Posts Tagged ‘second amendment’

Lawless Government

Sunday, May 31st, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the US government has become utterly lawless. We the people are supposed to follow all rightly constituted laws, passed by the legislative branch and unless overridden by the congress, signed by our President. Our government is supposed to follow, to the letter, our Constitution, the contract between the governed and the governors, strictly enumerating the power we give up to government, to ensure our property is secure, establish standards, and control criminal behavior as well as protecting us from foreign powers. The US government increasingly seeks to control every aspect of human behavior, while at the same time totally ignoring, not only the intent of our Constitution and it’s limits on government, but are now actively urinating on the text. Examples abound, from their abdication of both tenets of the First Amendment, the total destruction of the second amendment, government living by rapine, we are no longer safe in our personal papers, government can seize any of our property at any time, to the crushing of State’s Rights in every way possible. To make the system work, increasing amounts of violence must be used against us, even as we behold our government ignoring the basic rules they are supposed to follow. We stand naked before government while they hide behind a wall of guns, woven together with red tape, aimed at us.

Fail to follow any arcane regulation, law or ordinance and the full weight of the US government will fall on you. Disagree? Try withholding taxes because they go to something you are morally against, like funding abortions, and see if armed men don’t come to your door and arrest you. We are held to the highest standard possible, to the point of being monitored by camera while driving down the street, our emails are scanned and saved on some government computer in Utah, our homes are peered into by the government with infrared and other sensors, our computers can be seized at any time, banks record our cash transactions and send them to the government, our credit card transactions are available to government for any purpose, etc… Every aspect of our lives is open to our government, but our government hides even the most mundane things from us.

The recent internet regulation was hidden, and even now that we are supposed to follow it, most of it’s intricacies are covered in arcane wording and red tape. Despite being called Net Neutrality, it does the exact opposite it was billed as. It creates a market web which players pay to play and the old internet which is free, so I ask you, which will get the funding? The one where companies can make a profit, (and is regulated as to their content and political correctness)… or the one where financial loss is guaranteed but is open to anyone to say anything? I submit to you, Net neutrality was and is designed to wither the open internet on the vine, creating a system where government can increasingly control the flow of information.

The Amendments are ignored and given less and less lip service every day that passes. If you are stopped by a police officer, make the mistake of talking to him or her, and you are carrying cash, they can simply take that cash, your life savings perhaps, and you are out of luck. How is that different from a highwayman? Moreover, it is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, but isn’t the only violation of the Fourth Amendment by far. Your church may be forced to provide abortions, pay for blasphemous art, limit what they teach or marry gay couples. You are limited in your speech in a myriad of ways, all the government has to do is label whatever you say as “hate speech,” or you as an “extremist” and you are now a criminal subject to prosecution… which are blatant violations of the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment has been eviscerated. Today States pass whatever law restricting our Right to keep and bare arms they want without a peep from the Judicial branch. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed… seems simple enough to understand, but the learned members of the new class have a hard time understanding what infringed means. It is no coincidence that those places where guns are outlawed, have the highest violent crime rates, the highest murder rates, and the most government tyranny as well. Look at Chicago’s murder rate, violent crime rate, and secret prison for example.

The interstate commerce clause has been so perverted government can regulate every and any aspect of your life. That perversion is based on Wickard v Filburn. In that case, (which still stands), the government can force you to plow under crops you are growing for your own consumption! Because you won’t buy that food on the open market and therefore effects the prices of food across state lines. In other words, the government has the power, as yet unused, to regulate you and your family to starve to death! Now, I can hear some innocent Pollyannas saying, “They would never do that!” But only a few decades ago, it was unthinkable that a human being could be executed by dismemberment, simply because he or she has been recategorized as a fetus.

The US Constitution makes no provision whatsoever to allow for the bureaucracy. Yet the bureaucracy has become the largest part of government today, and is totally unconstitutional. It too is based on Wickard v Filburn. The bureaucracy bypasses the Constitutional legislative process, creating unconstitutional regulations that stymie economic growth, erode what Constitutional liberties remain and most perniciously, move us from a limited representative republic to an administered despotism.

