Archive for August, 2012

Monetary Policy and Economic Growth

Thursday, August 30th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the US FED and the ECB, are not as much sowing the seeds of the next financial catastrophe, as they are planting, watering, and fertilizing them. Economists today have far too much confidence in the ability of monetary policy to save a faltering economy. We see this in the way the equities markets eschew real economic data, for perceived changes, or “easing,” of monetary policy. The market rises on hopes the US FED will print money and falls on a rumor the FED will stop printing money. This state of affairs not only endangers our economy in the US, but threatens economies around the world, with becoming addicted to smoke and mirrors and ignoring economic realities.

There is an economic theory that is relevant to this discussion… it is called the neutrality of money. I believe it was Milton Friedman who coined the term. This theory states that money is neutral to an economy, in that if the amount is increased, prices will rise in accordance to the increase, and long term economic output will remain unchanged. For example, if an economy is at full utilization of it’s resources, a state called equilibrium, and more money is added to the economy, after the initial economic disruption caused by the “helicopter drop of money,” the economy will return to equilibrium, and the only change will be inflation.

In the short term, the printed currency might cause people to spend the additional money, thus driving up demand and economic output. This “stimulus” if you will, is a short term phenomenon however. The short term “stimulus” of added money, is undermined if people expect higher inflation, or put another way, they anticipate what the FED is doing. People aren’t stupid, they will horde the extra money, in “anticipation” of the higher inflation that will inevitably result.

We see inflationary pressure in QE1 and QE2, in the dramatic rise in commodity prices, that resulted from these FED actions. Operation TWIST, the FED buying long term assets to drive down long term interest rates, didn’t have nearly the same asset price inflation as Quantitative easing did, (printing money). This may be because the rate of anticipation was higher, the global economy had dropped so low it was irrelevant and the risk aversion of people, (in this case small businesses), had dropped so low, the cheap money wasn’t taken advantage of, or perhaps due to people’s assumption of a negative economic future.

People in government, the media and economics, are reluctant to blame Obama, or the democrat’s policies, for the anemic economic recovery, even though the FED has done more to “stimulate” the economy in this recession than at any other time in history. Interest rates are at historic lows and the US Dollar has lost 40% of it’s value in the last decade. According to the Keynesian… this should result in an extremely fast economic rebound. That this hasn’t happened is, at least anecdotal evidence, that monetary policy has minimum ability to raise economic outcomes.

In fact, in 1920 the US economy was in a deep recession, perhaps even deeper than the “Great recession.” At that time Warren Harding committed the greatest of economic sins, he cut spending, cut regulation and cut taxes! While at the same time, the FED raised interest rates, (destroyed money), possibly to undermine Harding’s reforms. The result was staggering, the Roaring Twenties happened. Possibly the fastest rate of economic expansion the US has ever experienced. If we examine this period in US economic history, as well as the Reagan years of fast economic expansion, the effect of the FED to use contractionary monetary policy, to effect growth in the economy, pales in comparison to the ability of the executive to expand it.

The firestorm that Nial Ferguson has come under, for even hinting that Obama’s economic policies have anything to do with our miserable economic rebound, is clear evidence there is a price to pay for telling the truth. There are some people calling for the tenured professor to loose his tenure and his job. The reaction from the eggheads in academia, is more telling of their political position on the matter, than any real statement on economics. This might explain why so few economists are willing to point out that it may very well be, Obama’s vilifying of businessmen, his draconian regulation, his constant push to increase taxes, blatant partisanship, his out of control spending, his gutting of Medicare to fund Obama care or his overreaching Constitutional bounds, that has been such a drag on our recovery. The economic malaise we are experiencing, despite the historic exertions of the FED, are entirely due to factors outside the control of the FED.

