Archive for February, 2013

The Frog and the Scorpion

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… those in the unbiased media should take heed of the old story about the frog and the scorpion. To forget this old adage will result in the painful death of the unbiased press and the drowning of their passenger… If you don’t remember the story I’ll retell it here.

There once was a scorpion who wanted to cross a pond. He couldn’t swim so he asked a passing frog for a ride across. The frog responded, “I cannot take you, you are a scorpion and will sting me.” The scorpion replied, “I cannot swim so if I do, I will drown, so you see, you can safely carry me across and I will be in your debt.” The frog considered this for a bit and thought, “It would be nice to have such a powerful friend.” So the frog accepted the job. The scorpion jumped on the frog’s back and they headed off across the pond. A wave came. This alarmed the scorpion so it stung the frog. In pain and despair the frog turned to the scorpion and said, “Now we are both doomed! Why did you sting me?” The scorpion said, “I am a scorpion it is my nature.”

To parse this story, the unbiased media is the frog, the scorpion is any political leader who seeks arbitrary power, the pond is public opinion and the other side is absolute power. The unbiased media carry the political leader across the water of public opinion so the political leader can have absolute power. The media figure that if they help this leader they will enjoy the favor of a person with arbitrary power. All they have to do is carry that politician over the barrier of public opinion for that political favor. Inevitably the tide of public opinion will create waves that alarm the potential tyrant. The politician will then sting the media with the power he or she has amassed, drowning him or herself in the depths of public opinion, and poisoning the media forever.

We see this daily by those that claim the mantle of unbiased arbiters of information. CBS fabricated documents out of thin air, then reported them as fact, only days before a close election. This is an example of the unbiased media carrying a scorpion across the tide of public opinion. In the case of CBS, it was a blogger who pointed out that the font that CBS used in their fictional account, was not even invented when the document was supposedly created. The journey was stopped before it began.

This same paradox was played out when Newt Gingrich balanced the US budget for the first time in generations. His efforts were roundly criticized by the unbiased media and attacked by Bill Clinton. CNN called Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” the Contract ON America! When the republicans had done the heavy lifting, limiting spending and actually balanced the budget, Bill Clinton got the credit and Newt Gingrich was charged with a crime. (Teaching a conservative biased class in college). The unbiased press to this day only mention Clinton when talking about the balanced budget and omit any reference to Gingrich.

Today the unbiased media continue this folly by misrepresenting the sequester debate. In doing so they carry Obama over the waters of public opinion. Universally among the unbiased press, they claim the cuts will be draconian, and will result in chaos. They tell the story Obama wants told, dutifully blaming republicans for any negative outcomes, while crediting Obama with any positive results. The unbiased media never call Obama out even when his rhetoric is obviously fallacious. Like when Obama claimed that police, firefighters and teachers will be laid off due to the “drastic cuts,” when these public employees are locally paid and not funded by the federal government. The unbiased press go along like lap dogs, as Obama claims he had nothing to do with the sequester, even though it was Obama’s idea. The unbiased media even follow the party line that the sequester is a cut, when in fact, the government will spend 15 billion dollars MORE this year than last! They eschew facts and the truth to carry the politician who openly seeks arbitrary power across the pond of public opinion.

On the surface it would seem that the frog has been ferrying the politician who seeks arbitrary power without worry or fear. This is an illusion however, because the scorpion hasn’t reached the middle of the pond, where waves are the most alarming. As the unbiased media bring Obama ever closer to the shore of absolute power the waves of public opinion will inevitably grow higher. The ego of Obama will grow and eventually he will turn on the very people who made it possible. Just as Stalin, Hitler and every other politician who sought arbitrary power has done. Those in the unbiased media will be arrested and purged for whatever slight the dear leader finds offensive.

