That's The Plan, Man!

Once I discovered that our president, Barack Obama, is a Marxist, it put most of his Administration's decisions into focus.(Just for the record, the words Marxist, Communist, and Socialist are interchangeable. Ideologically speaking, they're the same thing. For all the idiots who continue to criticize people who call Obama a communist because "they don't know the difference between Socialists and Communists": try reading books instead of burning them. When you say that, all you do is confirm that you have no idea what you're talking about.) I suppose another term that could be used to describe Obama and the goals of his Administration is totalitarianism. That is, complete government control over all aspects of American life.

Wherever the ideology comes from, the goal is the same. Total government control. The Democrat-Socialist Party is all about this control, whether we're talking about healthcare or regulations or anything else that party is pushing. Unfortunately for them, the Founders of this nation valued individualism over collective control, and the Freedoms they protected in the Constitution reflect that and hinder total government control. Which means Socialism can't be instituted quickly, like it has been in most Socialist nations. The Constitution prevents it.

Which is why the goal of Socialists has been to slowly infiltrate the American system; from schools to political parties, socialism disguised as liberalism (as Ronald Reagan predicted) has ensconced itself into just about every aspect of American life, in so much as now the very leaders of our government are naked socialists, seeking to fundamentally change America into a Socialist nation under totalitarian control.

And as the Constitution stands in the way of that, it must be changed or eliminated. Now in order to do that, the American people themselves must agree to it. Something that at one time seemed impossible. And so how will the leaders of our government accomplish this? Well they will have to change American life itself. Socialized medicine will help with that. But also, the leaders know that in order for the people to agree to change our Constitution, the government must be able to provide something that the people need and can't get without government help. Which is why the two main sociological differences you will see under this Administration will be 1) entitlements, and 2) violence.

It's a simple idea really, following common sense and logic...though I understand those are becoming rarer. But in order to control the people, you need to control distribution to people. I don't think I need to go into detail about the rise of entitlements in this nation. But the other way to get people under total government control is to allow the decay of civilization to such a point that the people will cry out to the government for help. The rise of violent crime is not seen as a political tool, unlike entitlements, and is easier to deny as such. But it is, and can be, used as such. By crushing the economy, allowing the violent to live off entitlements, and discouraging the prevention of violence, society will quickly become more violent. Enough violence, and enough Americans will acquiesce to whatever government wants so long as they also stop the violence. It is to this end that we see our Department of Justice not only discouraging investigations into criminal activity (illegal immigration for one), but also being involved in activities that will end up making life here in America more dangerous. The proliferation of weapons among criminal elements being one of those activities. And tonight I read that I'm not alone in this conclusion.

Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee (and thus endlessly investigating government scandals), in the middle of another weapons scandal involving the now Orwellian Department of Justice, said he is beginning to believe the Obama Administration is allowing bad things to happen just so they can push their agenda. In a nutshell, that they are using violence as a political tool. Issa said:

"When you have the attorney general's own offices being informed about a very dangerous person exporting hand grenades and converting AK-47s into machine guns and they let him continue as part of not, Fast and Furious, but a completely separate failure, I think what you see is an administration that I'm beginning to think really did want to let bad things happen in hopes they would get [an] assault weapons ban. The dots are being connected more and more to these kinds of actions."

Of course they are, Mr. Issa. Because that's the plan.

The Star-Spangled Banner by Madison Rising

I know the Marxists controlling our government are whittling away the greatness of our once proud country. But the reason Marxists attempt to squash religion is because little things can cause a great deal of inspiration. And a little bit of inspiration can be a powerful thing. While America is being destroyed by idiots on the West Coast and the East Coast (and by a few in the middle) the fire of freedom has yet to be extinguished in a great deal of Americans. And America will never truly die if She resides in our hearts, regardless of where this country heads.

To that effect I offer you perhaps one of the best renditions of our National Anthem, performed by a rocking young band who's goal is to fan the flames of American patriotism. Facebook even tried blocking this band's videos, claiming it was just a "glitch" when enough people rose a stink. Now, thanks to Facebook's liberal tendencies, many more people have heard about this band and are sharing their songs. This is Madison Rising with a rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner that will bring a tear to any patriot's eye. Enjoy, and God bless the USA!

Obama needs the New Cheka to push his Gun Control plan

The news of the day is Obama's speech on his plans for gun control. I confess I didn't watch or listen to this speech (I can't stand the halting manner in which he speaks; it really annoys me) but I have been reading snippets here and there.

One particular passage stuck out to me. In his speech, Obama entreated the people to be involved in his plan:

“This will not happen unless the American people demand it. If parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, if hunters and sportsmen, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, ‘Enough, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue,' then change will come," he said. "That’s what it’s going to take."