The results of the FED’s actions will inevitably lead to runaway inflation… as economic theory says it will. The continuing printing of money by the FED, and now potentially the ECB, will end up damaging the ability of people, the world over to have real economic growth. Bernanke will go down in history as a villain, even though he was instrumental in saving the World from economic collapse, in 2008. The exchange rate of the World’s currencies will be forever reset, The World will go into a great recession and China’s economic miracle will be crushed by the resulting tsunami of worthless dollars… All so that Nobel laureate Obama can escape the blame for his actions. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Evil’s Intolerance of Good and Good’s Tolerance of Evil

Sunday, August 26th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that evil is intolerant of good, and good tolerates evil, at it’s own peril. The intolerance of those that seek socialism is an example of evil’s intolerance, and the tolerance of good people to the lowering of the culture, is an example of tolerance that endangers good. Our culture is art war with itself in this regard. Forces vie to destroy the foundational attributes of our society and government while the good, who are constantly called intolerant by evil, keep quiet this in the name of diversity. Yet those that claim the mantle of diversity are the least tolerant of real diversity. Our society, culture and liberties are in peril due to this dichotomy in thinking.

The culture of the US and Europe is getting lowered daily. We are bombarded with negative messages. Some are obvious, like when television shows idolize indolence, promiscuity, drug use and criminal behavior, while others are less obvious, such as when movies make the villain the hero. These cultural messages all have the same thing in common… they lower the virtues of the people who consume them.

Abortion is a sacrament of evil. We are told that if we have a problem with the evil that is abortion we are intolerant. Spurious arguments are used constantly to shut us up. Some of the sophist arguments include, I would rather a baby be aborted than be abused. If this is true, then the person making this argument should commit suicide immediately, else they may someday be abused. In cases of rape and incest, as if these things are so rampant in our society, they justify millions of on demand abortions a year. It is the woman’s right to choose, yet these same people don’t believe we have the right to choose, how much soda we drink, what to do with our trash, how dirty out cars are allowed to be, how many windows should be in our homes, what kind of car we should drive, what we should eat or what we must and must not teach our children. The hypocrisy of this argument is blatant if you merely look for it. Abortion is really about the lowering of our consideration for human life.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights but has everything to do with further lowering the value people have for marriage. The ancient Greeks engaged in homosexual behavior as a matter of daily occurrence. Sparta encoded it in their very laws. Alcibiades met Socrates through homosexual intercourse… yet they didn’t have gay marriage. Are we to assume the ancient Greeks were homophobes? Marriage is, and has always been, about the procreation of children. Society has a vested interest in the continuation of the species. Marriage is the way society and government recognize this reality. Gay marriage is a way to convince us that marriage, and all that is good… come from government.

The work ethic has been so diminished, that many people especially younger people, are incapable of engaging in the market system. Rampant drug use and persistently high youth unemployment creates people who cannot hold a job. People who are addicted to opioid drugs cannot function without them, and when they are inebriated, they cannot operate anything safely. Those who go years and years without getting up in the morning and going to work, become unable to subjugate their emotions, they have no self control, to take orders from an employer. Our culture and regulation have created an entire generation that are increasingly unable to hold down a job. That is not to say that there are not youths who are hard workers and will do well, it is to say that the evil incentives in our society, are ruining the ability of more and more people to be productive and live successful lives.

As our culture is diminished the power of government must grow. Machiavelli said, a corrupt people cannot be free. He meant that in a corrupt society, business cannot go on. Your shop will be broken into constantly, your person is not safe, your children are not safe, your home is not safe and you cannot trust anyone you do business with. In such a society, tyranny is the order of the day, because everyone will turn to the oppressor who claims he will keep you safe. But, as Ben Franklin said, he who gives up liberty for safety will get neither.

We continue to tolerate evil in our midst at our and ours children’s peril. The negative consequences of our tolerance are there for anyone to see. We merely have to open our eyes to it. Evil finds good absolutely intolerable however. Look at the vitriolic ways they characterize good. Anyone who finds abortion objectionable is called a murderer of abortion doctors, those of us who are against gay marriage are called homophobes, those of us who seek a free market, are said to be uncaring for the plight of the poor, those of us who look to God for guidance, have the most vitriol heaped on us… and anyone who calls attention to this, is labeled a hatemonger. It is obvious, that evil is intolerant of good, but good tolerates evil not only at our own peril, but to continue to do so and not call evil what it is, threatens the very society we live in. Those that are the proponents of evil are fearless, we must be equally as fearless in our response, else we cede the World to malevolence, intolerance and poverty.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Road to Ruin

Thursday, August 23rd, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when anyone gets on US route 1 south, they will always eventually end up in Key West. No matter where you get on, headed south, the end of the road is always Key West. This is a fundamental fact. Unless a person traveling south on US Route 1, changes direction, they will always end up in the same place. This fact holds true no matter where a person gets on, who is driving, what car we take or how fast a person is going. The entire science of cartography is based on this simple to understand concept. There is not one among us who would argue differently, when it comes to a road… but many seem to be ignorant of this fact when it comes to politics and economics.

