Country Joe, Libertarian

This was before there was a Libertarian Party

Ever since 1968 Country Joe Macdonald has been a heroic pioneer by my lights. Imagine my surprise in discovering that he actually played benefit gigs for the Libertarian Party! Here’s a peek at what you can find on his website (link)

Some Differences Between You and the Major Candidates Running for Office This Year

1 The Economy
They are rich, have health plans and pension plans. If they lose their jobs as politicians they can easily get other jobs or simply retire.
You are not rich, just barely have a health plan, and a modest pension plan or no pension plan at all. If you lose your job you may not be able to get another one and cannot afford to retire.
2 Violence
They are protected by bodyguards, live in safe “gated” communities, drive in bullet-proof cars and work in “guarded” buildings. They don’t need to have or carry guns because their bodyguards do that for them.
You have no bodyguards, live in regular accessible communities, drive a regular car or have no car, and work somewhere where there is no protection against violence. You might have guns but cannot carry them around with you all the time and are doing other things besides just waiting for trouble to happen like a bodyguard.
3 Family
All the members of their family are very safe. They have health insurance and seldom have to travel the streets or highways regular citizens do. They do not do their own shopping, cooking, or washing, they have servants to wait on them. If they do not get jobs it does not really matter they still have plenty of money. They have as much leisure time as they like. They do not take care of their children at all; they have servants to do that.
Your family is not very safe. You could get run over by a car crossing the street or carjacked going shopping. Your family must somehow see to it that the shopping, cooking and washing gets done or there is nothing to eat or wear. You are living 24/7 and have no time to do much of anything but rush around “working.” Even your vacations if you have any are limited and rushed. You must take care of your children and other family members.
4 Gender
They can afford lots of lawyers to protect them and their rights to be sexually whatever they want to be. They are mostly male.
You can hardly afford one lawyer to fight for your rights. One half of you are female.
5 Voting
In national elections it matters very little if they vote or not, but they get to have a real vote on all the national and international issues that affect every aspect of your life. They can afford to lobby for issues they think are important and directly talk with important people to influence the outcome of important issues they care about. They are mostly white and male.
You can vote in national elections but the electoral college does not have to pay attention to your wants. You do not get to vote on any domestic or international issues at all. You have no access to important people at all. Many of you are not white and male.
6 War
They get to decide if there is a war or not but they do not fight in wars. Their family members do not have to fight in wars except if they choose to. They are not in the military and most of them have never been in the military. The outcome of wars that they decide to fight has very little effect upon their lives. They are mostly white and male.
You cannot decide anything about going to war. You may be in the military now or have been in the military. Your family members may be in the military or be forced to be in the military in times of war. The outcome of wars and your participation in war can ruin your life forever. Many of you are not white and 50% of you are female.
7 Abortion
They can afford to get or not get an abortion as they see fit. If they have an unwanted pregnancy they can afford to have the child taken care of by servants. They can travel to other countries where abortions are legal. They can hire lawyers to protect what they do about abortion. Mostly they cannot get pregnant because they are male.
You and your family can be ruined by an unwanted pregnancy. You cannot afford to travel out of the country nor hire lawyers to protect what you do about pregnancy. 50% of you can get pregnant because you are female.
8 Work
They have huge staff of people — some paid, some volunteers – who do work for them. They have secretaries, interns, chauffeurs, advisors and even “mouthpieces” to explain to whoever wants to know what or why they will do or did what they did. If they run out of ideas they simply hire a “think tank” to think for them. All of their expenses are paid for by the taxpayers and their rich friends. They have office space paid for by the taxpayers. They and their staff are mostly white and male… except for the interns.
You have to do everything yourself. If you screw up you have to explain to the world why you did. If you run out of ideas you just have to struggle with it. You have to pay for all your help out of your own pocket. You worry all the time about “cash flow.” You can hardly afford to keep afloat. You pay taxes. Many of you are not white; half of you are female and millions of you are not old enough to vote and are working illegally. Many of you can’t vote because you are homeless and have no permanent address.
9 Running for office
They can afford to run for public office.
You cannot.

***

Libertarian vote growth
Vote share is %, 01 is 2000 election

The above Country Joe comparisons were posted 20 years ago. Since then, specifically since 2008, the LP has taken off. Our share of the vote increases 80% per year, tripping up the entrenched parties’ efforts to trip each other and grab more loot.  Suddenly they are deleting cruel planks and rushing to repeal violent laws in hopes the other will get knocked over by Libertarian Party spoiler votes. The graph looks like this with (01) being the 2000 election. In 2016 the LP got 4 million votes, covering the gap between the two entrenched parties in 13 states casting 109 electoral votes. Thanks to the LP.org, the electoral college now cares deeply about your wants.