And, in fact, that is what it's going to take. A few months ago, I wrote about the New Cheka in America, and how their goals are the same as the original Russian Cheka: to silence all opposition.

In America, our Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment in this case, is a hindrance to setting up a tyrannical governmental system. The Founders intended it to be that way. A president, or a Congress or judge or any other person in position of leadership in America, cannot simply do away with the Constitution. If Obama wanted to simply ban all guns, like other leaders have (in attempts that failed to prevent crime btw), he couldn't just go ahead and do it. If all members of Congress wanted to ban all guns as well, they still couldn't do it. In order to physically change the constitution, it requires more. It requires the people's consent. Which is why Obama is calling for it. And is why the New Cheka will seek to demonize any who oppose it.

Make no mistake, the New Cheka still works for the government. They just do so in an unofficial capacity. They will seek to influence the very thoughts of every American. It's not as hard to do that these days. Celebrities have become the mouthpiece of the New Cheka, and thus, the government. And seemingly everyone who gets a camera in front of them becomes a celebrity these days. They will bombard us with calls for gun control. You've seen that they already have. It's even affected my father, one of the most conservative people I know. He agreed with an assault gun ban, saying people don't need those for protection when a handgun will do. Once I explained that the 2nd Amendment is not about self protection (or hunting) but it's about being able to fight against what may become a tyrannical government, he changed his mind. But that's how easily the Cheka can influence the people.

For all those who will say that this isn't an attack on the 2nd Amendment or that we don't need certain guns, you suffer from a case of myopia. If we agree to give up assault weapons today, will we agree to give up handguns tomorrow? When we agree to give up handguns, what if a future president decides he wants to be a dictator and force all of our children to work in labor camps? Will we deprive them of a means to prevent that future today, or will we work towards it by agreeing to strict gun control? Will we exchange our children's future safety for our own today?

Obama says this isn't about doing away with the 2nd Amendment. But it is about chipping away at it. And chipping away at something over time ends up being the same as doing away with it. The New Cheka will seek to influence the people to see things Obama's way. In America, the people must give up their rights. Will we?

How important is Virtue in the stability of a Republic? Part II

(Ok, here's the rest of the post on the importance of virtue in the stability of a republic. Sorry it's in two parts...I didn't get a chance to finish it yesterday, plus it's kinda long!)

And so the Founders of this great nation (some may say it's the greatest nation ever, myself included) believed firmly in the idea of public virtue. This idea was taken a step further in the ideology of Republicanism. Republicanism (having nothing to do with the currant Republican Party except the name) was borne of the idea that corruption in government had a root in personal corruption. The greatest threat to liberty in America was depicted as corruption...not just in England but at home as well. The corruption of the British government was viewed as being associated with the corruption of the aristocracy. The colonists associated that with luxury and ostentation. In the minds of the Founders, luxury and greed led to more luxury and more greed which resulted in corruption. Therefore most colonists were committed to republican values, which required people to put civic duty ahead of their personal desires. People had a duty to be prepared to fight for not only their rights and liberties, but had to be willing to put aside all personal luxury and comfort in order to fight for their countrymen and countrywomen as well. This idea so permeated the culture that for women, "republican motherhood" became the ideal, exemplified by Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren; the first duty of the republican woman was to instill republican values in her children and to avoid luxury and ostentation.

With Republicanism the main ideology of the Founders, personal virtue became just as big an issue as public virtue. In fact, it was John Adams who said in a letter to Mercy Warren that "public virtue cannot exist without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." The Founders had recognized that in republics of old, when the virtue of the people was lost, the republic crumbled. Drawing from history and intellectuals such as Montesquieu and Rousseau, the earliest Americans concluded that in a republic the balance of power experiences periodic, unstable shifts, but stability can be recovered. The loss of public virtue, however, occurs slowly and is not recoverable.

In the eyes of our Founders, this idea of virtue was supreme. Samuel Adams even went so far as to say: "We may look up to armies for our defense, but virtue is our best security. It is not possible that any state should long remain free, where virtue is not supremely honored." Yet the Founders realized that the past republics, with an emphasis on public virtue alone, still crumbled into tyranny. They were determined to not allow the mistakes of the past republics be repeated in the new American Republic. And so, private virtue was raised to the same level as importance as public virtue. John Adams put it this way:

"The form of government, which you admire, when its principles are pure is admirable, indeed, it is a production of every thing which is great and excellent among men. But its principles are as easily destroyed, as Human Nature is corrupted. Such a government is only to be supported by pure religion or austere morals...

Our dear Americans perhaps have as much of it as any other nation now existing, and New England perhaps has more than the rest of America. But I have seen all along my life such selfishness and littleness even in New England, that I sometimes tremble to think that, although we are engaged in the best cause that ever employed the human heart, yet the prospect of success is doubtful, not for want of power or wisdom, but of virtue.

