Posts Tagged ‘limited government’

The Chiffon Dress Covering Naked Oppression

Sunday, July 16th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, as a law not enforced becomes meager sophistry, a Constitution unenforced becomes a chiffon dress, to cover naked oppression. One way to undermine a constitution, and therefore establish oppression, is to keep the words the same, but change their meaning. Take the US Constitution. Freedom of religion has become separation of church and state, freedom of speech is under attack in every corner of the globe and even in liberal Canada is lost, while, shall not be infringed, now has added to it “unless it is dangerous,” in the unwritten language of tyrants, and States Rights are whatever scraps fall from the Federal Government’s table. When the police do not enforce a law, over time, everyone becomes a scofflaw, how much more so then, when it is a Constitution that is not enforced, and the people effected are ambitious and unscrupulous to begin with?.

Today we live in extra constitutional times. The US is not alone in this, what nation state or super state like the EU, or empire like China, actually hold everyone to the same standard? The elite in all countries point to their respective constitutions as proof of the legitimacy of their rule, but the moment that same document gets in the way of their avarice or hubris, they ignore it like a smelly cousin at the prom. The elite love to add in more government giveaways, because that increases their power, a government that has by constitutional authority the power and duty to provide for the one, has the power and duty to take from the other, the other always at the discretion of the elite. The more things the elite can glom onto a constitution, like the right to good housing, healthcare and three meals a day, basically three hots and a cot, like a prisoner or factory town worker… the thicker the cloth covering the tyrant’s naked oppression.

Our constitutions, and especially the US Constitution, have been undermined by the post modern philosophy of likening a constitution to a living breathing document, which in practice means the Constitution says whatever the Hell the elite say it does, and if they change it tomorrow to better suit their needs, then so be it. A constitution that’s meaning changes, “with the times,” is not a constitution but a means of legitimizing oppression, just as a law that is never enforced is not a law but a way of allowing a thing, while pretending to not allow it. The changes are not done to the words but to their interpretation. As whole clauses are ignored, irrelevant words are magnified to mean what they obviously don’t, all allowing the self serving elite to change the Constitution, outside the Constitutionally prescribed method.

That is how; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Has been used to… establish a state religion of Islam/atheism, license people to talk over the air, and in Sharia compliant nations, talking about Islam will get you imprisoned… like Canada and England, with many elite demanding we in the US adopt those same laws. Meanwhile the US government has established Islam as dominant over all others by their actions. When holy Bibles were found in the possession of a serviceman, the government itself burned them, as trash, but the Koran is by code of conduct supposed to be handled with gloves, with both hands at all times, etc… but NEVER BURNED! Which, judging by actions and indeed rhetoric as well, establishes Islam as a dominant religion to Christianity. Every year the Right to Life marches in DC to condemn the Roe vs Wade decision, that has led to the slaughter of over 60 million babies in the US, those old grandmothers, mothers and young women have to be licensed and by the government and intimidated by snipers and police the whole way.

As long as we allow this post modernist philosophy to reign… our Constitution will be rendered ever more impotent. Common sense will be further crushed under the jackboots of social justice and cultural Marxism. It was only recently that the democrat party denied God three times and booed him after, daily we hear about shrines to Satan going up, in places in the US, Dearborn MI, for example, a Christian no longer has Constitutional protections while certain groups are above the law, those who expose the selling of baby parts are tried as criminals, the government itself exports guns to Mexican drug cartels and then blames gun dealerships along the boarder for the ensuing violence, etc… Our common sense is assaulted daily by these absurdities, and due to the tribal nature of humanity, many of us toss common sense out, for our team, both teams.

The answer is to force our leaders to follow the Constitution as written and originally interpreted. If the elite want to change it, fine, do it by the Constitutionally prescribed means. We have to stop tolerating absurd statements like, “living breathing document,” to describe what should be cast in stone. It is our complacence that allows the elite to get away with it. Our Constitution was never meant to be a cover for oppression… it was to be a protection against oppression! That which we tolerate, like a law that is not enforced,… we will have. Yes, it is hard to stand up, especially when dancing with the stars is on, the recliner is so comfortable and you are half way into a six pack, but if we don’t, our children will have chains holding them fast, rather than bread and circuses. Lets make our Constitution a bulwark against tyranny instead of a concealment for it… be self interested rightly understood human hearted civilized human beings. The type of people that change the world for the better.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The War of Ideas

Monday, September 19th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we live in a world of competing ideas, America is an idea, justice is an idea, socialism is an idea, Islamism is an idea, gender fluidity is an idea, limited government is an idea, etc… these ideas compete for the minds of people. As in any competition it is not the best who wins but the most zealous. If the adherents of an idea are willing to do whatever it takes to forward their idea, then that idea will become widespread, if the adherents of an idea are wishy washy, that idea will loose ground. The battleground for these competing ideas is the media, schools, universities, cafes, bars and any other forum in which people communicate. The goal line is the zeitgeist. The ideas that permeate the zeitgeist best become widespread and either visit evil or good on humanity. It is important to note, the goodness or badness of an idea has little or no merit in the strength or weakness of that idea, the strength of an idea comes from the intensity of belief of that idea, in the minds of those who take it to be truth. If we seek goodness, then we must grab those ideas that are good and let go of those that are bad, in this we have history and common sense as guides, yet the power of many bad ideas is such that they cannot be easily let go of. As self interested rational maximizers however, it is our ability to reason that has allowed any good ideas at all to survive, against the magnetic pull of evil.