The reason this is so is the nature of arbitrary power. Those that seek it are scorpions in the truest sense of the word. The closer they get to the other shore, the more impatient they get, and the more fearful of coming short of their goal they become. It is at that time they are most dangerous. Some wave will alarm Obama and the unbiased media will feel the poison of censorship fill their veins. The would be tyrant should take heed as well. His very nature will undermine his goal. Once his nature does come out, and he stings the foolish unbiased press, he will drown in the tide of public opinion, washing up on the shores of history as flotsam, along with other failed socialist dictators, like Pol Pot. People are loathe to remember history… and another frog will fall victim to another scorpion. It is the nature of frogs.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Violence in Society Gun and Otherwise

Monday, February 25th, 2013

Dear Friends,

I wonder what form of violence is worse then all the others? It appears that our political elite have made the decision that gun violence is far worse than all the others combined. Our government and a large portion of the American electorate are willing to throw the Constitution under the bus to limit gun violence by a few percentage points. Even though statistics show that where guns are outlawed violent crime skyrockets. Gun crime does go down however. Leading to the inevitable conclusion, that the political elite are willing for more violence in our society, to limit the violence of guns. If you are willing to trade your Constitutional protections, for a more violent society where you have no right to defend yourself, so that a very few percentage points of gun violence can be shaved off, this is probably not the blog for you. Continue trusting those who have proven themselves untrustworthy over and over…

There is an old saying, there are three kinds of liars, white liars who will lie to you so you can save face, bold face liars who lie when the truth would serve them better, and statisticians. Australia enacted a gun ban back in 1997. Since then the incidence of gun crime has gone down. The unbiased media exclaim this as if it were the end of the story. Too bad life isn’t that simple. The reality is, while there was a statistical decrease in gun related violence, violent crime went up over 40%! Britain experienced similar results. Their gun ban lowered gun crime but all other forms of violent crime went up drastically. Moreover, some of that decrease in gun violence almost certainly came about do to people not defending themselves with a gun, and instead were violated in some way.

Statistics about gun crime include homeowners defending themselves and their loved ones with guns. The home owner who protects his family with a gun is lumped into the same statistic as a maniac shooting up a school. Disarmed people who can no longer defend their homes from criminals, form some portion of the drop in gun violence in countries, that have outlawed self defense with a gun. Britain has gone over the deep end on this, even charging people who survive a murder attempt by brandishing a shotgun, with a crime. Apparently the British political elite believe it is the duty of a British citizen to die at the hands of an attacker. To promote attacks I suppose?

I ask you, is gun violence worse, the same or better, than other forms of violence? We have established that where guns are outlawed, gun violence decreases, but other forms of violent crimes increase dramatically. Therefore the real debate, (the one we are not engaging in), is whether or not gun crime is worse than other forms of violence. Is it better to be abducted, raped and murdered than to be shot? Is it better to be pulled apart by horses, (as Alexander did the Persian traitor), than to be shot? Would you rather your loved one be strangled, in his or her home by an intruder, than for them to potentially kill that intruder with a gun? Is it better to have your throat slit? The government, it would seem, is more interested in the attacker’s right to murder, rape and mutilate, than for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. The question has been answered by the political elite in the affirmative. They believe gun violence trumps all other forms of violence, and are willing to have more absolute violence, for a bit less gun violence.

The most often used murder weapon in the US is a box cutter. More people are killed by having their throat slit than being shot. Exponentially more children are killed every year on bicycles than are shot. So, taking these two things into account, if violence were the aim of our political elite, they would outlaw box cutters and bicycles. That they don’t is another indication that they believe that gun violence is far worse than any other way people are killed. Again, proving that the political elite are indifferent to violence, as long as it isn’t gun violence. The unbiased media in showing in gory detail, every time someone is murdered by a gun on the front page of every newspaper in the nation, while ignoring the many more times people prevent violence with a gun, show they agree with the political elite. Their rhetoric speaks louder then their words.

The debate continues however. Due to the intractability of the American people in wanting the right of self defense and in not having their Second Amendment protections taken away. The political elite as well unbiased media, agree that more violence in our society is a small price to pay, to shave a few points off gun violence. I suspect there is another motivation however. Perhaps the Elite in politics, culture and the media, have another agenda. To exchange more violence for less violence, would seem a poor trade, so for intelligent people to want to take that path, insinuates that there is something more at work here. If we agree that they probably don’t want more violence, but are willing to create the conditions where more violence in our society is inevitable, they must have something in mind other than what their rhetoric would indicate. Therefore, they must be lying about their intentions, there is no other logical conclusion that can be reached. Could it possible be, their real aim is our Constitutional protections, and if that is the case, are they working in our interests… or their own narrow personal interests? At our expense.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Economic Circadian Rhythms

Thursday, February 21st, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the boom bust cycles of all market economies, are like the sleep wake cycle of human beings, and all higher life forms. We must have times of rest, else we become less efficient, and an economy needs a rest period after a time of rapid expansion. Most people would agree that human beings need sleep but those same people are unaware that economies, being complex systems like us, need rest cycles as well. To ignore this fact, insures that our economy will under perform eternally, to our personal economic misfortune.

