Judicial Activism is Treason

Posted on March 9, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, any President who appoints someone to the Supreme Court who is obviously not an originalist, is open and avowed treason and should be treated as such. The government gets its authority to govern from the Constitution, not the army, not the President, not from the courts or the bureaucracy, the foundation upon which our national government was built is our Constitution. Those who have the presumption to change the meaning of our foundational contract, do not value the founding or federalism, have far too much hubris to be allowed in charge of a McDonalds let alone safeguard our fundamental Rights. Therefore, anyone who would appoint such a person, knowing they are such a person, is openly and intentionally committing treason against the nation.

The one attribute that makes a king a king, an aristocrat an aristocrat, and a crime boss a crime boss, is some measure of being a sociopath. Cyrus the great was raised by sheepherders but when he played king with other children he ordered an aristocrat’s son seized and beaten. When the aristocrat told the king he was going to have the sheepherder and his family executed for it the king asked to see the child who had such impertinence. Because he was actually the king’s grandson he and his adopted family escaped execution, but it was his ability to hold others to a standard he was unwilling to accept for himself, that made him Cyrus the great. A king, kingpin or boss will execute another for something they do all the time. They hold themselves to no standard whatsoever but others to the highest standards. Constitutionalism changed all that.

Constitutionalism is an innovation of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was/is a transition in human understanding, where people stopped basing our conception of right in authority and instead base it on argument. Part of the new way was/is to try a new way to limit the power of government. Before the enlightenment, governments were monarchy, aristocracy or pure democracy rarely republican or in other words, a blending of the others. Those forms of government had in common a strong tendency to become authoritarian. Under the new ideas of the enlightenment, constitutionalism, instead of power deriving from authority it came from logical argument. The Constitution is that argument.

Our Constitution is a contract. A contract takes from both and gives to both parties. Imagine if you had a contract to supply widgets to a company, once you fulfilled your part they changed the contract, paying you less for them than the contract stipulated. Your contract would be violated. If one party changes the contract unilaterally, as in a Supreme court justice changing our Constitution to suit him or herself, the contract become null and void. Basically, when one party to a contract changes it without the consent of the other it is a form of fraud. Fraud, being a felony, is frowned upon by government when you or I do it. To appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, who will not interpret our Constitution as it was intended, is an attempt to change the contract, unilaterally, and is an attempt to commit fraud against the citizens of the nation.

A Constitution forms the basis of government. The contract between the governed and the government. Constitutions are the outcome of the argument of what government should be in a nation. It outlines the powers the people give to government for the social and civil tranquility. Powers not given to a government under a constitution are forbid to that government. That was the paradigm shift of constitutionalism. Before constitutionalism, the idea of limiting governmental power was almost unheard of, the sole limit on tyrannies was that eventually the people would become enraged and rise up, then only if the authoritarian became too extravagant. That old paradigm has led to much human suffering both in the tyranny and in the revolutions. In human history constitutionalism was a watershed event.

When a President puts someone on the Supreme Court that he or she knows will not interpret our Constitution as it was written and intended… they are committing the most heinous kind of fraud. Fraud against the people. That President, who seeks to unilaterally change the contract between the governed and the government, intends to return the nation to the old paradigm of unlimited government, oppression and revolution. That president is spitting in the face of the Enlightenment. Their actions prove that they seek to return us to unlimited government. Such a person clearly holds themselves to no standard whatsoever, but demands the rest of us submit to total government, of the type that slaughtered their way across the old world, and so is a sociopath. Indeed such a person is a traitor and should be treated as such.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Enforced by Regulation

Posted on March 7, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, to seek freedom by regulation, is like trying to breathe underwater. So many modern intellectuals foster the inane notion, more regulation will attain more freedom, it has become a meme. The Black Lives Matter movement demands separation or the races and requires regulations to enforce it, Campus student associations demand safe spaces enforced by rules so they don’t have to hear opposing views, gay and lesbian groups demand the freedom to marry by forcing others to marry them with laws, government claims it needs to have total surveillance of us so we can live the American dream, the list is tiresomely long and growing. People today swim in a swamp of logical absurdity. Regulation is to liberty as water is to breathing.

