How Many of you knew He was a Boldface Liar and still voted for Him..?

How Many of you knew He was a Liar and still voted for Him..?

 9d5aa30c-b4c0-46df-a754-9ba54ab4e080_272_330President Obama sought to convince the American public Thursday that his plans to unilaterally change immigration laws were in line with the precedent set by previous administrations and did not amount to an amnesty program for illegal immigrants.

 Yet his precedent is nothing new and he is still playing the games of a) it was Bush’s fault, b) now he relies on some precedent set by previous administrations, true and not true?

 Now I wonder if he could really appreciate that there are some Americans that do possess brains and some even use them. Publius as we all know from his exquisite writing done in the Federalist Papers, primarily as a response to the Anti-Federalist demand for a more responsive government. Publius teaches us a lesson about the true meaning of “responsibility.”

 Good government is not defined by its responsiveness to popular demands, but is responsible to the true, long-term interests of the people. In other words, it protects their natural rights. Publius in an attempt to heal the suffering American body politic, he offers a strong dose of political moderation, that is to say that through reasonable opinions and actions, those opinions and actions — especially in politics, that are reasonable and not extreme.

 A government that is responsive to every popular whim from wherever it comes from, suffers from the fatal weakness of wanting to enforce those whims. This is so evident in the twenty- some pledges that Barack Obama outright lied about during decision time.

The separation of powers doctrine makes clear we can never expect good results if the government consists only in a legislative branch. Indeed, the Constitution’s powers are arranged in such a way as to lean most of all against the legislature. Publius took seriously the threat to liberty posed by the “impetuous vortex.” In using these terms Publius was saying that acting on the spur of the moment, without considering the consequences or, an action being done without thought as a reaction to an emotion or impulse, or moving with great force and energy; consequently, not being impulsive, hasty, hotheaded, or especially reckless.

 In a prime-time address from the White House, Obama argued that a mass deportation of the nation’s more than 11 million undocumented immigrants “would be both impossible and contrary to our character.”

 For the first part of this hypocrisy nothing like de-coupling the issues. Seriously does this rhetoric demand a mass deportation? And secondly, I to this day wonder how impossible it would be, not to mention what does this man know about “our character.”

I honestly cannot say that this is some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy for President Obama, inasmuch as it was on his gregorders that so much of his decision to defer deportations of 4 million immigrants is aimed at “actual threats to our security,” by allowing border control agents to focus on the highest-priority incursions, such as those by felons, gang members and recent border-crosser’s.

 I am positive that it was not anyone but President Obama that let more than 36,000 hardened criminals, felons, gang members, and most recent border-crosser’s let walk out of custody. However, I do wonder about buying detention facilities and getting some of them nearly ready when 90,000 undocumented children showed up on our border — for what?

 Do not let any smooth talking idiot tell you that these undocumented children have not been left right here in America, which is what they had wanted all along. And for those who have been issued jurisdiction orders to appear, well 94 percent haven’t even shown up.


Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

And When Those Walls Come Tumblin’ Down…

And When Those Walls Come Tumblin’ Down…

 Does everything come on you like it has been rumbling, tumbling, bumbling and stumbling around? Ah-round? Well gang with what I have seen and witnessed in the last two weeks is as equal to the last six years of my life where I sit feeling the prophecy and wanting to yell: “I told you so…”

 Dark, dark bar… bright, bright day… The man in his pinstriped suit pushes his drink away… still looking at the bottles…
Lookin’ at them real hard… he’s lookin’ at the bottles… Oh, when those walls come tumbling down… when those walls come tumbling and rumbling, bumbling and stumbling down…

 Who does this person think he is? Everything muttered from his voice could be a lie; or… like a pack of drunken hounds…begging and bobbing through the alleyways…of the long spiral down…(down…down).

515EH0NwS2L._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_ What I mean is that any time whatsoever that any president, cabinet member, agency director, or legislator should want to knowingly break the law, then I believe the Founder’s had other dispositions in mind for anyone who knowingly broke the law. And of course they did not make directions pursuant to the behavior of these people, then I believe we should legislate now!