The Spirit of Commerce, Madam, which even insinuates itself into families, and influences holy Matrimony, and thereby corrupts the morals of families as well as destroys their happiness, it is much to be feared as incompatible with that purity of heart and greatness of soul which is necessary for a happy Republic."

In these statements, John Adams brings up the concerns the Founders had over the success of the nation. Interestingly, he says that "such a government is only to be supported by pure religion or austere morals." Dr. Seaver also mentions the role that religion played in the success of the American Republic by saying, "religion, and anglo-protestantism in particular (of concept not people), focused on doctrine and the individual over collective ritual which reinforced public virtue." The religious predilections of the earliest Americans led to a belief in the importance of private morals and virtue. Virtue wasn't just seen as a value for political leaders alone, but for everyone as encouraged by Christianity. Morals and values had a deeper, personal importance to the majority of Americans due to their religious beliefs. And to those without religious beliefs, John Adams says that "austere morals" are still necessary. So the Founders believed that a sincere personal morality was deeply important to each citizen of a republic.

Samuel Adams echoed that sentiment when he wrote:
"Since private and public vices, are in reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much importance, how necessary it is, that the utmost pains be taken by the public to have the principles of virtue early inculcated in the minds even of children, and the moral sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our ancestors for these great purposes be encouraged by the government...

Therefore "wise and able politicians will guard against other vices," and be attentive to promote every virtue. He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life, is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his Country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his Country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections. Before [Dr. Benjamin Church, Jr.] was detected of holding a criminal correspondence with the enemies of his country, his infidelity to his wife had been notorious."

The idea of the connection between public virtue and private virtue was so strong that the Adams cousins (as well as many of the Founders) believed that someone's personal life was a good indication of their public life. How different is that idea today! In today's society, we choose to believe that someone's personal life is no one else's business and that as long as no one gets hurt, personal choices have no impact on public affairs. In the Founder's minds, infidelity to one's wife was a cause for concern; in today's society infidelity (even by the president of the United States) is dismissed as unimportant to public success.

The Founders sincere belief in private virtue being a measure for public good had a tremendous impact on how the new American country was set up. Realizing that private virtue may be easily corrupted, a system of government was established to limit power to any one person or group of people. As described by Bernard Bailyn in his 1992 book, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution":

"Yes, people were innately evil and self-seeking, and yes, no one could be trusted with unconfined power. That was true in America as anywhere else. But under the Constitution's checks and balances power would be far from unconfined, and for such a self-limiting system there would be virtue enough for success."

And so the Founders decision to separate powers was based upon their belief that while certain men may lose their virtue, the government as a whole would continue to operate under an umbrella of virtue. They were not so naive to think that all people would remain virtuous...but their hope was that enough people would retain virtue enough to sustain the republic. They knew that Human Nature could corrupt private virtue, but they also believed that as long as the majority of individuals in the republic remained virtuous, the government would run successfully.

They eschewed personal avarice and luxury. They understood that in the capitalist system, the desire for more power and greed could enter the heart of men and women. They believed that in order to avoid the mistakes of past republics and to ensure liberty, that a degree of personal virtue and morality was necessary to keep the republic free from corruption. They understood that Human Nature leads a person more towards a life of comfort and apathy...and the idea of Republicanism attempted to thwart that slide away from concern of the public good towards concern solely for private good. The Founders understood that, even in their day when patriotism and asceticism were considered equal, the hearts of men and women were easily drawn towards comfort and luxury...and while comfort and luxury are not evil in themselves, they do tend to lead to greed and apathy. John Adams stated it this way to Mercy Warren:

"But, Madam, there is one Difficulty which I know not how to get over.

Virtue and Simplicity of Manners are indispensably necessary in a Republic among all orders and degrees of men. But there is so much rascallity, so much venality and corruption, so much Avarice and Ambition, such a rage for profit and commerce among all ranks and degrees of men even in America, that I sometimes doubt whether there is public Virtue enough to support a Republic. There are two Vices most detestably predominant in every part of America that I have yet seen which are as incompatible with the Spirit of a Commonwealth, as Light is with Darkness; I mean Servility and Flattery. A genuine Republican can no more fawn and cringe than he can domineer. Shew me the American who cannot do all. I know two or three, I think, and very few more. However, it is the part of a great politician to make the Character of his People, to extinguish among them the follies and Vices that he sees, and to create in them the Virtues and Abilities which he sees wanting. I wish I was sure that America has one such Politician but I fear she has not."

The greatest fear of the Founders was not war or poverty. It was not about money or power. The greatest fear of the Founders was that in this great republic, the virtue of the people would be overwhelmed by greed and corruption. Thomas Jefferson said, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character (virtue) is the path of destruction."