History is one means of determining where a road leads. We can look at the history of where a given economic or political road leads. If those who have traveled that road in the past, and present, end up at a certain destination, we can reliably say that we will end up in the same destination, if we travel that same road. Even if that road is taken a million times it will always lead to the same destination. A road always leads to the same place.

Road maps are another way to determine where a given road leads… without going to the end and finding what the destination actually is. Economists have regaled us with various road maps that show where various economic roads lead. Political scientists have written millions of pages mapping political paths and destinations. Some go to temperate locals where jobs are plentiful and freedom is rife. Other roads lead to the oppressive heat of famine and oppression. There are many maps available to consult as to what destination each path leads.

If we change the name of the road it will still lead to the same place. We could change the name of US Route 1 to Happiness Highway, but if we get on and travel south, we will still end up in Key West. Even if we changed the name of the island to Liberty Land, we will still land in the same place, only with a different name. The moniker we ascribe to a place does not change the nature of that place or even our perception of it… only what we call it.

If we seek to go to a destination it is counter productive to go in a direction that is opposite that place. If we want to go to Fort Kent Maine, no matter how many times we go south on route 1, we will not end up in Fort Kent. In the same manner, if we take the road to a command and control economy, we will end up with a command and control economy, with all the negative consequences of that choice. To believe that the road to Marxist economics will lead somehow to freedom and prosperity is delusion. Just as taking US Route 1 south will always lead away from Fort Kent and to Key West. If we seek a destination, that is the opposite of communism, then we must take that route. There is no other logical option.

The road to communism is the path of distributive justice by political favor. As we go further down that road, we inevitably get closer to a destination where all the goods of society, are distributed by the state, and therefore by political favor. Now, there are some people, who want to land in communist ville… but to say that taking the road to communism will lead to more freedom and a better economy, and not famine and tyranny, is sophistry at best. If we want to reach prosperity and liberty, we must take the road that history and maps say will lead there… The US Constitution for example.

The road to prosperity begins with less regulation, less taxation and most importantly less government spending. If someone claims that road will lead to poverty and want they are lying to you. Just as if they claimed that US Route 1 south leads to Fort Kent Maine. It is a preposterous statement that we will instantly recognize, if it were applied to US Route 1, but many people have no sense of direction in economics and politics, as well as geography. They can be convinced that the road to prosperity is more regulation, more government spending and less individual freedom. It is an unfortunate fact of life. Those people will get us lost every time they take the wheel. Too bad they seek, more often than not, to be our navigators. Perhaps we can get a competent driver before we get to a destination we fear most.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Faction in the Modern World

Monday, August 20th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that faction is a bigger threat to our Constitutional republic today than at any time in our history. That is a pretty big statement, considering that we have fought a Civil War, as atonement for the evil of slavery, and all the other times faction has threatened our liberties. The threat of faction has been known and understood since Madison wrote Federalist Paper #10. That faction is a bigger threat today, speaks more about the characteristic of faction in modern society, than the nature of faction as a whole. If I am correct, and faction poses a greater threat to our freedoms and the liberties of our children than at any other time in American history, we must all wake up and address this threat, else we will leave our children a far worse state of affairs, than our parents did us.

In Federalist paper #10 Madison wrote that faction is the biggest threat to a republic. Faction, being like fire and liberty being like oxygen, the way to control faction is not to starve it of oxygen, (liberty) but to pit faction against faction. I am of course paraphrasing his words but the meaning is correct. By pitting faction against faction his theory, and the theory of the US Constitution, is that if faction is always fighting turf wars, no one faction can grow sufficiently large to take over the apparatus of the State. Madison warned that if some faction gained total control of two of the branches of government then our liberty would be threatened. He was adamant about this.