 The facts remain in this instance that Barack Obama much the same as those people rioting in Ferguson, Missouri. Come on gang — let’s be real, exacting, and time to suck it up. If a 6 ft. 5 inch person who was acting like Michael Brown inside of the little convenience store, stealing from the shelves and handing those goods to people he knew — from the same video tape Mr. Brown does make an attempt at going for the owner, in fact, shoves the man with stolen ice cream in his hands — to walking down the middle of the street, let’s face it gang, most if not all cops are going to stop and give at least a verbal reprimand which Brown and friend deserved.

 Now then from what we know, what in the world is Michael Brown leaning into a police cruiser trying to obtain the Copper’s gun? There is also plenty of evidence that supports that Mr. Brown used his size on the car, on the officer who needed medical attention, fingerprints all over the Copper’s gun and etcetera. The young man deserved something, what I don’t exactly know because I am not qualified to say. Nor is any person in Ferguson, MO!

 Therefore, any man and I could care less if he is the POTUS or the Emperor of the World, no man has the right, title, or imagesCA6MKTD1interest to continually have reckless disregard for the law of the land — the U.S. Constitution.

 Now in all fairness just so that I’m assured that I’m not the crazy one here I have been waiting at least two years or longer to share this quote with you. I doubt seriously if it will ever make it to Founding Fathers Quotes Friday:

 An article that I have a special feeling for called Reflection on an Irresponsible government’s handling of Immigration Reform being appalled by what I heard Obama say, I decided to write the quote down and include it in the mentioned article:

This situation as mentioned earlier has been going on for decades. Furthermore, as a citizen of this nation, to hear one’s President state well after a year in office that “…sometimes it’s better to just do nothing about it;” and then continuing with his dialog the Commander-in-Chief states, “…as much as one would like it to go away, it doesn’t, and the same conditions exist day after day which could leave one thinking of so many other things to do that will bring instant results…”

What on earth was Mr. Obama talking about?


Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Illegal Immigration so what now…the answer is NOT Amnesty

Illegal Immigration so what now?

Illegal immigration is a decades-old problem. With an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants living, and in many cases working, in the U.S. the question remains: What do we do with them? And how do we stop more people from coming? Lax enforcement potentially leads to more illegal immigrants competing with U.S. citizens for jobs and some social services, without necessarily paying income taxes. But a too-tight policy could mean farmers and others in industries that rely on the cheaper labor of illegal immigrants are left begging for workers, passing higher costs on to consumers or going out of business altogether.

There just above is this articles thesis statement. According to the rules of proper essay writing, let us take a look at some of this statement and see what we can answer.

Why is illegal immigration a decades-old problem? This by no means is a rocket science type question. Actually it is rather easy to answer. Let’s start with the lack of anything resembling rules, policies, procedures, and due-diligence to stand by them. The U.S. really does not have an immigration “policy” at all. One more issue here is that the U.S.A. does as little as possible solidifying what is and what should be policy. Moreover, the entire notion of one man signing a sheet of paper to make it harder to deport the law breaking offenders, should be determined unconstitutional.


Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Finale on Political Parties in America…

A Wrap on Political Parties in America

constitThe Constitution’s delegation of legislative power to elected representatives encouraged the formation of political parties. Parties, in turn, transformed and democratized the constitutional system. Thomas Jefferson is credited with having created the first popular political party—the Democratic-Republicans later known as the Democratic Party. For his election to the presidency in 1828, Andrew Jackson transformed this party into the first national, massed-based party.

Because power is shared between the central government and the individual states, the U.S. federal system of government impedes the development of the type of unified, cohesive parties found in, for example, the European parliamentary systems. A parliamentary system demands greater party discipline because the majority party in Parliament forms the government.

Now having established just these two facts let us look in and see reality. If anyone should ever ask you what party affiliation Thomas Jefferson aligned himself with here is the answer: It would be soft left Democrat. And for the sake of reality perhaps the Founders were confronted with the displeasure of the several states and hence, the X Amendment came into existence. Notwithstanding anything else, it was the notion of a huge central government that kept the states from immediate ratification of the Constitution.

Except when the Democrat and Republican parties gather every four years at their national conventions to nominate masonEWcandidates for the offices of president and vice president and to write their platforms, they are not in any meaningful way national parties. Rather, each is really a coalition of state parties that are themselves confederations of semiautonomous local governmental parties. Even presidents or candidates for the presidency have only feeble control over state and local party members and elected officials. Under the U.S system, a divided government is possible, when one or both houses of Congress and the presidency are held by different parties.

