With Friends Like These…

A typical email asking for money begins: Together, we’re forging ahead and navigating toward even greater accomplishments. Every step we take building party resources and infrastructure, all the hours of hard work put in by our dedicated volunteers, all the battles for ballot access and fair election procedures—(the message could end)… go down the toilet every time an infiltrator pimping for a hostile ideology penetrates the platform committee to poison our platform with nonsense! Today’s story is about a recent bit of… of what? sabotage to LP goodwill? clumsy incompetence? that could easily wipe out our 328% increase in ballot share earned in the November 2016 election.

Hearsay, apocrypha, curbside speechifying

LP News August 2018 p 5

Knapp then lays on some self-administered back-patting, flattery, apocryphal storytelling, hortative pseudo-ethics, hearsay, but no factual data. Formulated on false premises and hearsay, Knapp’s entire argument is fallacious. Candidate Trump said he likes libertarianism and was overwhelmingly elected on the promise to build the Republican platform fence.  True, Trump lost in the popular vote, but largely because the LP got four million of those votes–well over the Hillary-Trump gap.

Trump’s most popular move was the entry ban on “individuals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property,”  meaning suicide-vest terrorist ideologue brainwashees that crash planes into skyscrapers, machine-gun Paris nightclubs, run down pedestrians en masse in London, Nice and elsewhere, and today specialize in stabbing sprees much like the anarchist communists of a century ago–whose entry congress banned by law. As for borders, the first clear definition of government is an “entity which has a monopoly over the use of legitimate coercive power in a given territory.” Lack of borders typifies anarchy or war.

Knapp proceeds to assert that based on his reading of “the public mind” and his unmeasurable perception of the motion of “America’s political center of gravity” the “principles” of the LP needed “to move.” Libertarian principles in 1972 supported “laws that prohibit trespass” and urged “the maintenance of a sufficient military establishment to defend the United States against aggression” including “sufficient nuclear capacity.” The LP does not even want to recognize totalitarian governments. Nowhere in the principles or planks on which the Party was founded is there any restriction on Knapp himself buying land on the border and declaring it an entry point for jihadists and locust-swarms of refugees from unlibertarian satrapies. Knapp’s arm-waving assertions as to bedrock LP principles are fiction.

Knapp´s perceptions of principles only he sees, coupled with his public-mind-reading, his imaginary schedule of when things should happen and his sensing of massless gravity culminate in doublethink changes in the meaning of our original and recent platforms. His explanation? He “heard people.” Knapp claims he heard people “assert” that the platform plank he sought to savage might be invoked in support of a spurious and totally imaginary claim that the LP supports “collective immigration bans based on nationality, ethnicity, or religion.” Hearsay and fiction don’t get any more obvious than this.

First of all, federal laws prohibit those, but toothily demand bans on individual violent criminals. The Kleptocracy and its majority of voters have not yet changed that law, and the hearsay invoked is irrelevant even if true. Unlike Knapp, the federal government produces data its agencies claim is factual:

True? False? Exaggerated?

Enforcement and Removal Operations Report p 4. This is where el Presidente gets his figures.

This is last year’s list of what ICE claims are individual criminals they caught and turned over for prosecution or deportation. The second-largest item is Republican and Democrat sumptuary legislation banning enjoyable plant leaves, etc. Libertarian spoiler votes–to the extent we can still get any–are repealing this category of victimless “crime” even when we do not get our candidates elected. Assault, burglary, spouse-beating, robbery, rape, theft and vandalism, kidnapping, homicide and menacing are what the Republicans are mainly talking about, but Knapp never mentions. These acts are a far cry from worshipping a spaghetti monster, being brown or having a non-American passport–things Knapp imagines “some party members” associate with  a “credible threat to security, health or property.” But even Donald Trump welcomes individuals who “enrich our society and contribute to our nation.”