This is your 12th chance to vote Libertarian or sanction additional coercion. Which will it be? 

Make your vote MATTER for a change!

She’s with Us!

Brazilian Sci-fi from 1926 featuring the usual beautiful daughter of a scientist touting prohibition and racial collectivism in America’s Black President 2228 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog

The Looter Kleptocracy has evidently pressured media companies such as WordPress to make blogging as difficult as possible before the election. Twelve million libertarian votes would go a long way toward removing new impediments to blogging and restoring the usual formatting tools.

LEAHY of Vermont, 1986

The speech is by Biden’s fellow Democratic Senator from Vermont, when at age 46 he was applauding Joe Biden and Ronald Reagan’s asset forfeiture, mandatory minimums, poisoning foreign crops, meddling in foreign elections and sending cops out to shoot kids–mainly brown kids–in the back because of PLANT LEAVES! The tag team of Biden and Leahy are doddering advertisements for abandoning the two-party Kleptocracy and voting Libertarian. From the 1986 Congressional Record:

The above was recited by Biden’s pal Leahy in the Senate on September 30, 1986. There’s the transcription:

The first is the new section on forfeiture. Fighting drugs is expensive. The forfeiture amendments we passed 2 years ago provide for the seizure and forfeiture of the profits of the drug trade and property used in connection with it—businesses, airplanes, and so forth. But under those laws, no more than $20 million of forfeited assets can be used to fund antidrug programs. This bill removes that cap, and requires that all money remaining in the Customs and Justice Departments’ forfeiture funds after paying administrative costs, be used to fund Federal and State drug programs—for law enforcement. education, treatment, and rehabilitation. This program is expected to net $150 million in 1986, to help pay the cost of this bill.
The bill also closes a loophole in the current law, by permitting the seizure and forfeiture of substitute assets if a drug trafficker has transferred his profits to a third party or placed them beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
Another important section of this bill squarely addresses the need to stop production of drugs at the source. It cuts off all foreign aid to countries that have not taken significant steps to stop illegal drug production and prosecute drug traffickers.
A major part of this bill involves deterrence. Of special importance to a former Stale prosecutor like myself is a $115 million matching grant program for State and local law enforcement for each of the next 3 years. These grants will be available to States that have developed their own strategies for prosecuting, punishing, and treating drug offenders.
Two years ago I supported the Armed Career Criminal Act which provided for enhanced penalties for dangerous repeat offenders. This bill expands the scope of that act to include a mandatory 15 year minimum sentence for drug offenders who have…

Yes, the economy crashed just 3 quarters after that law took effect.

Senator Leahy of Vermont is 80 and probably has no recollection of any of this, but the young people he and other fanatical prohibitionists put in prison over paranoid nonsense that pseudoscience mutated into laws are just now being paroled. Hopefully they will vote Libertarian–to repeal cruel prohibition laws grounded in ignorance and superstition.

This is your 12th chance to vote Libertarian or sanction additional coercion. Which will it be? 

Make your vote MATTER for a change!

She’s with Us!

Brazilian Sci-fi from 1926 featuring the usual beautiful daughter of a scientist touting prohibition and racial collectivism in America’s Black President 2228 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog

The Looter Kleptocracy has evidently pressured media companies such as WordPress to make blogging as difficult as possible before the election. Twelve million libertarian votes would go a long way toward removing new impediments to blogging and restoring the usual formatting tools.

Biden, Asset Forfeiture, Crash

Insert funding graph

Biden’s 1986 prohibition fanaticism helped crash the economy in 1987

September 30, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE S 14289

Mr. BIDEN:… On the supply side, this package provides for stronger new penalties for most drug-related crimes, including mandatory minimum penalties for the kingpins of the drug syndicates and for those who sell their poisons to our children. In addition, this package contains provisions aimed at striking at the financial underpinnings of organized crime and drug trafficking syndicates, through the use of forfeiture of substitute assets provisions and a new crime against money laundering, both of which will assist law enforcement agencies in seizing the proceeds of drug traffickers.

