By Paul B. Skousen

Brother Paul loves to read history lessons about stupidity. Looking at today’s Europe or America, or yesteryear’s Rome or Greece, or ancient Israel, just about any civilization or empire for which we have enough information, they all go through, more or less, eight steps of decay and self-destruction. I like to call it the Cocky Country Conundrum.

To begin, when prosperity blesses a society the people often become forgetful and allow personal corruption to go unchecked. They’re too rich or too smart for “the old way.” They become prideful and self-assured in their own paths, ignoring the lessons of history. Like clockwork, this always culminates in a rejection of God and all things that follow including social norms and “cohesives” that otherwise help maintain a stable, prosperous society.

Here’s how it works, as suggested by some really smart guys* back during World War II:

First—ARROGANCE: A society in decline always abandons God, trivializes religion, and normalizes aberrant behavior and practices. Their cultural catchphrase is “Look at me!”

Second—OPPRESSION: the wealthy begin to secure and strengthen their place by extorting and oppressing the poor.

Third—CLASS WARFARE: the poor retaliate against the rich and take over through forceful means (for example, the French revolution), peaceful means (electing a Marxist as U.S. President), or cultural means (the Islamization of Europe).

Fourth—SOCIALISM: the new power calls for sharing the wealth, declaring it belongs to all.

Fifth—ENTITLEMENTS: next comes the belief that society owes every man a living whether he works or not.

Sixth—TAXATION: then comes the enormous expense of keeping a great body of idlers fed, housed and entertained (remember the bread and circuses of ancient Rome?).

Seventh—DESPERATION: when community revenues fail to support the entitlements, as they always have failed to do and always will fail to do, neighbors begin to take from one another.

Eighth—COLLAPSE: Finally when the better-prepared neighbor resists theft of his goods, and resist he must or starve with his family—then death to the one or the other comes as struggles ensue, fair exchange ends, greedy free-for-all begins, and all elements of orderly society come crashing down.

Ninth—HUMBLE RESURGENCE: from the ashes of self-destruction and infighting, a more humble and religiously circumspect people always emerge to start over again. Nearly always they return to basic principle as proscribed by God—unless in their weakness the people have been overrun and conquered into perpetual submission by some other group. As history demonstrates, such conquering hordes are at the time of their tyrannical expansion already themselves in the throes of the Cocky Country Conundrum cycle.

The United States is the world’s last hope for freedom, for breaking this cycle. The power is in our hands to make that happen first in our own lives, second in our homes, third in our communities, and fourth in our local and state governments. After that, the federal government becomes chained down again by a resurgence of adherence to the Constitution.

Then will prosperity resume as it was prior to the interruption instigated by the Socialists and the Progressives beginning in the early 1900s. It’s a Cocky Country Conundrum we’ve got to break or we’re finished. We’ve been raised with the idea there are free lunches to be had—but American isn’t one of them.

Brother Paul has every confidence we’re going to make it through—if we are willing to start today. Go read The Five Thousand Year Leap . . . and then you’ll know exactly what to do next.

*[This is Brother Paul’s expansion of an idea first put forward by Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay in "Messages," 1945]

By Paul B. Skousen

Chapter 1:  How to Spot a Socialist in the Wild

          To the casual observer, a Socialist does not exhibit any outward plumage or markings rendering him or her easy to identify. To the untrained eye a Socialist can be easily confused with normal individuals.

          While some techniques have been successfully employed to separate out the Socialists, they have evolved numerous defense mechanisms rendering them virtually invisible in a crowd of people.  More on that later.

          For now, let’s review a few observations made by those who are expert in the field of socialistology.

GROUPS

          A group of two or more Socialists is called a whining.

          A whining can coagulate quite suddenly at a surprisingly broad spectrum of settings such as picnics, emails, during a CNN broadcast, at Walmart, during Sunday school, on The View, in the Oval Office, etc. —essentially anywhere they can whine.

          Caution: NEVER approach a whining. They can erupt in terror and violence sporadically, arbitrarily, and without warning. No one knows precisely what triggers such outbursts. Tell-tale signs include an abundance of tension, hand gestures, rapid flailing about of words and accusations, and violence targeted towards those not empathetically bonded to that particular whining.

          Despite rumors to the contrary, there is no such thing as whining interruptus. It is therefore recommended that the observer so caught in a whining make no attempt to ingratiate himself by feigning allegiance to a whining. Just remove yourself immediately.

          Should you become caught up in the central fermentation of a whining, be on the lookout for direct accostiment.

          Accostiment is derived from the word excrement. It is defined as anything being yelled at you by a socialist. If you are assaulted with accostiment, avoid eye contact, try not to react emotionally to words screamed at you. Offer a simple smile, give a cheery thumbs up (unless you’re in Brazil), and keep moving.

          That should do it.

SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION

          The socialist is usually an upright two-legged primate in the class mammalian. While the species is certainly Homo sapiens, the Socialist has been assigned its own trinomial name: polyliberphobicrat  (Please do yourself a favor and take a moment to rehearse two or three times the proper pronunciation: “pauli-leeber-FOBO-crat”)

          This name is derived from a long list of socialist aberrations. It is a combination of root words meaning “many,” “liberty, “fear of” and “ruler.” In layman terms, “socialist” simply means “tyrannical fear of many liberties.” 