Our government has been disconnected from the limits the framers built into our Constitution. The new class elite claim the Constitution is a “living breathing document,” and thereby unshackle themselves from the limits put on them by it’s original intent. The Tenth Amendment says – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In other words, if the Constitution doesn’t say government can do a thing, government is forbidden from doing, and those things the Constitution says government cannot do, it cannot do. Sadly, government does whatever it wants today, there are no limits, they have broken the contract over and over.

Today, those powers that are not bestowed on government, are regularly done, and those powers the Bill of Rights strictly forbids, are commonplace. We stand naked before an all powerful government while they hide behind a wall of guns aimed out at us. We not only have to worry about a robber taking our hard earned money, the government itself has become the thief, government undermines economic standards whenever a politically favored group wants, it encourages an invasion of people who seek to change our way of life, and the list goes on. Government hides everything they do, as they tell us, if we have nothing to hide then we should stand naked before it. Can there be disagreement we don’t live under a poorly concealed despotism? Isn’t it time to reign them back in?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Shall Not Be Infringed

Monday, October 27th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, guns are the most regulated tools in the United States, despite the clear prohibition against gun regulation in the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those who oppose limits on government, limits that are the very reason for our Constitution in the first place, spuriously argue the Second Amendment is to give government the right to keep and bear arms, which of course is absurd on the face of it and is based on perverting the meaning of the word “militia,” and ignoring the phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free State.” They bolster their argument by claiming guns are dangerous, and as dangerous tools they must be regulated, for the safety of us all. But, is that really why guns are so regulated, or are these just distractions to the real purpose of gun control? I would posit that the real reason the political, cultural and social elite seek gun control is for a far more insidious agenda.

Of course regulation is the very definition of an infringement. Regulation and laws are there to keep people from doing something, or having something, the elite have decided are bad. In infringing on an action, product or thought, the argument is always that it is for the greater good. In the case of laws against murder, the reason for them is that if a person’s life is taken, that person has been denied his or her fundamental individual Right to exist. In the case of laws against theft, the rational is that people have the Right to their possessions, and taking something from someone denies them the enjoyment of that possession. Right law protects individuals – not society. In all cases law that is in keeping with Our Constitution are there to protect our person, property or liberty. Gun control however is different, gun laws are there to deny us the ability to defend our lives, to protect our property and to make it possible to remove our liberty, the exact opposite of right law.

The rabid gun control advocate demands all people, especially law abiding citizens give up guns so the fearful man or woman can feel safer. In that the crux of their argument is “guns are dangerous and therefore they must be regulated, the Constitution can go to Hell.” But in making such arguments they forget that all the Rights enumerated in the Constitution are dangerous. The Right to free speech is very dangerous, far more dangerous than the Right to keep and bear arms. The most an armed lunatic can kill is a hundred, maybe a few more, but the damage an armed terrorist can visit on humanity is limited by the response of law abiding armed citizens as well as law enforcement. The damage a pamphleteer can do to the well ordering of society is exponentially worse. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf which in large part abetted the slaughter of sixty million human beings and the rewriting of the world’s map. Marx and Engels penned The Communist Manifesto which to date has justified the extermination of well over one hundred million innocent people! Clearly, if safety is what the gun control advocate wants, freedom of speech is far more dangerous then the Right to keep and bear arms, and so must be outlawed.

If we examine the results of gun control laws, both in the united States and elsewhere, a clear pattern emerges. In the cities with the greatest infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms, violence of all kinds is out of control, especially gun violence. In those places where guns are the least regulated, there is the least violence, especially gun violence. Furthermore, where guns are outlawed most of the violence is stranger on stranger violence, and where guns are legally protected, almost all the violence is between people who know each other, in other words, crimes of passion. In countries where guns have been outlawed, like Australia, gun violence has skyrocketed. So the argument that gun laws keep people safe is obviously untrue.