People can be forced to stay awake for days at a time. There are many ways to do this, drugs, cold water and electric shocks are but a few. As we are kept awake for longer and longer periods of time our performance diminishes. This is a scientifically proven fact. Methamphetamine is very good at keeping people awake, and it even boosts performance for a while, but the lack of a rest period eventually catches up, and we experience a crash. Human physiology is unbending in this… ask any doctor.

Many means have been devised to do away with the boom bust cycle of market economies. The federal Reserve was implemented under Woodrow Wilson to end recessions for all time. It has not only failed… it has failed miserably! The recessions under the federal reserve mechanism have been harsher and longer then they were before the federal reserve system was set up. But, as with all government programs, the more they fail the more permanent they become. Failure ensures longevity for bureaucracy.

Another means to stop recessions was proposed by Karl Marx. He claimed that socialism would end the boom bust cycle of the capitalist mode of production. This has had some success. Socialism has stopped the boom bust cycles in all countries that have fully implemented it. The drawback to this scheme, is that it eliminates the boom… and permanently enshrines the bust. Perpetual bust is not very effective at raising the standard of living of the average man and woman. It is far more effective at lowering the lot of the people and elevating the lot of those in power.

Once a market economy has seen a period of rapid growth, the new means of production, organization and products that come about in a period of expansion, need to be matured. These new ways of doing business drive the old ways into bankruptcy. Recession is a chance for the old ways to be destroyed and the new means entrenched. Schumpeter coined the term, “Creative Destruction” to describe this paradigm. In this concept, new more efficient ways of doing business have to be paid for, and the old ways have to be dismantled, for the next cycle to begin.

If there is not a time of rest for an economy, the old less efficient ways cannot be plowed under, in favor of newer more efficient means. In fact, the implementation of newer more efficient ways are hampered by those very programs, that seek to eliminate recession. It is usually during recession that new ideas are invented. New ideas that generate the next economic expansion.

History shows that whenever government is the most involved in the market outcomes are the most impaired. We can experimentally examine many people to prove that the sleep cycle must not be disturbed. Over time, examining many people, this has been empirically proven. However, there is only one economy in a country, and the fortunes of those people, who live in that country are tied to it, so experiments are less likely to yield clear results. Couple this with the pernicious interference of politics, politicians, bias and egoistic self interest by the elite… and unbiased empirical results are almost impossible to reach.

Our fortunes and the fortunes of our posterity are put at risk by the modern alchemy of eliminating economic cycles. No doctor would argue that the sleep cycle can be overcome, but economists, who are the doctors of economies, argue with a straight face that economies need not rest. The ways that have been tried to eliminate the need for economies to rest, like national banks and socialism, have yielded poor results, and in some cases, have led to human suffering on a scale that boggles the mind. Through creative destruction, economies grow, efficiency expands and the lives of people are improved. All the increases in efficiency, that have resulted from the evolution of economic systems, have resulted in magnificent improvements in the lot of Mankind. Since economies cannot be empirically tested, because of personal bias and political interference, it is nearly impossible to quantify the need for a recession after a period of growth. Understanding this leads us to the conclusion, to stop economic cycles of boom and bust, is as foolish as keeping a worker awake for months with drugs… and expecting his work not to be impaired. Foolishness is foolishness no matter who does it.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Obama’s Kill List

Monday, February 18th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, Obama’s new found ability to order American citizens killed without charge or trial, is not only a slippery slope, it is the beginning of the end for our republic. It is hard to fathom that anyone who has knowledge of the US Constitution wouldn’t be screaming to the highest heavens about this usurpation of our Constitutional rights. Obama drapes himself with the flag, the Constitution and uses jingoistic rhetoric, to destroy these very things! It is amazing how few people are upset by this, and possibly the reason we are rapidly loosing our liberty, to this progressively communistic administration. If you don’t care that your children will be slaves to the state, you should stop reading at this point, because I am sure dancing with the stars or Gilligan’s Island is on TV.

The US Constitution is adamant, that no single person has the power to order an American citizen killed, regardless of his or her actions. The most heinous criminal is given a trial. Even predators of children are given this most basic of Constitutional protections. The right to a jury trial is one of the basic building blocks of our republic. The removal of which threatens to destabilize the very structure of our government. No edifice can stand the removal of critical support members and our government is no different.