The ideological spectrum of political parties typically runs from left to right. Right-wing political parties espouse conservative or reactionary views, whereas left-wing parties are associated with progressive or radical policies. The Conservative Party of Canada and the United Kingdom and the Republican Party of the United States are right-wing parties, and the Labour Party of the United Kingdom, the Liberal Party of Canada, and the Democratic Party of the United States are generally considered to be left-wing parties. The British National Front Party and the Front National of France are examples of far right-wing parties, and the Green, Communist, and Socialist parties are all on the extreme left.

civ00006Two-party states, such as the United States, have two dominant national parties that vie for power. The system for electing the president in the United States entails an indirect election in which the electorate votes for a slate of electors who cast their votes for the president and vice president in an electoral college. This system impedes the formation of third parties: Because the slate of electors for the electoral college are elected in winner-take-all state elections, minor party candidates rarely win sufficient electoral college votes to have an impact on a national election.

Some of the factors that weaken the power and influence of political parties include declining patronage, the direct irs-rebate-checks-more-problems - Copy - Copyprimary, the role of the media, the proliferation of nonpartisan political action committees, and the growing importance of the Internet as a tool for raising campaign funds and disseminating information about candidates and issues. The direct primary diminishes the ability of party leaders to select preferred candidates to run for political office. Patronage induces voters to support the party’s candidates by handing out jobs, contracts, or promotions for political reasons rather than merit. As easily accessible information about candidates and issues becomes available to voters through the mass media and the Internet, voters become less dependent on parties. Better informed voters tend to be less deferential to parties and more likely to split their votes among candidates from two or more parties.

Many analysts of the U.S. political party system detect a continuing trend toward party dealignment. A growing number of voters are declining to affiliate with any political party, preferring instead to identify themselves as independents. Since 1988 the plurality of independent voters has steadily increased. In 2004 39 percent of the American voters identified themselves as independents. Polls suggest that a large portion of the American public is allergic to partisan politics. They want candidates who promise to rise above partisan bickering and party loyalty to work on enacting legislation that will effectively solve the nation’s most pressing social and economic problems.

The most important function of the national political parties today is to raise funds for candidates and wage “get-out-the vote” campaigns.


Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are political parties a means for the corrupt?

Samuel Adams Founding Fathers Quotes Friday

Political parties are organizations subscribing to an ideology or formed around a special interest, with the aim of attaining power within government. They participate in elections, select candidates for public office, mobilize voters, raise funds, articulate political positions, coordinate policy making, develop campaign strategies, and generate symbols of party identification and loyalty. Parties are rooted in political, religious, sectional, ethnic, racial, and/or economic class interests. Parties are frequently coalitions of groups espousing disparate interests. Persons who support a party’s candidates, espouse its policies, and work to advance its political objectives are partisans. An opposition party does not challenge the legitimacy of the government, but only its policies.

European political parties formed during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to advise the monarchy. The model of a political party can be traced to Great Britain as the Tory and Whig parties fought for control of Parliament. Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) founded the first U.S. political party, the Federalists, in 1792 to support his fiscal and political policies.

Although a competitive party system is considered to be an essential prerequisite for political freedom today, George Washington 5seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Anglo-American thinkers were wary of political parties, faulting them for serving special interests rather than the public good.

Parties often were associated with treason and conspiracy. George Washington (1732–1799), the first president of the United States, in his “Farewell Address” deplored “the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party” (Washington 1796, p. 226). John Adams , the second president, held that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution” (Adams 1851, p. 508). Political leaders who serve only the interests of their parties rather than the common good were condemned as corrupt. The Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans did not regard each other as legitimate opposition parties, but as threats to the republic that should be eliminated. When the Federalist Party collapsed in 1814, the political consensus that ensued—the “Era of Good Feeling”—was cited as evidence that the U.S. system had succeeded.

Others wrote more sympathetically and prophetically about the positive role that parties played in political life. Edmund Burke saw party competition as a necessary good. Famously defining a party as “a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest upon particular principle in which they are all agreed,” Burke declared that “[p]arty divisions whether operating for good or evil are things inseparable from free government” (Burke 1925, p. 229).

James_Madison_140x190One of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison , following the English philosopher David Hume, held in Federalist Paper number 10 that parties, or “factions,” could not “be removed” because they are rooted in man’s natural propensity to differ. The “mischief” of factions that cause, though, could be curbed by fostering a multiplicity of “factions and parties” that would render unlikely “that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of citizens.” If they do, sufficient impediments, such as bad roads and poor communications, would make it difficult for them “to act in unison” (Madison 1787, pp. 55–61).