Finally, in regards to domestic law enforcement, $115 million is provided to directly assist State and local law enforcement agencies for drug law enforcement. Most of the fight against drug traffickers is waged, not by the federal government, but by State and local agencies who are all-to-often out manned and out gunned by the drug dealers and smugglers. These moneys will provide desperately needed funds to such agencies to assist in their efforts.

In addition to combating drug trafficking in the streets of our cities and communities, we must also stem the flow of drugs across our borders. This bill increases by one-third the current level of funding for interdiction at the border, including additional personnel and equipment for the Coast Guard and the Customs Service. Moreover, this bill assigns Coast Guard law enforcement teams to Navy ships to bring the Department of Defense more actively into the fight against drug trafficking.

This legislation also provides for supply reduction efforts on the international side of the drug control equation. Almost $75 million is provided for additional crop eradication and substitution programs, including funds for operations like that conducted recently in Bolivia, where the cocaine processing networks have been significantly disrupted.

In addition, this legislation revamps present law governing foreign assistance, favorable U.S. votes and multilateral development banks, and generalized system of preferences tariff benefits to narcotic producing and narcotic transit countries. Under these provisions, benefits will be denied all major illicit drug producing countries, unless the President certifies each year that the country is cooperating fully with the United States in combating narcotics production, trafficking, and narcotics money laundering. This combination of increased assistance and narcotics-related sanctions will provide important new incentives for drug producing countries to cooperate fully with the United States and clearly focus our foreign-policy efforts to decrease the supply and distribution of drugs and the international community. /Biden

***

This law became effective 90 days (one quarter) after it was passed. Federal financial bureaucracies define a recession as a decline in GNP over the space of two successive quarters. So this prohibitionist drug law passed and was signed by Reagan October 27, 1986 and only after another three quarters, on August 27, 1987, would any federal notice be taken of its prompt economic effect.

The Federal Reserve Board met August 18, 1987 and on August 22 Dow Jones Industrials stood at 2700 (up 40%, with commercial real estate a froth–according to Greenspan). On September 10, 1987, came Reagan’s White House Conference for a Drug-Free America, and the following day all VA employees had to take drug tests or be fired. Less than two weeks later, NYT headlines blared: BIDEN BLAMES FAULTY MEMORY FOR STATEMENTS.

Confiscatory prohibitionist fanaticism will do it every time!

On Friday, October 16, 1987, the Dow Jones average dropped 108 points. On October 19, 1987, Black Monday, in 6 hours the Dow Jones Industrial Average of 30 Blue Chip Stocks fell 508 points (23%). This, 33 years ago, was a larger loss than on Black Friday in 1929.

Hearings were held October 27, 1987 on Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Policies featuring Audits and Coast Guard personnel. The previous day the DJIA fell another 8%. These events are similar to what happened in 1929 when beer, not cocaine, was the addictive narcotic. The George Waffen Bush crash in 2008 also occurred in a frenzy of prohibitionist asset forfeiture. Buy my book, Prohibition and The Crash and get the inside story on how confiscation weakens a fractional reserve banking system.

This is your 12th chance to vote Libertarian or sanction additional coercion. Which will it be? 

Make your vote MATTER for a change!

She’s with Us!

Brazilian Sci-fi from 1926 featuring the usual beautiful daughter of a scientist touting prohibition and racial collectivism in America’s Black President 2228 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog

The Looter Kleptocracy has evidently pressured media companies such as WordPress to make blogging as difficult as possible before the election. Twelve million libertarian votes would go a long way toward removing new impediments to blogging and restoring the usual formatting tools.

LP Spoiler Clout in action

What 20 years of LP spoiler votes did to the 2000 Dem prohibition platform

Remember the election of 2000? The one that defeated Al Gore’s environmental eugenics? The election that empowered George Waffen Bush to use Executive Orders to weaponize asset forfeiture and set religious fanatics to looting homes, vehicles and bank accounts until their loans became worthless and the economy crashed? Here’s their “drug” plank:

