Libertarian Victory in Ireland

Women before LP.org got 4000 votes

17JUN1972: We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.

Comstock laws of Panic year 1873 banning shipment of ALL contraceptives still existed alongside Dark Ages “blue laws” in These Sovereign States and Dominions in 1972. George Wallace Dixiecrats were busy passing new orders for men with guns to use censorship, fines, imprisonment and deadly force to press women into unconstitutional unwanted labor.

Repeal 13th, 14th Amendments!

LP.org message legalized abortion–nullifying Wallace!

We’ve already seen how the Libertarian Party’s Population plank became the Roe v Wade decision nullifying all anti abortion laws for 100 days plus a week. Women voters in Canada leapt into action and soon ALL such laws were repealed. There are no abortion laws in Canada today. Women even have rights in Ireland!

While Canada moved to secure freedom, huge mobs in Ireland were embarked on frenzied campaigns of bombing, arson, murder–everything you’d expect of “pro-life” mystical fanatics. Once the realization set in that women had enforceable individual rights in the US and Canada, Irish politicians reacted as the U.S. Prohibition and Republican parties had in 1976. They scribbled up Amendments to the Constitution to overrule courts and send men with guns to coerce physicians and force women into involuntary labor by threat of harmful, coercive and deadly force.

Catholic Ireland’s 1983 Amendment inserted a new sub-section after section 3 of Article 40. The resulting Article 40.3.3 read:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Such was the influence of the Papal Pederasty that the thing sailed though, passing with 67% of the vote. For comparison, Germany’s Enabling Act drafted by a child of Catholic parents required at least 66% of the Reichstag vote. It handily surpassed that figure to ban all manner of individual rights for the next 12 years–nearly as long as the Prohibition Amendment that had destroyed the U.S. economy.

Ireland’s peculiar institution of involuntary labor coerced women for 35 years before it was repealed. Having felt on their hides the pity of civilized society, and the passionate endorsement of suicide-vest and passenger-jet hijacking ideologues, Irish politicians unblocked opposition to democratic suffrage and the Force Amendment was repealed by a margin of 67%. Like the communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu that applauded its passage, Ireland’s coercive experiment in mystical eugenics will not be missed.

Anyone interested in following the decline and fall of papally-ordered coercion of women in South America might be interested in my translation services.

My other blog is in Portuguese.

Advertisements

Brexit or Anschluss?

Crowds are 97% catholic and protestant

Crowds cheer as Austria is annexed by engraved invitation into Reich

Anschluss was the eagerly consummated annexation of Austria by National Socialist Germany into the Third Reich. The Reich replaced the League of Nations, whose purpose was price fixing of “chemical drugs” (mostly heroin and morphine) confiscated from Germany by way of war reparations–and the collection of cash war reparations payments. This is in Article 23 of both the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(cwill entrust the League with the general supervision over the execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in women and children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs;

http://ddees.com/

Fool me twice, shame on me!

Brexit was a voted election whereby Britain decided to reclaim its sovereignty and extract itself from the Fourth Reich dominated by ecological National Socialism and taxes, fines and suffocating regulation of the very energy conversion required for the survival of an industrial society. Booty snatchers shriek “we wuz robbed” and seek to overturn the vote–just as their U.S comrades sought in December to convince State electors to vote against electric power and for carbon taxes instead. This is a repeat of 1990s propaganda urging bomber crews to surrender instead of retaliating against a Soviet nuclear attack.

In the USA, when voters rejected Democratic planks promising to make electricity generation as illegal as possible–complete with carbon taxes on everyone except the Communist Chinese dictatorship, ecological national socialists ran expensive advertisements pressuring electors. Electors were urged to vote against the pro-energy candidates–especially the party that actually won the greatest number of counties, hence states, in electoral college votes.

True, the Republicans LOST in the popular vote, because the pro-energy Libertarian Party earned 4 million votes. This is a vote total equal to the votes cast by the entire State of Virginia, and WAY more than the difference between the Democratic and Republican popular vote count totals. When was the last time you heard THAT on corporate teevee or radio?

Nobody in the Kleptocracy is eager to mention this because 1) the Democratic candidate’s husband also lost the popular vote but was elected President by the electoral college, and 2) the Libertarian Party influenced the casting of 90 electoral votes in 13 states. Last month, 27 Libertarians were elected to public office, for a total of 52 for the year. That’s a 53 percent increase over 2016! It wouldn’t do for The Great Unwashed to discover the sort of law-changing clout those spoiler votes wield. Here is the sinusoidal replacement curve fit that shows our hockey stick growth in law-changing votes. Ladies, looking for the party that values your rights more than carbon taxes? Here it is!