Although there is no mention of political parties in the U.S. Constitution, political parties are a logical outcome of the constitutional system. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, both necessary conditions for the emergence of voluntary political organizations.


Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

An explanation for the previous article

An explanation for the previous article…

From the beginning the plan was to inform my readers that I was thrilled inasmuch as I have been sending letters, emails, faxes, and other ordinary bits of communication to my Congressional District elected official. I finally received some quasi-meaningful response back from him. He is Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-MD who has long lived his usefulness in the House of Representatives for far too long.

Although I have made my requests known in complete order — most of these folks who are in office — return the communiqué with what they are currently working on — with the exception of Senator Barbara Mikulski D-MD, who I am convinced does her level best with her Appropriations Budget money as she must have a well oiled staff. I sent my concerns with regards to the Patient Care and Affordable Care Act to her. Within the same week I had my return!

Although I was not overly happy with her response regarding her position she was determined to tell me how proud she was as being a part of the history making bill. Not good for her, terrible for me and as demonstrated to our Nation has proved utterly malignant!

The correspondence I received from Rep. Cummings was primarily concerned with two House bills that are being debated now. House Resolution 15 and H.R. 1417. Basically I had two dispositions I felt needed to be heard. First about the chart or table: One side of it is set up to illustrate the Current Law and where we stand right now. The second side of the chart is appropriately named “Border Security Results Act” and as far as I know it is looking at the viewpoints of a debate.

I do apologize for the appearance of the chart. Moreover one of the columns I believe it is the Third from the right that the “online editor” just plain juxtaposed into a different position.

What I should have done was fix it then (at or around 4:00A.M.) but heck the brain was giving out and I thought I’d have this out to you much sooner this morning. Again please accept my apologies.

RESULTS: From what I could muster up from one of the Democrat Daily Reports is that one: The people in that meeting thought that the newer stuff (R=hand) was far less than what the Republican side was asking for. Two, what truly amazed me was not only that — but the amount of compromise that was apparent at all levels and did anyone notice that most of the demands for “Border Security” had been being made since two decades ago? What this means is that before, during, and after each immigration reform meeting Border Security comes up then promises are made Appropriation funds are approved, but look at the chart — does it seem as though to you that the southern Border is impenetrable.


Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

As we look into the details and analyze…something is amiss

As we look into the details and analyze…something is amiss

120253-1440x900-godblessamerica2_lgAgain and I love these “dates of extraordinaire” as I refer to them where nothing else matters so long as if fits the exact data that we are perusing (in this case the two party system) and how are the parties in charge getting their work done.

As for me gang you’ll come to figure out these times and “dates of extraordinaire” normally happen when I have received a varying bit of correspondence from one of my elected officials. So if you do not mind, I need to explain just how the state of Maryland shells out its political excrement.

Hear yea, hear yea, hear yea, I, Jon Paul, upon being duly sworn state the matters of politics in Maryland. For most of marylndC (1)those people into politics will readily explain that when one says or spells M-A-R-Y-L-A-N-D it may as well be D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T party. Simply because there is not the presence of a Republican Party member that is worth their salt.
Within the last two or three days I have finally received some correspondence back from one Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-MD based on the myriad of letters, faxes, phone calls, ad nauseam that I have sent to him.

First and foremost reading what these people actually write is basically ridiculous. I really cannot say insofar as I have never seen how these letters are prepared. However stay with me here…one could and should expect misspellings as well as sentence structure errors. Some of the content from Rep. Cummings’ office looks seriously as though someone over there is ctrl c and ctrl v different documents together. I again cannot say if this is happening but I will say this: As a C.E.O. or President of a company, there was never a grammatical error or otherwise insofar as in the preparation phase each piece of correspondence I sent out required two editors and each of their two assistants to examine the document. The best way to show and illustrate for you is to take something prepared by members of the Democrat Party and use good old fashioned conservative values to make the assessment.