Bad ideas, or ideas that result in human suffering, have an innate pull. They always promise power wealth and prestige for those who hold fast to them. Think about the pull of socialism for a moment. It promises wealth to everyone, it claims to be a form of fairness and it pretends to be about love, (applying to emotion) but most of all, socialism gives unlimited power to those who will run the socialist state, (applying to self interest). To anyone who favors socialism, it is that unlimited power that is the magnet that provides the attraction. Every socialist wants to be the one who runs the socialist state. That is why whenever the dismal history of socialism and Marxism is brought up, the socialist will claim true socialism has never been tried, else that the “wrong” people were in charge then, the obvious connotation is that if they were in charge things would have gone much differently. Bad ideas have an innate pull to people who lust after power.

When someone is so certain of the idea they espouse they are willing to do violence to force others to believe and to stop others from abandoning that idea. The NAZI party was all too willing to visit evil on anyone who didn’t hold their ideas. They waged war against every other political faction in Germany at the time until all the rest were subjugated. Then the NAZIS went on to wage a bloody war of conquest across Europe and north Africa to further their idea of national socialism. The NAZIS are not alone in their willingness to do violence to forward their idea. The willingness to do violence in the name of an idea is a strong indication that idea is bad. If an idea requires the evil of violence to spread, that idea is evil. Evil ideas must be withstood at all costs else evil will become widespread.

Good ideas however don’t promise power, wealth or prestige for a faction, person or group, they offers good to everyone, and in that way good ideas have less power over the minds of those who take them to be truth. Limited government offers no incentive to someone who seek power over others, and so those who believe in limited government don’t have personal gain in believing in limited government, so limited government is an idea that while good, has little pull on the minds of people. The idea of America, the land of opportunity and of the free, has a strong pull to those who live in poverty or oppression, but once a person gets to America, other ideas become more attractive. Preferential treatment by political force is much easier than hard work, and so it often replaces the idea of “America,” once an immigrant comes here. The result is that people move to a place for freedom and opportunity then try mightily to turn it into a place of no opportunity and oppression.

It is in talking that we promote or denigrate ideas. Any form of communication is how ideas are spread and how they are destroyed. Hitler wrote Mien Kampf, Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist papers and the anti Federalist papers, nightly news programs promote progressivism, and it is in our cafes, bars, and internet forums, that ideas are passed from person to person. The battleground for the spread of ideas is anyplace people congregate and talk.

When we watch people debating an idea we usually gravitate to the idea whose adherents are the most zealous. Often a zealous arguer is more convincing than one who uses logic and reason, because she uses emotion, and emotion is a stronger motivator of men than reason, especially those who claim to be “reasonable.” Logic, reason, emotion and self interest, are some of the weapons people use to promote their ideas. Emotion is like a nuclear weapon since it has such power, self interest is like strategic bombing and logic is like a sword, cutting absurdity from truth. Only where the battleground is intolerant of emotion can the nuclear weapon be banned. This is why bad ideas that are based on self interest and emotion are so powerful and have such sway over the minds of people.

We live in a world of ideas, whether evil or good, those ideas determine the quality of life of all humanity. It has been said, the human mind is like a rider on an elephant, the rider is reason and it is the elephant that does the work. Clearly, the rider has only limited control of the elephant, and must ride where the elephant goes, that is why emotion is such a good motivator. We are all self interested, seeking our own good over the good of others, applying to our immediate self interest then is another powerful way to promote an idea, bad ideas are good at this tactic while good ideas are bad at it. It is this siren call of evil ideas, that is why human history has so few examples of good ideas becoming widespread, and why evil ideas have been the norm. Good ideas apply to logic and reason while bad ideas apply to emotion and self interest. Good ideas recoil from violence while evil ideas embrace it. In the end however, the good ideas… limited government, America, and justice for all, actually are in our long term self interest, if not in our immediate self interest. Let us pray then, that humanity will use logic and reason to decide what ideas we will follow, abandoning emotion and lust, thus improving the lot of mankind.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Human Rights and Progressivism

Monday, July 18th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… progressives have never seen a human Right they don’t despise and want to get rid of. Their rhetoric and actions prove this. From their zealous attacks on the right of self defense, to their undermining of the freedom of religion, progressives show their absolute antipathy to human rights of every stripe. In their zealous crusade to rid government of the burden of having to labor under the odium of the people’s individual rights, progressives have rolled back the advancement of philosophy, humanity and government, to a time well before the Enlightenment. Progressives are only too happy to use human rights to destroy human rights however. They pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn’t, in an effort to undermine and corrode basic natural law, which is the font of all human rights. Progressives are never happier than when they are overseeing a genocide which makes them the antithesis of human hearted, making Progressivism and all progressives, diabolical.