          There remains heated debate about the order to which the Socialist belongs. Some scholars want to classify their order as carnivora (meat eaters) because they eat those who stray from the whining. Other scholars argue this contradicts a Socialist’s declared opposition to meat and their allegiance to vegetarianism. Since many conservatives are also vegetarians, this quality is not distinctly socialist. As of this writing, there remains no consensus regarding order among socialists.

BEHAVIOR IN THE WILD

          There are certain indicators unique to the Socialist’s way of thinking. Knowing a few of these will help you flush out a socialist from obscurity. It is recommended that any person running for political office or important appointment be tested with this list of basic questions.

          CAUTION: Should this line of questioning accidently trigger the spontaneous formation of a whining, cease immediately all interaction and terminate the exchange—you have your answer.

1)      If a conservative hears commentary on a radio or television program that he or she disapproves of, it is enough to just turn it off. Do you agree, or should the government impose some form of fairness so alternative views will be given equal air time?

2)      Is health care a right? (This is a trick question. The Socialist will always answer “yes”). Should the government force Americans to pay for health insurance for everybody?

3)      If a conservative does not want to own a gun, he or she simply doesn’t buy one. If you don’t want a gun, do you believe the best solution is having the government outlaw guns for everyone?

4)      If a conservative is a vegetarian, he or she does not eat animal products. If you are a vegetarian, do you think the government should ban all animal products for everybody’s own good?

5)      Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but a conservative homosexual goes about his or her business and quietly engages in that lifestyle privately. Do you think the government must legislate respect for gays and gay rights?

6)      If a conservative does not believe in God, he or she doesn’t disparage those who do, and celebrates the believers’ allegiance to a pattern of good living. Do you believe the government should silence all mention of God and religion in any public venue?

7)      If a conservative becomes unemployed or otherwise suffers from negative economic and financial setbacks, he or she looks for new work and labors at it with integrity. If you become similarly unemployed, how should the government help you get back on your feet? (This is also a trick question, testing the candidates ability to really hear as well as answer a question.)

8)      Are unions good or bad? (This is another trick question. The Socialist will always answer “good.” To flush out his real thinking, rephrase the question as, “Is forced union membership good or bad?”)

          The correct answers to these questions will not be provided here. That is because you the reader might be confused or unknowing about how to answer the questions. If that is the case, you might be suffering from an ailment common to most Americans reared in the public school system since the mid-1920s. You unwittingly might be a bi-socialist.

          This is a heartbreaking and tragic revelation for those who had such hope for themselves. Being bi-socialist has ramifications even your mother doesn’t want to know—but it does not mean all hope is lost. There are treatments. There are programs. There are eye tests. There are blood draws. There are CAT scans. There are means of identifying the degree to which bi-socialism has infected your thinking.

          In our next installment of The Proper Care and Feeding of Socialists, we will discuss bi-socialism—what it is, and how to detect it in yourself, in your family and friends. And most importantly what can be done to fix it.

America is angry. If any foreign power had swept in, taken control and pulled this recent national health care stunt on us, we’d be up in arms—literally and figuratively.

But violence isn’t the way to go. The Founders handed us the weapons by which we cleanse our government of usurpers: the power to vote—but that can only be effective with the right target in mind.

While you’re out shopping for replacements for Congressional and Senatorial incumbents, consider these ten questions. They contain basic principles that all candidates should understand and be speaking about openly in talks and debates.

The complete list of “101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates” written by W. Cleon Skousen has been included in the back of The Five Thousand Year Leap (see p. 337). Review these ten questions and then see how well you can recite the principles back to your family or friends. This is the level of conversation we need to have when evaluating candidates for public office.

1.  Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?

The Founders said it is in the people “by God’s own allowance.” No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people’s representatives. (See p. 337)

2.  What is the purpose of government?

The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide “liberty under law,” which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty, and well-being of the people. (See p. 338)

3.  Is it a mistake to call the United States a democracy?

Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from “democracy” is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people’s elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over “pure democracy” would be the case of a sheriff (the representative) protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob (the majority). (See p. 339)

4.  How should the powers of government be separated?

The separation of powers is designed to circumvent human nature’s tendency to grab all the power it can The Founders wanted political power separated vertically, like a pyramid. Beginning at the bottom, the principle power base of society is the family. On the next level up, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (such as police protection, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated upwards to the community.

Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to a higher level—to the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the State level.

The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the top of the pyramid—the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders’ pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all. (See pp. 339-340)

5. Has socialism or “collectivism” worked anywhere in the world?

It has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as Communism, Nazism, and Fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any other system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called “peaceful” forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proved counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor’s edge of perpetual bankruptcy.

Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.

6.  Did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?

Yes. They did it by setting up a “limited” form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the “chains” of the Constitution.

7.  How have these seven presidents violated the Constitutional protection against socialism and their related presidential duties?