The new class elite who seek to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, argue that since the Right was prefaced by the term Well regulated Militia, it was meant to apply to the government and not to individuals. Even a perfunctory examination of this argument shows it to be absurd. That the founders would place a Right in the Bill of Rights that gives government a Right, that has already been granted elsewhere is clearly spurious, that they would place a government Right among Rights specifically designated for individuals to protect us from tyranny, shows it to be sophistry of the most diabolical kind. The Bill of Rights was specifically designed, under great debate, to protect the people from a despotic government. Certainly not to empower government to become despotic! Madison himself said, Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. At the time the Bill of Rights was written militia meant all able bodied men. Like I said, even a cursory glance at the spurious claim that the Second Amendment is to give government the sole power to keep and bear arms is absurd.

The Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution as a secondary bulwark against government becoming despotic. Madison initially objected, arguing what need a of a Bill of Rights, since the Constitution forbade government from doing anything it is not specifically allowed to do under the Constitution. Going further he reasoned, if the Bill of Rights forbade the regulation of jumping jacks, could it then therefore regulate tiddlywinks? He eventually came on board with the Federalists who called for a Bill of Rights and wrote them himself. But as we now see, our government has become so extra constitutional, even the “parchment barriers” of our Bill of Rights can be ignored by a government intent on ignoring them. Now that our Constitution, and even our Bill of Rights means nothing, tyranny cannot be far away. That my friends is why we need to add a Fourth Branch… but that is another article for another time.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Our Flawed Primary System

Sunday, May 26th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the primary election system for President in the United States, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The bastardized system we now have, to decide who will represent either of the two major political parties in the US, insures the will of the people is not met. Such a system, one that undermines the people’s wants and needs in favor of the Elite’s preferences, is one that is in great need of renovation. To continue with such a flawed method, is to perpetuate the horrible election options we have had for the last few decades, along with ever lower voter turnout.

Today the Presidential candidates have different elections in various States at assorted times. The system is such that if a candidate that the Elite don’t like, wins the first State, the Elite have sufficient time to undermine his or her candidacy to get their man in. This insures the Elite’s candidate gets both the Democrat and Republican candidacy. The Elite cannot loose, and the people cannot win.

We are given the illusion of fair elections by this fatally flawed system when in fact we have very little say. Take the last election. Mitt Romney, who by all accounts is a decent and good person, was the least liked by the Republican electorate. Yet he won the primary. Other candidates, like Michele Bachman was far better liked and even won the initial straw poll. That initial win put her in the crosshairs of the media and political elite however. They pulled out all the stops to vilify her at every turn, undermining her candidacy to the point of making her a laughing stock.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton was the most qualified on the Democratic side, yet she was crushed under the wheel of the unbiased media and the political Elite, in favor of Barok Obama. As it turns out the candidacy of Obama was terribly flawed. Had he gotten even a smidgen of scrutiny by the unbiased media, he couldn’t have won a single State. The media gave his drug use a pass, they ignored his associations with domestic terrorists, they gave his lack of experience no mention, Obama’s anti American pastor Jeremiah Wright was glossed over, they never reported on his questionable birthplace, they overlooked his overtly communist leanings and they pilloried anyone who brought these flaws up. Compare Obama’s treatment at the hands of the unbiased media to the treatment Herman Cain got.

When you have a system that insures the Elite’s selection of both candidates in both parties, you have a system that is set up to protect the interests of the Elite, at cost to the interests of the people. Such a system is tilted in favor of candidates that have the political leaning of the Elite… in academia, media, culture, politics and wealth. The interests of the people to have limited government is undermined, so the power of government can be exploited, to protect the interests of the Elite. The result is that we have elected representatives that are unilateral in their political view, progressive. The unbiased media decry that there are any politicians who have a different political view and take every opportunity to paint the non-progressives as extremists and anti American.

The answer to this dilemma, is to have a primary election in June or July, where every State votes at the same time. This would curtail the Elite’s ability to push the primary election to their man. Such a system which would essentially mirror the November election, giving power to the people, and removing that power from the Elite. To continue with a system, one that empowers a small faction of the population to have outsized influence on the outcome of elections, is to anoint that faction an oligarchy. Modern history shows this to be the case. Once government is essentially an oligarchy, the machinations of government can be used to do such things as… leave soldiers to die if it is politically expedient, lie under oath without real consequence, use the taxing power of government to suppress their political opponents, mislabel their political opponents as enemies, tap the phones of the press to suppress distribution of information, send guns to drug lords while vilifying the Second Amendment for it, and act above their own laws while ignoring the Constitution. Such a system cannot be said to lead to tyranny, because it is in fact tyranny, disguised as democracy. No matter the quality of the sheep’s pelt the wolf in it is insatiable.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Wisdom in Politics