One of the bulwarks against this happening is the free press enjoyed in the US. The free press being able to point out when any single faction in society is becoming too large. A free press was considered one of the controls on the predilection of the Elite to usurp power. This control has worked sometimes better, sometimes worse, but all in all it has been a moderately sufficient safeguard in the past. Today however, we have a media that calls itself unbiased, yet they have a demonstrable bias toward a single faction, showing absolute contempt for our intelligence. This faction was briefly in charge of all three branches of government and still has hegemony over two. The Executive and the Judicial. Control of the Legislative branch is tenuously limited, by the inclusion of a few that are not in that faction, but they are incessantly vilified by the unbiased press for it.

The two party system was another protection against the vicissitudes of faction. If there are only two parties, then all factions must squeeze into one or the other party, thus limiting their overall power. Various factions would have to commingle within each party in order to have some seat at the table. The two party system worked well throughout most of our history but recently has become an impediment due to the pernicious nature of the one faction. This faction has penetrated both parties. The democrat party is under total control of this faction and the Elite in the republican party are loyal to this faction as well. There is only a small minority, growing to be sure, but nevertheless a small faction within the republican party that resists the advance of these people.

Joesph Schumpeter said that free markets and liberty cannot long last. His dire prediction was based on the fact that, once a person becomes wealthy their first order of business is to close the door behind them, so that no one else can pass through the portal to wealth, they did. This doesn’t make the rich bad… it makes them human. The means to this end being ever increasing regulation. As Milton Friedman said, when a business man is confronted with a superior competitor he has two options, the first is to ramp up his business to effectively compete and the other is to turn to government and regulate the competitor away. It is the responsibility of the electorate to control the avarice of the wealthy by the popular vote.

Now we have one faction that seeks to regulate the people while resisting the most basic controls on their actions. They use populist rhetoric to convince us that they work in our best interests, but even a cursory knowledge of human nature shows, this is mere folly. No one works against their own interests. Those very few that have, are given the attribution… Saints and the Christ. To believe that people who seek to control us with arbitrary power, only seek the interests of society, eschewing their own is blindness. The progressive faction is nearing their complete victory over our Constitutional republic, destroying their mortal enemy, the free market and imposing arbitrary rule on us and our children.

All is not lost however. We still have suffrage and the unconventional media. This blog being an example. We can use that power given to us by the Founding Fathers and turn the tide, for at best a few more years, or we can stand aside and allow the demise of our republic, and with it, our liberty, opportunity and safety. It is up to us to be rational maximizers, to stand in the way of the progressive agenda, for the sake of those we love most, or, we can accept the part of useful idiot. I for one, have no interest in being a useful idiot and ceding our republic to a single faction, no matter how flowery their rhetoric… Do you?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Extreme and It’s Meaning

Thursday, August 16th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the term extreme is tossed around constantly in our political conversation today. Since it is impossible to communicate, unless those who are party to the conversation understand what each word that is used means, I thought I would make an attempt to explain the usage and definition of the word. Witness two people trying to understand each other when each speaks a different language. There is no mutual understanding possible. Since politics has become such an important factor in the lives of people today, with every aspect of our lives put to the test of political favor, it is imperative we understand each other, especially in the arena of politics, else we run the risk of making a drastic mistake in our vote, due to a failure to communicate.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines “extreme” as, 1. Outermost or farthest; most remote. 2. Final; last. 3. Very great; intense. 4. To the utmost degree; radical. 5. Drastic; severe… when used as an adjective. So apparently extreme, is not in the middle, not common, not regularly found, not ordinary and not standard. We will take this definition of what extreme is and what it is not.

Since we all see the World, to some extent, from Francis Bacon’s cave… When politicians define this or that as extreme, what they are really saying is that the position, actions or intention described, is uncommon, rare or strange… to them. This seems obvious given our working understanding of the term extreme. But what is most utile to our understanding, is that when a politician defines a thing as extreme, he or she is actually referring to his or her own positions, actions and intentions… as compared to the subject. In other words, if a person calls another person, place or thing, extreme, they are basically saying that it, is extreme compared to their perception of what is ordinary, regularly found in society and common standards.