A. Theodore Roosevelt?
Roosevelt said the president could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids. He was wrong. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as “usurpation.” (P. 342)

B. Woodrow Wilson?
Wilson said the U.S. should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the U.S. should try to be friendly with all nations, but behold to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war. (P. 342)

C. Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Roosevelt’s New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was “tax, tax—spend, spend–elect, elect!” (P. 342)

D. Lyndon Johnson?
Johnson said “We will take from the haves and give to the have nots.” There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to “soak the rich,” but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes. (See pp. 342-343)

E. Richard Nixon?
Nixon pushed the United States onto the world stage, calling for us to become part of a new world order. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations—an international form of socialism. (See p. 343)

F. Jimmy Carter?
Carter began meddling in the domestic affairs of foreign nations. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the US would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any president or Secretary of State who has followed a policy of “interventionism,” has operated outside of his Constitutional authority. (See p. 343)

G. Barack Obama?
Obama is the most anti-American to ever hold the office of chief executive of the United States. He usurped powers meant to be the people’s using deceit, double-speak, broken promises and the complete misinterpretation of Article 1 Section 8 where the enumerated powers of Congress are explicitly laid out.

Without a fully cooperative Congress joined to his hip he could not have violated the Constitution as fully and completely as he did. National health care violates the Constitution in at least 13 places. The checks and balances meant to curb such tyrannical abuse of authority were supposed to be employed by Congress but they failed in their Constitutional duties to reign in the President. The rule of law, the rule of the Constitution, the protection of freedom and our rights were all shredded in the process. 

It will take a leadership of Constitutionalists to repeal these bad laws and practices, and restore liberty as it was originally intended, and which was—for a very long time—so much enjoyed.
                      
8.  Are executive orders constitutional? Why or why not?

The Founders would have considered these unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision, but he has no authority whatever to make “laws” for the people. The Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure. (See p. 343)

9.  May the Supreme Court make laws?

No. This is called “judicial legislation.” This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court. (See p. 344)

10.  What is the Butler Case and why did it create so much damage?

In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was for the “general welfare” of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes—the so-called pork barrel or earmark spending. This has led to Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court) , has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation. (See pp. 345-346)

Did you hear that people are beating up Glenn Beck right now because in early March he told people to flee to higher ground if their churches want “social justice”? A misunderstanding about his comments is spreading around, and he’s being crucified.

In response, I want to ask you: does anybody have the slightest clue what people mean when they say, “I’m for social justice”?

The correct answer is, are you kidding me?

That’s right—because the truth is, nobody really knows. 

This much we do know:

• The term social justice was coined by an Italian Catholic scholar, Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (1793–1862)
• Luigi was trying to balance natural law with his perception of inequality rising from competition and capitalism.

Beyond that, social justice has evolved since the 1930s into a euphemism for socialism that was used heavily by both the Nazis and the Communists.

As for everybody else, they’ve thrown the term about for the past several decades as a band-aid to cover whatever injustice people perceive. It’s their “get out of jail free” card for all instances of inequality—except for this one important detail: social justice is not free.

Under the banner of social justice have come these calls to arms:

“We’re suffocating the planet! Impose ‘cap and trade.’”
“Animals have rights, stop hunting, stop furs.”
“The trees have feelings, stop logging, stop deforestation.”
“Resources are dwindling, stop populating.”
“Death and dismemberment costs money, you must wear seatbelts.”
“The poor should have jobs, give them one.”
“The homeless should have homes, give them one.”
“The blacks deserve slavery reparations, pay them.”
“The Mexicans were here first, give the land back.”
“The Indians were here first, give the land back.”
“Pedophiles are people too, show compassion.”
“Terrorists are people too, show compassion.”
“Every human is owed affordable health care, give it to them.”
“Every worker is owed a minimum wage, give them one.”
“Wear helmets, seatbelts, mouth guards, and ID or else.”
“There’s a hole in the ozone, stop cars and hair spray.”
“The rich should pay more taxes, make them pay.”
“If you don’t go green, we’ll fine you.”
“Nobody should be allowed to fail, bail them out.”

The do or die detail that comes with a cause, any cause, is whether or not the proponents require force to have it implemented. That’s the freedom factor that Glenn Beck was talking about—does your church espouse social justice that must be enforced by coercion or law or brute force?

Dr. W. Cleon Skousen points out in “The Five Thousand Year Leap” how today’s government-enforced social justice is not the same as Biblical charity the Founders tried to preserve with our Constitution:

“In Europe, during the days of the Founders, it was very popular to proclaim that the role of government was to take from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have nots’ so that all might be truly ‘equal.’ However, the American Founders perceived that this proposition contained a huge fallacy.

“The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do themselves.

“For example, every person is entitled to protection of his life and property. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to delegate to the government the task of setting up a police force to protect the lives and property of all the people.

“But suppose a kind-hearted man [seeking social justice] saw that one of his neighbors had two cars while another neighbor had none. What would happen if, in a spirit of benevolence, the kind man went over and took one of the cars from his prosperous neighbor and generously gave it to the neighbor in need? Obviously, he would be arrested for car theft. No matter how kind his intentions, he is guilty of flagrantly violating the natural rights of his prosperous neighbor, who is entitled to be protected in his property.