All human rights come from natural law. Before governments were invented all human beings were created equal, had innate rights like, the right to self defense, the right to privacy, the right to own the fruits of their labor, the right to own property both personal and real as well as, the right to think and believe as each chooses. Government and powerful men stole those human rights by the sword. People were enslaved by those powerful men, who needed an excuse for their evil, so they came up with the theory of arbitrary rule. Once that had been thoroughly debunked, the powerful changed it to the rights of kings, today that philosophy has been renamed social justice. All in an attempt to destroy human rights to justify people being exploited as slaves. Which of course is the direct opposite of natural rights, or as Socrates called it, justice.

The right of self defense is their most important bugaboo. Progressives and indeed everyone who has a penchant for tyranny loathes the right to self defense. How can you enslave a person who is capable and willing to defend themselves and their children from your evil? The basic human right to self defense is the first right from which all others flow, for if one has no right to defend him or herself from the usurpations of a monster, than all other rights become null and void. Everywhere and every time human beings have been denied their basic human right of self defense, it has resulted in slavery, suffering and death, there are no historical examples where this is not true. From ancient China to the modern Syria masters had arms and slaves were disarmed. Before a person can be enslaved they must be disarmed whether by force or trickery. Now they are using trickery but soon progressives will become anxious and will resort to violence… as they always have.

Today progressive make a compelling case to get rid of basic human rights. They seek to control thought, whether by hate crimes or political correctness, progressives seek to control not only what we do, but what we think as well. The right to freedom of religion has been perverted to separation of church and state, which actually means the elevation of atheism, as the state religion. The right to privacy doesn’t exist in a surveillance state, where your every move is recorded and stored in a government data bank, for use against you when the elite see fit. Moreover, how can anyone argue, with a straight face, that we are protected in our personal papers and effects when government can hack into our phones, computers and phone conversations without warrant? Instead of “interpreting” our Constitution, as it was written and intended, progressives claim it is a “living breathing document,” which means they get to change it’s meaning arbitrarily, eviscerating the protections our Constitution is supposed to provide. What is most distressing is that a huge number of people fall for such chicanery.

Justice is not arbitrary rule no matter what they call it, freedom is never submission and humanity cannot be imposed by the state’s monopoly on violence. Our basic human rights come from God or nature but not and never government. Government is the opposite of freedom. While in a state of nature you can go out and kill a deer to feed your family, grow whatever crop you want to fill your children’s bellies, worship whatever deity you please, protect your family and self from thieves and murderers with violence if necessary, build a home, and think whatever you want, progressives always seeks to take these rights away. If you need permission from government… they have taken away your right to do it.

That progressives loathe and despise human rights is an open secret. Their every action serves to undermine human rights and humanity itself in the process… all in the name of “equality.” Progressive’s, socialist’s and Marxist’s version of equality, however, is where some people are more equal than others, to borrow a phrase. While they zealously defend their own “right” to control our thoughts, actions and religious beliefs, arbitrarily as in the rights of kings, they actively destroy those of everyone else. The quiet of Woodrow Wilson when the Armenians were being exterminated, FDR’s silence as Jews were being slaughtered on an industrial scale, and now Obama’s defense of those massacring Christians in their original lands, shows progressives, socialists and Marxists passion for genocide. The master has every right while the slave has not even the right to life. They hold us to every word of their law, constitutional or not, while openly arguing law doesn’t apply to them. Listen to what they say, consider what the outcome of their argument will be… exercise your basic human right to think, before it is taken away.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Ideal Government

Monday, July 4th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the entirety of my articles taken in the aggregate, are a road map of a nearly ideal government, pragmatically accepting human nature as it is, without the presumption of trying to change it. People are people, we want to collaborate, but we take advantage of the weak, we want to trade but we will take if there is no chance of getting caught, and we want equanimity but when our own interests are at stake, we balk at it. We are our own worst enemy, each and every one of us, any governmental structure must speak to our dualistic natures. Whenever possible, passive incentives rather than active measures should be put in place, to give everyone a stake in society. Since history is unambiguous about the outcomes of a free market versus a rationally controlled market, the free market must be as free as possible, to reap the greatest gain from it’s inherent abundance. Those who run government, always have been and always will be the greatest source of tyranny, their ability to usurp power to themselves must be sufficiently strong and have real teeth else no form of government, no matter how well constituted, can survive long. To that end I offer the Fourth Branch.

Our natures get the better of us all the time. Selling a house we might “forget” to mention there is a septic problem and when directly asked, simply lie. Then lament the huge extra costs of paying for a lawyer to do anything. If those around us are so corrupt, imagine how much more corrupt, those who pay no price for their actions and take no blame for any decision, are. Leaders have almost no incentives to remain virtuous and every reason not to be. Name them, power, sex, money, these are the worldly things that draw us into corruption. How much more magnified must the corruption be in our leaders than us, when they are caught doing things that put you and I in jail, but they skate with a standing ovation, a raise and another intern to abuse. Meanwhile churches, synagogues, fraternal organizations and others, give away food for the needy, provide for orphans, nurse the sick and help rebuild after catastrophe, all at their own costs. Human nature must be taken into account in any attempt to form an ideal government.