A fluke perhaps? The Libertarian Party fielded 827 candidates, 47 of whom were elected. That’s a 5.6% success rate at our secondary task, but still twice the candidates we elected in 2016. We are not in the business of converting people into politicians. Our main purpose is causing entrenched, subsidized looter politicians to change their votes and platforms by deleting planks that call for violation of individual rights by the initiation of force. Every time a duopoly politician loses to another, that loser will wish their platform committee had not alienated the 4% or so of voters that rallied to the Libertarian standard. We are closely tracking the Fisher-Pry logistical replacement curve, an instrument which–unlike GISS tampered-data temperature projections–has enormous predictive power, predictive power such as would do Hari Seldon proud in an Isaac Asimov trilogy.

Need a translator? Laws, lawsuits, contracts…
Seen my foreign blog?

World Health Organization killers

Remember this argument? “We can’t stop arresting people for plant leaves; the country would lose its membership in the World Health Organization!” Yet when you visit the WHO website, there is no FAQ, paragraph or line in evidence about how wonderful it is for taxation to send men with guns to shoot and arrest teenagers and minority citizens as an example to would-be plant leaf aficionados. Portugal, Uruguay and Mexico–now joined by Canada, have decriminalized plant leaves. Women just recently achieved individual rights in Ireland! Yet there is little mention of these facts in the looter press or soi disant “World” organizations.

But the disinformation is still there in Animal Farm format: plant leaves baaad! The altruistic reader, however, is now expected to independently conclude: therefore weaponized prohibition goood! The conditioning method more closely resembles what Aldous Huxley wrote while living in Fascist Italy than the methods his student Eric Arthur Blair included in Nineteen Eighty-Four.  To induce politicians to order police to “regrettably” shoot our children, these tax-subsidized bureaucrats publish the following propaganda:

Chronic health effects of cannabis use (propaganda alert!)

  • selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;
  • prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;
  • development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;
  • cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;
  • epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;
  • airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;
  • heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;
  • cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;
  • cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.

The health consequences of cannabis use in developing countries are largely unknown beacuse (their spelling) of limited and non-systematic research, but there is no reason a priori to expect that biological effects on individuals in these populations would be substantially different to what has been observed in developed countries. However, other consequences might be different given the cultural and social differences between countries. (end propaganda alert)

Do the brainwashers apologize for the thousands of persons zealously shot to death? for the tens of thousands of man-years of prison sentences imposed? for the economic collapse brought about when prohibitionist asset-forfeiture raids on banks, brokerages, homes and automobiles cause money to flee into hiding, thereby contracting the money supply into liquidity crises? Not a word about that. The formula is the cowardly smear-by-association exemplified in Atlas Shrugged:

She saw at a glance what they (the State Science Institute) had done. She saw the sentences: “It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted. . . . The possibility of a molecular reaction, at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted. . . . Although the tensile strength of the metal is obviously demonstrable, certain questions in regard to its behavior under unusual stress are not to be ruled out.

The same sort of superstitious innuendo serves as pretext for the initiation of deadly force against anything suspected of bringing a smile to someone’s face or being of some utility to the living of their own lives. The World Health Organization–like all products of National or International Socialist coercion–is haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

For certified translations from Spanish and Portuguese visit.

 

Spoilers and voters

Remember?

Visit more Grateful Dead wallpaper

Jerry Garcia of the San Francisco Grateful Dead was opposed to choosing between evils. Garcia commented in 1984 that he was “as afraid of Mondale as… of Reagan” and lamented that “a third way” had nearly come about. Jerry Garcia only voted once in his life. But musicians, like movie actors, typically have no clear idea what government is or how elections work–it’s not their job. Very few people understand the law-changing clout delivered by spoiler votes.

Both Kleptocracy parties are run by platform committees made up entirely of lobbyists. These lobbyists are as clueless as rock musicians when it comes to the real purpose of a legitimate government. They simply peddle coercion to the highest bidder, and pump up the fear of similar coercion threatened by their collectivist competitors. Because the current Kleptocracy has evolved over the last 158 years to pander to the same pool of voters, its two factions have to be nearly identical–differing only in one or two crucial and potentially deliverable platform planks.

When an outside party forms to challenge the cartel, shills and tarbrushers attack by ignoring the competing platform. Instead, they name-call any individual candidates offering the American voter an opportunity to exercise integrity. “Spoilers!” they say. The truth, however, is that the lobbyists who got the Republican Party to betray the American people with coathanger abortion planks in partisan huffery against the Libertarian-written Roe v Wade decision, planks ordering men with guns to shoot our kids over plant leaves. The GOP’s Holy War bombing and invasion of Ottoman sheikdoms were guaranteed to bring hijackers flying into U.S. civilian buildings.  These platform lobbyists–not voters or candidates–are the spoilers. They have turned the Republican party into a machine for wholesale violation of individual rights and a land-mine for financial collapse. Spoiling–like shifting the blame for one’s own cupidityis an inside job.