“….But suppose the kind-hearted man decided to ask the mayor and city council to force the man with two cars to give one to his pedestrian neighbor. Does that make it any more legitimate? Obviously, this makes it even worse because if the mayor and city council do it in the name of the law, the man who has lost his car has not only lost the rights to his property, but (since it is the ‘law’) he has lost all right to appeal for help in protecting his property.” (The Five Thousand Year Leap, pp. 87-88)

The Founders were experts on human nature. They knew that some people would prosper more than others in a truly free nation. Rather than force and curtail human nature to fit neatly into some Utopian scheme of social justice, they sanctified the principle of “equal rights not equal things.”

Equal rights as defined by the Founders provides these four freedoms:

• Freedom to buy
• Freedom to sell
• Freedom to try
• Freedom to fail.

Equal rights puts the burden of production on the individual, not the state. This is something lazy people passionately despise. Nevertheless, everyone has the right to be prosperous, but only at the cost of personal invention and innovation, hard and dedicated work, and a willingness to learn from mistakes.

What about the lazy, the unfortunate, the accidental victims of personal catastrophe?

The Founders knew their Bible. They knew God mandated that all his children should help the poor and underprivileged. Outside of private charity—which our nation has in abundance—how can the government help without making things worse?

Their solution came in the form of “calculated” compassion (see The Five Thousand Year Leap, p. 91):

1. Do not help the needy completely. Merely help them to help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of “earned achievement” instead of rewarding them without achievement.
3. Allow the poor to climb the “appreciation ladder”—from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to comfortable houses.
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce the scale of “fixed responsibility.” The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstance is the federal government to become involved in public welfare. No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare.

So, was Glenn Beck correct in his call to all thinking Americans to flee from churches and other organizations that promoted social justice with force? When such organizations align with big government’s socialist programs, and they force increased taxes, a smothering deficit, and the loss of property rights to achieve so-called social justice, it is clear that Beck is right. 

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” Jesus taught, but never let Caesar co-opt the real work of God—the work of voluntarily helping those in need. That’s our job. And I wouldn’t call it social justice any more.

I’m a people watcher, and here’s what I saw during my three days at CPAC:

Some came for education, some for entertainment, but most seemed to be there for direction. And like the sedated masses of the Roman empire who were entertained with bread and circuses while invaders attacked the borderlands, we had our own political ringmasters at CPAC—and they too served bread and circuses with thick bravado while leaving the real issues unattended. 

A few samples from the tasting table:

Ron Paul wins straw poll—the hundreds of under-25 crowd swarming through the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel took on targets of opportunity like packs of vegan dogs. Mention anybody but Ron Paul and they barked and snarled, screamed and yelled—but no biting. When the vote was announced, youthful high-five whoops and oh yeahs! thundered throughout the hotel.

• Meanwhile, those more studious about the issues smiled patiently when Mitt Romney took a strong second place in the ballots with 22%. About a fourth of the attendees bothered voting. It became apparent from day one that the youth were largely Ron Paul supporters who flooded the ballot box in droves and packs. But when asked why, the answers were usually thin: “Why do you want Ron Paul?” “He’s the man! He rocks!” “Yes, but why do you support him?” “He’s the man! He rocks!” “And the issues—?” “He’s the man, he rocks!”

See and be seen—Encouragement from the old war horses and newer battle ponies sent a stir across every square foot of the gathering. Cheney’s surprise runway wave to the podium shook the very foundations of the building, an appreciation that was well-earned and well-deserved. Scott Brown exhausted what screams were left, though betrayed them days later on the jobs bill vote. Ann Coulter was her usual spicy self but was escorted out for security reasons, and Mitt Romney had the best one-liners of the whole three days. Newt Gingrich was happy to be mobbed by friends from decades past to present, and a gallery of lesser-knowns waved their arms at this growing national anger aimed at the Obama crowd.

• But did we learn anything new? Not since Andrea Bocelli sang with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was there ever such raptured preaching to the choir. But alas, a lot of heat, a lot of smoke, but where was the smelter?

Value added or just valuable?—Across every floor for 12 hours a day, a thousand voices screamed for attention, ten thousand web sites spewed literature for links, a million opinions exchanged to save the Constitution—but only a handful of real solutions were delivered. One came in the form of Glenn Beck. He entered the arena with education in mind—and deliver he did. The hoo-rah segment strained with pain at this new discipline called education. Beck was patient with them, bringing along his chalk board to help. Those wanting education, those working hard to be good students of freedom had their engines of determination well primed. The enemy is the progressives, Beck hammered home. Learn to recognize them in their many forms, they know no party boundaries. It was the educational moment of the entire event, but only a segment of the audience seemed to appreciate it.