Since human nature is so mercurial, tending to corruption in a vacuum, oversight should be greatest for those at the top and least for those at the bottom. This is exactly opposite of what society does now. Today, our leaders have no oversight whatsoever, except themselves, while the rest of us are monitored incessantly. An ideal government would subject leaders to every law they pass on anyone, even, and especially if those laws don’t fit to lawmakers. Safety regulations for example, when a lawmaker crosses the parking lot to his waiting air conditioned limousine, he or she should, as a McDonald employee must, wear day glow green vest and a hard hat. Every regulation passed, must be applied to those who passed them, else there is no incentive to keep laws sane, and to pass the responsibility to a bureaucrat. Rather, if every law was forced on the lawmakers, including the President as he gets off Air Force One, wearing a safety helmet and day glow green vest flapping in the down draft, rest assured, laws would be very well thought out.

Active measures like law enforcement should be the last resort never the first in community problems. Most crime comes from a lack of a stake in society. Take away a child’s stake in society, or just blind them to their stake, and you have created a criminal. Suddenly everything that was off the table when that child had a stake in society is now on it. Drugs, stealing, prostitution, robbery, murder and every crime you can think of. Fraternal organizations, Scouts, churches, Synagogues, etc… all have a function, or at least they did, now the government has muscled them aside and taken over that role with the government monopoly school system, with the result that no one believes they have a real stake in society. Passive measures like, a school voucher system and limiting government’s ability to interfere with cultural and social institutions, would go much farther than an unlimited number of police in limiting crime and societal upheaval.

Even in a very limited constitutional government we see that the elite in government must be actively policed. How absurd is it that in the US today, a politician who wants to balance the budget and return to Constitutional government, is called radical!?!?! Only in revolutionary times would such a thing go past our noses without at least a sniff. The offices of every congressperson, senator, judge, bureaucrat, appointee, diplomat, etc… should be equipped with full video and sound, recorded and available to the public both on demand and live streaming on the internet. Any infraction of any law would bring instant enforcement action through a Fourth Branch. The Fourth Branch would be given power sufficient to try even the Alger Hiss’ of the world, without reprisals, teeth to punish them and eyes and nose to detect any hint of corruption.

Limited government, laissez faire free markets, returning to a society that embraces morality, individualism, innovation and risk taking are the hallmarks of my vision for a better government, economy, culture and society. One that is limited and so doesn’t limit anyone’s potential, is based on free market principles so the people can be affluent, is moral so the laws need be few and enforcement rare, individualistic people to beware of those peddling tyranny in a bunny mask and finally, innovative to advance our technology, understanding of God’s universe and ourselves. In short government should not be in the way. Anyone who reads the entirety of my work will quickly grasp the subtleties of such a government, why I have concluded it is nearly ideal and how to implement it. Any country that adopted these ideas would very quickly become a power house, economically, militarily and have a wealthy happy people.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

To A Progressive; Progress is Toward Administrative Government

Thursday, June 30th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, before any real understanding or agreement can be made, before the discussion can really start in earnest, the topic of discussion must be stipulated. In the discussion of progressivism, that key understanding is absent. Even progressives themselves have a lack of understanding exactly what it is they stand for, they might have some absurd notion they want to feed the poor, while others want the poor to starve, or they might accept the progressive party seeks communism, which is partly right, or any of a number of things, but they all miss the mark, because the progressive party seeks administrative government, as far from the ignorant masses as possible… pure and simple.

Administrative government is bureaucratic government or government by bureaucracy. That is where bureaucrats write the laws, enforce them and have administrative proceedings to adjudicate them as well. All of what we in the US call the Three Branches are combined into one. Instead of an executive and legislature agreeing on a law then passing it after public debate, as in our old form of government… under an administrative government, law would be passed by the stroke of a pen, by an anonymous person at a desk, in some cavernous office building. Knowing the People would have a problem if the new laws passed by bureaucrats, were called laws, they instead called them… regulations. In the US, the regulation has more power to coerce action, than the law.

Imagine, a government where thousands perhaps millions of office workers go to work every day, writing laws that effect every aspect of our lives, behind the heavy curtain, that is bureaucracy. Every day they write more regulations because that is what they do. The amount of our lives becomes ever more tightly regulated, every day, many regulations most people are ignorant of, until they run afoul of them. Eventually, under any and all administrative governments, the burden of regulations becomes so onerous the whole thing collapses, the economy, social cohesion, and even the government itself.

Administrative government is at the core of the European Union and has metastasized in the body of the US, Canada and every other even remotely Western government. We call it bureaucracy. As the number of things legislators in their hubris and presumption thought they should control grew, so did their need to delegate some authority to the executive branch. After all, tea parties and mixers take up so much time, and oh so much gets done there… The Legislature’s eyes for legislating became bigger than their ability to legislate, so they delegated some authority to the executive, who relished getting more power. In that way the Bureaucracy was illegitimately born of the legislature’s presumption and the executives lust.