Usurpation always start at the extremes. Caesar didn’t announce himself dictator of Rome overnight. He built support among the masses by handing out money and food. Later Roman Emperors called the practice Bread and Games. The Roman republic rotted from the inside by the continued usurpation of the Elite. It eventually became so hollowed out by the corroding of it’s founding principles, the republic that had lasted almost a thousand years, collapsed into the dark ages. The whole of humanity suffered as a result. The hollowing out of the American founding principles will result in no less catastrophe for the peoples of the World tomorrow.

Every time a founding principle is undermined for expediency it becomes a slippery slope. Abortion couldn’t be passed by the legislative branch so the Judicial branch overstepped it’s legal bounds and unilaterally ordered it. (A usurpation in it’s own right). Abortion was originally only to be done in the first trimester of pregnancy, but over time, it has perniciously grown, so that today it can be legally done the day before birth! Not only that, but the US CDC has issued a paper calling for “afterbirth abortions,” up to a year old! The slide continues. Seat belt laws were originally sold as a secondary offense only but in almost every state they have become primary offenses. The political Elite always struggle against the bonds put on them by the Constitution, and we see all to well that the Elite have succeeded in creating a government, where we have the appearance of Constitutional limits but in reality, they are no more restraining then toilet paper. These are but a very few examples of the slippery slope in politics.

Would it have been so hard to try Anwar al-Awlaki in absentia? Is there a jury in America, given his anti American rhetoric and traitorous actions, that wouldn’t have convicted him? Why then was a trial so onerous to Obama? He wanted to try The mastermind of 911 in New York? He wanted to release all the inmates in Gitmo… because Obama was offended that they had not received a trial. But Obama denies American citizens trial? Maybe he didn’t want the precedent set that a traitor should be executed? If a person displayed this level of inconsistency in anything else they would be called hypocrites at best and insane at worse.

News reports say Obama has a whole kill list! Why not try them all in absentia? Is it because they couldn’t be found guilty? If this is so then how can Obama justify his kill list? If, as is more likely the case, they would be easily found guilty, then why not try them? The legal system and Constitution provides us the means why don’t we use it? Is it because the administration wants the precedent set that it can unilaterally execute anyone they find inconvenient? What is the likely outcome of this precedent? Initially, those murdered by Our government in Our name, will be Islamic terrorists, but eventually the crime that begets presidential sanction, will slide down the scale of heinousness to mere political crimes. That, it would seem, is the goal. To allow the President to execute citizens who are politically opposed to this President and his successors. The history of communism shows this is the way Communists, like Obama, rule. Note, this is that very same path that brought Rome to it’s ruin. We travel down the same road to the same destination, extinction of our founding values and the total collapse of our republic into what, a new dark age? Who would want that other than a psychopath?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

What Does “Economy” Really Mean?

Thursday, February 14th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the term “economy” is too nebulous to really define anything effectively. It has so many parts that understanding it in any meaningful way eludes even the most astute thinker. If we break the term “economy,” into it’s macro constituent parts however, it makes the whole thing more manageable. The “economy” can be broken down into three macro segments. The Market economy, the Political Favor economy and the Underground economy. These macro terms can be further broken down into the micro with, the green economy, the oil market, and so on. The macro terms are easy and important to understand, to really comprehend what is being debated, when politicians make claims about the “economy.” Our very economies depend on it!

Most countries have all three “economies,” the market, political favor and the underground. The most wealthy have the market economy as the primary. Communist and some hard core socialist “economies” specifically outlaw the market portion of the total economy. They seek to have the political favor economy be the only one available, but an underground economy is brought into being anytime the Elite ban anything, that has an allure to the people. So even in the most hard core communist country, say North Korea with their three generation labor camps, (a crime against humanity if you ask me), There must exist at least two, the political favor and the underground economies.

The political favor economy is never called by name, so it may sound a bit tinny, but if you think about the concept… it is most apt. The political favor economy encompasses all government spending, and all capital expenditure, that is forced by regulation. The political favor economy produces nothing; it can only take what someone else has produced. If the producer is fortunate to have some measure of favor, he or she will be paid, (perhaps handsomely), lacking political favor, they might not be. The political favor economy is primarily directed at protecting the power, wealth and status of the political Elite.

