Second Amendment Antinuclear Weapons

Go ahead, make my day.

By 1992 preemptive surrender wasn’t a thing, and the SALT treaties were wastebinned. This is the Second Amendment in action. SEE ORIGINAL

The nationwide defense debate best represented in Physics Today had by 1982 descended into plans for surrendering to the Soviet Union based on Pascal’s Wager and Ignoring Kennan’s Long Telegram.

Science advisor George Keyworth built on Sam Cohen and Edward Teller’s ideas, then stepped out of the conflict spotlight, which was taken over by William Robert Graham and Gen’l Daniel Graham. The foolishness of Robert Strange McNamara’s insane policy of mutual civilian genocide with nuclear weapons sank in after Dr. Strangelove, and Sam Cohen’s defensive strategies developed a large following–and some pro-surrender opposition. The Libertarian Defense Caucus organized by LP Presidential candidate John Hospers, Michael J Dunn, Virginia Postrel and others favored defensive weapons policies. One LDC member questioned assertions by German-American physicist Wolfgang HK Panofsky in Physics Today regarding treaties under the Constitution.

Dr Panofsky’s statement that “Nothing in the U.S Constitution dilutes the responsibility of a president to comply with existing treaties in force.” [Physics Today, June, 1985, p. 37] ought to be evaluated in light of the actual text of the Constitution itself. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution specifies, in clause 15, that “Congress shall have the power…To provide for calling forth the militia to… repel invasions;”. Article IV, section 4 charges the United States with the responsibility to protect each of the States from invasion. Finally, Article II of the Bill of Rights guarantees that our right to “keep and bear arms”, within the context of a well regulated militia, “shall not be infringed.” While it is true that Article II of the main body of the document grants the President the power to make treaties (Section 2, clause 2), and it is also true that these treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land” (Article VI, Section 2), it is nowhere stated that this treatymaking power shall override the Bill of Rights or the main body of the Constitution. In fact, Article VI, Section 2 specifies only that the treatymaking power takes precedence over “…anything in the Constitution or laws of any STATE to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Emphasis mine). In fact, the very last clause of Section 10 in Article 1 allows the States to defend themselves if “…actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” Nothing in the Constitution supports the conclusion that the treatymaking power is arbitrary and unlimited and supersedes all individual rights guaranteed us by the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One can readily infer, however, that all arms limitation treaties which infringe on our right to have our military forces keep and bear defensive weapons of our choosing are unconstitutional and therefore illegal. This would apply specifically to the ABM treaty as well as both versions of SALT. Because I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution would have subordinated their rights or those of their countrymen and descendants to any arbitrary power, foreign or domestic; and because the legal language supporting this conclusion is clear and precise, I submit that the ABM treaty is unconstitutional and illegal.

This issue, it turns out, had been addressed by President Calvin Coolidge when Panofsky was not quite five years old. At a news conference on November 2, 1923, Coolidge tried answering a question about a prohibition-enforcement treaty with wet Great Britain changing the definition of international waters. (…) “The question here is raised as to whether this treaty would be in conflict with the Constitution or the present Volstead Law.”

Coolidge improvised an answer that reporters thought missed the point entirely, and so the press insisted:

PRESS: Mr. President, some of the editorial writers seem to think that the proposed treaty would contravene the Constitution–not the Volstead Law, but the Constitution itself. Do you believe it within the power of the government to make a treaty that would contravene the Constitution itself?
PRESIDENT COOLIDGE: Of course not. The only power the government has to make a treaty comes from the Constitution, and there wouldn’t be any question about it, for any treaty that might be made, that was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, would be absolutely void.