Those who seek administrative government must, as a matter of precedence, believe in the honesty, integrity and fairness of a bureaucrat over that of their fellow man. Of course such a notion is absurd but that doesn’t stop progressives from basing much of their world view. Obviously, a bureaucrat is one of our fellow man, or woman, and so, is just as fallible as your most hated enemy. Absolute trust in government is a foundational idea in progressivism. They will deny it, as they always do the facts, but their every action proves the thesis more eloquently than I could ever pontificate.

The progressive’s blind faith in administrative government makes sense in a distorted way. Most progressives have a college education. As such they identify with others who have a college education, they were similarly schooled, were taught the same curricula with the same progressive tilt. Progressives form the core of the new class. They consider themselves smarter and better educated, and so why shouldn’t they regulate what us ignorant, racist, lazy, red necked, clinging to their guns and religion, climate change denier, hoi polloi do?

“Isn’t it better someone with the best education, who is probably brighter than us, evidenced by their being better education than us, decide what side of our bread the butter should go on? Or would it be best to have limited government?” That is the discussion we should be having… because that is the real discussion, everything else is mud tossed into the water to obscure the real argument.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Limited Government or Usurpation

Wednesday, March 30th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, what limit to the law if the lawmakers are not held to it, furthermore, if the lawmakers do not follow whatever constitution they are supposed to, then what limit on government? Law then must become mere usurpation and government must serve the elite not the people. It is a self evident fact that when a class serves only it’s own narrow interests, economic destruction ensues, social upheaval follows and violent revolution comes shortly after. History is unambiguous about this. In fact, there are names for the various wrong forms of government enumerated by Aristotle, Tyranny when a monarch serves only his own interests, oligarchy when the aristocracy (elite) serve themselves and democracy when the polis is tyrannical. Everyone is served best when everyone serves everyone.

The class warfare theory of human history is undeniably false, at least as it pertains to economic classes since most of human history has seen tension between factions of the elite, and only rarely between the elite and the people, but when class is defined as faction then it holds some truth. Faction is like fire, it consumes a nation, leaving it in ashes. Every great nation, city state and empire has seen this happen to it. At the outset all the people work together to build a great society. Once the society has been built, the people split into factions, each vying for themselves. The more prosperous the nation becomes the more factious the people become. Naturally, the faction that has the most power is the one to come out on top, these are almost always the lawmakers.

Those who write the laws may be the people as in ancient Athens, the aristocracy as in Venice or a monarch as in feudal Europe, but in all cases there is a defined group that writes the law. When a monarch writes law that benefits all of society, that society flourishes, and when he or she writes laws to serve him or herself, then the country crumbles. The same holds true if the lawmakers are a class, faction, heirs, elected or appointed. The type of government is also irrelevant. Monarchy can have liberty, private property and prosperity while democracy can be illiberal, usurp private property and be filled with poverty. What generates wealth, liberty and prosperity is that the factions, classes and groups work for the benefit of the whole.

Lawmakers usually are not constrained in their actions. There is no overriding legal authority to hold them to their laws or constitutional limits, except the police and military, which they have total control of. If the lawmakers choose not to hold themselves to their own laws then why would they limit the law? They could freely use law to advance their personal self interests with impunity. Passing laws that move ever more of the national wealth into their own hands would be a snap. Money isn’t the only thing that can be usurped. If they sought sexual gratification rather than wealth then they could molest interns as they wanted, if they wanted to never be criticized they could pass laws to jail anyone who criticized them and if they desired godhood they could merely have statues made at the public’s expense and placed in city centers. If those who make the law are not held to those laws there is no limit to the usurpations they can engage in.

Constitutions were an invention to constrain those who write the law, but even under a constitution, if the lawmakers don’t hold themselves to it, no matter how well written, how insightful or how intelligent the framers were, it is moot. Since people are usually unwilling to hold themselves to a rule that limits their self interest, especially egoists, then constitutions cannot function alone. To argue those who make law are somehow not human but angelic is to argue up is down. Especially in the light of past human governments, where the lawmakers were not held to their own laws, or indeed the constitutions that were designed to constrain them. Until the lawmakers are forced to follow every law and letter of the constitution, there can never be real liberty, true prosperity, no one’s private property or person is safe from usurpation. Until there is a NUMA or Fourth Branch, creeping tyranny will ever hold mankind in it’s cold selfish clasp.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Death of the US Constitution

Monday, February 15th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, with the death of Antonin Scalia our Constitution, which has been on life support for so many years, is about to die as well. There are two main factions battling for the soul of the US, one is adamant that the Constitution and limited government must be conserved, the other, that our Constitution is an impediment in their desire to progress the US into a fully rationalized economy, unlimited government and a controlled populace. Both factions believe their way is best for everyone. The faction that believes in unlimited government, rationalized economy and controlled people has been moving the ball down the field for the whole of the twentieth Century. With the death of Scalia the faction that seeks to preserve limited government, a free market and liberty for the people has lost it’s last hold on the last instrument of protecting our Constitution and what it stands for. Once Obama has appointed another anti constitutionalist to the bench, you can count on a rapid slew of legislating from that bench, more ruling like Roe v Wade and a total loss of your Constitutional rights. They will be replaced, for awhile, by rights that are distributed by government.