• And then there was us. We also came with education in mind and found at least one in ten who understood that education is our call to arms. All else falls short of sustainability. Freedom cannot be maintained without knowing what it is, how we got it, and how to keep it.
• Says Dr. W. Cleon Skousen in the opening paragraphs of The Five Thousand Year Leap, “Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was their political spectrum or political frame of reference. It was a yardstick for the measuring of the political power in any particular system of government. They had a much better political yardstick than the one which is generally used today. If the Founders had used the modern yardstick of ‘Communism on the left’ and ‘Fascism on the right,’ they never would have found the balanced center which they were seeking.”

And so was it last week at CPAC. The measuring stick given us at that gathering of 10,000+ was Obama on the left, everybody else on the right. But what we needed instead was more of Glenn Beck’s education: How much do you know about freedom and do you want to know more?

I witnessed thousands of empty anticipations leaving that building on Saturday night, most of them seemed to be wondering “did I get fed or did I get entertained?” We pointed, we cheered, we booed, and we blamed. But in the end, did anybody get education? May I suggest that next year’s Conservative Political Action Convention be renamed to Conservative Political Action College? I don’t think we can afford any more bread and circuses.

By Paul B. Skousen

Somebody told me there’s a Guinness World Record at the end of this interesting pursuit, so let me share it with you.

First, we need to visit Karl Marx in his dingy, slummy accommodations in London. It was here that this barrel-chested and very unemployed philosopher with disheveled hair and a bushy beard sat about chain-smoking his clay pipes and blustering his philosophies and complaints to whoever would listen.

He was only part way through his life of reckless demands and manipulations when he came across a collaborator with money—a man named Friedrich Engels. They became fast but oddly-paired friends in 1844, mutually bent on re-creating the world in their images.

By 1847, after some initial spats of intrigue and power ploys with a growing communist movement in Europe, Marx and Engels won the trust of their compatriots and were asked to write up a declaration of principles or a “Manifesto to the World,” the Communist Manifesto.

When it was done, the pair had settled on six goals or prerequisites that would invite a new era of world-wide peace and prosperity. All it took was:

1)        the overthrow of capitalism

2)        the abolition of private property

3)        the elimination of the family as a social unit

4)        the abolition of all classes

5)        the overthrow of all governments

6)        the establishment of a communist order with communal

           ownership of property in a classless, stateless society.

Now we need to fast forward to 1867 when we find Marx and Engels already well known for both good and bad among their communist comrades. They had been all over Europe, through difficulties and triumphs. But behind them and around them was turmoil in various nations, infighting among communist federation memberships, backstabbing and maliciousness to gain power.

The ends justified the means for Marx, and he did what he could—and wanted—to take power. He succeeded and he failed, but mostly he failed. And with the failure of the First International—a congress of communist movers and shakers—Marx had lost his bully pulpit.

So what does a world conqueror do when he has no army with which to conquer? He writes a book. For Marx, that book was a sort of guidebook that explained history and communist philosophy. He called it Capital.

(Okay, in German its title is Das Capital, but let us wrap this up.)

Just a side note about his personal life, when Marx died in 1883, he joined family members who preceded him in death including daughter Francisca who died in 1852, Edgar who died in 1854, an unnamed baby who died in birth in 1856, daughter Eleanor who committed suicide, daughter Laura who committed suicide, his wife who died of cancer in 1881, and daughter Jenny who died in January 1883. Two months later, Marx himself died. They say 7 or 8 people attended the funeral.

“It was a pathetic life,” as Dr. W. Cleon Skousen said in his best seller, The Naked Communist wherein the above discussion is fleshed out. Marx’s life, Skousen said, was “filled with burning ambition, constant frustration and continuous failure.”

But Marx’s ideas unfortunately did not die with him. In short, Marx said he simply wanted to “dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” It was up to Engels to carry the work forward for another 12 years.

These two anarchists saw three primary problems as the source for the world’s woes.

First was the notion of private property. Marx and Engels said the haves always fighting the have nots was the root cause of the world’s problems—the property owners fighting to control everything, and the poor fighting for a piece of the pie.

And worst of all, Marx said, the rich exploited the poor, making them beasts of burden forced to work for low wages just so the property owners could expand their holdings and become rich and more rich.

Marx and Engels decided that those evil rich guys, in order to keep a strangle hold on the poor, came up with two powerful tools of leverage.

The first was the State (the government), the Big Stick that forced people to obey the property rights of the land owners—or go to jail.

The second was Religion, invented, they said, to keep the poor in their place, prevent rebellion, to keep them contented and subservient. Such adages as “thou shalt not steal,” and “thou shalt not covet,” and “judge not” were meant to teach this one lesson: Keep Your Hands Off My Stuff—lest God smite you for your thievery and covetousness.

Marx and Engels thought it perfectly obvious what had to be done: to bring lasting change to the world, to make it better, to ensure universal peace, universal prosperity, and universal cooperation, those bastions of what they called tyranny—Property, the State, and Religion—had to be annihilated.

Today we see the cost to bring about Marx’s and Engels’ idea of universal peace and prosperity is shockingly unacceptable. For example, the cost in human life is at least topping more than 100 million people executed, slaughtered, starved, gassed and destroyed—in the name of communistic peace. And that in just over 100 years.

So now we get to the part about the world record.

