ad, “Foundation,” can be viewed here:

The notion of “triangulation” is not new to American politics. Savvy politicians have triangulated messages and circumstances to their benefit ever since the creation of our country. One needs look no further than the debates that took place over the creation of the US Constitution to understand that even though our Framers and Founders were dedicated to their principles and positions, they were willing to employ rhetorical leverage to achieve their goals. Alexander Hamilton was a master at message triangulation.

Perhaps the most contemporary politician to masterfully employ the art of message triangulation was former Pres. Bill Clinton. In pursuit of re-election in 1996, Clinton senior advisor Dick Morris advocated for a set of statements, a set of policies, that differed from those of his fellow elected Democrats. These policies, which pandered to the ideological Middle and Right, included deregulation and balanced budgets, culminating in the false declaration, included in Mr. Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address, that the “era of big government is over.”

Triangulation, by way of definition, can be summarized as:

“…the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being ‘above’ and ‘between’ the Left and Right sides (or factions) of a traditional democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.”

The same triangulation tactics used by politicos to further their careers can also be used by organizations and movements. In the case of the OWS movement, the use of a triangulated message by Progressives serves to blur the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism, luring the citizenry to focus on the word “Capitalism,” associating it with the idea of “unfairness,” while Progressives present the notion of redistribution of wealth – a Progressive, neo-Marxist tenet – as being “fair.”

Crony Capitalism can best be defined as:

“A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.”

And while crony Capitalism is something that any honest, hard-working, taxpaying American should abhor, the attempt to foist the neo-Marxist, Progressive principle of redistribution of wealth on the American people under the convoluted guise of Capitalism being unfair, is, dare I say, wicked and evil; at the very least it is a lie.

A fair explanation of Capitalism states:

“In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated.”

The stark difference between crony Capitalism and Capitalism is that Capitalism is based on freedom: freedom of choice; freedom from government oppression and regulatory caveat; unfettered (or relatively unfettered) commerce between the producer and the purchaser. Crony Capitalism is based on an “unlevel playing field,” where government interferes with the free market process to create an advantage for a preferred faction. A perfect example of crony Capitalism is Solyndra, where the Obama Administration granted favoritism to a private corporation through the avail of taxpayer dollars to afford it a better chance in the market place. The fact that the corporation may or may not produce something of quality and value is irrelevant.

Back to the OWS triangulation…

While the Progressives behind OWS – and by now only the terminally daft still believe the canard that the usual suspects are not involved (i.e. MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, The Open Society Institute and George Soros, etc.) – disingenuously facilitate the crony Capitalism versus Capitalism argument, they seek to diminish the anti-Americanism of redistribution of wealth, moving the notion into the mainstream by framing it as benevolent and “fair.”

As OWS participants condemn the producers – even as they coordinate their actions via cell phones and iPads; even as they drink Starbucks while wearing their Abercrombie & Fitch clothing – they do so while presenting a litany of “demands” that redistributed wealth from the “producers” to the 21st Century “neo-Proletariat”; demands that include:

• The imposition of a “Robin Hood Tax” on most goods and services worldwide, with the aim of using its generated revenues to fund environmental and social-welfare programs.
• The Institution of a universal single payer healthcare system.
• A guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
• Free college education.
• One trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, now.
• One trillion dollars in ecological restoration.
• Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.

Each and every one of these “demands” requires that the producers – someone who works an honest job for an honest wage and/or invests money into a vehicle (company, business or corporation) that creates wealth for himself and others – subject themselves to the confiscation of their earned wages by government so that the non-producer (the neo-Proletariat) can benefit.

People, this is Marxism, “straight up,” to borrow and paraphrase from one of the neo-Proletariat, Janeane Garofalo.

The Progressive Left – the neo-Marxist American Left – is relentless in its pursuit of the transformation of the United States of America. Since its entrance onto the American political main stage, circa 1888, Progressives have been triangulating messages, redefining words, rewriting history and lying to the American people with a regularity that would make the producers of Metamucil jealous.

There is a great clamor in this nation for political “compromise” in the hope that said compromise will affect honest solutions for the very real problems that face our country. The problem with instituting political compromise today is this: Honest American politicians from both sides of the aisle cannot compromise with Progressives when Progressives negotiate from a position of dishonest, deceptive and self-serving ideological and political greed. Today’s Progressives – today’s neo-Marxist leaders and their self-indulgent neo-Proletariat – are just that abhorrent.

Then, we showed you that their “Statewide Youth Outreach Coordinator” is deeply involved in the “Occupy” protests around Ohio and openly decribes himself as a “revolutionary” whose goal is to implement communism in America. Now, “We Are Ohio” is hosting an official event with another radical self-admitted communist, Van Jones.

The American Dream Movement is flexing its muscle in Ohio. I’m coming to Columbus to be a part of it. This Thursday, November 3, we’re gonna Rock the Repeal of Senate Bill 5 and restore the voice of hard-working, middle-class Ohioans in their workplaces by voting “No” on Issue 2.

Yes, the “We Are Ohio” unions are bringing in the same guy who said this:

But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

It is becoming clear that as labor unions in America are becoming more irrelevant, they are becoming more radicalized. This isn’t the first time “We Are Ohio” has associated itself with Van Jones.

The question you have to ask yourself is this: Do you want to stand with the people like Van Jones and Will Klatt? Do you stand with the two buffoons in the video below who try to tell a man who grew up in the Soviet Union and experienced socialism that the North Korean people have it better than the South Koreans? These are the people telling you to vote “no” on Issue 2. Do you stand with them?

I know where I stand. Vote YES on Issue 2.

Do you think President 0bama is correct in believing the Occupy Wall Street and other “occupy” protests happening across our country are just like those of the Tea Party?

Photo via bluebird of bitterness

Think again.

The awesome that is John Nolte has provided a detailed Rap Sheet So Far from the occupy crowds. My oh my how the list grows daily! Nothing like this from any of the Tea Party events though.