Almost everyone wants freedom. It is a basic drive of the human being. We seek liberty for ourselves and our children but at the same time desire to limit the actions of criminals and those with evil intent. Intellectuals use this basic conflict to get us to back more and more regulation. Despite the demonstrable proof that most regulation does the opposite of what it is supposed to do we continue to add to it. The amount of regulations we have to live under grows at an exponential rate because of this. Even as we desire more freedom we demand more regulation. We drown ourselves and our economy in red tape.

In a society of sociopaths no amount of regulation would be enough and in a civilization of saints no regulation would be necessary. In the same way, regulations don’t really stop the people with evil intent, Evil people care nothing for law and so laws just give the sociopath and psychopath a leg up on their victims. Alternatively, those of us without evil intent are severely limited by the regulations, since we follow the law, we have to live under them and so are limited in our economic, social and family outcomes. Greater regulations only help those with evil intent but damage those who are good.

More laws don’t stop crime, more laws create more criminals, because as the body of law increases limiting the possible actions of everyone, people will be forced to break the law either out of ignorance or malevolence. In a total state everyone is a criminal. Where everything is outlawed everyone must be a criminal, the closer we get to the total state, the more criminals there will be. Those who seek a total state will point to the greater criminality their laws create to pass more laws. It becomes a self effecting loop. The only logical end is the total state.

It is no coincidence that those who most vociferously call for more regulations, to create more freedom, are from the statist side of the political spectrum. Both the right and left have a statist side and an anarchist side. It is from the statists that we hear if government limits us we will have more liberty. The fall back is always to increase the power of the state. They argue that liberty can be forced on a society by law, morality can be enforced by regulations and honesty can be created by oversight. All of which are logical fallacies.

Honesty cannot be created by oversight, oversight simply undermines honesty by making the dishonest appear honest. Such a system undermines the incentive, moral and societal, to actually be honest. In such a society it is better to appear honest than to be honest. Morality enforced by fiat is an absurdity since morality is not extrinsic but intrinsic. Morality is something we incorporate within us growing up, not something that smothers us, like a regulation from without. It is either within us or not but cannot be injected like a vaccine. Most of all… the cause of liberty is never advanced by limiting law. Liberty by definition is a lack of government regulation. Law is the opposite of liberty.

Obviously I am not calling for anarchy, basic laws must remain else our civilization will devolve into a war between the immoral and moral, strong versus the weak. Civilization is fostered best where the people are taught morality, honesty and virtue as children. Human beings, you and I, are evil by nature, the civilization in us is a learned trait. Our intrinsic civilization in us is the result of our parents, religions and societal pressure. Law, regulations and punishments are only effective if kept to a minimum. Too much regulation and virtue is undermined, too little and chaos ensues. The social Fibonacci sequence then in civilization is to create a society where people are inculcated with self control as children. To expect people to be held in check by law, even onerous law, who are incapable of controlling themselves, is as crazy as trying to breathe underwater.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Democracy’s Achilles Heel

Posted on March 3, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, people would rather believe fiction than the truth, especially in politics. Human beings have an innate ability to convince themselves of absurdities. Of course to believe a fiction over the truth is the path to tyranny, poverty and violence, but people believe what they want to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is why democracy is so self destructive. Democracy within a republic is tempered but the elite always eventually become an aristocracy. As time goes on the people’s self delusion coupled with the elite’s misdirection combine to destroy any human government. We see this happening today with the election of Barak Obama and now the rise of Donald Trump.

Politicians become entrenched and hold power their whole lives just like the aristocracy of old. Like an aristocracy a ruling class rises up to hold power and pass it to their children. The Bush dynasty is one example but around the world political power is passed from father to son and daughter like an inheritance. Democracy is supposed to prevent such dynastic political power but instead democracy fosters it. One characteristic of any aristocracy is that they will evolve to oligarchy. They stop ruling for the benefit of the nation and start ruling for their own narrow self interests. The national interests are undermined by both a political class that has become aristocratic and then oligarchical.