CURRENT LAW The Secretary of Homeland Security “shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.” —Secure Fence Act of 2006 BORDER SECURITY RESULTS ACT-The Secretary of Homeland Security must submit “a comprehensive strategy for gaining and maintaining situational awareness and operational control of high traffic areas” within 2 years, and “operational control along the southwest border” within 5 years. Operational Control-Prevention of ALL unlawful entries. —Secure Fence Act of 2006 Operational Control: Prevention of ALL Operational Control: 90% effectiveness rate, which is determined by DHS based on its own estimates of those who evade detection and apprehension. Biometric entry-exit system required at ALL ports of entry. —2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (which streamlined 5 previously passed pieces of legislation starting with IIRIRA in 1996), the 2007 9/11 Commission Implementation Act-A plan to implement biometric exit capability at ports of entry, unless the Secretary determines such a system is not feasible, in which case he or she must submit a plan to implement an alternative program “to provide the same level of security.” This effectively guts the entire entry-exit system, even though an estimated 40 percent of illegal aliens are visa overstays.
Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Public Opinion and Politics

Force of Public Opinion

dec1The comic-opera quality of this debate should not obscure the participants’ serious concern about setting government policy. The members of the first Congress could not take the survival of republican form of government for granted. All of them, of course, wanted to secure the Revolution. The recently ratified Constitution transferred sovereignty from the states to the people, a bold and unprecedented decision that many Americans would generate chronic instability.

 Translating constitutional abstractions into practical legislation would under the most favorable conditions would have been difficult. But these were especially trying times. On what seemed like the other side of the world Great Britain and France, rivals in a century of war, put nearly unbearable pressures on the leaders of the new republic and in the process, made a foreign policy a bitterly divisive issue.


Here is the comic-opera quality of debate mentioned in the first paragraph: While presiding over the first meeting of the US Senate in 1789, Vice President John Adams called the senators’ attention to a pressing procedural question.

How would they address George Washington, the newly elected president? Adams insisted that Washington deserved an impressive title, a designation lending dignity and weight to his office.

Adams warned the senators that if the called Washington simply “president of the United States,” the “common people of foreign countries, sailors, and soldiers would despise him to all eternity.” Furthermore Adams recommended, “His Highness, the president of the United States, and Protector of their Liberties.”

Adams’s initiative caught many persons, including Washington, completely by surprise, when in fact these younger statesmen had just fought a war to erase the divine right of Kings as well as many of Great Britain’s governmental policies. Most if not all senators regarded the entire debate as ridiculous. James Madison, a member of the House of Representatives, announced that pretentious European titles were ill suited to the “genius of the people” and “the nature of our government.”

Although no one welcomed them, political parties gradually took shape during this period. Neither the Jeffersonian nor the Federalists – as the two major groups were called – doubted that the United States would one day become a great commercial power.

 irs-rebate-checks-more-problems - Copy - CopyThey differed however, on how best to manage the transition from an agrarian household economy to an international system of trade and industry. The Federalists encouraged rapid integration of the United States into the world economy, but however enthusiastic they were about capitalism, they did not trust the people or local government to do the job effectively. The Federalists favored a modern economy, required strong national institutions that would be desired by a social elite who understood the financial challenge and who would work in the best interests of the people.


Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A View to the Right Side…Republicans

A View to the Right Side…Republicans

 41fk94wsOYL._AA160_Modern Americans tend to take for granted the acceptance of the Constitution. Its merits seem self-evident largely because it has survived for over two centuries. But in the early 1780s no one could have predicted the Constitution as we know it would have been written, much less ratified. It is equally possible the Americans would have supported a weak confederation, or perhaps, allowed the various states and regions to go their separate ways.

Before simply accepting the above statement, we have a point that we believe is more than equally important as to how much of this pre-Constitution attitude may have come about – and supported by many.

For the sake of good history – let us recall some certain influential dates. Way, way down south in Virginia there is a remarkable monument right on the ocean front that calls attention to those glorious and like-minded British subjects who originally pulled up as their first port on that very spot from England. It was inscribed 1609 A.D.

Then of course we know of a few more overwhelmingly significant dates that occurred over the next 180 years and I would be remiss if I did not make mention of even a small list of some dates. For it was within a decade 1620 A.D. that a group organized upon a ship named the Mayflower that only after entering into their first Compact settled into what is New England. In time, the Pilgrims and those remotely involved with “Separatism” without leadership or any other form of civil government these people were of the right mind to admonish that and developed a government including their ways of life meaning of course, religion.