Obama has already made a lasting impression on the Supreme Court. His picks have proven themselves to be uber partisans in gutting our Constitution and our Constitutional principles. Even when naked conflicts of interest, such as Sotomayor’s when ruling on the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s appointments have refused to rescind themselves. They have ruled until now, against the majority, that the Second Amendment does not confer a personal right to keep and bear arms, despite the obvious meaning of that amendment in the Bill Of Rights. Obama’s pick to replace Scalia will be another progressive who loathes our nation, it’s people, the free market and our Constitution. The erosion of our rights since the end of the Nineteenth Century can now go into overdrive.

The end of the Nineteenth Century saw the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. He was the first progressive, and in the political environment he was in, had to tread carefully. Even though, he instituted the National Park system, which allowed the Federal government to usurp the lands of private citizens for “wilderness areas.” The national park system, that has been so abused by the bureaucracy lately, has become a means for the government to abuse it’s citizens, like the Bundys and Hammonds. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to make a real move to get the US away from it’s Constitutional bounds.

Woodrow Wilson made a complete break from constitutionally limited government. His rule was so obnoxious that when he was finished the country voted in Harding and Coolidge in a landslide. They returned the US to Constitutionally limited government, laissez faire economics and liberty for the people. Their Presidencies ushered in the period of the fastest economic growth of the Twentieth Century, the near total destruction of the Klu Klux Klan, lowering crime rates, and widespread prosperity. When Coolidge stepped down he was replaced by the progressive Hoover. Hoover went back to moving the US away from our Constitution, free markets and liberty with such policies as the Smoot Hawly act that collapsed international trade ushering in the Great Depression.

Franklin Roosevelt ran as a conservative but became a progressive tyrant in all but name. He took the reigns of the economy with policies controlling how much and what a farmer could plant on his own land, what retailers could charge for underwear and concentration camps for Americans of Japanese descent. Violating the unstated law that since Washington had been in place, FDR ran for a third term and became President for life. On his death the nation lurched back to constitutional rule, but each time our nation was pulled away from our Constitution, the step back was weaker and many of the ideas and policies of the progressives stayed. The Supreme court during the FDR administration ruled in Wickard v Filburn the government could control what, how much and when a farmer could plant dramatically increasing the power, scope and rch of the government.

Some will pin their hopes on the next election. Many believe that with the election of a constitutionalist, of which there are very few running, the nation can be returned to constitutionally limited government. Alas that is not the case. The Supreme Court has as it’s only responsibility to protect our Constitution and maintain limited government. With the control of the Supreme Court by progressives they will immediately take it upon themselves to gut our Constitution and it’s limits on government. The Court is stacked with young progressives who will serve life terms. The most the next President could do, is replace the few constitutionalists on the bench with others, but that will not effect the status quo. Moreover, since all lawyers are members of the new class, the likelihood of getting a constitutionalist from that group grows smaller with each passing day.

The new class today are the strongest advocates for the progressive faction, that sees our nation as an impediment to a world government, where the human race can be controlled by people who are much smarter than us, for our own good. Trained by the intellectuals who are uniformly of the Frankfurt school the new class intelligentsia run our schools, media, businesses, culture and government. An antipathy for limited government has been thoroughly inculcated into their very psyche. They will cheer the appointment of a progressive to the Supreme court, tipping the balance away from constitutionally limited government, free markets and liberty, and towards unlimited government, rationalized economy and controlled populace. With the control of the last bastion that limits government, the progressive faction can put the last nail in the coffin of our Constitution, once and for all. Wickard v Filburn is only a small taste of the poison that will come from the Supreme Court now. The death of Antonin Scalia is the death of liberty, free markets and limited government, your children will live in an Orwellian tyranny from which there will be no escape… regardless of who we elect next. Prepare for the coming tyranny as best you can.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Measure of Despotism

Thursday, January 28th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, there is no more certain proof government has become utterly corrupt, than when investigative journalists are indicted, for investigating crime. Government that is corrupt is a form of despotism. Authoritarianism is characterized by arbitrary rule. That has been the case since the first human governments formed. Arbitrary rule is where laws are randomly applied and indiscriminately created. Those with political favor are above the law while those who lack political favor are below it’s protections. This is the case around the world where authoritarian governments rule. In fact, arbitrary rule is one way of measuring a government for the level of it’s despotism. Nations with law that is applied equally, without prejudice and created for the benefit of all, protect liberty, while those countries that have different standards depending on the person the law is applied to, protect some while abusing others and create law for the benefit of some protected class, are despotic. By this measure, more than some empty claim of democracy, a nation can be truly judged to be despotic or free.