An election is basically a beauty contest and in any beauty contest substance takes a back seat to appearance. In any beauty contest how the girl looks in a bikini is more important than her research into cancer. A political beauty contest is no different. A philosopher once said, put a beautiful man at a podium, let him speak with eloquence and a commanding voice and no matter the drivel he spouts, he will be called a genius, put another man, give him a drooping eye, high pitched voice and let spittle run from his mouth, and no matter the genius of his words he will be ridiculed a fool…

Empty catch phrases become a replacement for hard policy. Politicians understand the fact that people would rather believe a glittering lie rather than an ugly truth. Ugly truths require thought and energy while glittering lies delight the mind and require no commitment whatsoever. A simple mindless catchphrase like, “hope and change” can mean anything to anyone. To one it means restoration of constitutional principles and to another it means Marxism. The phrase’s definition depends on the listener, not the content, and so is mind candy without substance, which fits perfectly with our ability to convince ourselves of absurdities.

In the physical world self delusion quickly brings consequences. Jump from a cliff in an attempt to fly and it quickly leads to a horrible death, the consequences are immediate, but in politics, the consequences can be held off for a long time. It takes years of bad regulations to destroy an economy, years of gradually increasing intrusions to create tyranny and years of morality corroded by perversity to create social chaos. All of which are the results of self delusion of the electorate.

To believe what you want rather than what is, is a sure path to economic destruction, governmental tyranny and societal upheaval. You might want utopia but in Greek utopia means nowhere. Real solutions don’t come from catchphrases they take real work and sacrifice. We may want some hansom, articulate politician with a deep voice to solve all our problems, but that is the surest way to making those problems much much worse. Moreover, by falling to the same self delusion, over and over, we install over us a new aristocracy, with all the negative baggage that comes with an aristocracy. We have deluded ourselves for a very long time now and the consequences are becoming manifested, isn’t it time to stop believing in modern absurdities and start believing in genuine truth?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Government’s War on Charity

Posted on February 29, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the new class seeks a government monopoly on thought, morality and culture, and so will not tolerate competition from civic organizations. Civic organizations have existed since the founding of the US and before. They have fed the homeless, clothed the indigent, cared for orphans, cleaned up roads, donated to charity, helped the aged and provided for our veterans. The good works of these organizations has made the lot of mankind better. Today, those in government are becoming ever more greedy for power, political, social and cultural. The means to this power is to control the people’s finances, minds and morality. The elite cast envious eyes at the social and cultural good will civic organizations engender and seek that good will for themselves. Make no mistake however, the elite care nothing to help the downtrodden, but to exploit their misfortune to advance their agenda of total control. One thing history teaches us, unequivocally, is that too much power concentrated in too few hands, leads to human suffering on a massive scale.

When a confidence man plays his victim with a scam, he never admits his self interest, instead he applies to the victims wants and needs. The scammer is always more virtuous, more caring and more honest then humanity as a whole. They gain the confidence of a mark and separate the mark from her money. Scores of novels, movies and television shows have been written with this theme. The elite today are running a confidence game on us. We are the victims of the scam. They pass absurd laws in the name of “fairness,” they regulate our every action to “protect” us, they grow the welfare state to “feed” us and they bully us to “help” us make better choices. The elite in government want us to believe they are more virtuous than us, more caring than us and more honest than us.

The drive for monopoly is the reason behind such laws and ordinances that make it illegal to feed the homeless. I know how absurd it sounds, that it is illegal to feed the homeless in some cities, but it is. People have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law for feeding the homeless in America! There are dozens of laws, regulations and ordinances that make charitable work illegal in the United States. The history of such law is very short. Only recently have the elite been passing laws against good works. Such laws would have been unthinkable even half a century ago.

The rise of the welfare state is one of the main ways the government usurps the good works of civic organizations. Soup kitchens have been replaced by WIC, food stamps and aid to needy families. Government has forced out charitable organizations. Another way the elite in government profit from the welfare state is that it undermines the family unit making people more and more dependent on government. People don’t bite the hand that feeds them. Those who are dependent are malleable in thought, action and judgment. The welfare state has been a boon to the government’s drive for monopoly.