In this uncertain political atmosphere, Americans divided sharply over the relative importance of liberty and order. The andy-warhol-dollar-sign-1981 revolutionary experience had called into question the legitimacy of any form of special privilege. Interestingly enough it is through this saying that many of the Republican Party members as one Republican informed an aristocratic colleague in the South Carolina assembly, “the day is Arrived when goodness, and not Wealth, are the only Criterions of Greatness.”

We believe that these issues are not only mentioned in the US Constitution primarily the “no-title clauses” for the President and other members of Congress. Furthermore, the man in the Pennsylvania legislature who put the issue of special privilege into context very passionately defended social equality for those of varying economic status, however, may still have resisted the extension of civil rights to women or blacks.

Nevertheless, liberty was contagious, and Americans of all backgrounds began to make new demands on society and government. For them, the Revolution had suggested new and radical alternatives – especially to those who were in the elected assemblies – who insisted on being heard.

us post officeSome Americans – often the very men who had resisted British tyranny – worried the citizens of the new nation were caught up in a wild, destructive scramble for material wealth. Democratic excesses seemed to threaten order, even to endanger the rights of property. One thing became certain – that a Republic could not long survive unless its citizens showed greater self-control. Actually, this attitude ran so high in early America that the most suspect were indeed the state assemblies.

Working out the tensions between order and liberty, between property and equality, generated an outpouring of political genius. At other times in American history, persons of extraordinary talents have been drawn to theology, commerce, or science, but during the 1780s the country’s intellectual leaders – Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams, among others – focused their creative energies on the problem of how republicans ought to govern themselves.

Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

REPUBLICISM…What does this mean?

REPUBLICISM…What does this mean?

untitled (4)In order to understand the entire notion of the Republican Party, one must first understand — albeit platforms or policies — what is was like during the Founding era, and learn about the way that these people thought about what they were doing and trying to accomplish.

A curious controversy shattered the harmony of Boston in 1785, The dispute broke out soon after a group of young adults, sons and daughters of the city’s wealthiest families announced the formation of a tea assembly, or “San Souci Club.” The members of this select group gathered once a week for the pleasure of good conversation, a game of cards, some dancing, and perhaps a glass of Madeira wine.

These meetings outraged other Bostonians, many of them old patriots.Big Ben T0 be sure Samuel Adams, who dreamed of creating a “Christian Sparta,” a virtuous society committed to republican purity, sounded the alarm. “Say my country,” he thundered, “why do you suffer all the intemperance’s of Great Britain to be fostered in our bosom, in all their vile luxuriance?” Furthermore, Adams in all his thundering saw to it that the club’s very existence threatened the “republican principles” for which Americans had so recently fought a revolution.

Unfortunately today, the term republican no longer possesses the evocative powers it did for Americans of the late eighteenth century. Adams and his contemporaries — some of whom probably visited the Sans Souci Club — believed creating a new nation-state involved more than simply winning independence from Great Britain. The American people had taken on a responsibility to establish an elective system of government. It was a bold experiment, and the precedents were not very encouraging. Indeed, the history books of that period offered disturbing examples of failure, of young republics that after a promising beginning had succumbed to political instability and military impotence.

More than did any other form of government, a republic demanded an exceptionally high degree of public morality. If American citizens substituted “luxury, prodigality, and profligacy” for “prudence, virtue, and economy,” then their revolution surely would have been in vain. Maintaining popular virtue was crucial to success. An innocent tea party, therefore, set off alarm bells. Such foolish gratifications” in Boston seemed to compromise republican goals.

It is not surprising that in this situation Adams again thundered, “Rome, Athens, and all the cities of renown, whence came your fall?”

White Americans were optimistic about their country’s chances. They came out of the Revolution with an almost euphoric sense of America’s special destiny. This expansive outlook, encountered among so many ordinary men and women, owed much to the spread of Protestant evangelicalism.

However skeptical Jefferson and Franklin may have been about revealed religion, the great mass of American people subscribed to a millennial vision of the country’s future. To this republic, God had promised progress and prosperity. The signs were there for everyone to see. One man announced, “There is not upon the face of the earth a body of people more happy or rising into consequence with more rapid stride” continuing with, “than the Inhabitants of the United States of America. Population is increasing, new houses building, new lands clearing, new settlements forming, and new manufactures establishing with a rapidity beyond conception.”


Posted in Political Correctness | Tagged , , , , , , , ,