DEMOCRAT Platform of 2000: …more police on the streets to thicken the thin blue line between order and disorder, tougher punishments – including the death penalty
We should send a strong message to every American child: drugs are wrong, and drugs can kill you. We need to dry up drug demand, hold up drugs at the border, and break up the drug rings that are spreading poison on our streets. We should open more drug courts, to speed justice for drug-related crimes; double the number of drug hot-spots where we aggressively target our enforcement efforts; expand drug treatment for at-risk youth; and make sure that all of our school zones are drug-free zones – by stiffening the penalties to those who would use children to peddle drugs, and those who would sell drugs anywhere near our schools. We know that to dry up drug demand, we must provide drug treatment upon demand. To empower communities protect themselves from organized criminal conduct… We should be tough on drugs ….
Drug producing nations like Colombia have seen their societies torn apart by the intersection of criminal activity, political discord, and terrorism. And our nation is also afflicted with the violence and hopelessness of drugs. We must continue to combat narco-traffickers, increasing our budget to do so. We must continue to have a strong Drug Czar who can bring together the considerable resources of the U.S. Government in this effort. We must continue to fight those who make the financing of this effort possible such as the money launderers who facilitate the drug trade. We must continue to work with our friends and allies and international organizations to fight the blood money of the drug trade by getting a handle on those nations who turn a blind eye to the financial end of this problem.

With maniacal asset-forfeiture looting came the Republican prohibitionist Crash and Recession of 2008, where “the market quit working” as in 1907, 1920, 1929, 1971, and 1987. Nobody would elect religious fanatic prohibitionists on a dare after that. God’s Own Prohibitionists had to find a real-estate developer to run on a Goldwater birth-control platform in order to slow a headlong rush toward the Freeze of electric power production and Surrender to Red China.

Meanwhile the Libertarian Party increased its vote share 328% after Gary Johnson quit appeasing Republican antichoice fanaticism.

Nobody but Hillary and Gore remembers the Econazi Green Party. Here is what is left of the shrill prohibitionist screeching the Dems published as their “drug” planks:

Democrats recognize that incarcerated people suffer from serious mental health and substance use disorders at higher rates than the general population, which is why we will support expanded access to mental health and substance use disorder care in prisons and for returning citizens. We will ensure no one is incarcerated solely for drug use, and support increased use of drug courts, harm reduction interventions, and treatment diversion programs for those struggling with substance use disorders.

It is past time to end the failed “War on Drugs,” which has imprisoned millions of Americans—disproportionately Black people and Latinos—and hasn’t been effective in reducing drug use. Democrats support policies that will reorient our public safety approach toward prevention, and away from over-policing—including by making evidence-based investments in jobs, housing, education, and the arts that will make our nation fairer, freer, and more prosperous.

Here is the Libertarian anti-prohibition plank that earned 4 MILLION votes in 2016:

Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved.

In 1972 the Libertarian Platform said:

We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes without victims” now incorporated in Federal, state and local laws — such as laws on voluntary sexual relations, drug use, gambling, and attempted suicide. We support impartial and consistent enforcement of laws designed to protect individual rights — regardless of the motivation for which these laws may be violated.

NOW do you see how libertarian votes cause looter kleptocracy parties to change their platforms and laws? Make your vote MATTER for a change!

She’s with Us!

Brazilian Sci-fi from 1926 featuring the usual beautiful daughter of a scientist touting prohibition and racial collectivism in America’s Black President 2228 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog



The Forgotten Party

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticizes A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don’t criticise: or at least criticise “constructively”, which in practice always means favorably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist. –George Orwell, Through a Glass, Rosily (link)

Terrified Democrats are lining up to vote for higher taxes, government control over trade and production and laws to make electric power unaffordable because the Republican their neighbors elected will do all that, ban birth control, fire Dem bureaucrats and make plant leaves unaffordable in superstitious glee. Yet Dems demand Libertarians pander to the fear of the exact same initiation of force they themselves endorse with their votes. No thanks, I’m with the Forgotten Party.(link)

The Nixon anti-Libertarian law did not exist in Orwell’s day.(link) But the Prohibition Party had by 1913 leveraged its 1.4% of the vote into Amending the Constitution to make beer a felony. The Socialists also had few votes, elected hardly anyone, yet their IRS will confiscate your car, home and bank account if you don’t pay their Manifesto plank income tax.(link) Even today Prohibitionists use the threat of spoiler votes to cause the Republican party to seek amendments to bring back Comstockism and ban birth control.(link)

As I write, a religiously indoctrinated woman is being groomed for Supreme Court powers to coerce and bully younger women in violation of the 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments. This occurred in papal Ireland, where women were robbed of individual rights for 35 years by a Republican-style Force Amendment passed in the Reagan era and only repealed in May of 2018. Canadians had the good sense to abolish all woman-bullying and race-suicide legislation, and Britain too was in the 21st century before it even arrived.(link)

Democratic candidate Biden is no less catholic than Amy Barrett or Adolf Hitler. Remember that when you see the opportunity to exercise courage and independence by casting a highly-leveraged vote for female Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen. Our 1972 platform became Roe v Wade after the election. Remember that, and recall what our adversaries are saying about each other when you see LIB on the ballot.