In the past Turkey has been the most free of all Muslim nations. Under the Constitution of Ataturk Turkey’s citizens were allowed freedom of speech, religion and assembly. In the course of the centuries the people of Turkey have turned away from limited government and embraced despotic rule. They have elected an authoritarian. This is proven beyond any doubt by the treatment of journalists in Turkey. Some of which are being tried as you read this for exposing Erdogan’s corruption and face life in prison. Turkey, by this measure has become a tyranny, despite ostensibly being a “democracy.”

The US has taken an alarming jog into arbitrary rule in the last few decades. Many examples abound of this change in the nature of the US government, but few are as obvious or as compelling in making the case as the IRS targeting conservative groups and the recent indictment of the Center for Medical Progress, for exposing Planned Parenthood’s crimes. Both examples show, beyond a doubt, that law in the US is arbitrarily applied, is prejudicial, depending on the political standing of the individual or organization to which it is applied, and is created for the benefit of politically favored groups. Those people who advance the cause of arbitrary rule, and therefore despotism in the US, love to claim the US is a democracy, as if that justifies the descent into authoritarianism.

In a democracy, if the majority want your property they vote it away from you and take it by force, in a constitutional republic, the majority cannot take your property. Obviously the first is a form of authoritarianism. Regardless of the size of the authoritarian group, be it one man or a majority of the people, there is tyrannical power at work. Moreover, that the majority can simply vote to take the property of random people, arbitrarily, is the definition of arbitrary rule. In a democracy the majority rules arbitrarily. In a republic however, the actions of government is limited by the Constitution. This should be clear as glass to anyone with an open mind and enough brain power to operate their innards. The US was set up as a constitutional republic with limited power so tat arbitrary rule could not be applied yet here we have it, arbitrary rule, promoted by those who claim the US is a democracy.

Rome after Caesar was a despotic government but was called in name a republic. It had in theory, limited government that was supposed to protect the rights, property and lives of it’s citizens, but in fact the Caesar, backed by the praetorian guard, had the arbitrary ability to take what he wanted, apply laws randomly depending on the person’s political favor, and create law benefiting his political allies. You can call a snake an owl, but that doesn’t give the snake feathers, nor does it confer on the snake the ability to fly, it is still a snake. Calling a nation that practices arbitrary rule a democracy, republic or free, doesn’t make it so. The practice of arbitrary rule is the measure of authoritarianism regardless of what the elite want the people to think. The US has come very far indeed, very far away from it’s founding as a Constitutionally limited republic, to a chimera, one that calls itself free but is in fact has arbitrary rule. Unless we recognize it, and demand a return to Constitutionally limited government, we are complicit in the enslaving of our own children to a despotic government. I ask you, are we really that stupid and vile?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The International Capitalist Party supports…

Monday, January 25th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me the US is at a crossroads, do we take the road most traveled and vote for the Marxist or the Nationalist, or do we take the road less traveled and vote for the Constitutionalist? Since most politics is based on emotion rather than reason it is hard to convince anyone to vote for a candidate based on reason. Emotion however has got us into the mess the US, and indeed the world, is now in and it is only reason that can extricate us from the pending man made disasters. Emotion is the road most traveled, in fact it has been trod so many times it is widened to a superhighway. The founding fathers used reason to set up our limited government with it’s checks and balances and emotional egoistic men that have undermined it. Let us use reason and common sense to pick our next President rather than blind emotion that has failed us so spectacularly in the past.

Nationalism is ignorance and despotism… masquerading as patriotism. Nationalism has brought the world horrors that rip the soul. Such slaughter that washed the world with the blood of innocents in the past, nationalism has always resulted in war, tyranny and suffering, and it always will. That is because nationalism blinds men’s minds to right and focuses our minds on might. The nationalist leader is always and everywhere an egomaniac. The nationalist leaders of the past, around the world, always offer the people the red meat of propaganda. The Fuhrer will save us, we are the chosen people, strength through joy, power to the people, the enemy is untermensch, etc… the nationalist has all the answers and those answers are always based on unlimited arbitrary power. Put simply… nationalism is the fastest way to destroy a nation and it’s people, reducing them to slaves. Therefore, in a rational country, a nationalist candidate should be avoided like a plague.

Marxism is only surpassed by Islam as the greatest murderer of people, but it has taken Islam a thousand and a half years to murder so many, while Marxism only took a century and a half to get there. Marxism offers plenty none of which it ever has or ever will deliver. From the French revolution to Venezuela, Marxism has promised wealth for the poor and instead, delivered suffering on an epic scale. Marxism is like a prion disease that converts healthy economies into zombies that eat their own. Today in the race for the White house there are two Marxists, one avowed and unabashed the other a crypto-Marxist, either have a good chance of gaining the Presidency, both of which will further the policies of the anti American Marxist President Barack Obama. If that happens, the path back to prosperity, freedom and limited government will be closed, perhaps forever.