Monday, March 4th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, wisdom is the awareness of the truth around us, ignorance is a lack of such awareness. To listen to our leaders, political and otherwise, without a discerning ear, an ear to fundamental reality instead of crass political correctness, is a sign of wisdom. Those that believe the propaganda of the Elite become more ignorant every day. Most thoughtful people understand that ignorance is not a good position to be in, when making a decision, but many who are otherwise thoughtful embrace ignorance and propaganda when it is their guy. This lack of wisdom has a very corrosive effect on our society and government.

One method of discernment is to believe people’s actions and listen to their rhetoric with disbelief. Actions speak louder than words. When a person who is clearly engaging in some action, claims he is doing the opposite, the wise person discredits the words and takes the actions for the truth. The unwise person will ignore the actions and believe the rhetoric. We see this more and more form our political elite. They say one thing while doing the opposite, and if you or I point this out we are given derisive monikers like extremists, conspiracy theorists and hate mongers. This is an old tactic to quiet those who would point out the glittering lies, and by doing so, shine light on the ugly truth.

Some heinous examples that are happening now, are the Fast and Furious coverup, Benghazi gate, government debt and deficit spending. These are but a few, the Obama administration never tells the truth it always blankets itself in obfuscations and stonewalling. Fast and Furious should be on everyone’s lips, due to the present debate whether we should abandon the Second Amendment… or not. This scandal, that was covered up by both the administration and a complicit media, is not only a national shame but an act of war against a friendly nation.

In Fast and Furious the Obama administration claimed in their rhetoric, that they sought to stymy the flow of guns into Mexico, by sending guns into Mexico. The absurdity of it doesn’t stop there however. The Obama administration sent thousands of guns into Mexico and at the same time were pillorying US gun dealers along the boarder for it. Their actions indicate the real intention, was to vilify gun ownership in the US, and the violence the Obama administration promoted in Mexico, was the means. Their actions were of people who will encourage violence to their own political end, in this case undermining the Second Amendment, while their rhetoric was of people trying to stop that violence. Their actions were the opposite of their words. Thrasymachus would be proud.

Benghazi gate is in some ways even more egregious. The rhetoric of the Obama administration has been proven to be a pack of lies. The Obama administration even put a man into jail on some trumped up charge to give merit to their lie that the attack was the result of a movie that was offensive. They jailed an innocent man for political expediency, who by the way, is still imprisoned. The administration, as we now know from news reports, was asked numerous times for reinforcements at the compound, but were turned down repeatedly… The administration ignored the assassination attempt of the British ambassador, a few weeks before the devastating attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, this administration even provided weapons to the Libyan rebels reminiscent of Fast and Furious, and they even told responding military to stand down. Those who survived the attack are being hidden by the Obama administration, further veiling Obama’s actions… and true intentions. These actions in and of themselves point to ulterior motives, but when coupled with the propaganda and outright lies, the truth behind it becomes ever darker.

Obama’s rhetoric and actions don’t agree on the huge issue of government spending and debt either. They claim they seek a balanced budget, long term financial responsibility and fairness in the tax code, but their actions are one hundred and eighty degrees from their rhetoric. They raised the tax burden on every American who works by two percent while claiming they will only raise taxes on the “rich.” Do you believe Warren Buffett’s taxes went up? Do you think George Soros’ taxes went up? Of course they didn’t! Yours did! Obama bemoans an eighty five billion dollar cut in the rate of growth of government spending while we take a two percent cut in our real income. So much for fairness. The deficit has skyrocketed under Obama, almost two trillion dollars a year and growing, in part due to the lack of a budget in four years. Obama proposes more and more spending while seeking to raise taxes at every turn. More revenue is the one note song coming from this White House. I wonder what will be a sufficient level of taxation for this president? His actions indicate one hundred percent.