What has been called extreme? The Obama administration has called people who hold the American Constitution in high regard… extreme. In fact, his administration is so concerned, they have warned that these people might engage in domestic terrorism. To him adhering to the US Constitution is extreme. Therefore he finds the US Constitution, anomalous, strange, and not generally respected.

His administration has also called any cutting of the US budget to balance it… extreme. So he believes that any real attempt to actually balance a government budget, strange, drastic, severe and not a common position to take. Obama’s supporters opine that the Family resource Center is an extreme organization. Therefore they find the nuclear family an anachronism, not common and rare. He has claimed the Israeli government is extreme. So apparently he is of the opinion that for Israel to protect it’s citizens, is a rare event, one that is uncommon and not standard practice.

What and who Obama doesn’t give the definition of extreme to, is telling of his real intentions, policies and actions. Obama doesn’t call Hugo Chavez extreme. As we know Hugo is an avowed communist and seeks to move Venezuela to a Marxist government. Therefore Obama believes that to move a country from a democratic republic to a communist tyranny is common, not rare, standard and middle of the road. Obama has not called the Muslim brotherhood extreme. So he must think that their positions and actions, like sharia law, denying Christians suffrage and the right to hold political office, stoning women to death, Dhimmi status of non Muslims, that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist and all the other positions the Muslim Brotherhood hold, are common, not out of the mainstream, and ordinary, to him.

What it all boils down to, is that when a politician or organization uses the term extreme, it is more about the positions, actions and intentions of the speaker… than the subject. If a politician, for example, calls something that is common, ordinary, standard and what is generally thought… extreme, he or she is actually saying, their own positions, actions and intentions… are extreme. Just as if they refuse to call something extreme, that is actually uncommon, rare, and out of the ordinary… shows that they consider that thing common, ordinary and standard. For us to communicate intelligently, we must understand the language and meanings of the words chosen and used, especially a descriptor like the term… extreme.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Tyranny and so called Freedom Fighters

Monday, August 13th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, to believe that because a group of people are fighting to overthrow a tyrant, they must want to establish a liberal democratic republic, is ignorant. History shows, more often than not, the group trying to overthrow a dictator… simply want to be the dictator. To immediately come to the conclusion, that anyone who fights against a tyrant is a freedom fighter, is at best, merely projection on the part of the speaker. To constantly reach the wrong conclusion, about the motivations of those that rise up to take power, shows ignorance of human nature, or some form of duplicity. The last thing we need in our media, leaders and intelligentsia is more fraudulence. The World is too full of it now.

This is not a new phenomenon. After WWII many Americans, especially those in the halls of academia, were ecstatic that Chiang Kai Shek was overthrown by Mao. They proclaimed that a new day in China was dawning. Indeed it was. Mao ushered in a period of repression, famine, and terror that has few, if any, precedents in human history. His purges murdered millions as did his fabricated political famines. Now the heirs to Mao foist a one child policy on the Chinese people. A policy that has led to the forced abortions of 400 million babies. All while Chiang Kai Shek escaped to Taiwan and established a liberal democracy. The Taiwan republic is a virtual copy of the American Constitutional republican system. The Taiwanese people live under limited government.

When the uprisings in the Arab World started, Obama likened the guy who set himself on fire in Tunisia, to Rosa Parks. Obama supported the nascent rebellions wholeheartedly. (Except the one in Iran). The people went into the streets and protested their oppressors. When that didn’t work in Libya, Obama and the leaders of the European Union, backed up the armed rebellion with air power. Three tyrants were overthrown and democratic elections were implemented. As we all know now, there wasn’t liberal republics established… instead Islamofascists came to power. The Christian communities in those countries are now in great peril as is the Egyptian Israeli peace accord. History repeats again.

When Lenin usurped power he was hailed a man of the people by Western intellectuals. The encyclopedias were filled with glowing stories about the freedom and high standard of living in the USSR. The rights and privileges afforded the people under the Soviet Constitution were expounded on incessantly. The unbiased media proclaimed that the Soviet model was the wave of the future, and that the US should give up our outmoded Constitution, a charter of negative liberties, and replace it with a more forward thinking document… like the Soviet one. Of course, now that the history is open for anyone to see, it is clear that the glowing editorials and encyclopedia entries, were foolishness at best and complicit at worst. Tens of millions murdered in the name of politics, Industrialized famine, and absolute repression were the norms in the former USSR.