The Founders did all that they could to protect the republic from corruption by separating powers and instituting checks and balances. But they knew that in order for the republic to succeed, the citizens of that republic would need to retain a certain degree of virtue; of moral clarity and austere values. They knew that if the virtue of the people was lost, the republic would fall...just as all republics in the past had fallen. The lesson that they tried to instill in the American people, the one thing that they wanted all Americans to know, was that the strength of the nation depended on the private virtue of its citizens. This lesson has been buried in today's America...and private virtue has been replaced with personal gain and material abundance. The public good has become second to people's personal comfort, and the welfare of others is given a back seat to our own desires and luxuries. What is the greatest problem in America today? There would be many different answers if that question was asked of Americans today. But virtue, the main concern of our Founders, might not even make the list. What is the greatest problem in America today? If the Americans of 1776 were asked that about America 2012, I'm sure that the loss of virtue, both private and public, would be at the top of their list. I wouldn't disagree. And without Virtue, no republic has lasted. Can America?

"For no people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders."

How important is Virtue in the stability of a Republic? Part I

For no people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders. - Samuel Adams

This quote from one of our Founding Fathers (not from a beer distributor!) spurned my investigation into the importance of virtue in the success or failure of a society...namely a society built on a democratic republic, like ours. What part does personal virtue play? What does virtue even mean? In the past few hours I've attempted to find answers to these questions by pouring over articles and historical writings. Of particular help was an article featured on the website Intellectual Takeout, posted with permission from the National Association of Scholars, entitled Public Virtue and a Stable Republic (taken from his article Virtus from the Ancient Republics to the Postmodern) by Dr. George Seaver. Also of much help was The Founders' Constitution, a wonderful collection of historical documents.

The prevailing idea throughout is summed up by Dr. Seaver who says "that a republic, such as America, is only as good as the virtue of it's people. In other words, public virtue is arguably the glue that holds this republic together."

An amazing revelation since it's not really something you learn in school! But the idea of virtue was apparently a very big influence on the Founders of our nation...and, therefore, over the nation itself. The Republic of the United States was founded on the basis of ancient republics, such as the Athenian (Greece) Republic and the Roman Republic. These ancient governmental systems were used as an example from which to shape our own republic in America. The Founders, of course, wanted to take the best of these republics to help form our own. And one of the main principles of these republics was the importance of virtue.

The Romans termed this concept Virtus; encompassing the moral excellence necessary for political stability and achievement in a republic. The concept was considered so important it was eventually viewed as a god! Like the Romans, the Athenians before them considered virtue to be a necessary part of a successful republic. It garnered such importance that Socrates was condemned to death for "corrupting the youth" with anti-virtuous ideas! (In actuality he was teaching the correct view of virtue in which virtue is something that one is taught and not something that can be bought, which was the view being propagated at that time, which actually led to the decline of virtue. This loss of virtue is seen as a major reason for the fall of the Athenian Republic.)

But what exactly is meant by "public virtue?" Well one of the first Roman consuls, Manius Valerius, summed it up like this in 506 B.C.:

"Lest the people themselves, when vested with so great a power, should grow wanton, and, seduced by the worst of demagogues, become dangerous to the best of citizens, (for the multitude generally give birth to tyranny) some person of consummate prudence...will...excite the citizens to virtue, and appoint such magistrates as he thinks will govern with the greatest prudence: and having effected these things within the space of six months, he will again become a private man, without receiving any other reward for these actions, than that of being honored for having performed them."

Basically a virtuous man was one who would ride in during times of trouble, take control of the republic, steer it back in the right direction, and then just as suddenly ride out again with no fanfare or desire to keep or increase his power. John Adams described it this way:

"There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superiour to all private passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the Rights of Society."

One of the most well known examples of Virtus was Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. In 458 B.C., Rome was in the midst of war, and it wasn't going well. Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians is a phrase that could adequately describe the situation. (That's probably a "culturally insensitive" phrase nowadays...sorry! For the record, I love Native Americans!) Well Cincinnatus was called in and appointed "interim dictator," formally termed "Master of the People" (Magister Populi). He reluctantly left his field half ploughed, took control of the Republic, raised an army, and won the war in a mere 15 days! After the victory, he returned his power back to the Senate, went home, and picked up his plough right where he left it to finish his field. He was called to be "interim dictator" again when he was 80, and once again, did the job quickly and quietly and then humbly went back home after it was finished. He was so revered for his example of public virtue that The Society of Cincinnatus was formed in 1783 to honor the ideals of a military officer's role in the new American Republic. It's first president was none other than George Washington, who modeled Cincinnatus' virtue in his staunch refusal of titles, a permanent presidency, or even a third term. You probably also realized by this point that the city of Cincinnati was named for him as well!