“Porta dos Fundos” is itself a play on words worthy of the Firesign Theater. Indeed, Fire Exit works as one of the myriad translations for the name of Brazil’s premier comedy troupe. In a country plagued by Richard Nixon’s campaign subsidy laws–where folks are forced to vote for some 16 fascist and another 16 communist parties–all of them campaigning at the pleasure of a politically-appointed panel of legal geezers–comedy becomes a dangerous profession. Continue reading
Republican journalist James Kilpatrick was among the first to gain media subsidies via the Nixon anti-Libertarian law for this piece. Consistent with the Prohibition Party and George Wallace Dixiecrats coalition the GOP was reduced to after the Kennedy assassinations, the kleptocracy’s pet journalist called us anarchists. Meanwhile the GOP platform committee sweated to draft force Amendments to overturn Roe v Wade and change the meaning of the first three words of the 14th Amendment: All persons born…
Here is Kilpatrick with The Gipper, the day after Federal plant leaf prohibitionist policies and H.R. 3226 did for hippies what the Kristallnacht laws did for Jewish shopkeepers. Money “Laundering” as pretext for asset forfeiture was next on Congress’ agenda, as Veterans Administration personnel were being fired in the Just Say No blood purity pogrom.
In less than a month this ramp-up of prohibitionist fanaticism would cause the stock market to drop 108 points in a day, cost investors half a trillion dollars, and usher in another Great Depression.
For more on how the initiation of force wielded by mystical fanaticism wrecked the economy in the Herbert Hoover Administration, order Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 in Amazon Kindle format. For the cost of a pint you’ll have undistorted history on a cellphone or tablet in your choice of English or Portuguese.
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.
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.
For more on how Republican prohibitionism crushed the U.S. economy and brought on the Great Depression, why not download Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929? The book is live on Amazon Kindle and you can read it on a cellphone for the cost of a craft pint at a pub.
FREEZE… AND SURRENDER!
Only America was “morally” required to violate its Second Amendment, disarm and surrender to Soviet Altruria before and during the 1980s. The Union of Confused Scientists, Physicians for Socialist Responsibility, Freeze advocates, those same pro-socialist, fifth-column infiltrators soon claimed penguins would roast unless freon were banned. Now that real freon is banned and air conditioners are failing as a consequence, they swear the world is heating up. Yet thermometers say the opposite. Why?
Remember the War on Freon? This was based on the superstition that humans–8/9 of whom live in the climactically different northern hemisphere–are to blame for a thinner ozone layer hovering over a constantly-erupting volcano in the southern hemisphere–where only 11% of humanity lives. The volcano, Mt Erebus, spews chlorine into the atmosphere near the south pole, and has done so for over a million years. Bozos and political scientists report no such hole at the pole nearest where 89% of industrial humanity lives and works. (Oddly enough, there is no such volcano at the North Pole either).
Freon–the coolant that replaced poisonous refrigerator gases fatal to housewives in the 1930s–was sacrificed on the Congressional Altar of the lobbyists and Volcano Gods in Crash year 1987. Freon was made a quasi-illegal controlled substance, regulated by force and priced out of reach. Real freon was replaced with an inferior coolant requiring much higher pressures. Home and auto air conditioners running the new coolant nobody would buy willingly, promptly began failing.
The manly and honest response is to look at ozone readings taken before and after the War on Freon. Those two Octobers–during the 1987 Crash and in just before Americans voted against banning energy in 2016–show no appreciable change to the ozone layer. But go ahead and view time-lapse videos and compare other years. But facts don’t matter, hence every man, woman and child in America–and in the world that once regarded Americans as scientific–has been forced at gunpoint to buy the clumsy substitute. Worse: all are now threatened with a tax on air and an additional ban on electric power stations by the same looter ideologues.
Neither the Democratic (or CPUSA) nor Republican (or Prohibition) parties have ever admitted error, and their looters in the House and Senate won’t either. Enter the tangled web of global warming deceit to cover up the discomfort you feel as electric bills rise and your air conditioner fails expensively. If you want an alternative that is non-totalitarian you can make your preference felt by voting Libertarian.
By deliberately altering or cherrypicking NOAA thermometer records to make the past appear cooler and the present warmer, the temperature trend reverses the sign of its slope. This handily provides Congress with an alibi for the failure-prone AC units it sold us at gunpoint because of the War on Freon hysteria. As icing on the let-’em-eat-cake, a whole new hobgoblin has been created from which the ignorant and superstitious now clamor to be led to safety. The hobgoblin, designed by the same Anti-Industrial-Revolution Luddites, is Global Warming–the official Staat religion of Econazi Germany. The icing? Global Warming hysteria makes real cooling climate change feel like warming because your air conditioning is failing and costing you a fortune!
Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 verifiably shows how government fanaticism beginning March 2, 1929, wrecked the economy. Live on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a pint.
Do you ever need a translator able to graph charts and perform temperature conversions?
The Libertarian Party is the only political party in These United States that is growing.
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)
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.
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.
Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is my book about how prohibitionism and asset forfeiture cause fractional reserve banking systems to collapse. It is live on Amazon Kindle for the price of a good pint.
Politicians and their accomplices are fond of reciting that “Perfection is the enemy of …” of what? A look at the plug-in variables used to complete the false dichotomy turns up: good, progress, completion, and a host of similar abstract nouns with pleasant connotations. But if we translate the concepts behind the phrase, its meaning turns out to be: “Integrity is the enemy of self-deception.” This is Part One of a two-part exploration.