The rational choice for the highest position in government must always be the person who has shown he or she will follow our founding principles, has a track record of keeping his promises and is plain spoken about it. Our nation has prospered whenever our founding principles have been followed and floundered whenever they have been ignored. Only two Presidents in the Twentieth Century have been followers of our founding principles, both had flaws but their adherence to the concept of limited government gave us economic prosperity, international safety and societal tranquility. Under Calvin Coolidge the nation underwent the fastest period of economic growth ever seen, hate groups withered and the standing of the nation in the world elevated. Ronald Reagan ushered in rapid economic expansion, removed the threat of nuclear annihilation from us and brought us a lower crime rate. Both Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan were hated by the elite, they both faced a hostile establishment and both stuck to their principles once elected.

Ted Cruz is the only candidate who has shown attributes like those of Reagan and Coolidge. Once he got elected to the Senate he stuck to his principles, principles of limited government, fiscal restraint and eschewed international adventurism. The politician who remains uncorrupted by power is a rare and special person. Such a person should get the accolade of the people most of all while earning the undying enmity of the elite. It is rational to choose the candidate who follows those principles that made America great, economically, internationally and societally. Emotion however, cannot be overcome with logic, as logic cannot be overcome with emotion. It is up to the individual to choose, to be controlled by ignorant and self defeating emotion, else rise above emotion considering the choices rationally and with logic. You have the power to choose the road less traveled and prosper or the superhighway of emotion and want. The International Capitalist Party, being based on historically empirical facts, economic logic and philosophically pragmatic, supports Ted Cruz wholeheartedly and I believe you should too. Make a self interested choice based on logic and choose well, or not, and choose poorly, in the end, you will either prosper or suffer for the decision you make… please choose wisely.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Why there is so much money in politics

Monday, January 18th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the perennial question in politics is, what comes first the money in politics or the corruption? That question misses the point however, if the power of the state hadn’t grown to the magnitude and reach it has, there wouldn’t be much money in politics to begin with. People are always and everywhere self interested, in some places their self interest is tied up with tribal interests, other places self interest is bound with family, while in Western cultures self interest is about the self. No matter how self interest is defined by the culture, if it is more profitable to pay a government crony to get rich, rather than produce a product or service your fellow human beings need and want for profit, people will choose to bribe a public servant every time. There is a saying in modern business that a dollar spent on lobbying is worth ten on product development. What a damning thing to say about government’s corrupt influence on the economy. Yet there it is, it is more profitable to spend money on politics than to develop a product people want and can use.

In a market economy the path to riches is by producing something that improves the lives of others. That truism has two main outcomes, one is that the standard of living is constantly under improvement due to the introduction of labor saving and life enhancing products produced by entrepreneurs, and two, those who get rich do so by helping their fellows. This is why the market economy is so effective and efficient. When the self interested path to wealth is by improving the lot of Man, people who want to get rich will improve the lot of Man. What a simple concept to understand.

Most people who want to get rich however don’t want to go to such lengths, they would rather just steal the wealth through confiscation, government granted monopoly or outright corruption. Those in government see the wealth of the nation and in their hubris and greed they want an ever larger share of that wealth. Basically, sociopaths and psychopaths don’t want to help people, but want to get rich, so they turn to government. This is one of the reasons it is in the nature of government to grow. People who seek unearned wealth need to convince those they are stealing from, that it is in the best interests of the victims, so they connive and poison.

They connive to trick the mark into willingly giving up their sovereignty for “fairness,” “safety,” or shared sacrifice,” but it is only the people who sacrifice, the elite slop at the trough of government largess and the poor only get the slop that is tossed onto the ground, in the elite’s feeding frenzy. Politicians and lawyers poison the economy, to create the conditions where people are more and more desperate, because desperate people don’t think they act on emotion and emotional people are easily manipulated. So the power of government grows and grows, while the wealth of the nation shrinks and shrinks, and as the power of government to interfere with the economy, poison it if you will, it becomes ever more efficient to feed the leviathan than be fed to it.

As the power of government grows more money is fed into the machine. It becomes less and less profitable to produce a product or service that benefits people and more profitable to pay government to shut down your competition. Those in business can’t take the chance their competitors will pay government to shut them down through regulation, so they have to belly up to the bar, paying government not to close their doors. The corruption, power and influence of government grows and grows, in the arms race of businesses to keep ahead of their competition. In the meantime, money that would have gone into product development is spent instead on lobbying and political donations, therefore less products are available and demand for labor decreases, lowering wages and the labor participation rate.

So the question of, what comes first the money in politics or the corruption misses the point. It is the unchecked growth in government reach and influence that drives both. People will seek the easiest means to wealth available, and if that means is political power they will choose that route, especially sociopaths and psychopaths, that is why government is filled with them. Just because they are pathological doesn’t mean they are stupid, so they convince the people, or at least some of the people, they would benefit by more power in the hands of government. Once government has the power to destroy whole industries, create laws forcing people into markets and poison the economy, it is more efficient for business to pay government than to produce products and services. Once a nation gets there the economy can only rot away like moldy bread. The real problem is abandoning limited government for the nanny state, it always has been, and always will be.

Sincerely,

John Pepin