The government has changed the law to allow government the power to legally propagandize it’s citizens. It should be self evident to any reasoning person that government propaganda is not a tool of liberty but of tyranny. That the US government had to pass a law to propagandize the people shows how pernicious such a law is. There is no legitimate role of government to mold the minds of it’s citizens. Such a tool as propaganda is self serving to government and it’s narrow interests. Moreover, subtle pushes here and minor tweaks there, have the power to change morality, culture and thought itself… and we see that it has.

Today, government is the arbiter of morality, having appropriated the role of religion. Obama care, the affordable care act, has forced churches to choose to violate their faiths or violate the law. The courts have been chaotic about their rulings. Some find that government cannot force people to violate their faith while others have forced churches to undermine their core teachings. The sanctity of life for example. The slippery slope of government in the business of deciding morality can only lead to a chasm of immorality.

When someone is eating, I don’t have to be told they are eating, I can see it for myself. Even when they say, with a mouthful of food, they are not eating, I know they are. Just like when government slops at the trough of autocracy, while claiming they are only looking out for our best interests, the truth is obvious to anyone with open eyes. It is the same way with scam artists, who use subterfuge and misdirection to make their victims believe they are looking out for the best interests of their mark, even as they take the mark for everything. In the case of government everything is exactly what they demand and lust after. A monopoly on our thought, conscience and economy. Meanwhile we are awash in their clumsy attempts, the welfare state, laws forbidding good works, propaganda and government usurping morality. In their drive for monopoly, they are winning, while we are loosing. That is why government is waging a war on civic organizations… I wonder how much longer before we wake up and realize we have been taken? Far too late I am guessing.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Atheism, Socialism, and Tyranny

Posted on February 25, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a nation of atheists could never have a functional and efficient economy, because their lack of faith in God, demands atheists have control, while the religious have their faith in God and so can allow an economy to work laissez faire. Everyone desires a strong vibrant economy, from the ardent Marxist to the anarchist but the path to that vibrant economy is obscured by our personal preferences. That is why some take a path that can only lead to want, famine and suffering. It isn’t that some people want these things, it is that they see no other way, and this misplaced commitment is the result. Any clear examination of economics and economic theory must include an examination of the people that make up the economy. To disregard the people that make up an economy in an investigation of that economy is to study an ecosystem while ignoring the plants and animals that make it up.

If you believe there is no God everything is up to you. You cannot ever stop and relax because there is no one to rely on. The weight of the world is on the shoulders of the atheist. Any change the atheist wants in the world must be done by the atheist himself. Every problem must be solved by the atheist’s sweat. This doesn’t allow the atheist the ability to just let go and allow something to work. This is why atheism goes hand in hand with the command and control economy. Allowing an economy to work without oversight makes the atheist’s skin crawl. They cannot let go, since there is no God in their lives to let go to, and so they cannot fathom how a let it work economy could possibly function.

The religious however will work for the change they seek in the world but at the end of the day we understand that God has the final say. Our faith allows us to allow the world to work. People with faith don’t feel the weight of the world is on our shoulders and so have less stress. Both allowing the world to work and having less stress gives the religious the ability to allow an economy to work. This is why in those places where Christianity and Judaism are the primary religions laissez fair and liberty have been allowed. In those places where atheism and religions that demand people submit have command and control economies. Be it socialism or feudalism, such ideologies fall into tyranny, due to their reliance on man instead of God.

History is unambiguous about which economy provides the highest standard of living, most prosperity and greatest technological advancement, it is the same economic system that brought about the industrial revolution, that system is the free market. Since this is well known and understood, everyone talks about a free market but atheists always introduce the false premise of regulated free markets. Regulated is never free. The atheist cannot understand how allowing something to work without constant oversight could function and so they seek to “progress” the economy to socialism and then outright Marxism. Capitalism’s complex system that demands it be let alone is an anathema to the atheist. It is no coincidence that socialism’s founders and it’s most ardent supporters have all been atheists.