A wise man or woman looks at reality instead of rhetoric. The media’s complete lack of curiosity about this president’s actions, and total slavering at his words, shows their absolute lack of wisdom. Those who’s eyes are open, and observe that the Elite in our society say one thing and do another, display wisdom and know the truth. Those that slop up the lies and propaganda are doomed to disappointment, slavery and poverty. The real question in my mind is, “Will wisdom ever become widespread in the World again or are we all doomed by the ignorance of the sheep?”

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

Exploiting the Tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary

Thursday, December 20th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, to exploit a tragedy to raise money is heartless, but to exploit it to overturn Constitutional rights, is criminal. In this we have the example of Barack Obama. He has crassly used the tragedy at Sandy Hook to raise campaign money, and since he is Constitutionally barred from running again, it raises some prickly questions. The pressing and more pernicious use he has made of the tragedy is to undermine American’s Second Amendment rights. This has been an ongoing problem with this president. When a politician exploits the emotional reaction to a tragedy in these ways, a bright light should illuminate it, because our Constitutional liberties are at stake… and darkness serves only darkness.

The Constitution was put in place by the American Founding Fathers, to protect the American people from the natural urges of politicians, to usurp power to their own ends. This has been the paradigm since the dawn of human existence. Over the ages many things have been tried to stem this predilection of people with power over others. The Romans used a system where power was broken up between two Consuls, like the Spartans, and Solon created the ostracism. All methods tried up until the Enlightenment have failed. Constitutionalism was the Enlightenment’s attempt.

The Second Amendment was to be the final resort for the people against a government that had become extra Constitutional. The ability of the people, under the auspices of the States, to overthrow the Federal government was reasoned out in the Federalist papers… the right to revolution. The last resort when politicians had become drunk with power. This is the real reason Americans have the Second Amendment, not to protect hunting, or for fun at the range, it was to be the final check on the power of usurpers to the Constitution.

This is one of the primary reasons modern politicians have held the Second Amendment in such antipathy. They know in their hearts that since Wickard v. Filburn the Federal government has been overtly extra Constitutional. The legal oligarchy in the US understands this, but have allowed it because of the power it has given them, to amass wealth at the expense of the citizenry. This case was only the first step in undermining the US Constitution however. Assaults on the Constitution, to limit the power of men over the citizenry, have continued at an ever increasing pace.

The irony of Obama… who sent Mexican drug lords thousands of assault weapons, as well as communist gorillas in South America, and Al Qaeda heavy arms in Syria, have resulted in thousands of deaths, (and the rape and murder of an ambassador)… calling to outlaw guns in the US, is totally lost on the unbiased media. They dutifully fall in line with this usurper calling for the banning of guns of an arbitrary description. Did Obama wring his hands, when Univision reported that a massacre of teenagers at a birthday party was carried out, with weapons he provided the drug lords? No. Yet, until the details of Fast and Furious were discovered with the death of a US border patrol agent were made public, Obama was vilifying gun dealers for distributing guns to drug lords, as it turned out… it was Obama himself. Where is the Special prosecutor to look into this? Nowhere to be found.

The real reason we have so much gun violence in our society is because of the debasing of our culture. Unlimited abortion on demand, government policies that undermine the nuclear family, establishing atheism as the State religion, sexualizing our children, schools not teaching reading writing and arithmetic… and instead indoctrinating them into a political ideology, are only a very few examples of how our culture has been debased. Possibly the most pernicious is the lowering of human beings to animals by abortion and euthanasia. The CDC even has a paper out calling for “after birth abortions of children up to a year old!” This is the path Nazi Germany took and anyone who knows history, our children certainly haven’t been taught it, understands where that leads.