The underground economy is well known and has been written about endlessly, sometimes glamorously, occasionally pilloried, but the underground economy is as organic as any, and as invasive as kudzu vine. It is born of regulation and negative examples. The more hypocritical the Elite as a group are, the more the underground economy will flourish. At the expense of generations of human beings, the underground economies of every nation, are nurtured by their Elite. As a result, as money is moved from the market economy to the political favor economy, some is drawn from the market into the underground economy as well, sometimes doubling the negative effect on the market.

The market economy has only been known since the seventeen hundreds, when Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, outlining the basic ideas of what a market economy is. The market economy is a dynamic, complex system, that efficiently gathers data about the wants and needs of the human race, with passive, adaptive built in mechanisms. The market then meets those needs, at the least cost to the environment, the people and in resources. The market economy is the source of all the luxury we surround ourselves with today. The vast improvements in efficiency, that have allowed so many people to remain idle, is in itself astounding, if it is given a moment’s thought.

All three of the macro economies I have mentioned meet someone’s self interest. The underground economy, meets the self interests of the drug lords, the crime bosses and the gangs, while the political favor economy, meets the self interests of those who have political favor, and lastly, the market economy, meets the needs of every segment of society, from the richest down to the very poorest, when it is actually employed. The biggest lie a politician can tell the poor, when there is almost no functioning market economy in that country, (the “economy” is dominated by the political favor economy) is, “It is capitalism that impoverished you.”

Politicians use the term “economy” as a way to blur what is really being talked about. When they call for “fairness,” they always seek to move more capital, the fuel for all the economies, from the market to the political favor economy. Since the underground economy is by it’s very definition, underground, it cannot be taxed as a source of revenue or regulated by, the political elite, and so has a inverse reaction to the effects of taxing and regulation. When regulation goes up, so does the underground economy’s fortunes, as the market economy’s fortunes are winnowed down. The political favor economy is called many things by the political elite. Both democrats and republicans prefer the political favor economy, to any other, so they seek to move as much of the workings of mankind into it as possible. So… when a politician speaks about the “economy,” keep the context in mind… which economy he or she is really talking about? If it is the political favor economy… he or she is trying to move capital from the market economy, (your pocket, regardless of their rhetoric), to the political favor economy.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Political Favor Economy, Revenue and Our Standard of Living

Monday, February 11th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when a politician claims the government needs more revenue, what they really mean, is that you and I will have to lower our standard of living, so they can raise theirs… and we are called greedy if we complain about it! When taxes go up people must lower their standard of living. There can be no other result. Taxes are raised so that some government official, living in the lap of luxury at our expense, either doesn’t want to make a hard decision or they want to raise their political power with more spending. The political Elite always seek more revenue, there is no limit to their lust for the fruits of our labor, it is incumbent upon us to protect our wealth and liberty else we will forfeit both, to the ravenous maw of greedy politicians.

Power in government is directly tied to spending. Every dollar, Peso, Euro or any other unit of currency spent by government, is a form of power. Not only the power to take the money but of the political favor the spending results in. Sometimes spending is to repay political favors given, and sometimes it is to garner political favor, but even if no overt political favor is bought or sold, spending, by the very fact that it is a form of inducement, carries power, political, economic and social. Political and economic are obvious…

Social, in that when large amounts of money are spent on a social program, it must warp the natural incentives and feed backs for our behaviors, that allow us to understand on a personal level what is right and what is wrong behavior. Government social spending is always to mitigate the negative effects of negative behavior. Government seeks to become the father in the family, the results of which have pushed out the real father from many households, to the great detriment of our economy and the social structure. But don’t worry, government will be there with more regulation and spending to solve this latest crises, caused by government.

When any money is taken from the market economy and put into the political favor economy… us real people have to lower our standard of living. This should be self evident, but to a large portion of the electorate in every country, it is lost in the haze of rhetoric and sophistry. Have you ever noticed that the debate is always about, this or that wealthy segment of society, having to pay their “fair share?” But after the debate is over, and the new tax structure is in place, your taxes always go up? When your taxes go up, where do you get the extra money, to make up for the lost personal revenue? You don’t. You and I have to stop buying something to make up for the loss in our personal income.