With Marx and Engels’ idea for universal peace failing to catch on, somebody tried another tact. It is unknown just how many converts to the failure formula have been attracted, but evidently it has had an impact based on the numbers of people who sing along.

In 1971, a catchy little tune captured the goals of Marx and Engels in such an enticing way that it swept the world in just a few weeks, selling out everywhere, being played tens of millions of times. Somebody said it was the most played piece of music any where any time, and therefore should be declared a Guinness World Record.

Let us review the lyrics of this musical mausoleum to the doctrines of Marx (with editorial commentary in italics):

First, the assault on Religion:

Imagine there’s no heaven

It’s easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today…

Next comes the assault on the State:

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too …

And third, here come the horrible evils of private property:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man ….

Finally and from beyond the grave, Marx’s plea to join him and the other founding fathers of Annihilation that include Plato, Socrates, Engels, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Che Guevara:  

You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will live as one

So—was John Lennon just being poetic and fancifully utopian with his song? Were his lyrics simply accidently lockstep with Marx and Engels?

In the book “Lennon in America,” author Geoffrey Giuliano quotes Lennon saying his hit song Imagine was “an anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic [song], but because it’s sugar-coated, it’s accepted.”

Elsewhere Lennon is quoted saying his song is “virtually the Communist Manifesto, even though I am not particularly a communist and I do not belong to any movement.”

So how does that bring us to The Guinness World Records? The Guinness people did a poll in Britain in 2002, and found that Imagine ranked number 2 as the all-time most played, most listened to and favorite rock song in that country, falling behind only to Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody. It was similarly popular in the U.S. and other nations all around the world.

Not quite a world record, but for those three targets of annihilation—Property, the State, and Religion—Lennon’s song certainly hit all the Marx.

By Paul B. Skousen

The John Edwards soap opera just won’t go away. His affair, the cover-up and lies, his cancer-stricken wife, the divorce, the baby, the tell-all book, haven’t we had enough?

Evidently not.

While the $400-haircut was getting a little off the top from mistress Frances Quinn Hunter, Edwards was setting himself up to become just one more famous name in a growing mass of infamy.

Can any of us ever again hear “Bill Clinton” without also thinking “Monica Lewinski”?

Didn’t we all applaud the wife of Tiger Woods for giving new meaning to the term “long drive”?

Do any of us watch Dave Letterman without wondering who on the staff is high on his Top Ten List?

And just what happens if the price isn’t right for one of Bob Barker’s beautiful models? He’s retired now, so we may never know. 

But at least former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer tried to give a little back when he made his generous investment of $80,000+ to New York’s prostitution industry. And I wonder, did they charge him sales tax? One can only hope.   

These scandals certainly attract a lot of attention and rouse our ire for a while. But why should they? After all, isn’t our united indignation oddly juxtaposed against the $11 billion spent each year to bring that very SAME kind of behavior vicariously into our households via the Internet?  

Every second there is $3,200 spent on pornography. Every second there are 28,000 Internet users viewing pornography. And every 30 minutes, a new porn video is created.

What was darkly forbidden just 25 years ago is today rampant, popular and widespread from coast to coast. Corporate sponsors are reaping billions from their porn-happy clientele, and there seems no stopping its spread.

This modern-day version of Rome’s “bread and circus” detractions from the most pressing national problems kept the Founding Fathers worried for quite some time.

A look into history shows that there were heated and sometimes violent debates among the 13 colonies between 1775 and 1776 over the issue of morality.

Quoting Dr. W. Cleon Skousen in The Five Thousand Year Leap (pg. 41), “For many thousands of Americans the big questions of independence hung precariously on the single, slender thread of whether or not the people were sufficiently ‘virtuous and moral’ to govern themselves. Self-government was generally referred to as ‘republicanism,’ and it was universally acknowledged that a corrupt and selfish people could never make the principles of republicanism operate successfully. As Franklin wrote: ‘Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.’ … George Washington later praised the American Constitution as the ‘palladium of human rights,’ but pointed out that it could survive only ‘so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.’”

Dr. Skousen further explains:

          Morality is identified with the Ten Commandments and obedience to the Creator’s mandate for “right conduct,” but the early Americans identified “public virtue” as a very special quality of human maturity in character and service closely akin to the Golden Rule. As a modern historian epitomized it:

          “In a Republic, however, each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole. This willingness of the individual to sacrifice his private interest for the good of the community — such patriotism or love of country — the eighteenth century termed public virtue…. The eighteenth century mind was thoroughly convinced that a popularly based government ‘cannot be supported without virtue’.”

Self-Doubts

          The people had an instinctive thirst for independence, but there remained a haunting fear that they might not be “good enough” to make it work.

          These self-doubts were actually the eye of the hurricane during those final pre-revolutionary years when Americans were trying to decide whether they had the moral capacity for self-government. Great names of later years were among the doubters in those pre-revolutionary days. John Jay, Robert Morris, Robert Livingston, and even John Dickinson were among them. Their doubts gradually diminished as their patriotic indignation was aroused by the harsh and sometimes brutal policies of the British crown. They were also moved by the powerful expressions of faith and confidence pouring forth from men of “admired virtue” such as John Adams, George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, and Josiah Quincy.