What has happened are visa restrictions against such People’s States as Cuba, Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, and Sierra Leone for refusing to accept back their nationals deported from the USA. Even those are not blanket visa restrictions, but country-by-country restrictions on the more troublesome categories of visas.  These five exemplify the sort of country the 1972 LP platform urged us not to even recognize–much less reward with visas.

But as long as we’re on the topic of threats, observe in the LP News article that Knapp postures defensively at imagined menaces to nationality, ethnicity, or religion, then warns that “my fellow Libertarians will never allow” the imaginary hearsay threat to materialize. Knapp boasts that the LP “never has” supported such fictional nonsense, which is true enough. But thanks to hostile infiltrators, nobody can say that no past LP platform has ever asked voters to enshrine molestation or child prostitution.

With friends like these...

Pimp, by Tatsuya Ishida

Libertarian Party platforms and spoiler votes have overturned cruel laws banning birth control, interfered with tax hikes, and drawn the boiling wrath of fanatical looter ideologues. Naturally these ideologues will pass up no opportunity to sully our platform and make us look bad. Then again, we should expect no less–and certainly not expect honesty. Constant vigilance is due diligence.

If in need of a translator or interpreter for Latin America, look me up.
My other blog is foreign.

 

Advertisements

Ayn Rand and Sex

Conservatives of the collectivist, chaste and “celibate” persuasions, and other socialists–especially those catasterized freaks whose reading is limited to scripts–fall all over themselves at the chance to criticize Ayn Rand’s views on sex. None leap to the fore with explanations of the value of altruism, or to castigate her views on the initiation of force.

For starters, the gal was Russian, educated, and not a congregant of mystical altruist sects. She arrived in These States a Hollywood aficionada and Pola Negri fan–but also a fully functioning young woman at a time when 99 and 44/100% of such cloche-hatted creatures watched Rudolph Valentino movies with an intensity unmanifested since Argos watched Io. American women made first use of the vote to place America’s handsomest womanizer, Warren Gamaliel Harding–he of dowdy wife and three pretty mistresses–in the Executive Mansion in Washington using their 1920 election ballots.

Ayn arrived in 1926, shortly after some 10 million young men had been killed and twice as many again wounded in the Great War to forestall ratification of the Hague opium convention in the middle of an opiate glut. There was certainly no glut of eligible bachelors as Ayn Rand surveyed the pickings in Hollywood.  She literally tripped herself a man while working as a ragged extra in King of Kings, and squired by Frank doubtless took in such flickering delights as  “Son of The Sheik” (1926).

In The Sheik, the manly Saracen Ahmed, played by Valentino, captures a white girl (Agnes Ayres) complete with jodphurs, pith helmet and scarf. He tauntingly inquires whether his coy and flighty captive she is not “woman enough to know” why he brought her to his tent. There followed this priceless repartée:

“I am not accustomed to having my orders disobeyed!”

“And I am not accustomed to obeying orders!”

“You will learn!”

But the macho Ottoman ravisher plays the nice guy and fails to make his move–to the horror and disappointment of neglected American girls smoulderingly jealous of those anorexic, à la garçonne hussies lately boosting the troops’ morale “Over There!” That fault was corrected in Son of the Sheik, which hit the silver screen just as young Ayn Rand joined silent movie audiences. In it, a reformed Valentino wastes no time having his way with an (unwitting) honey-trap Mata Hari (Vilma Banky)–by engraved invitation–in a plot twist foreshadowing Kira Argonouva’s gaining of young Lev Kovalensky. There is even some foreshadowing left over for one of Mae West’s signature quips–about a gun.

Glittering o’er his faults, Valentino lustily redeems himself in the eyes of Russian and American womanhood, performing much like Francisco D’Anconia would thirty years later in Atlas Shrugged. Similarities may not have been entirely coincidence. Francisco’s full name was Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. Rudolph Valentino answered to  Rudolfo Alfonso Raffaello Pierre Filibert Guglielmi di Valentina D’Antonguolla.