We must go without so that some member of the political Elite can have something extra. The politician is always against any cut in spending. You could never tell by their rhetoric but their actions speak louder than any political platitude. They will argue that spending must be cut, but not now… later. The economy is too weak to cut spending, and thus demand, (equating government spending to private demand, a typical sophist argument, comparing like with unlike). There is no limit to the logical calisthenics the political Elite will go to, to convince us that our loss and their gain, is somehow better for us.

The last thing an overseer wants, is to have to make a difficult decision, especially one that may threaten the cushy lifestyle they have rotted into. They seek every possible way to slither out of having to make a decision of moment. They wait, like a cat, for the opportunity to present itself to announce the we must loose more of our money or liberty, else some problem they created will get worse. The politician never seeks to actually solve a societal problem… that would reduce the need for lawmakers and bureaucrats. They endeavor to appear, to try to solve problems, while all the time making themselves powerful and wealthy in the process, and in fact making those problems worse.

Clearly when a politician calls this or that person, who begrudges government seizing his or her property, greedy, it is a statement of the lengths the political Elite will go to, in their unquenchable thirst for the fruits of our labor and the liberties our forefathers died and worse, to bequeath to us. They don’t loose a moment’s sleep, at the thought of someone making the choice to turn of cable TV, because the payroll tax went up. They will raise more revenue and subsidize cable TV for those who cannot afford it next year. That tax increase will force families to decide if they really need a second car to get to work…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Immigration Policy Sane and Insane

Thursday, February 7th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the US needs to get a sane immigration policy in place, before our society breaks down completely. Immigration, or more to the point, illegal immigration, has been a wedge issue the progressives have used to pry naturally inclined republican Latino voters, from the republican party and to the democrat party. This wedge issue has worked so well, according to unbiased news accounts, that the republican party have become political lepers in the immigrant community. The beauty of immigration as a wedge issue is, that the more incompetently the government is at, securing the boarder, controlling the associated crime that must come with illegal immigration, and even to their duty to deport those found to be here illegally, the more the progressives can undermine any real effort, while painting republicans as haters of immigrants. The Elite’s intractability in this, has made this issue as important as any we face today, with repercussions for tomorrow.

Latinos are generally Christian people who value family and community. We all know the stance of the Roman Catholic Church on Abortion. Latinos for the most part, according to polls, follow the Church’s teachings on these matters, and yet vote, against their conscience for the party of abortion on demand, under any circumstance and at any stage of gestation, now even arguing for afterbirth abortion up to a year old! How can a Catholic man or woman vote for the party that not only condones the murder of millions of babies in this manner, a crime against humanity, but forces the rest of us through the tax system, to pay for it! Yet, the Latino community votes for them anyway, when the republican party is a far better fit with it’s focus on family values.

We are told by the unbiased media that the republican party is hated by the immigrant community because of their stance on immigration. In the push to effect the minds of the electorate, the unbiased media conflate illegal immigration and legal immigration, as if they were the same. By blurring the line between right and wrong behavior they have successfully grasped the initiative. Initiative is a tough thing to hold onto however. By unblurring the line, the truth can be explained to the legal immigrant community and more to the point, it would allow logical discussion on the subject instead of emotional rhetoric thrown around like footballs.

Sane immigration policy would take into account the vast number of people that want to come here. It would throw aside racial and ethnically based policies, in favor of testing applicants to see if they seek to come to America, to be Americans. That, in a sane World, would be the way it is done. Instead the system the Elite have set up is full of pernicious incentives. Worthy people who would make great additions to the melting pot are stuck in limbo for decades, while those that broke US law to come here, are offered a path to citizenship! What message does that send? People who are here legally are denied continuances very often for stupid bureaucratic reasons. If they stay then they become illegal and are forced by the system to, steal identities, drive without a license, work under the table, along with a host of other socially disruptive things.

Immigration policy should give great allowances for people who are here legally, and ask to stay longer, especially if they want to become citizens. Smart policy would allow almost as many people who ask to come to be allowed to come. The only caveat being that they seek to be Americans. If they want to go to America and be Americans, they are exactly the people Americans want to come here. If they want to go to America to overthrow the Constitution, then no, they should not be allowed entry under any circumstances.

The sticking point is the eleven or so million illegals that live in the US. The citizenry of the United States is smart enough to be uncomfortable with that many people living here… illegally. The people understand that illegal aliens must break our laws making them second class citizens, or be given special treatment, and be above our laws. If that is the case, then the illegals have been made the masters, by the political Elite. Because a master is someone who is above the rule of law. The American people understand that any society that has masters, must have slaves, and Americans hate slavery, especially their own. So if illegal immigration is not addressed, either illegals become the masters, or they become second class citizens, little better than slaves.