Panofsky’s immediate reply, like Coolidge’s did not satisfy all readers:

J. H. Phillips raises the interesting point whether any arms-control treaty violates the Constitution of the United States. He agrees that Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution states that treaties entered into by the United States preempt the constitution or laws of any state that might have contrary provisions. Indeed, the United States Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief and gives him responsibility to conduct foreign affairs and thereby provide for the national security. Yet one must recognize that increased armaments and increased national security are by no means synonymous; in fact post-World War II history has amply demonstrated the contrary. The power of the President to negotiate treaties, even if they conflict with private rights involving arms or ownership of property, has been confirmed by numerous Supreme Court decisions.
Negotiated arms control is rightfully considered a component of the conduct of foreign affairs. According to Article VI of the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, subject only to other provisions of the Constitution. They can be modified by mutual renegotiation or abrogated unilaterally under specific provisions that provide for prior notice and invoke the supreme national interest of one of the signatories.
The specific claim by Phillips is that arms-control treaties are in conflict with the provision of Article II of the Bill of Rights that “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.” No court has ever held the Second Amendment to impose any limitation on the President’s power to conduct foreign affairs, but the specific relation of arms-control treaties to Article II has, to the best of my knowledge, never been explicitly litigated. In view of the foregoing it seems to me to be patently absurd to claim that the US President and Executive Branch cannot negotiate and sign a treaty that limits weapons by all signatories if the President believes this to be in the security interest of the United States, and I see nothing in the Constitution that would prevent such a treaty from entering into force once the Senate, by a two-thirds majority, has recommended its ratification to the President and the President has then executed the instruments of ratification. The Constitution has done well in weathering the transition to the nuclear age. If Phillips were correct in his interpretation it would be a sad day indeed.

Some real attorneys were also attracted to this questioning of authority and chimed in:

The letter by J.H. Phillips and the response by Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky (April, page 90) raise interesting issues regarding the relationship between the Federal treaty-making power and the constitutional rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Although both Phillips and Panofsky deal solely with issues arising under the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” provision of the Second Amendment and with alleged infringements of this “right of the people” by arms control treaties, the issues are significantly broader in scope and deserve more careful analysis. According to Panofsky, the constitutional authority of the executive branch to conduct foreign affairs extends to the power of the President to negotiate arms control treaties, and such treaties when ratified by the Senate may abrogate any provision of the Bill of Rights. Although Phillips disagrees, both Phillips and Panofsky limit their discussion to consideration of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. However, there is nothing in the underlying issue that should limit the argument to the Second Amendment; rather, the issue should be treated more broadly for a better understanding. For example, it is not difficult to imagine a treaty with the following provision: Due to the utmost importance of this arms control treaty and the practical reality that it cannot be successfully implemented without mutual trust and harmonious relationships between the signatory nations, any critical or derogatory remarks, oral or written, against a signatory shall constitute a criminal offense against that signatory, and such signatory may search for and seize any offending writings, as well as punish the person making said criticism, in such manner as it deems appropriate, including trial by judge without jury in the courts of the signatory as it deems appropriate.
Of course, such a treaty would clearly abrogate the provisions of the Bill of Rights contained in Amendments I (free speech and press), IV (unreasonable search and seizure), V (due process of law), VI (right to counsel) and VII (trial by jury). But in spite of the fact that the constitutionality of treaties that conflict with the Bill of Rights has never been litigated, some obvious conclusions as to how the US Supreme Court would treat this sort of treaty can be drawn.
Moreover, that the precise issue has never been litigated does not justify Panofsky’s conclusion that it is “patently absurd” to claim that the treaty-making power cannot supersede the Bill of Rights. It is true that a treaty can override a state constitution or a state statute, but a Federal statute passed at a later date than a treaty prevails over the treaty, according to a line of US Supreme Court cases beginning with Head Money Cases, 112 US 580, 598-590 (1884). It is also well established that even Federal statutes violative of the Bill of Rights can be declared null and void by the judiciary. Thus, since Federal statutes can abrogate treaties, statutes have at least as high a dignity as treaties, and since statutes violative of the Bill of Rights can be invalidated by our courts, so can treaties.
Panofsky’s conclusion that arms control treaties can abrogate the Bill of Rights is thus, fortunately for America, clearly unwarranted. –David Caplan, NY & Richard Laumann, NJ

Panofsky of course denied having come to that conclusion, but the legalistic house of cards which Soviet weapons specialists had hoped would bluff These United States into submission came tumbling down. Soviet planners realized not even a single American State could be disarmed while the Second Amendment remained intact. The Strategic Defense Initiative grew, a German lad landed a Cessna near Red Square, and Soviet Socialist totalitarianism collapsed as entirely as German National Socialism had collapsed in May of 1945.

Having felt it on their hides...

Logarithmic decay of Communist vote, Russia

Prospects for resurrecting Soviet Communism are as hopeless as for bringing back the German National Socialism that prompted development of modern weapons in the first place. Russian voters are shrinking the communist party even faster than American voters are chipping away at the Dem & GOP kleptocracy. But the shrieking against the Second Amendment is today much shriller than in the 1980s, when gun violence was high but already eroding thanks to decreased initiation of force. Whether that–coupled with the feverish falsification of science by a tiny group of scientist-impersonators and former scientists in concerted efforts to lay an Energy-Conversion Tax on everyone except Not-Exactly-Communist China–is some sort of desperate comeback attempt by intellectuals of the looter persuasion, is unclear. After all, Republicans have published platforms for 46 years to Amend the Constitution to overturn the results of the 1972 Libertarian birth control plank–a fixation no less fanatical and hopeless.

There is, however, no question that infiltration of the Democratic Party Platform Committee by Socialists Against Buckminster Fuller Energy Slaves (and power plants in general) cost Democrats the Executive branch, both Houses of Congress, and appointments to the Judiciary, together with all associated pelf, paychecks, funding, graft and boodle. Now that Americans have notebooks and iPhones, getting them to ban electricity–even for Altruria–is as Quixotic a chimera as has ever before been dreamt up. The current war on energy is the one significant difference between the platforms published by the Dem and GOP factions of the ruling kleptocracy.

If the research that went into this article on legal questions was surprising, just imagine how surprised your competitors could be.  The author can be hired to translate materials pertinent to international legal cases involving your law office.
My other blog is usually in Portuguese.

Advertisements

False Flag Infiltration 2

Twoscore and six years ago our Libertarian party WROTE the Roe v Wade decision prying Republican, Dixiecrat and Prohibitionist claws off of women’s bodies. But observe how carefully former Republican corrections officer and male politician Brandon Phinney of NH, skirts those individual rights. Planned Parenthood and the Center for Disease Control alike are agencies of public health, yet the candidate views only germ and virus epidemics as a bad enough neighborhood effect (or weapon of war) to merit government protection of the individual rights involved.  The Malthusuan disaster narrowly averted by pharmaceutical advances and the legalization of birth control speech and action Phinney professes to view as someone else’s problem.

First NAMBLA/Schwartz, now this!

Republican convert to the Libertarian Party? Wes Benedict wants my money for THIS?

Turncoat spies and infiltrators have always been a staple in the politics of looter parasitism. We would be naïve to expect any less today than mystics opposed to birth control yet willing to put up with funding of vaccinations to fend off epidemics no less Malthusian cross-dressing as Libertarians. Now the cross-dressers are anti-mystical collectivists–in a desperate effort to drag us down.

It is true that your blogger here was one of seven or so students at the University of Texas who voted to add the atomic symbol to the American Atheist magazine logo. Impressed by Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove and Pat Frank’s Alas Babylon–I concluded that modern weapons were too dangerous to depend on decisionmaking rooted in primitive superstition. They were, after all, developed to rid the planet of Christian National Socialism and godly Japanese Imperialism.

Yet primitive superstition, though diminishing, still has enough momentum to enact rights-destroying laws. By the same token, the population curve still has enough momentum to test humanity’s ability to provide for an additional 160 people per minute–this even though the slope of that curve tilted from positive to negative half a century ago, when there were but three billion of us.

That same month Madalyn O’Hair’s son Jon visited the UT campus atheist group spouting Marxist rhetoric no less fallacious than the ravings of competing organized mysticisms.

Jon and his mom were evidently murdered by their colleagues a couple of decades later, and her other son now leads the Jesus Crusade Against Planned Parenthood. Judging by results, collectivized counter-mysticism, Soviet or American, does not exhibit a consistent record of shining success when it comes minimizing the initiation of force and protecting the rights of individuals.

Though the Libertarian Party had been in existence for nearly five years, the fact was never mentioned within earshot of unmystical college students. Many libertarians today are simply non-superstitious individuals. The vast majority do not want to be enlisted or coerced by fanatics standing at Armageddon and Fighting for the Lord–nor by “atheists” fighting at that same Armageddon for Karl Marx. Advocates of coercion handily manipulate Mohammedans, Christians, Buddhists (as in Aum) and Socialist Man in their war against rights. Circumspection around these tribe-members is a good idea.

This message was brought to you by all of us here at Translators Without Borders (and his dog).

 

Republican and communist birth control bans

LSD held hostage for birth control

Canada works to repeal Comstock laws after Ceausescu coerced Romanian women into forced labor

The Republican Comstock law of 1873 had leaked across the border into Canada to ban all mention of birth control. Cracks developed in the censorship in November 1967 when Canada and the rest of the UK voted on the legality of birth control. A joker (rider) injected into Canadian law political power to ban drugs such as LSD. This was based on the same sort of pseudoscience and superstition that censored information on birth control in the first place. It was a tit-for-tat utilitarian monster compromise, betraying one individual right to prolong another–back before there was a Libertarian Party on either side of the northern border.

Not so long before Hitler’s National Socialism was penned as a platform in 1920, American President Theodore Roosevelt took pen in hand to argue that women ought to be forced into involuntary labor.  Roosevelt’s “race suicide letter” was the Republican inspiration for Hitler in 1920 and Romanian dictator Ceausescu in 1966. Ceausescu’s coercion of women made it urgent that Canada act to at least partially enforce individual rights. The American Libertarian Party’s surprise victory in getting the Supreme Court to use the Overpopulation plank to strike down Comstock laws on our side of the border. This set the stage for individual rights for women in the UK and Dominions. All of Canada’s remaining abortion laws were struck down soon after the Libertarian Roe v Wade decision.

Theodore Roosevelt, enforcer of Comstock legislation pleasing to the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice in the 1890s,  waxed eloquent on the subject of “race suicide” in an October 1902 letter:

But the man or woman who deliberately avoids marriage, and has a heart so cold as to know no passion and a brain so shallow and selfish as to dislike having children, is in effect a criminal against the race, and should be an object of contemptuous abhorrence by all healthy people.

This sentiment was parroted by communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu of Rumania, who saw to the prosecution of the victimless “criminals” invented by Teddy Roosevelt. Ceausescu asserted:

Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who abandons the laws of national continuity.

You know what governments do to deserters, right? The dictatorship even charged a celibacy tax, and tax evasion under communism is up there with heresy under Sharia law.

If in need of translations of historical or legal material from Spanish and Portuguese to English and back, look us up.

Individualism vs. Socialism

This is a Letter to the Editor of Physics Today from during the Cold War, March of 1982. Background as a letter from another subscriber urging preemptive surrender to the USSR, which Petr Beckmann, on the Reason Board at the time, believed was the real purpose of all such defeatist whimpering. At that time I was a dues-paying member of John Hospers’ Libertarian Defense Caucus, not the regular LP.  Here’s the letter:

I’ve enjoyed reading the articles and letters addressing the topic of nuclear weapons in recent issues. There is, however, one point which has been conveniently ignored by both sides during the debate: the difference between the philosophic bases upon which the Soviet and American governments are based.
Capitalism is rooted in individualism, and is retaliatory in nature, as can be seen in our code of laws. Socialism is altruism applied to government; its collectivist and egalitarian aspects can be traced to that basic premise. All socialist states, whether communo-fascist or redistributionist, depend on the initiation of force to achieve their goals. This basic difference is generally omitted in the course of “scenario building,” and the result is that the conflict is viewed as though both nuclear powers had similar goals.

During the second World War, no American strategist would have considered the extermination of the Jews as a tactic and many were surprised when Germany’s National Socialist government embarked on that very program. Today we tend to think that the Soviet Socialist government would not target civilians because we ourselves see no strategic benefit in such a course. The fact is that we have different goals and different philosophies. The possibility that the Soviet state might regard us as the National Socialist state regarded the Jews cannot be dismissed by any who have compared the original documents on which those systems were built.

It is possible, therefore, that the option of surrender may no more exist for Americans than it did for the Jews during the last war.

Our best option seems to be to follow the advice of Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov and increase our defenses to the point at which we can sustain a first strike and still defeat the aggressor. Any less of an effort will simply serve to reinforce the tendency to fire on warning and thus increase the possibility of an accidental war.
J. H. PHILLIPS 3/82 Austin, Texas
PHYSICS TODAY / MAY 1982 131

 

This letter was written 36 years ago this month. As I look around I still see many of the same things.

Many at the time urged surrender to the communist dictatorship whose policies they literally worshipped. Even this issue included a hand-wringing appeal from Italian “scientists.” Those “peace” appeals relied on a Pascal’s Wager form of intimidation and never (except for a letter in a preceding issue of Physics Today) advocated surrender to totalitarianism in so many words. Propagandists for looter statism simply blocked off all other alternatives as insane, misguided, ill-informed or unrealistic, and let the reader arrive at the only alternative left standing.

Those same people today urge totalitarian control of the economy and impoverishment of every aspect of life on the strength of the Millerite supposition that another trace gas (carbon dioxide, not freon anymore) stands poised to wipe out humanity. The only country not required to give up a kilowatt-hour of electrical energy to please the Vichy Paris Accord proponents is itself a communist dictatorship. Search Google News Archives for members of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists, Stockholders for Corporate Responsibility, _X__ Anti-Pollution League, _X__ for Social Responsibility and you will find today’s CO2ercion advocates among the survivors. The phenomenon is a political 5th Column meme that worships slavery and death as alternatives to the delusions of Armageddon and Rapture that “the left” (correctly, in my view) attribute to “the right”. (The Libertarian theory of  non-aggression and individual rights is completely different from the European politics of 19th-Century political parties).

That same issue of Physics Today raised the question of whether a bolide impact might have–in a matter of hours–so completely changed the climate as to wipe out the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If such a danger arises again–and a look at the Moon clearly shows hundreds of thousands of such events–only an advanced energy-converting industrial civilization would stand a prayer of warding off or surviving such a  test of humanity’s competence to survive. This is the test the dinosaurs failed.

Co2ercion advocates have nothing to say about that proven scenario. The article on the Monte Carlo algorithm in that issue of Physics Today, incidentally, relates to a mathematical technique developed by designers of thermonuclear weapons (Nicholas Metropolis, John von Neumann and Stanislau Ulam). The purpose of those weapons was to defeat National Socialist Germany and their Japanese allies in the 1940s.

Bolide impact is the “Alvarez Theory” because geologist Walter Alvarez asked his physicist father Luis why the clay boundary? Luis Alvarez designed the geodesic detonation cord for the plutonium bombs used at Alamogordo and Nagasaki. These competent people whose technology defeated National Socialism and held off International Socialism until it rotted and collapsed are the ones whose ideas make sense to me. The Fifth Columnists still recite the exact same totalitarian formulas and slogans, and care nothing for measurement data, definitions or conceptual clarity. They are the villains in Atlas Shrugged.

The Libertarian Party had by 1982 already seen to the repeal of cruel, Medieval laws against birth control, and provided the philosophical and ethical arguments that toppled totalitarian parasitism. I’m proud to be a Libertarian Party member and supporter, and hope we can count on your spoiler vote to repeal another mess of really cruel and unusual laws the kleptocracy and its lobbyists use to eat out our substance. That’s winning!

hankdotcom

If you need technical translations (oil, mining, power dams, reactors, agribusiness, and yes, contracts, laws and environmental regulations) from or for Latin America, check out my websites.

Spotting Fake Libertarians

LP spoiler vote Clout Party!

Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-chan

The Libertarian Party is the only political party in These United States that is growing.

Mathematician needed for curve-fitting in substitution model

We need a least-squares fit to the Fisher-Pry equation

It is also the only party in the world NOT dedicated to the initiation of force. Naturally, procurers for looter parties hang around libertarian venues seeking to lure away voters and undermine the LP platform.

Republican trolls and infiltrators, invariably mystical fascists ashamed of their confederates’ past misdeeds, are fond of prophesying in the future tense as a way of palling up to and retasking libertarian voters. These right-wing zealots avoid discussion of how spoiler votes changed the Comstock laws they seek to preserve, and how prohibitionist asset forfeiture and confiscations cause liquidity crises and depressions. Here are some of the fabrications, red herrings, false prophesy and snow jobs they peddle in their zeal for prohibition laws.

“No true Scotsman” will doom the libertarian party to always being an outsider. (But outsiders cast spoiler votes which change laws)

No hope for libertarian political success until the culture changes first. (But repealing bad laws is success)

Betteridge’s law of headlines says the LP will fail. Duverger’s Law says the LP must inevitably fail. (Such pseudoscience makes bad laws)

The problem is that the Libertarian Party has zero interest in actually winning an elective office. (But to non-parasites, winning is repealing bad laws)

We repealed Comstock Laws in Roe v Wade

Spoiler votes are Bludgeoning Angels!

Democratic party procurers, basically the socialist laity, are also strangers-with-candy for clueless-but-impressionable youngsters. Dems lost by almost 3 million votes. Libertarians got over 4 million votes! Why? Youngsters are what the Dem platform says to jail because of plant leaves. Shadenfreude’s too good for them. Their cant also evades mention of how spoiler votes in the past changed the laws to suit their econazi altruism-with-government-guns agenda.

Look at the graph: the LP does not want an Amendment to force women to reproduce at gunpoint!

The Drumpf presidency is such an emergency that “we” can’t currently afford the luxury of protest votes.

(Hahaha!)

The looter parasites the Democratic party chooses as politicians are still programmed by Soviet brainwashing to oppose anything that might help These States defeat International Socialism in a shooting war with nuclear weapons unholstered. Their snouts went into the trough because Bush Dynasty faith-based asset-forfeiture prohibitionism again wrecked the economy in 2007 as in 1929-33, 1987-92 and people schooled in how financial markets work understood that nothing could be worse than another coathanger-worshipping mystical Republican looter.

But Green spoiler votes (in reality Ralph Nader personality votes) frightened the Dems into promising to do everything to ban electric power plants just as they promised simpletons who don’t know any better that they would pass Kristallnacht laws banning guns in the presence of the Bill of Rights. Every democrat who lost lost because of this obsolete Soviet brainwashing meme having acquired momentum of its own in both the US and NATO nations.

Look at the graph: the LP does not want to ban electric power.

When you need papers translated to emigrate to Canada or the Banana Republics, try http://www.tradutoramericano.com
My other blog is in Portuguese.

 

 

Christian nations?

You who place your faith in fire

Warship Philadelphia burning at Tripoli

Alongside the religious fanatics who swear that German Lutherans and Catholics never built 66 death camps in which to exterminate “selfish” juden in the 1940s, a new variant of end-times Millerites has emerged–possibly in counterreaction to the Islamic reaction to the George Holy War Bush dynasty invasions of Ottoman territory beginning in 1990.

Faced with the literal text of an international treaty declaring that These United States are NOT a mystical theocracy, American National Socialists vehemently insist that the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1796 between Tripoli and These United States is a lie, fiction, a clumsy fabrication with no basis in reality. Richard Dawkins, the scientist and author of The Selfish Gene, is somehow dragged into accountability. Here is some text excerpted from my own 1909 collection of treaties:

Article XI. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (page 1786)
I, Joel Barlow, agent and consul general of the United States of America, for the city and kingdom of Algiers, certify and attest that the foregoing is a true copy of the Treaty, concluded between the said United States and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, of which the original is to be transmitted by me to the Minister of the said United States, in Lisbon. In testimony whereof, I signed these presence with my hand and a fix there to the seal of the consulate of the United States, and Algiers, this fourth day of January, 1797. Joel Barlow. (…) Know ye, that I, David Humphreys, Commissioner plenipotentiary aforesaid, do approve and conclude the said treaty, and every article and clause therein contained, reserving the same nevertheless for final ratification of the president of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the said United States. In testimony whereof, I have signed the same with my name and seal, at the city of Lisbon, this 10th of February, 1797. David Humphreys.

That was the hotly denied Treaty of 1796, but the superseding 1805 Treaty of Peace and Amity with the Mehomitan Musselmen of Tripoli soon followed. Its Article XIV is toned down compared to its Freethinking precursor. For one thing, French Napoleonic communism in its post-Terror period had spread to Italy, and looking north from Africa, the myrmidons of Mohammed probably preferred watching secular socialists to having so many crusader-types busily gunning for them. But Americans–at the time caught up in the apoplectic fits of the Second Great Awakening–doubtless looked aghast at the very idea of abandoning Jesus in the confrontation with the Barbary Coast Saracen blackamoor.

The toned-down 1805 Tripoli Treaty disclaimer of fanaticism began:

Article XIV: As the Government of the United States of America has in itself no character of enmity towards the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States have never entered into any voluntary war or any act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, except in the defense of their jus rights to freely navigate the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (…)

Since the offending “America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion;” has been neatly elided, National Socialists of all denominations will doubtless endorse this version as real, genuine, legitimate and not a clerical error based on mistranslation of an alien language they themselves couldn’t read if they had to. The balance of the Article consists mainly of As-samalu-alaykums reminiscent of a Cecil B. de Mille production on how Crusaders and Salazar agree that Allah is God–or perhaps the cover of a Charlie Hebdo comic.

Christians and Mohammedans; love conquers hate

Need a legal or political translator triangulating English, Spanish and Portuguese?

The Religious Conservative Dilemma

On January 27, 2017, one week after his inauguration, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” Exec. Order 13,769, 82 Fed. Reg. 8977 (Jan. 27, 2017) (“EO-1”). EO-1’s stated purpose was to “protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.”

Many people disagree with the wisdom of this EO. Ahmed Aminamin El-Mofty of Pennsylvania and Everitt Aaron Jameson of San Francisco, for instance, thought the Executive Order a bad idea. After all, Donald Trump sewed up the Republican nomination by telling Reason TV personnel: “Libertarianism? I like it!” That alone was enough to draw the boiling wrath of communists, socialists, fascists, prohibitionists, amok berserkers, suicide-vest designers, iSlam, iS, all looter intelligentzia and cognoscenti, greens and democrats. But Republicans who recalled losing to Clinton–after Ross Perot spoiled their party–quickly perceived the benefits of setting aside prejudice and nominating someone who wasn’t even a despised politician.

Is there an objective basis, evidence, to show that excluding entry of Saracen berserkers and communist nationals was a bad idea? We’ve seen how satellite photos of Puerto Rico and Texas prove that uranium reactors survive undamaged, while solar panels and windmills produce only blackouts when hit by a hurricane. So how have These States fared when compared to the sensitive, concerned and aware People’s States of Ecological National Socialist Europe? Europeans have done a lot of bragging about how loftily they’ve been importing intolerant, faith-based, self-sacrificing mystical fanatics. The comparison is easy to make. Here is a picture showing terrorist attacks in These States and environs (not counting the ones currently making headlines).

Here is a picture from the same map showing how well European appeasement is working.

So where’s the dilemma? The dilemma is that American religious fanatics attack some trade and production, whereas their ideological bretheren in the People’s States also attack some trade and production at America’s urging, and leave the killing and maiming of innocent bystanders in the hands of cheap immigrant labor.  The Republican party used to do basically the same thing.  On January 29, 2001, George Bush Jr. issued Executive Order 13199—Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The idea was:

“…charitable community groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes, such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighborhoods, and overcoming poverty. This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality.

The result was a sharp increase in infiltration by officious activists and confidential informants eagerly telling federal, state and local enforcement personnel where they might raid the Hemp from Hell and round up the Servants of Satan while confiscating their property, homes, savings, automobiles, businesses and bank accounts.

Instead of easily-understood pictures of smoking ruins and mangled children, the Bush application of Divine Revelation through Comstock-Law asset forfeiture produced capital flight, a liquidity crisis, a long and miserable economic depression and the quickening of socialist and nationalsocialist infiltration into the US government. By adding more intervention in Ottoman territory, the GOP managed to spark retaliation resulting in the World Trade Crater in New York City.

By copying the Libertarian energy and gun planks, God’s Own Prohibitionists have held on to some pelf, boodle, government paychecks and graft. But their tragic addiction to coercive bigotry instituted by Anthony Comstock and the Prohibition Party shows the Urinalysis Party still has a lot to learn if it hopes to earn the votes of honest, rational, independent citizens.

When looking for a translator or interpreter able to cope with court decisions, political documents and economic repercussions, consider paying a visit to http://www.HankPhillips.com