          Spirits continued to rise so that by the spring of 1776, thousands of confident voices were heard throughout the colonies affirming that there was sufficient “public virtue” in the people to make republican principles work successfully.

A Warning from the Founders

          At the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, Samuel Adams, who is sometimes called the “father of the revolution,” wrote to Richard Henry Lee:

          “I thank God that I have lived to see my country independent and free. She may long enjoy her independence and freedom if she will. It depends on her virtue.”

          John Adams pointed out why the future of the United States depended upon the level of virtue and morality maintained among the people. He said:

          “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

          Samuel Adams knew the price of American survival under a Constitutional form of government when he wrote:

          “The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. while, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.”

Conclusion

See The Five Thousand Year Leap for the remainder of Dr. Skousen’s discussion of public virtue in Principle #2. 

Despite the fact that the John Edward’s, Bill Clinton’s, Tiger Wood’s, David Letterman’s and Bob Barker’s of life will always appeal to the tabloid mentality of most Americans and get us shaking our heads at such infamous violations of public virtue, the truth is that all of us are failed humans.

And don’t we feel fortunate our failings don’t dominate the headlines as do theirs? 

But there is a great deal more at stake for us as a nation than just them losing trust or an election or sponsors or ratings.

If not stopped in our individual lives, the plague of corruption filtering into every corner of our free society is guaranteed to one day complete its work in a most devastating and irreversible way.

And then—quite suddenly and without question—when everything great about America is falling apart all around us, “public virtue” will make a whole lot of really good sense.

By Paul Skousen

Tuesday night, the Ghost of America Past came to pay a visit on the progressive liberals in America.

His stealthy arrival wasn’t a complete surprise nor his appearance without warning because there was a familiar messenger who preceded his coming.

It was none other than the apparition of Ted Kennedy dragging his chains of socialism across the border into Massachusetts.

Two million voters were out that night wondering in awe at Theodore’s approach. They heard the hauntings, the clanging and rattle. What could this odd disturbance be on such a night as this? Was it a bit of rotten TART funds? Perhaps an undigested piece of bailout money?

Finding their way to the voting booths, they drew back the curtained enclosure, and suddenly there he was! The face of the Ted, grinning back at them, a claim to his Senate seat firmly lashed about his back, and wheezing from his memory a labored foretelling of more to come clinging to the chains of his decades in office.

“Voters of Massachusetts, these are the chains I forged by my works of tyranny and oppression,” he groaned, “to wrest from you your powers of choice, to oppress with shackles and squander your wealth. These are the chains I have wrapped you with, crushing your labors, your incentives, your very human nature and rights. Yes, these are the chains with which I will bind you more tightly this night. You see them not, but they are ponderous still, and will hold you fast.”

And when a million voters asked in unison, “What of us? We who work all hours to care for ourselves and help our brothers and sisters in harm’s way, not because of your government schemes, but because of the goodness and determination in our own hearts?”

“Are there no government housing projects?” replied he. “Is there not welfare? Have you no national health care to provide for them?”

“Some would rather pay their own way,” the voters replied, “or have none at all.”

“Then let them have none and decrease the surplus population,” he roared, shaking his chains all the more.

Then continuing, “This night you will be visited … Three brothers who teach, the first of America Past. Come the next hour, of America Present. Then beware, for that last who is America Future, he is the most tenuous of all, for he has power to terrify or to liberate. Then take heed, Massachusetts voters, for there comes this final chance to mend your ways lest you become as I, bound down with my wicked intents.”

As the apparition dissolved, those who voted for freedom with their ballots and retired for the night were indeed visited by the Ghost of America Past. And his pleasantness gave them the sweetest dreams, the most pleasant congeniality towards their fellow men, a bright hope that their vote to regain the brilliant wisdoms of the Founders could still secure to them their unalienable rights to self sufficiency, to freedom, to property rights, to free association, to equality under the law, to defense, to caring and compassion, and most important, to the freedom to fail and try again. In short, the hope for happiness opened before them. In their hearts came this plea, “God Bless us, every one.”

However, for the million who voted against these things, there stepped into their path, rising up from the wings of history the Ghost of America Future. He bore in his right hand a copy of the Constitution, and in his left a burning torch.

Then came this warning echoed from the failed dreams and failed governments of eons past, “I stand before you a shrouded and mysterious future, blocking your way forward to present you a choice—will you call to me to lift the torch in my one hand to light the path and light your way, and lift this law in the other to guide you back to freedom and prosperity? Or do you spit on me and dare me to ignite these together and burn all hope and prosperity to ashes in one blazing moment of lies and false hopes? You decide citizens of Massachusetts and you decide voters of America. You decide for my torch burns hot, and I wait for no one.”

It was a restless night for the progressive liberals in America on Tuesday late. They tossed and turned all the time through, torn by their weak application of the freedom to choose. When they awoke Wednesday morning, they wondered—had it all been a bad nightmare?