The deeply Christian Latino community votes for the anti family, anti Christian party, despite their deep Christian faith, due to the successful propaganda of the progressives, in blurring the line between legal immigration and illegal immigration, while the unbiased media fuel the fires of anger at the republicans. Immigration policy that had a whit of sanity would allow far more people in, almost everyone who applies, the only test should be whether or not the would be immigrant wants to be an American, and anyone wanting to overthrow the Constitution, no matter if they eschew violence or not, should be kept out.

Illegal immigration must be stopped. The only way to stop it would be to build a West Bank style fence between the US and Mexico. Government must stop all illegal immigration, and then open the door widely, to legal immigration. If the political Elite wanted to, they could quickly achieve this, so apparently they don’t. Illegal immigration is too handy a wedge issue, a source of cheap labor for gardeners and nannies for the Elite and disrupts the steady functioning of society, driving more need of regulation and legislation, thus the legislator. Yea, we really do need a good and smart immigration policy, but I’m afraid with Obama and the rest of this bunch… we won’t get it. Too bad for us, the more intentionally incompetent the Elite are, the more indispensable they become.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Lot of the Black Conservative

Monday, February 4th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me the politically bravest people in the US today are black conservatives. Vitriol is heaped upon them without regard to any humanity whatsoever. The unbiased media use thinly veiled racial epithets while the progressives forward every negative stereotype against them. Even in the black community, I am taken to understand, black conservatives are threatened and pilloried. The lot of the black conservative is hard at best and being made harder by the direction our political elite are moving society.

Don’t think that you don’t have a dog in this race… because you do. Our primary attribute, is that we are all human beings, so what is done to one of us, could be done to any of us. If we turn a blind eye to a blatant injustice, we not only become complicit in the crime, but become the perpetrator’s possible next victims. To think that, someone else’s secondary attribute makes them more likely too suffer an ill, is epically stupid.

Look at the way Clarence Thomas was treated by the unbiased press as well as the political elite. They conspired to promote the most negative racial stereotype against him to derail his nomination for Supreme Court Justice. They threw filth at the man, that had so little basis in reality, even the coordinated action of the unbiased media and the political elite, couldn’t keep it corporeal. Clarence Thomas got a thumbs up from the Senate, despite the blatantly underhanded means the progressives used, to keep him off.

Why do you suppose it is, that black conservatives are so dangerous to the progressives that they will cross any bridge and burn that bridge behind them, to personally destroy a black conservative? Going to such an extent they will undermine every one of their stated principles and objectives in doing so? The evidence is incontrovertible. So why? I believe the black conservative represents an existential threat to the progressive ideology and power. That’s why no limit is ever set… when attacking a black conservative.

Until the 1960’s blacks in America were a concrete voting block for the republican party. Reams of articles were written about the dangers of a race in America being so decisively behind a single party. The deeper problem the democrats had back then, was that they uniformly stood against voting rights for blacks, they enforced segregation, democrats were the party of slavery before the Civil War. It had been the republicans who led the suffrage movement, had liberated the slaves, and voted against segregation. But Lyndon Johnson successfully flipped the old paradigm to the modern one we see today. One where blacks in America almost universally vote democrat. Black conservatives pose a threat to this new paradigm simply by their very existence let alone if their message is ever heard!

What it boils down to however, is that republicans and conservatives need to do a much better job at rallying around black conservatives, when they come under fire. The democrats have no problem rallying around the pedophile who was getting free trips to the Dominican Republic to hire child prostitutes. The democrats have no problem supporting this dirt bag, but if a progressive makes even the most absurd claim against a black conservative, the republican establishment runs away like he or she has bubonic plague. Perhaps because most of the elite in the republican party are progressives at heart?

Until republicans start doing their job, promoting conservative/libertarian values, and defending themselves and their allies, the democrats will keep winning elections. Our republic is threatened by this absurdity. Blacks and Latinos are a natural voting bloc for libertarian and conservative values. It is the job of the republican party to explain how these things work and why we need them. Tossing black conservatives to the side shows disdain for them and is as self defeating as it is witless.

Sincerely,

John Pepin