The Founders understood Marxist philosophy, and rejected it, long before Marx was in diapers.

Listening to the Mark Levin broadcast from last night (02.21), I though it prudent to post the words he quoted by John Adams in ‘Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States’. John Adams has long understood to be the father of the U.S. Constitution, the greatest political document ever crafted outside the Declaration of Independence, and one of its most authoritative voices on the document’s true intent and design.

I agree with Levin, here Adams shows that he thoroughly understands the mindset behind socialism, some 60-80 years before the wretched ideology was first postulated. There is nothing new under the sun, the Founding Fathers of that first great experiment of self government knew what they were talking about, as well as does Mark Levin.

To understand what has happened/and happening to the Republican Party, is to understand faux conservatism here in Europe. It’s no longer about guiding philosophical principles to limited government, but of becoming a ruling elite, and they’ll co-opt any other ‘successful’ parties party line in order to reach the top of the dung heap. The RINO’s have failed miserably at what the faux conservatives have achieved in Europe.

NOTE: When I look at Finnish and Swedish politics (not to mention the EU) Codevilla’s piece becomes amazingly clear. Take the time to read Angelo Codevilla’s piece:

As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned

John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States

1787Works 6:8–9

Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have?

Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this?

The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.