Since atheism is on the rise in western countries, so too is the rise of socialism, along with the negative effects of socialism. The atheist demand ever more powerful government. In all the spheres of human life the atheist’s innate need for control leads them to rely more and more on an ever growing government. History shows, as the people of Europe turned away from their Christian roots and towards atheism, the power of the state grew and their economies became more and more socialistic. Today the native population of Europe is largely atheist and elect socialists to power. Those socialists in power raise taxes, pass ever more restrictive regulation and lower the efficiency of the European economies.

A belief in God allows us to let go and allow things to work for themselves, since we know God will take care of the small things, but a lack of faith doesn’t allow for the atheist to let go, because to them if they don’t take care of it, no one will. This is a fundamental difference between atheists and the religious. History shows that fundamentally an economy works best, that is controlled the least, and those controlled the most, function the worse. The rise of atheism goes hand in hand with the rise of state power due to the innate philosophy of atheism. The slowing of Europe’s great economies coincides with the rise of atheism as a result. A free market cannot be a free market if it is controlled by bureaucracy or a tyrant yet atheism demands control. In this we see that a “rational” choice, atheism, leads to irrational outcomes, Marxism and tyranny.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

There is a Trick To It

Posted on February 22, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, nothing is hard once you know the trick, the trouble is, figuring out the trick. Everything you do or try to do is effected by this expression. The old saying “he makes it look easy,” is based on that person knowing the tricks. From assembling a roller bearing to writing a novel every task is easy when we know the trick to it. This important to understand because it allows us to recognize our strengths. You can do anything. The most difficult operations are in truth easy once you learn the trick. The reality of life is that we are far more capable than we give ourselves credit for. How many times have you heard someone say, “I could never do that!” When you do, tell them they are selling themselves short. All they have to do is learn the trick. All anyone has do to is learn the trick.

This maxim is the basis for the theory of division of labor. In the theory of the division of labor, a process is made more efficient when the steps are separated and each is done by someone who specializes in each part of the process. Adam Smith’s pin factory is the classic example. By specializing in just one step, a person becomes not merely proficient but they learn all the tricks, and therefore the task they are assigned becomes easier and easier, while the quality of the work becomes better and better. You can use this wisdom to your advantage, and you probably already do, when you look up the best practices for a job, taping dry wall for example, in a book or on the Internet. Whenever you or I try to perform some process without looking up the “trick” it takes much longer and the result is always sub par.

The “trick” is not always a method that can be shown, it often needs to be practiced, soldering lead cable is an example. A person can be taught theory all day long, to the point of being an expert on the theory of it, but, until they actually hold a torch in their hands and see the change in the luster of the lead when the solder will phase change and before the lead itself melts, for themselves, they will never be proficient at it. Until they are able to gauge the solder’s slump, just as it is ready to be wiped, no amount of theory will keep them from burning through the cable. Unless the person wielding the torch can recognize the temperature of the solder and lead, and also the hand coordination to heat and wipe, they cannot be said to know how to solder, and thus know the trick. Some operations require experience to learn the trick.

Puzzles always have a trick to them. I made a bunch of wooden puzzles one time. The puzzle had six identical pieces of wood. They would assemble into a unit, if done right, but the puzzle had two tricks. The first trick was that the way it assembled was counter intuitive, and the second was it could only be easily assembled, when made into two pieces and put together as two halves of a whole. The thing was simple once you learned the trick but nearly impossible if you didn’t. Every task you have to do is basically a puzzle, once you learn the trick it is simple.

Technological advancement is all about figuring out the trick. Imagine telling someone from the past how the electrical wiring in your home works. Copper conductors coated with polymer transport the invisible electricity from the breaker panel to the lights switches, which open and close the circuit, but only on the hot legs, to activate the florescent bulb that produces light, photons, from the jump in shells by the electrons energized by electricity as it is passed through an ionized gas. They would look at you like you had two heads. We take it for granted and simply flick the switch and the lights come on but the whole process is a series of tricks discovered and added together. Travel to the stars will be the same thing. A series of tricks will be discovered, added together, and the result will equal interstellar travel.