To conclude, as a knee jerk reaction, that everyone who fights a tyrant is a freedom fighter, is to show absolute ignorance of history and the human condition. Such ignorance is not becoming of a leader. It demonstrates a lack of wisdom of a leader who is so easily swayed by pretty baubles. People who have such leaders are at sea, with a fool at the rudder… subject to any shoal that comes along.

Unfortunately we are burdened with such leaders in the West. They call everyone who rises up against a dictator, a freedom fighter, and when their predictions are proven wrong, they ignore the facts and make the same mistake again. Look at their reaction to the uprisings in Syria.

The defenders of our Constitution, opine how the “new democracies” should ignore the American Constitutional model, and instead, take the path of China or South Africa. They love the fact that in China only one person makes all the decisions. How efficient they exclaim! Look at the glistening airports and high speed rail! Behold the rapid economic growth of the State controlled economy. Look at the efficiency of the socialist model… Forget the history of it… or the reality. The ignorance, or fraudulence, of our leaders is boundless! The unbiased media remain silent about history, and reality… hoping we will forget the past and present folly of our leaders. Yet we forget at our peril.

To call our leaders fools is to be generous to them. For, if they are not fools, they are duplicitous and cannot be trusted. If they, in fact, seek more violence, want, and repression in the World, then they are evil. To be evil disqualifies anyone from being a leader of men. It is self evident in that such a leader will only visit calamity on his or her people… and the World. God knows, we have had enough of that.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Lies, Politicians and Self Interest

Thursday, August 9th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that everybody lies. Some people lie occasionally to spare the feelings of others, some lie to make themselves seem bigger than they are, some folks lie when the truth would serve them better… but the worst are people who lie to deceive others into doing damage to their self interests. Con men, scammers and politicians fall into this category. These are the people who pose the greatest threat to humanity and our future.

Lying to get others to support your self interests, at the cost to the self interests of others, is the currency of politicians who seek to be tyrants. In this the quintessential political liars are Islamofascists. They convince a young person, who is essentially good, looking to win favor from God, that the way to heaven is to commit multiple mortal sins, in God’s name. They lie to get these innocents to spend their lives and souls to propel the islamofascists into greater and greater political power, which he will then use to oppress others. The victims of the lies, are the suicide bombers who give up their immortal souls, so someone else can have worldly power over others, as well as the bombing victims themselves. Temporal power the islamofascist will misuse, as a means of satisfying their avarice, sexual lust, and their thirst for power over others.

The Islamofascists is not the only politician, who uses lies to get others to damage their self interest, to enhance the interests of the liar. We see this played out by Marxists throughout the history of communism and we also see this paradigm in play today around the World by various political leaders.

When a person or political party is caught lying once, it is generally forgiven, due to the fact it is human nature to occasionally lie. When a person or party lies constantly, in ever more preposterous ways, the wise person disregards everything the proven liar says. We see this in polls regarding the trust people in America have for those “journalists” who call themselves unbiased. They have so destroyed their credibility, that more people believe that aliens have landed on Earth, or that America never landed on the moon, than believe the unbiased media today. Their constant lying by, half truths, omissions and utter fabrications have destroyed their credibility.

In the US Presidential race we see this same thing happening. The Obama administration and their allies are engaging in ever more absurd lies to discredit Romney. One day Romney is a bully, the next he is a wimp, a week later he doesn’t pay taxes and now he is a murderer. The lies become more and more ludicrous every day. The unbiased press pick up the lies and run with them… further discrediting their brands. The US voter will, sooner or later, be so disgusted that we will exclaim our utter revulsion at the constant lies. As the lies get more shrill and insane the American people, and people around the World, will wake up to who and what those that make such absurd claims… really are and what they truly seek.