The Democratic party, which relies heavily on altruist collectivism amounting to government in the role of surrogate parent or deity, lost badly in 2016 and barely held on in 2018. Their failure is primarily because of soiled platform declarations based on pseudoscience and Goracular documendacities. Doomsday weather nonsense is Soviet propaganda left over from 1960, happily demolished by a look at unvarnished (not GISS, which isn’t even internally consistent) weather data.

For translations and explanations of how prohibition causes market crashes, stay tuned.
Visit my Brazilian blog.

 

 

 

Meaning

SMASH YOUR TEEVEE!

Free yourself from Nixon-law-subsidized fake campaign news and find out about law-changing spoiler votes

Translation has to do with the meaning of concepts encoded as language for transmission. If the receiver does not comprehend meanings, the signal fails to impart information. Pertinent questions make this clearer.

Ask people who seek to regulate, tax, curb or abolish economic freedom or energy:

What is force?
What is energy?
What is Work?
What is power?

The response in most cases is either bovine incomprehension or a frantic outpouring of gibberish. Every one of the answers requires familiarity with dimensions of mass, length and time and interrelatedness of their units not easily mastered without some effort, typically near the age of suffrage.

Now ask anyone who wants to abridge, infringe, restrict or regulate individual rights:

What is government?
What is freedom?
What is a right?
What is political power?

And the response is again bafflement or barking. Indeed, the very act of asking anyone committed to the initiation of force a simple question immediately elicits suspicion. A robber, kidnapper or thief rightly fears prosecution, and the first thing a prosecutor does is ask questions. Similarly a stupid lout even fears questions on a test sheet for fear of being confronted with its own ignorance. Self-deception is key to imagining that you can initiate the use of force against others and gain by it.

Ask freedom-divvying kleptocracy voters (the 96%) those eight questions. The ones with any notion of energy, work and power have less inclination to send men with guns to beat you out of your earnings because of “inequality” or impending doom by electrical stations you should fear, not examine. But they can be enlisted in a witch-hunt against birth control or personally enjoyable plant leaves.

The ones that grasp some notions of government, rights and political power but balk at physical reality are easily convinced that the End is Nigh because of an insufficiency of taxation and related government coercion. This lot is always ready to send armed men to ban electrical generating plants or try to repeal the Second Amendment. Republican, Democrat, Communist and Green voters can be counted on to get most of those questions as wrong as 2+2=5.

But if you ask a Libertarian–someone who actually pays dues and votes–chances you will get meaningful answers to most of those questions. As a kicker, you might ask: By what standard shall we distinguish between right and wrong?

For translations that convey information in its original meaning, look for a degreed and certified professional willing to show you the evidence.

Divide and Conquer

Totalitarians and Libertarians understand that freedom is indivisible. Those that value it seek to preserve it intact, and those that despise it try to extirpate it root and branch. Yet there are many who struggle to evade this realization. A single example will suffice.

16 Then came there two women, Equality and Faith, that were voters, unto the Chancellor, and stood before him, one on his Left and the other on his Right

17 And the leftmost woman, Equality said, O my lord, I and this woman Faith dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child, named Sharing, with her in the house.

18 And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house.

19 And this woman’s child, named Righteousness, died in the night; because she overlaid it.

20 And she arose at midnight, and took my Sharing from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child, Righteousness, in my bosom.

21 And when I rose in the morning to give my Sharing suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my Sharing, which I did bear.

22 And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my Righteousness, and the dead is thy Sharing. And this said, No; but the dead is thy Righteousness, and the living is my Sharing. Thus they spake before the Chancellor.

23 Then said the Chancellor, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living.

24 And the Chancellor said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the Chancellor.

25 And the Chancellor said, we must compromise. Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.

26 Then spake both women and said, Let this be settled by unselfish compromise, the common good before the individual good, and divide it, for half of Sharing or Righteousness is better than none at all. Any other view is unequal and extreme

27 Then the Chancellor answered: divide the child in half.

28 But another woman, Liberty, protested this was monstrous, saying Equality had no more just power to deprive Faith of her precious child than Faith had to deprive Equality of hers. Then all three turned to Liberty. The Chancellor told her she was not invited to the debate–and the child was cut in half.

29 And all Germany heard of the judgment which theChancellor had judged; and they feared theChancellor: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment with integrity, as in the Twenty-Five Points, and that he would relentlessly seek the implementation of these points, if necessary at the cost of their lives.

Totalitarians (no rights or freedom) & Libertarians (yes rights & freedom) are consistent

Mixed economy advocates (yellow) believe freedom is divisible

I hope you understood this parable on how the mixed-economy, Left&Right socialists sacrifice all principles and integrity to take from others what they value, and the Libertarian Upper quadrant and Totalitarian Lower quadrant remain true to their values and principles. Remember that clarity next time you need a translator. Oh, and be SURE you remember what the Left-Right Socialist parties say about each other when you see LIB on the ballot.
My other blog is usually in Portuguese.

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.