Knowing the rules of writing doesn’t make someone a great novelist knowing the trick to captivating the reader’s interest does. The trick is not usually a form of general knowledge but specific knowledge applied to a particular situation. Like soldering lead or assembling a puzzle, all the general knowledge in the world is useless until you learn the trick to it.

The take away here is that everything is simple, once you learn the trick, but even if you do not know the trick, it is no less simple, you just don’t know the trick. There really is nothing you cannot do. Whether or not you choose to invest the time and energy into learning the trick is up to you. Sometimes it is not worth the investment to learn every trick and instead utilize the division of labor. Often it is more efficient to hire people who have learned some trick to do a task for you, paying them by using the tricks you have learned to make the money, thereby creating an economy. It is empowering to know that nothing is hard, once you know the trick…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Law, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Style over Substance in Democracy

Posted on February 18, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, in politics, to follow style and ignore substance is to court tyranny and spurn liberty. Sadly, a political race is all about style and nothing about substance. The election of Barak Obama showed this in neon lights. He ran on “hope and change,” without a moment given to what that meant. Today Trump is running on “Make America great again.” Both slogans are strong on style but have little substance. When people vote on a slogan, instead of on policies, they open themselves up to politicians who don’t necessarily have the people’s best interests at heart. If a politician is reticent to explain how he or she will make his or her slogan come true, then the reason is probably that they have no idea how, they just want political power. Perhaps they have an idea, but know it would be obnoxious to the electorate, so the dishonest politician falls back on a slogan.

For good or evil it is policies that get things done. If more jobs is what is sought, lower regulations, less government intrusion into the market, lower taxes and less cronyism are the policies that are called for. This set of policies have the drawback to the statist of, lower government and political power and to the dependent of less government handouts. If more government power is the goal, then higher regulations more intrusion and higher taxes are the ticket. Those policies have the drawback of lower wages, less jobs, lower economic output and less liberty, however. There are always trade offs to any policy.

Since there are trade offs a conniving politician seeks to persuade the people to follow him or her with an empty slogan. Every politician and political adviser knows running on lower wages, less jobs and the loss of liberty is a loosing message. Those who seek more government control cannot run on the drawbacks or even let the idea there will be drawbacks into the conversation. They have to deftly avoid admitting the results of their policies will have drawbacks, in fact, they usually claim they seek the very opposite things their policies will result in. Politicians are Machiavellian in that they care nothing about how they get to their goal, only that they get to their goal.

An empty slogan has the advantage of avoiding talking about any negative effects of their policies but also of focusing the people on some simple to understand sentence. Those politicians who run on policies however, have the double difficulty of explaining how their policies will do what they say they will and defending the attacks on those policies for their trade offs. Since most people are lazy in thought their eyes will gloss over at discussions of policies and their effects instead focus on an empty slogan.

Slogans work best when they are backed up by personality. The most charismatic politician with the best slogan usually wins. Of course… no one is more charismatic than a psychopath or sociopath. That is because people with these disorders have no self awareness, they glibly lie, care not when they are caught, can look you in the eye while and smile as they stab you in the back, love to manipulate people, etc… Have you ever wondered why Hannibal Lector in the Silence of the Lambs is so magnetic? Psychopaths are inherently charismatic, love to manipulate others and seek luxury, and so they levitate to politics where their special abilities and needs serve them, and are served by them as well.

It is by the people being lazy in their voting, voting for a slogan rather than policies, that a nation is moved from limited government, free markets and liberty, and the economic strength that results, to unlimited government, socialism and tyranny. Even as the people begin to feel the results of the policies that result in lower wages, less jobs and reduced liberty, they fail to see their own part in the problem, continuing to vote for slogans instead of policies. Very few voters really want lower wages, less jobs and reduced liberty but when faced with the task of processing and examining the probable results of various policies, they fall back on a slogan and personality.