It is only common sense, that we do not listen to the incorrigible liar, especially if he is a politician. Because when a politician lies as a matter of course it is always because he has malevolent motives. Maybe to hide some defect in their character, perhaps to misdirect us from the results of their policies, or most dangerously, it is to trick us into doing profound damage to our self interests. No matter the reason, we can reliably tell that when a politician or political party engage in such tactics, they have put their own self interests above ours and the nation as a whole. Wise people protect their self interests, and don’t fall into traps set by disingenuous politicians, like the Islamofascists and others with similar agendas. But, there will always be a segment of the population that believe George Bush dynamited the levees in New Orleans and personally demolished the World trade center. Those people are beyond hope and willingly strap on the explosive vest, walk into a school… and trigger it. It is up to the rest of us to see that they don’t.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Hate, Envy and Intolerance

Monday, August 6th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the progressive’s passion for power has reduced them to embracing hate, intolerance and envy, as the entirety of their being. This is the preferred bait the progressives, in both the democrat and republican parties, use to ensnare us. Most people don’t think these are very attractive attributes, but the American left is so full of anger and loathing, they cannot see themselves with any perspective whatsoever. The application of hate to politics, while eschewing love and tolerance, and calling the tolerant, hatemongers, is the highest form of hypocrisy. This bodes poorly for the US and the World if the hate filled, intolerant and envious progressives hold power much longer.

Intolerance was on display in Chick Fil A. The progressives can not tolerate a different perspective. When the owner of the franchise said he is in favor of traditional marriage the progressives went into an intolerant hate filled rage. To accept traditional marriage is a reasonable stance to take but is unacceptable to the progressive politicians and media. They called for boycotts of the stores and their rhetoric became as vitriolic as it was irrational. Their intolerance of other points of view oozed to the surface like algal slime from the bottom of an anaerobic pond.

The American left show their hatred for the American Constitution daily. From Obama claiming the Constitution is flawed because it is a charter of negative liberties, to Diane Feinstein’s assertion that Our Constitution gives government unlimited power, they show their loathing for Our Constitution in their words, actions and rhetoric. But their hate doesn’t stop there.

The American left despises Christianity, limited government, freedom to become wealthy, unborn children, traditional marriage, capitalism, SUVs, freedom of thought, freedom of moral expression, the list goes on and on. They are happy to describe their hatred for you… just ask. What is it about a cross on a hill, the progressives find so obnoxious that they spend so much time, money and political capital eliminating? If you are that intolerant of a silent reminder, far from the beaten path, to those that died in the First World War, protecting your right to say and believe what you want, maybe you should do a little introspection and find out why you are so filled with hate and intolerance.

Envy is a powerful emotion and it is used daily by the progressives. Their constant drumbeat of class warfare shows, not only their attachment to envy, but also highlights their intolerance and hate. The Elite progressives are universally richer than rich, but they vilify wealth, as though every wealthy person got his or her money from genetics, political corruption or gambling/prostitution… like they did. They call people who have met some need of their customers and society evil and call for confiscatory tax rates be applied to others. But… when a rich guy stands in front of me, and claims he wants to hurt the rich, I know I am being lied to. To do that he or she must injure themselves and they are far too selfish to ever do that.

They achieve the highest reaches of insanity when they make baseless attacks on Romney’s taxes. Harry Reid made the libelous statement on the floor of the Senate that Romney hadn’t paid any taxes for ten years! This kind of personal baseless attack, is the epitome of hatred… and envy. Reid sought, by his libelous attack, to make the American people envious and hate Romney… like Reid does. But the truth is, Romney did something productive to get his wealth, Reid made his fortune from political corruption, gambling and prostitution… like the mafia. If anyone should be wary of casting dispersions it should be Harry Reid. They claim it is openness that the progressives seek, if that is so, then what about Obama’s college records? Who paid for those expensive universities? What were the grades of the smartest man in history? But, it is plain that openness is not what the left seeks, they seek hatred of their foes, envy of the wealth of producers, and entrenched intolerance of any view they do not hold.