Ayn Rand was no different from the millions of young American women who flocked to Valentino movies and too soon mourned his passing. Pola Negri, young Ayn’s Hollywood heroine since childhood, made a point of swooning over Valentino’s casket at every opportunity. The Fountainhead and Atlas were devoured by Robert A Heinlein, who promptly responded with another protagonist named Valentine in Stranger in a Strange Land. That very expression was first uttered by Dracula in Bram Stoker’s allegorical endorsement of Comstock Laws and the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice! Robert Rimmer novels like The Harrad Experiment, the Rebellion of Yale Marratt and Proposition 31–not to mention Grace Slick’s version of Triad, made Ayn’s unopposed and muscular dalliance with her handsome young admirer seem so tame in context that Howard Roark couldn’t help but laugh.

So 62 years after the publication of Atlas Shrugged–now selling briskly in 29 languages–Republican, Democrat, Green and Communist looters mask squirming envy with feigned shock. None dare defend altruism or the initiation of force on ethical grounds, yet Dr Tara Smith of the U. of Texas Philosophy Department has produced several alternative derivations validating Rand’s ethical and political conclusions, with likewise no response from the cognoscenti and intelligentzia. Theirs is the face of looter cowardice unmasked.

hankdotcom

If you have laws, regulations, contracts or court decisions in need of unmasking from behind a Latin American language barrier, visit my translator, interpreter or Brazilian language website.
See also my Brazilian language blog

Koerner fallacy v. Winning

Same smear tactics the kleptocracy used on the LP.org

Small Human Rights Party ad placed before the LP plank legalized women’s rights. See Original

Surrounding every small party dedicated to change–for better or worse–is a fog of panhandlers eager to bleed off donations. Those donations would otherwise go to the gatherers of leveraged, law-changing spoiler votes. FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education fits the profile for one of these panhandlers.

Robin Koerner is a British-born recent convert to the USA. Like McAfee, a likable noob to whom the LP “owed” the nomination the same year he joined, Koerner has “answers.” But Koerner’s pitch is based on appallingly false, misleading and irrelevant suppositions. Foremost among these is Koerner’s view that ethics, law, history, economics and politics don’t matter, but pop psychologizing by an altruist from fascist Spain does. For guidance Koerner looks to a Franco-era mystical looter to whom life “is cosmic realization of altruism” (Ortega y Gasset, 2012:73). The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, asks us to sign a disavowal of fascist-style aggression. The disavowal was written by Ayn Rand in February of 1947. (Letters of Ayn Rand p. 366) That was back when altruistic fascist and nazi collaborators in Europe were kind of scarce because so many had been hanged by their former victims!

Koerner’s is the thinking of marketing people in Dilbert cartoons. Koerner also believes grinning candidates matter–not platforms, that you should emulate whiners and that the medium is the message. Sound familiar?
The premise–at least the part dense enough to identify–confuses a likable and successful single-issue lobby like UKIP with a political party. The conclusion is Koerner’s assertion that “…psychology must be the focus of any political party that is serious about doing what it is formed to do—which is win elections.”  UKIP won because Brits finally understood that Brexit is the antonym of Anschluss! Having felt the familiar sensation of losing on their hides, Europeans now grasp the meaning of winning! Winning is ditching coercion and gaining freedom.

It takes one to know one?

Like any huckster, this one is attracted to marks, suckers, losers “despondent because 47 years says that your guy never gets elected.” The error is that the LP is not in business to support pop-psych cheerleaders or manufacture paycheck politicians. For 47 years the LP has changed hundreds of laws and policies so as to reduce the initiation of force. We WIN this progress with the law-changing clout of principled spoiler votes. We win because the looters that ignore us get beaten by looters less coercive.

In its first campaign year the LP wrote the content the Supreme Court used in Roe v Wade to kill coathanger abortion laws. Does Koerner mention this? Democrats sure as hell don’t, but Republicans and Prohibition Party hucksters immediately drew up Constitutional Amendments to overturn Roe v Wade. To them the good old days were when a mail order diaphragm was cause for ten years in prison. They are STILL writing and pushing amendments to force women into involuntary labor.