Politicians claim that gun rights are dangerous and so they must be limited. By this logic the first amendment should be banned as well. The right to free speech is far more dangerous and has led to far more human deaths and suffering than any lone gunman. A few examples are, Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, Jim Jones and Mao’s Little Red Book. Clearly, the right to free speech is far more dangerous than the freedom to keep and bear arms, to be consistent, it should be outlawed too, and we are hearing the radical left calling for this very thing. Some powerful voices in the entertainment industry have called for jailing of anyone who criticizes Obama. I find this Chilling…

So, what we have, is a political establishment that arms evil murderous subhumans, calling for the seizing of law abiding citizens guns. The original reason for the right is clouded by the rhetoric of the usurpers. The irony is ignored and outright law breaking by politicians is laughed at. Anyone who calls attention to this, is now subversively threatened with imprisonment, even as the Federal government of the United States continues to exceed it’s Constitutional limits. Obama even said he doesn’t like the US Constitution, which he has made an oath to uphold, as a charter of negative liberties. The last question that this episode brings up is, why is Obama raising campaign funds when he is Constitutionally barred from running again? Could it be that the charter of negative liberties isn’t an impediment to another term? The unsinkable Titanic is moving ever faster to the iceberg of despotism, the unbiased media sing along, and the American people’s emotions are expertly played like a fiddle… as Saint Augustine warned, “People get the government they deserve…” May we deserve better.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Societal Ethos

Thursday, November 25th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems with the modern ethos is embodied in a advertisement that I heard the other day. It was making the valid point that people shouldn’t park in handicapped parking areas if they are not handicapped. The part that piqued my interest was one line; “Parking in a handicapped space is not just wrong it is illegal.”

What makes this line stand out to me is the priority of wrong. By the order of the harms it appears that, in the mindset of the person writing the commercial, to do something illegal is worse than to do something morally wrong… When in reality the exact opposite is true.

For example, it is legal for Prudential Insurance company to rip off the widows and orphans of American soldiers killed in action. But at the same time it is morally reprehensible. While it is illegal to build within the zoned setback in the area that you live in. The one is reprehensible and the other is simply rude.

The pernicious idea is that, people hold Man’s law above God’s law, the worldly over the divine, the passing over the eternal. It makes us feel, as long as I am not breaking the law, whatever I do, without limit, is ok. Changing the societal ethos to, that which is immoral should be eschewed; that which is illegal must be eschewed.

When people value the law of Man over the law of God government must necessarily get large. Ever larger government to regulate ever smaller portions of daily life. More and More to do less and less. Building tension until societal structure catastrophically fails and there is a general breakdown.

Because government is like the roof of a house. The roof should be light, sound, watertight and long lasting. The people are like the foundation and business the structure. The roof cannot long support the foundation no matter how strong it gets. Else the Law of physics is violated and being one of God’s Laws it must necessarily have dire consequences were it violated. There is no political out for the Elite no matter their worldly power… Even Marius the enemy of Sulla, died a horrible death despite his immense wealth and power.

But where a people practice self control there is necessarily less need for government. Self sufficient people need no dubious help from government, self sufficient people need less policing, self sufficient people need less regulation, self sufficient people are a threat to the power of the Elite.

Livy pointed to these issues in ancient Rome. He was ridiculed for his portentous advice. Because Rome would fall exactly as Livy said it would, for largely the reasons he claimed. What has happened in the past, is proven possible, thus can happen in the future. To believe otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

But it is the Elite’s self interest to, nudge, society away from self sufficiency. Take for an extreme example laws against holding firearms. No liberal democracy on Earth does not have a monopoly on violence in it’s jurisdiction. Only in the poorest and nonfunctioning States does the State loose it’s monopoly on violence. With it’s monopoly on violence, (a part of the social contract), the State is empowered to take the property, rights and lives of it’s citizens in the form of taxes, punishments and coercion. Some legitimate some illegitimate. But all are universal powers of the modern State.

But where guns are the most illegal for the citizenry to hold we see the State has the least monopoly on violence. Mexico is an example. The Elite argue that guns are too dangerous a right to allow. It’s misuse results in human deaths. Ignoring the obvious counter argument, that the right to free speech is far more dangerous then the right to keep and bear arms, their argument flies in the face of the modern States monopoly on violence.

But what is the result of an unarmed citizenry? People who are utterly dependant on government for protection. If a person breaks into the home of an unarmed citizen the citizen is at the mercy of the invader, (never a good position to be in), but the home invader who enters the house of an armed and prepared citizen, is in mortal danger.

The Elite argue, we are not to be trusted with arms, despite our demonstrated morality, but they can be trusted with a monopoly on violence, despite their demonstrated corruption… And they are believed because in our hearts we all want a big brother to look after us… Or do we?