This paradigm of democracy has corroded every democratic republic ever constructed. Constitutionalism was supposed to limit this quality of democracy, but has been perverted by the very people elected to preserve our constitutions, as is the nature of democracy. The answer is not to eliminate democracy, it is only through the assent of the governed that any government has legitimacy, the answer is a thoughtful electorate. You have the ability to cast a vote, you are the foundation of your governmental system, you have the responsibility to act as a rational maximizer, a self interested human being rightly understood. If you choose to vote for a psychopath with a catchy slogan, you are the problem, but if you look into the policies, reason what the logical outcome of those policies will be, and vote accordingly… then you are the solution.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Death of the US Constitution

Posted on February 15, 2016 by john

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

Posted in economy, Judicial Sysytem, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Coefficient of Opportunity

Posted on February 11, 2016 by john

Dear friends,

It seems to me, interest rates should be a reflection of the coefficient of opportunity in an economy, not some random arbitrary level set by an elitist brainiac. Speaking of elitist brainiacs, Janet Yellen will be making her semi annual report to congress today about the Federal Reserve’s policies. She will be explaining if the Fed will continue to tighten interest rates or go back to zero interest rate policy due to the recent market rout. The rate at which a person or institution has to pay to use someone else’s money, is supposed to be a reflection of the time value, inflation, risk and opportunity value. Today that equation is totally out of whack due to the world wide recession and currency war raging across the planet.

Taken in the traditional definition of interest rates, what they really are, boiled down, are a reflection of the opportunity in a country. When the rate is set below the opportunity coefficient, the economy heats up, bubbles form and inflation ramps up. When the rate is above the coefficient of opportunity the economy goes into a slump, demand drops off, wages stagnate and if kept up long enough economic depression happens. The coefficient of opportunity however, is not dependent on the interest rate, it stands on it’s own as the measure of opportunity to make money in the free market.

The opportunity coefficient is a term I have coined to describe the opportunity in an economy. It depends on many things, the level of economic repression in the form of regulations, taxation, pernicious incentives, corruption and cronyism. You might be thinking cronyism and corruption are the same, and in one sense you are right, but in the sense I mean they are different. Corruption in this example means private corruption, the protection racket, pyramid schemes, price manipulation, monopolies, cartels, etc.. for example, while cronyism in this context is government corruption like, bribery, the need for political connections, graft, rent seeking, etc. All of the economic repression in the aggregate subtract from the opportunity coefficient.

Put in the simplest of terms, the opportunity coefficient is the ease at which someone can make money in an economy. During the early days of the US republic, the opportunity coefficient was so high labor couldn’t be found at any price. This was because there was so much opportunity for the average person to make money no one wanted to labor for another. In the early days of the republic all the dominoes lined up, virtually no corruption, cronyism, regulations, extremely low taxes and a virtuous people. The coefficient of opportunity was very high. In the years since then the elite have corroded the coefficient of opportunity to the point where even negative interest rates as in Europe and Japan are still above the coefficient of opportunity.

If the opportunity coefficient is sufficiently low a zero interest or even a negative rate doesn’t create runaway inflation. This is what is often referred to by economists as pushing on a string. An economy can be stopped in it’s tracks by increasing the interest rate but it cannot be driven to be more efficient or faster growing by lowering interest rates. That is because, while the interest rate can be arbitrarily set by bureaucrats, the opportunity coefficient cannot. Bureaucrats only lower the opportunity coefficient. The coefficient of opportunity changes over time, it was very high in the nineteen twenties and very low in the nineteen thirties. In both cases the economic policies of the government was the arbiter of the coefficient of opportunity.