She’s with Us!

Brazilian Sci-fi from 1926 featuring the usual beautiful daughter of a scientist touting prohibition and racial collectivism in America’s Black President 2228 by Monteiro Lobato, translated by J Henry Phillips (link)

Three dollars on Amazon Kindle

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog


World Health? FATF Crash?

Nothing to see here folks...

FATF Week in Paris… Why the Market Crash?

Who makes decisions about financial intervention and World Health?

According to WHO (The World Health Organization), contributions from the U.S. government, American citizens, and U.S.-based charities make up 76% of all voluntary contributions to the organization. That amounted to $945.6 million from 2016 to 2017. 

This is pretty close to what Tucker, the narrator over at Fox News has to say.(link) His story checks out. In fact just about everything national socialist “conservatives” say about international socialist “progressives” (and vice-versa) is as close as either gang ever comes to saying anything true. The puppet FOX claims the Chinese dictatorship has propped up at the WHO (who send men with guns to shoot and jail kids because of plant leaves) is clearly pathetic.(link) But to the Chinese dictatorship he’s “our” pathetic stooge. Who else does Red China have shaping policy?

Sum Ting Wong

Bank of Communist China

Meet the new FATF President, Xiangmin Liu, and the coercive agenda-framers’ veep Marcus Pleyer. A communist Chinese dictatorship puppet and an ecological National Socialist from former communist soldier Merkel’s Democratic Republic of Antifaschistischer Germany.(link) Here are China’s policies😦link

  • Under the Chinese Presidency, the FATF will continue to… work on confiscation
  • under the Chinese Presidency the FATF will conduct a strategic review of its core work.
  • Under the Chinese Presidency, the FATF will develop the methodology for countries to be assessed against the standard for virtual assets…
  • Financial institutions continue to attract attention for the wrong reasons and find themselves the focus of increasingly large-scale money laundering as highlighted by investigations and sanctions by law enforcement agencies and supervisors.
  • The FATF will continue to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of criminal justice systems, including the investigation and prosecution of money laundering

Prohibitionists routinely cause financial collapses via asset forfeiture enactments, and when they do, the Republican Party they infiltrate and poison loses several successive presidential elections. China noticed this weakness. This latest crash came during FATF Week in Paris.(link) These bureaucrats design the deliberate looting of bank accounts, and crash economies as in 2008, and cause flash crashes.(link)

As soon as the latest FATF Crash needed to be explained away, subsidized media rushed into print with the 3-month-old communist lab virus no longer profitable to ignore. The FATF Week meeting was covered in Pakistani and Iranian media–and few other journalistic news outlets. 

The U.S. President ought to investigate FATF and declaw it. Charging the communists reparations for their germ lab accident could be an additional step. The simplest method would be to use the asset-forfeiture FATF itself recommends to seize the Treasury Bills in Chinese communist hands. What better way to combat terrorism?

When it comes to votes, either way, this crash and depression will arguably benefit the Libertarian Party, just as the 2008 Bush FATF crash helped us increase our vote share by 328% from 2008 to 2016. While the economy was recovering from the previous asset-forfeiture crash, medieval prohibitionism of plant leaves and contraception could be overlooked. But prohibitionism is the weakness in America’s mixed economy totalitarians have learned to exploit.

Perot and Libertarian impersonators drop out

Before the George W. Bush asset-forfeiture Crash

Fool me twice, shame on me!

LP votes AFTER the 2008 asset-forfeiture Crash!

Find out the juicy details behind the mother of all economic collapses. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 is available in two languages on Amazon Kindle, each at the cost of a pint of craft beer.

Brazilian blog

Brazilian comedians v. Lynch mobs

“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

Smearing Libertarians

bomb-throwing communist anarchist terrorist REPEAT

Constant repetition: anarchists, bomb-hurling anarchists

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.

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

Words you can dance to

Clarity isn’t oversimplification

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.

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.

cause and effect

Freeze, freon or freedom?

FREEZE… AND SURRENDER!

Erde Politische Arbeiterpartei

Huxley conditioning, not Orwellian brainwashing

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.

Four Fingers, 2+2=4

Courtesy Tony Heller, realclimatescience.com

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.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

speakdotcom

Do you ever need a translator able to graph charts and perform temperature conversions?