As they rose to consider their new day, there loomed out of view another waiting surprise—they didn’t see it, indeed they couldn’t see it, but the Ghost of America Present stood patiently waiting with but one chore to tend: he re-set his watch—it had been running a little fast.

And now umpteen millions want to throw a millstone around Reid’s neck and toss him into the sea. Or rue the day he was born.

While that soap opera burns up our attention span, I’m interested in something else.

Have you noticed the unspoken power of human nature that has exploded over this? Everybody has an opinion and some people want to see Harry Reid suffer.

Why?

There’s an ember of right and wrong that flares to life whenever idiotic statements like Harry Reid’s are made. Each of us have it. But it’s not just racist comments that get us riled.

We don’t like anything unfair. We especially don’t like our overzealous government increasing our taxes or shoving health care down our throats. It makes us angry.

That sense of fairness, that very ember of truth inside each of us actually has a name. Cicero called it “right reason.” The Founders called it Natural Law.

Natural Law is an inborn, hard-wired, fully-assimilated saturation into the universal and unifying common ground of “what’s right for one must be right for all.”

Nobody needs a book to explain why some things are “right reason” and others not. We know it the moment that first bully swipes our chew toy or pushes us down.

In the Five Thousand Year Leap, Dr. Skousen points out that Natural Law remains the one powerful constant whereby equality and free choice can shake hands and create for all human beings the greatest freedom possible. Good human relations and good government must begin here. Says he:
Most modern Americans have never studied Natural Law. They are therefore mystified by the constant reference to Natural Law by the Founding Fathers. Blackstone confirmed the wisdom of the Founders by stating that it is the only reliable basis for a stable society and a system of justice. Then what is Natural Law? A good place to seek out the answer is in the writings of one of the American Founders’ favorite authors, Marcus Tullius Cicero.
The Life and Writings of Cicero
It was Cicero who cut sharply through the political astigmatism and philosophical errors of both Plato and Aristotle to discover the touchstone for good laws, sound government, and the long-range formula for happy human relations. In the Founders’ roster of great political thinkers, Cicero was high on the list.
Dr. William Ebenstein of Princeton says:
“The only Roman political writer who has exercised enduring influence throughout the ages is Cicero (106-43 B.C.)…. Cicero studied law in Rome, and philosophy in Athens…. He became the leading lawyer of his time and also rose to the highest office of state [Roman Consul].
“… Yet his life was not free of sadness; only five years after he had held the highest office in Rome, the consulate, he found himself in exile for a year…. Cicero nevertheless showed considerable personal courage in opposing the drift toward dictatorship based on popular support. Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C., and a year later, in 43 B.C., Cicero was murdered by the henchmen of Antony, a member of the triumvirate set up after Caesar’s death.” 1
So out of Cicero’s maelstrom of turbulent experience with power politics, plus his intense study of all forms of political systems, he wrote his landmark books on the Republic and the Laws. In these writings Cicero projected the grandeur and promise of some future society based on Natural Law.
The American Founding Fathers obviously shared a profound appreciation of Cicero’s dream because they envisioned just such a commonwealth of prosperity and justice for themselves and their posterity. They saw in Cicero’s writings the necessary ingredients for their model society which they eventually hoped to build.
Cicero’s Fundamental Principles
To Cicero, the building of a society on principles of Natural Law was nothing more nor less than recognizing and identifying the rules of “right conduct” with the laws of the Supreme Creator of the universe. History demonstrates that even in those nations sometimes described as “pagan” there were sharp, penetrating minds like Cicero’s who reasoned their way through the labyrinths of natural phenomena to see behind the cosmic universe, as well as the unfolding of their own lives, the brilliant intelligence of a supreme Designer with an ongoing interest in both human and cosmic affairs.
Cicero’s compelling honesty led him to conclude that once the reality of the Creator is clearly identified in the mind, the only intelligent approach to government, justice, and human relations is in terms of the laws which the Supreme Creator has already established. The Creator’s order of things is called Natural Law.
A fundamental presupposition of Natural Law is that man’s reasoning power is a special dispensation of the Creator and is closely akin to the rational or reasoning power of the Creator himself. In other words, man shares with his Creator this quality of utilizing a rational approach to solving problems, and the reasoning of the mind will generally lead to common-sense conclusions based on what Jefferson called “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (The Declaration of Independence).
Let us now examine the major precepts of Natural Law which so profoundly impressed the Founding Fathers.
Natural Law Is Eternal and Universal
First of all, Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” Then he says:
“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” 2
In these few lines the student encounters concepts which were repeated by the American Founders a thousand times. The Law of Nature or Nature’s God is eternal in its basic goodness; it is universal in its application. It is a code of “right reason” from the Creator himself. It cannot be altered. It cannot be repealed. It cannot be abandoned by legislators or the people themselves, even though they may pretend to do so. In Natural Law we are dealing with factors of absolute reality. It is basic in its principles, comprehensible to the human mind, and totally correct and morally right in its general operation.
To the Founding Fathers as well as to Blackstone, John Locke, Montesquieu, and Cicero, this was a monumental discovery.

Next: Natural Law continued—The Divine Gift of Reason