So today Janet Yellen will be reporting whether or not the federal reserve will be raising the interest rate or lowering it. She won’t mention the coefficient of opportunity but she will be talking about it the whole time she speaks. The elephant in the room will be the fact that the elite, including the people she will be reporting to, have so lowered the coefficient of opportunity that even negative interest rates are above it! That means there is almost no way to make money in this market without government connections. Savers are being pummeled today, if you save money and forgo the opportunity to spend it today, suffer the reductions due to inflation and take the risk you will not be paid back, you have to pay the borrower! Entrepreneurs are being crushed, workers are seeing lower wages compared to the cost of living, investors are being scalped by high frequency trading and business people are seeing a drop in demand. The coefficient of opportunity is indeed low.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Judicial Sysytem, Law, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pandora’s Box

Posted on February 8, 2016 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, North Korea has become the example for despots the world over to emulate, with their in your face nuclear and missile programs. Unlike Bashar Assad, Kim Jong Un is untouchable, unassaulted, unassailable and undamaged by the UN and West. Unlike Gaddafi Kim Jong Un sets safe in his slave nation. Unlike Bashar Assad Kim Jong Un faces no rebels armed and financed by the world powers. By developing nuclear capabilities his father has made North Korea impregnable. Now by developing the capability to deliver his nuclear weapons world wide, and make no mistake, that is exactly what the latest rocket launch did, he threatens the world with nuclear war. While the world played at name calling, Un’s father Il created a nuclear weapons capability that has established his posterity unquestioned supremacy in North Korea. The world dared not stand against him and now his son. No matter the crimes against humanity they commit against their people the world will stand aside and allow it because North Korea is nuclear armed. Such is the incentive the UN, Clinton, Bush, Obama and the European Union have created in the world. Rest assured, the lesson is not lost on the world’s despots.

Despite the name calling, North Korea forged ahead with it’s nuclear program because in the end the autocrat understood that Clinton, then Bush would do nothing of real consequence to stop them, and history has proven him right. Gaddafi however gave up his Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and was tortured to death by the European Union and Obama for it. Assad has no WMDs other than some outdated sarin gas and the European union and Obama are at his throat. Understand this if you get nothing else from this article, if Assad had nuclear weapons or even an effective nuclear program, like Iran does, there would be no American financed, European backed rebels threatening him, he would be safe to commit any crimes he wanted, because of the nuclear program, and every other despot on the planet knows it.

Despite what the media that calls itself unbiased is reporting about the rocket launch, inserting a satellite in circumpolar orbit doesn’t just give North Korea the capability of delivering a nuclear bomb to the US, but anywhere on the planet. A satellite in circumpolar orbit passes over every spot on the Earth every day. In other words that North Korean satellite passes over your child’s school at least once a day. If that satellite was, for example, a nuclear weapon, perhaps an electro magnetic pulse weapon (EMP). An EMP detonated in low Earth orbit over Europe would be the end of Europe. Detonated over the continental it US would result in the deaths of up to 90% of the population of the US in a year with over a billion deaths world wide from famine due to the US stopping food delivery to the rest of the world. North Korea has just become a far more dangerous potential foe then before.

Other despotic governments have watched and learned. Iran is driving full tilt to get nuclear arms to get the benefits that North Korea has gained from them, and defend against the negative results of not having nuclear capability, that Libya and Syria have shown. Iran already has launched satellites into orbit giving them the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead world wide. The psychopaths who run Iran understand, because of the historical precedent, that the European Union will not really stand in their way and now Obama has actually funded and legitimized Iran’s nuclear program. I would think it common sense, that someone who will happily strap a bomb to their own child and detonate that child in a crowded bus, is not someone who should have nuclear capability… but apparently Obama and the elite disagree.

The precedent of North Korea, Pakistan and now Iran has sent the message to dictators the world over that the door is wide open to get nuclear weapons. Not only the door is open but they better go through that door, else they might end up tortured to death by rebels, funded and backed by the US and Europe. Now the race is on. Expect psychopaths around the world to strive for nuclear capability because of the incentives the US and Europe have set up. Actions have consequences. Our leaders know this and therefore must know what the incentives their actions are creating on the planet. It is truly absurd that the only world power that is bucking the trend, forcing lunatics to get nuclear weapons, is Putin, who is a despot in his own right. Once the world’s despots have nuclear capability, how long do you think it will be before there is at least a limited nuclear exchange… or outright world wide destruction?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Posted in International Power, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment