Brazilian polling place

I walked to the polls in the local Brazilian precinct. They used to be at the school, but this year the voting took place at the intersection of Church and State. Brazilian citizens are forced by law to subsidize, then vote for, 33 parties. Here’s the sign…

Gott Mitt Uns!

Parish of the Apostle Polling Place

When you walk inside this is what you see:

Complete with spelling errors...

1st seek the Kingdom of God… Trust Jesus, don’t give up…

Then this

So is it any wonder the party most closely resembling the NSDAP led the vote count? Oddly enough, the other party standing for runoffs has a name that (no kidding) translates as Arbeiterpartei in German!

Servers are down so the list of party coalitions is unavailable… Maybe it’s just as well. There is a special gang of election judges that decide who can organize a party. National Socialists and International Socialists have 32 parties between them, and the gatekeepers make good and sure there is no Libertarian Party. The Cuban, Venezuelan, Peruvian, Chilean and most African governments or those of North Korea, China, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, et alii do not permit libertarians to organize into parties.

Here is an apropos cartoon that appeared the morning after the elections. Other countries with no LP.org are Cuba, Venezuela, post-colonial African and Asian countries and so forth. Name a country people want to move to and I’ll show you a nation with a working Libertarian Party.

Translators are aware of goings-on in many parts of the world.
My other blog, Expatriotas, is mostly read by brasileiros

Advertisements

Dawn’s Early Light

By Dawn’s Early Light was a Cold War propaganda movie. Much of the contest between Communism and Religious Mercantilism played out in movies. Amerika and Red Dawn were stories about These States occupied by godless commie invaders eager to rape blonde, freckled Iowa girls and steal everything not nailed down–like in Berlin in 1945. Tools and manipulees of the looter persuasion shrieked like Body Snatchers whenever one of the regulated networks aired something critical of the Soviet Altruria. Retaliation took the form of surrender movies like The Day After, Countdown to Looking Glass, Threads

Yet nuclear-tipped Soviet Altruria was falling apart, with real danger that some faction might attack These States hoping the lightning sword of Justice and the SAC might smite their internal rivals. The plot in By Dawn’s Early Light was a flip-around of Dr Strangelove laced with Pascal’s Wager. The message in all these movies was that defeating altruism–or rather, the more consistently altruistic of two antagonists–is evil, wrong, socially suicidal–so you should surrender instead.

The same tactic was repeated when Donald Trumps Republicans won the 2016 election. Democrats could not understand how anyone would prefer to have electric power to ending up like Puerto Rico. So in the lame-duck interregnum–after the vote missiles were already launched but had not yet separated from their second stage electoral votes–the Democratic party and CPUSA ran Nixon-law-subsidized commercials urging electors to switch votes the way Roger MacBride had done in 1972 for the Libertarian Party back when we had but 4000 voters.

Of course the scam backfired. Way more Democrat electors defected from voting for Bill Clinton’s wife than defected from voting for The Don, but the pattern, the meme that repeats itself, is the thing to notice. One woman made unverifiable allegations at Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, and the same thing happened again just recently. Though not a supporter of the Republican party, the recent hearings looked like a teevee rerun to me.

If you need political material translated, look us up.
Blog for brasileiros

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.

Second Amendment Nuclear Weapons

Since the dawn of collectivism humankind has engaged in biological, chemical and conventional warfare. The bloodiest wars have always been between collectives that believed almost the same thing. Union versus Confederacy, Christians v. Jews, Protestants v. Catholics, Mohammedans v. Christians, Communists v. National Socialists… these mystical hatreds underlie the deadliest wars of recent millennia. These international wars are all gone now.

Chemical weapons were gasped at in 1916 because they made young men appreciate the 13th Amendment–the one that outlawed involuntary servitude. American conscripts were ordered to shoulder clumsy arms and march into louse-ridden foreign trenches to save the Federal Reserve banks from war loan defaults after Russian communists quit the opium war. The war stopped efforts to use the Hague to curb heroin dumping, so it was a war to make Bayer Great Again–at least in Germany. American youths faced with the prospect of being sprayed like cockroaches in those foreign trenches might prefer imprisonment in support of the 13th Amendment. That’s the Amendment where the Supreme Court “could not see” the military draft as coercive, but COULD cancel the First Amendment right to hand out copies of Amendments from the Bill of Rights. Being blown to bits in distant trenches to protect the French opium regie in Vietnam or morphine acetylizing plants in Marseilles or Scotland was different from being gassed. High explosives were ‘murrican! Artillery shells were okay to politicians on the Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle. Poison gas, however, was baaad. Germs and nukes are also baaad, perhaps because they might muss the hair of the politicians and lobbyists who order attacks. That kind of hair-mussing is “mass destruction.” 

So it was that things muddled along until a nuclear physicist named Sam Cohen worked out ways to make small H-bombs allocate less energy to explosive force and more energy to the production of neutrons. Sam found that neutrons could penetrate an incoming warhead and cause a premature chain reaction to melt an incoming bomb. Neutron-induced chemical reactions in the lensed explosive jacket could likewise be counted on to damage those enemy bombs. Sam Cohen briefed then-candidate Ronald Reagan on this class of weapons and how they might be deployed.

To Soviet military planners this was really bad news. Fighter pilots could not be trusted with enough fuel to cross borders. A Soviet pilot with plenty of fuel could defect and exchange the plane for a good reception from immigration authorities. Bombers and submarines presented that same vexing problem, plus the possibility their crews might nuke the Politburo or Soviet military installations instead of their intended victims.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles were naturally the communist weapon of choice. Fire them off and relax, with no chance of human meddling–until Ronald Reagan as President realized that Sam Cohen’s neutron bombs could cook those incoming ballistic warheads on their simple and predictable paths. Stinger missiles were doing pretty much that to Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. To Soviet partisans, a way had to be found to stop America’s militias from keeping and bearing arms that could intercept and ruin incoming nuclear missiles.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was the first such attempt, signed by Quaker Prohibitionist President Richard Nixon. Nixon was promptly ousted, but Soviet Socialists pushed Strategic Arms Limitation talks for a SALT treaty to really disarm These Sovereign United States. Debates in Physics Today were, in 1982, discussions of the virtues of preemptive surrender to communist regimes. That changed in 1986, with the possibility that any such treaty might infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment, in the Bill of Rights–a thing that makes These States different from all the ancien régimes of Europe and Asia and their colonies in Africa and Latin America.

What happened next changed the Cold War. Stay tuned…

When the need arises for translations involving nuclear energy in South American or African Portuguese, look me up.

Anarchism in practice

Socialist collectivist attacks socialist mystic


Anarchism before publication of the Libertarian Platform

Before 1972, everybody on the planet understood clearly that anarchism is a communist theory embraced by persons to whom the world owes a living. Anarchists naturally rely on the deception, coercion and deadly violence used in the collection of taxes as well as legitimate debts.

With fewer than 4000 votes the Libertarian Party prompted secular looters to change their definition of “anarchism” and extended to pregnant women in These United States and Dominions the protection of individual rights against mystical Dixiecrat depredations. To George Wallace supporters the LP was clearly a nest of cleverly disguised commie atheists pressing for the racial suicide of white folks and obstruction of the Comstock Laws. Why? Because Ayn Rand–whose writings inspired the formation of the party–was completely non-superstitious–therefore a communist. After all, she even sounded Russian!

Individual rights baaad!

LP plank as Supreme Court decision

The problem was how to keep the Libertarian Party option out of the sight of voters. Republican and Democratic soft machines had dealt with competition from communist anarchists back before socialism was associated with gulags, Siberia, mass starvation, censorship, concentration camps, firing squads, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibór, Nowogrodek… Back in 1936 socialism and anarchism were associated with the fictional writings of the likes of London, Bellamy,  Steinbeck, Howells, Goldman, Goebbels and Hitler–none of them Republicans or Democrats. To guard against spoiler votes that might confuse the voters, the 1936 party faithful used the violence of local election laws to neutralize their socialist-anarchist competitors.

Our hands are tied!

The law is the law, sorry…

Richard Nixon’s 1971 tweaking of the tax code had made tax money available for suppression of libertarian candidates.  The media understood there was money on the table for anyone equating the libertarian and communist parties. Satisfying results appeared in print media before the next general election.

Nixon's fake media earns subsidies

From commie liberals to free-market communists, smearing in the looter press

Conscripts flowing into Southeast Asia meant coffins stuffed with young men who might otherwise have voted against the draft, religious sumptuary laws and foreign entanglements. Voter suppression was already a hardball racket back then, and rigged elections are still the norm. The suppression continues, of course, with millions kept from voting by grinding court cases and lengthy parole or probation terms over victimless plant leaves, stems, seeds and even roots!  For 46 years Republicans have called libertarians anarchist liberals while Democrats struggled to lump the LP in with Republicans, Dixiecrats, religious Juntas and nationalsocialists in general without once referring to the party platform or pledge endorsing non-aggression. So how is this working out?

We’re still here! Every bad law we cause cleptocracy looters to repeal is a victory for the voters. This is winning!

Need financial, legal, mining or political translations?

 

All anarchists are communists

When one first discovers the Libertarian Party, the biggest surprise is the swarm of anarchists buzzing about the organization. These worthies rarely join and pay dues, to say nothing of making campaign contributions. The overall impression they produce is much the same as that of a swarm of flies–which is precisely the intended effect! 

Not that there is anything new about anarchism. One quickly gets a sense of just how flyblown the theory is by searching the Google News Archive for specimens. Here’s one from 1894–the year a small communist party got 9% of the U.S. vote and cowed Congress into tacking Manifesto Plank 2 onto a tariff bill. An aggressor fired a pistol at Italian Premier Crispi, missed twice and was overpowered by his intended victim. A few days later another anarchist social revolutionary shot and killed French president Carnot. 

Observe that neither anarchist raised a pistol on the field of honor; both instead ambushed unarmed victims. Crispi’s wannabee assassin, captured by his intended victim, begged for the death sentence. Hanging was deemed too good for him. Carnot’s murderer was decapitated–not without irony–using a good, old-fashioned, Red Terror guillotine. Garfield was shot in the back by a similar political parasite and McKinley’s anarchist murderer carried with him a dog-eared copy of Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” translated into Polish.

The general rule in these cases is that a sort of Transubstantiation occurs as the bullet leaves the barrel, such that the communist aggressor suddenly always was an anarchist. George Orwell illustrated the phenomenon, describing the way communists and nationalsocialists began French-kissing before the ink was dry on the Hitler-Stalin pact. In his novel Nineteen Eighty-four he again stressed how the faithful believed that “Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.” This is the method of inference that concludes that anarchists “are really” libertarians. 

Americans educated in the free market system weren’t susceptible to doublethink. Garfield and McKinley’s assassins were promptly tried and hanged on the tried-and-true theory that dead anarchist madmen did little additional harm. Congress showed showed how little sympathy there was for the anarchist push to decriminalize murder when it passed the Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1903. The Libertarian platform of 2016 contained equivalent language against importing “foreign nationals who pose a credible threat” until hostile (Republican? Anarchist?) infiltrators struck it out.  

The idea that an ideology of murdering madmen is compatible with the Libertarian Party is a 2+2=5 equivocation. Membership requires signing the Non-Aggression Principle penned by Ayn Rand in 1947, while hangmen were still busy cutting down murdering altruist National Socialist madmen at Nuremberg and other venues. In 1947 everyone recalled clearly that competition in the forcible restraint of men is War.  The Libertarian Party is concerned with freedom and peace. Any argument that our platform is compatible with murder-legalizing anarchism is a division-by-zero error. Yet in Peru and Chile today there are anarchist communists blatantly posing as “libertarian” parties. 

     


Libertarian candidates seek a constitutional government empowered to enforce laws protecting individual rights from theft, fraud and aggression. This is what anarchists are AGAINST or there would be nothing for them to criticize in the LP platform.  What we regard as the rule of law they see as obstructions interfering in the labor of murderers and highwaymen. The fact that most parties corrupt government power to put into practice the ethics of parasitism is all the more reason to distance ourselves from the anarchist branch of that same philosophy.

With friends like anarchists, freedom needs no enemies. 

For certified or juramentada translations or interpreting contact Portugueseinterpreter or Speakwrite.

What elected Libertarians do

For a practical definition, if men merely agree that no man or number of men have the right to initiate the use of force against any human being (and that includes the forcible seizure of his property), that they have no such right for any purpose whatsoever, at any time whatsoever—that would be all we need, that would achieve a perfect Utopia on earth, that would include all the moral code we need. –Ayn Rand, April 17, 1947

Admission to LP.org is contingent on rejecting the initiation of force. But election to a deliberative body dominated by entrenched tools of the looter persuasion confronts newly-seated members with opportunities to vote on alternatives posited on the absolute desirability of the initiation of force. Elected libertarians are bound to support policies that do not rely on coercion, or that lessen coercion. But will this affect the way the rest of the elected officials vote?

Dissent from concerted deception reduces error

Scientific American, November 1955

The context is similar to the Opinions and Social Pressure experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s and reproduced by many psychologists since that time. Three lines of different lengths were displayed and subjects were asked to indicate which of the three matched the length of a fourth line. Participants were instructed to occasionally lie in unison about the facts (like looter politicians) and only one subject–unaware of the collusion–answered in accordance with the evidence of his or her senses.

Three-quarters of those tested went along with the obvious lies of the majority until joined by a defector reporting truthfully. At that point the error-inducing effect of social pressure exerted by the lying majority (for groups ranging from 4 to 20 persons) is diminished by roughly 25%.

Clean the government environment!

Blind consensus is pollution in government bodies

By not participating in partisan collusion to report that 2+2=5, elected Libertarians increase the correctness of decisions made by each of their fellow elected officials by about 25%. Voting for a libertarian party candidate is not only leveraged by a large factor, but works to repel legislation based on falsehood. This has the added benefit of reducing self-deception by approximately 1/4 in every committee to which a libertarian member is added. Libertarians reduce the pollution of government by entrenched conformity with a bias favoring the initiation of force.

That’s winning!

Do you need certified translations to emigrate past The Wall?

My other blog is in Portuguese.