Farfetched? Here is a typical dictionary definition of perfection, which in politics is a verb, an ongoing process approaching a theoretical limit:
3. The action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible: e.g. Among the keytasks was the perfection of new mechanisms of economic management.
Compare that with an attempted definition of integrity:
3. Internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data: [as modifier] : integrity checking.
Integrity checking was the approach to logical cryptographic analysis Alan Turing used to help England crack the Enigma code in the war against National Socialist Germany. Turing’s preoccupation with integrity was belittled by Ludwig Wittgenstein in prewar discussions at Princeton U. Ayn Rand defines integrity more clearly than dictionaries compiled for the Great Unwashed:
Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality.
In other words, integrity is ethical or moral perfection. Ask yourself what, then, is the meaning of political perfection as an ongoing process? Now ask yourself: what is the definition of political corruption? The answer that comes to mind is betrayal of one’s convictions and values. You cannot translate campaign bribes paid by disparate artificial persons into platform planks and be consistent. But to use the government’s coercive power to meddle in trade and production and repay those bribes one needs to persuade voters to abandon integrity and betray some of their principles. Hence, perfection/integrity becomes an impediment to betrayal/corruption–but stating it that bluntly is politically incorrect.
The sanction of the victim must be obtained through fear or intimidation. This is why looter politicians paint “opposition” politicians as the very embodiment of impending doom. Their job is to grab at the initiation of force for the gain of their backers. The pundits and pollsters they rent are incapable of working the three-body-problem once third-party spoiler votes are involved. And no wonder! Third-party spoiler votes are investments in perfecting the rule of law and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and out posterity.
Before 1971, small parties were without exception mystical, collectivist and/or nativist looters. Socialist populists of 1892 wanted the Communist Manifesto income tax which had been translated from German in The Red Republican in 1850. Coinciding with these mostly Christian altruists were the Prohibitionists, to whom the deadly threat of government guns would transubstantiate heathen tipplers into rum-hating fanatics all messed up on the Lord. The George Wallace and Tea Party approach meant the racial eugenics of woman-bullying Ku-Klux Christianity. Integrity in those three third-party cases meant pointing government guns at people to rob or brainwash them into submission. Their goal in every case was to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. To mixed-economy politicians, these “third parties” were full of votes which, like money, could be suckered by flim-flam persuasion. After all, they all wanted practically the same thing. All of that changed in 1971.
To be continued…
Do you ever need Latin American or European Peninsular financial reports or analyses translated?
The entrenched kleptocracy keeps government jobs and parasitical subsidies by duping registered voters into fearing “the” other bucket of crabs. Each bucket is a package-deal of unrelated lobbyist agendas. Many contracts are also package-deals thrown together by disparate stakeholders. Out of fear that the courts will strike down one of the more egregious clauses, a severability clause is usually stirred into the crab-boil.
A severability clause states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the contract should still apply. The Constitution works that way without the need for a severance clause. The 13th Amendment ended chattel slavery and voided the fugitive slave (=”property”) clause from Article IV, yet the Constitution survived and the Supreme Court even ruled that conscription wasn’t really involuntary servitude.
The Constitution is amended (for better or for worse) by small party spoiler votes. Religious fanatics casting 1.4% of the vote created the 18th amendment making beer a felony. Communist fanatics shifted the paradigm and added Communist Manifesto plank 2 as the 16th Amendment. No severability clause was needed. The severability that matters–that changes laws–is when you sever relations with both halves of the entrenched looter kleptocracy. They then have to change their platforms to try and lure back those spoiler votes. Why? So their snouts–not the other gang’s–can be in the trough.
Crabs–scavengers for carrion–cannot escape a bucket because their fellow partisans in that bucket energetically pull down any who try to escape over the wall. In the Republican bucket, if a wealthy woman executive wants to reverse an unplanned pregnancy, that’s too bad. Mystical bigots will pull her down. If a producer does not want his son or daughter shot, robbed, raped and jailed over a plant leaf, group peer pressure grabs his ankles lest he escape the collective bucket.
Anyone in the Democrat bucket who is tired of being looted and robbed is likewise dragged down by United Front activists and scolded for attempted desertion under fire. After all, women would have “no rights” and there would be “no roads” if not for the Communist Manifesto plank 2, right? You’ve got to believe that faked temperature data is real or the Republicans will shoot, rob, rape and jail your sons and daughters over a plant leaf to please their prohibitionist hangers-on.
But will they change or simply lie? Fools will believe anything, and their conformist votes identify them as dupes. With that in mind, ask yourself if you really expect the truth from anyone committed to taking from others by force?
But what happens when voters can polevault into a completely different bucket, or escape to freedom? What paradigm shift results when your vote can tell politicians you say NO to robbing, murdering, bombing, or defrauding anyone? What happens when you finally realize that cowardice, dishonesty, lack of integrity is what dooms the crabs in those buckets to the boiling pot? In the past, what always happened was that the laws changed, and the Constitution changed. In the present, that change can be for the better. Do YOURSELF a favor. Increase your law-changing clout by voting Libertarian.
Learn how the Liberal Party of 1930 handed the Dems its spoiler-vote repeal platform. Read Prohibition and The Crash, LIVE on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a frosty pint. Read it on your cellphone.