These are just a very few examples of how the American left show their profound hate, intolerance and envy. They attack that which has made the US the most productive and wealthy nation in World history. The human race is far better off that free market capitalism has been allowed to flourish here. They would allow their hatred to get in the way of future human progress, in fact, the progressives actually seek to return us to the days of serfdom. They seek the destruction of the freedoms the US Constitution provide, not only to American citizens, but by providing an example to the World, humanity as a whole. The progressives intolerance displays the true weakness of their arguments. Hatred, intolerance and envy are powerful emotions and have the ability to motivate mankind to do profound damage to our self interests. The real question is, will we take the bait and be fried for supper, or, being rational maximizers, will we spit out the hook, and keep swimming in the waters of freedom for a little longer? I guess it depends if we have love and tolerance in our hearts, or seethe with hate, envy and intolerance like them.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Gun Control

Thursday, August 2nd, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, those who call for gun control, have very different intentions than they claim. They understand that the very word, gun, has emotional meaning to most people. Guns have been glamorized in movies, demonized in the unbiased media and they have been used by the most violent regimes in human history, to visit the worst atrocities on mankind yet. Guns emotional impact is the theme that rhetoricians use, to get us to fall for their sophistry. The fact that guns are legalized in the US Constitution, is a matter of great concern to those who wish to overturn that Constitution, for a new paradigm of government… arbitrary rule. That guns must be eliminated from our society, as a precondition of their utopian world view, and that they use spurious arguments based on emotion… should be a matter of great concern to all of us.

Guns are simply tools. They are used for hunting wildlife, for target shooting, as a means of self defense, in military combat, and they are used to commit crimes. This tool, we call a gun, is a very useful tool in the hands of righteous people, and a tool of villainy in the hands of sociopaths. This last use is the one the banners of guns use, as an emotional wedge, to pry guns from the hands of the just.

The people who wish to disarm the general public, use the rhetorical tool of taking an isolated incident, and acting as if it were a regular occurrence. The Columbine shooting for instance. Whenever we have a terrible act of violence, by a sociopath against innocent people, the call goes out to ban this or that gun, or gun accessory. The fear mongers claim that if only guns were harder to get this wouldn’t happen. Yet when Australia banned guns… gun violence went up drastically.

The real question is not, why did this happen, but, why doesn’t this happen more often? If, as they claim, the accessibility of guns makes people go shoot up random strangers, and given the ubiquitous availability of guns in the US, then why don’t shootings like Aurora Colorado happen every day? If their logic were true… we should be reading about a random act of violence several times a day. The fact that this isn’t so should give us pause as to the veracity of their claim.

In fact, there is empirical evidence that where guns are the most controlled there is the most gun violence. This seemingly counter intuitive situation points to a fact of human nature. Those who commit violent acts, are more often than not, cowards. They only use violence when they have a monopoly on it. They will not use violence when there is a very real possibility of being harmed in the process. But, where guns are banned… the criminal’s monopoly on violence is assured. That is why shooters like James Holmes wore a bullet proof vest. Because he is a sociopathic coward; a poltroon of the highest order.

Those that seek to disarm the honest, claim that the Right to keep and bear arms is a dangerous right, and as such, it should be limited. But that is a very slippery slope to leap onto. If we accept the premise that if a Right is dangerous, it should be limited, then what about the right to free speech? Historically the Right to free speech is far more dangerous than the Right to own firearms.

Two examples should suffice to make the point. The first is the Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx and Fredrick Engels. This one small pamphlet has led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people since it was written. The second example is Hitler’s Mein Kampf. This autobiography led to the Second World War and sixty million people dead. It is plain to anyone with open eyes, that the Right to free speech is far more dangerous, then the Right to keep and bear arms. To ban the one leads naturally to banning the other.

The banning of firearms in Germany under Adolph Hitler was instrumental in the murdering of six million Jews by Zyklon B in the death camps. The Nazis could not have murdered people on an industrial scale if those people were armed. Cowards only pick on people unable to defend themselves. Stalin also disarmed his people before he imposed political famine. Stalin’s famines starved to death millions of people in the former USSR. The Ukraine was the hardest hit, but famine was a favorite tool of Stalin, and his brothers in communism, to turn people away from God… and to arbitrary rule.

As we have shown, the arguments against the ownership of guns… are universally spurious. To knowingly make a specious argument, that will inevitably lead to the exact opposite result that you claim to want, is a purely malicious attempt to subvert the Rights of Man. That some people do this shows their motives are anything but sincere. We must ask ourselves, If they knowingly lie to us in this big thing… can we trust them in anything? The answer is absolutely no!

Sincerely,

John Pepin