Posts Tagged ‘war on drugs’

Perpetual Wars

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the war on drugs and the war on terror have been spectacular successes, at destroying our liberty. Both have been amazingly successful in separating us from our rights as enumerated in our Constitution. Today we accept, with aplomb, that which would have brought the masses onto the streets with guns, inciting revolution. Anyone who reads the Federalist Papers, by Madison, Jay and Hamilton, cannot help but recognize in the US today, the very tyranny they warned us about. From the law being so arcane that even lawyers cannot know them, to electing representatives who act above the law, our government has utterly separated itself from it’s foundation. The lever the elite have used to create this situation? The war on drugs and the war on terror.

It is human nature to want power, money, sex, fame, etc… The ancient Greeks had entire philosophies devoted to mankind’s thirst for pleasure and repugnance of pain. We all seek pleasure and avoid pain. The elite have the singular ability to achieve this… if only they can effectively destroy our Constitution, a limiting document specifically designed to control their power and ability to exploit their positions of power to their own ends, at cost to the rest of society. As they are elevated above the law, by undermining our constitution, their ability to meet their wants is elevated as well. Today a politician can get away with breaking almost any law with impunity. The examples are far too many to list but I know you can think of multiple examples yourself.

To fight the war on terrorism we have cheered the limitation of almost every Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Our first amendment Right to free speech and freedom of religion has been undermined by the government, to “protect us,” from Islamic terror. We must now pay the Jizya, in the form of welfare to “refugees” and submit to Sharia, by limiting our Right to speak freely as in Charlie Hebdo, else the Muslims will kill a bunch of us. How is that working out in Europe? Moreover isn’t that a slur against Muslims?  We have to accept infringements on our Second Amendment Right to keep and bare arms, so the drug dealers won’t be able to shoot people, how is that working out in Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit, cities in the US with the strongest gun control?

The fourth amendment is now a standing joke. Illegal search and seizure is now as common as the cold. Roe V Wade was based on doctor client privilege, but today doctors are required by law to ask, if you have a gun in your house! Apparently exercising your second amendment rights will get your fourth amendment rights violated by the government. A Right to privacy? Government agents can demand your cell phone, passwords and look through your Facebook, twitter and any other personal information they want. If you refuse you will be jailed.

The fifth Amendment says we have a right to life, liberty and property. The slippery slope of extra judicial killings, as Obama did to terrorists who were American citizens, is now perfectly legal, despite the Constitution’s limitations. The government can seize our homes and property at will in the war on drugs. If you are pulled over and a police officer asks if you have cash, and you stupidly say yes, because it is illegal to lie to the government while it is perfectly acceptable for government to lie to you, that officer will seize the money at gunpoint, like any other highwayman, and good luck trying to get it back. Ever heard of extrajudicial rendition?

The Right of accused persons is now the right of kings to abuse the accused. I have a friend who was sleeping off a drunk night in the back seat of his car… when he awoke to being beaten by billy clubs. He was later charged with DUI and pushed down a flight of stairs with his hands cuffed behind his back. I have another friend who was accused if DUI by the same officers. In court, the police lied under oath, it was proven they lied… but the judge said that didn’t negate the “fact” Jimmy was driving drunk. So much for the Rights of the accused. When Bill Clinton was accused of lying under oath, the media went overboard claiming lying under oath is perfectly acceptable. If that is so, you try it, see how that works out.

War is political action by violence… therefore, war is politics. The war on drugs and the war on terror are the mere political maneuvers of our leaders engaging in political violence against, not another state, but against us. Such a war can never be won in the traditional sense, because a tactic like terror or an action such as taking drugs, will never go away. That is the beauty of it all… it is an unending war. Perpetual war, as we were warned about by the founding fathers, is the surest means to wipe out liberty, and the wars on drugs and terror are as perpetual as possible. Both have resulted in the direct opposite of their stated “intention.” Terrorism has become the new normal, and drug use, especially hard drugs like Heroin and cocaine, have got utterly out of control, justifying the need to take away more of our rights. Proving the axiom… The more government fails the more power it gets. Under such a scenario failure becomes intentional.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Government Simply Cannot Solve Problems

Thursday, August 4th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, government in all it’s manifestations, subsidizes and encourages bad behavior, to the detriment of humanity. Not just modern government, although the welfare state has risen the body politic to levels not seen since Rome’s bread and circuses. The negative incentives government inflicts on mankind, in the name of compassion, have the cumulative effect of making worse that which they are supposed to alleviate. There are several reasons this is so. The mechanism of government funding, the inherent incentives of that funding process and the constituency that instantly crops up depends on it, all combine to give immortality to any government program set up to fix something. The very nature of government wielding power, ie, handing out money, lends itself to corruption, dependence and lack of ambition.

By mitigating the negative consequences of negative behavior, whether from compassion or a lust for power over the individual, government creates more negative behavior. If fathers are not needed, economically, to raise children, then children will not have fathers along with all the other negative consequences for those children, economic, social and cultural. The more government subsidizes a fatherless society the less fathers there will be, and the less people will feel they have a stake in society, leading to more crime, violent and otherwise, making more men unsuitable to be fathers in the first place. Government’s ham handed way of solving any problem always leads to a worsening of that problem.

Government always makes permanent anything it tries to fix. That is because the moment government announces it is going to fix a thing, that thing instantly has a constituency and permanent ever increasing funding supply, to feed those constituents/dependents, which insures it is in no one’s favor to actually solve the problem, too much money is at stake. The fundamental problem grows worse, while bureaucrats make up statistics showing some alleviation of the worst suffering, justifying more spending. The cycle goes on and on. Can you think of any problem the federal government has ever solved? Did prohibition stop alcoholism, does the war on drugs eliminate the scourge of drugs, did the Agricultural Agency solve the problems of small farms, did welfare lower the amount of people who are poor, does the Department of Energy done anything to lower our dependence of foreign oil and has the federal government’s usurping of our children’s education improved it or lowered the cost?

If someone is put in a cell wired to electrodes and offered two choices, one is a candy bar, the other is a cockroach, every time the subject reaches for the candy bar he gets a shock, but if they eat the cockroach they don’t, eventually, every subject will eat the roach… eschewing the candy bar, even flinching at the thought. Incentives work that way, they change our perceptions, rightly or wrongly, about what is good and what is bad. People can be convinced to always choose the wrong path, even when they know explicitly it is the wrong path, if the incentives are sufficient. Why work if welfare pays better? Why marry if there is more sex outside of marriage than inside? Why pay for your own children if the government will do it so you can have more children by more women? Those bad decisions, negative actions, normally would have a host of negative consequences, impelling us to make better choices, better for us, our society, our culture and our overall best interest… if not for government creating pernicious incentives.

Sincerely,

John Pepin