Remember the draft? Napalming children in ‘Nam? Dixiecrats bombing prayer meetings? Middle East invasions and Bush bawling for the death sentence for marijuana? All of those things felt the chill from fewer than 4000 spoiler votes and one electoral vote counted in December of 1972. Today we cast 4 MILLION such votes. Here’s what the logistics substitution curve fit looks like:

The LP is on track to earn 50% of the vote by 2075.

Fisher-Pry curves show democracy replacing monarchy as coal & oil replaced wood

Prohibitionists with 1.4% of the vote (assisted by venal and cowardly looter politicians) passed the 18th Amendment and Marxist income tax which wrecked the economy and brought the Great Depression. This is the power of spoiler votes cast in support of a principled (albeit idiotic) stand. All we need do is let voters know that the button next to the ones they’ve been pushing will speed up the rate at which violent laws are repealed so that freedom replaces coercion and prosperity replaces debt. We are not despondent. We are winning every election. All four looter parties are shrivelling. The growing LP record of vote share fits a logistical substitution curve that indicates the LP (or its policies) should have half the total votes by 2075.

Koerner’s whole message is designed to obfuscate that crucial point and lead confused customers down a blind alley. That the alley is full of muggers, pickpockets and predators is not news. The Human Rights Party–organized shortly before the LP (see top of this page)–found out the hard way. Its organizers knew nothing of the meaning of government or freedom, the nature of rights or the language of money! They are extinct, but the Libertarian Party is thriving despite the “help” of “friends” like Koerners and FEEs.

hank phillips

If in need of simultaneous interpreting of the sort that made the Nuremberg trials of National Socialist war criminals possible, hire a Portugueseinterpreter. For general Latin American public faith translations visit Speakwrite.
My other blog is Brazilian.

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.

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.

Why mystical conservatives hate liberals

"Crime is increasing."

“Steadily building a new race–“

To organizers of the Liberal Party of America, the situation in 1930 was intolerable: 

Hypocrisy is in the saddle. Mercenary religion is throttling the nation’s life. Paid preachers, quartered in magnificent offices, and working for large salaries, are stifling the life of the people. Some of them are laughing in derision when the poor and the weak are convicted and sent to prison. Some of them are advocating the poisoning of alcohol, so that those who are tempted may die—the sooner the wretches are out of the way, say they, the better for Prohibition. And the Sunday laws—these mercenary preachers are spying around corners to trap the unwary and to fill the jails. –1930 Platform

Condoms and diaphragms were as illegal as light beer in Prohibitionist Amerika. Indeed, such things were banned in Communist Rumania as late as 1966, and still illegal in Catholic Ireland in 1992! Comstock laws and Prohibitionist Blue Laws made a crime of baseball, movies, many kinds of work and all manner of purchases on Sundays. The Liberal Party directly challenged the Klan, the Lord’s Day Alliance and Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and sought to restore freedom and individual rights. One of its organizers remarked:

How shall this great aim be accomplished? Not by the Republican Party, of which I have been a member all my life, sitting as a delegate in one of its National Conventions and speaking in every one of its campaigns from McKinley to Hoover. … Not by the Democratic Party, for that Party, equally high in its ideals, equally illustrious in its history, is at this moment notable for its bigotry and intolerance. In Congress, where many men in both Houses who voted for the infamous Jones Law are known to be drinkers and the constant patrons of bootleggers, there is a bill pending and possibly soon to be enacted which will fine and imprison every man who takes a drink.

The Jones Law in question, also known as the 5 & 10 law, made light beer a five-year felony and imposed a fine equivalent to fifteen pounds of solid gold just hours before Herbert Hoover was sworn in to enforce it. That fine comes to over $307,000 at current gold prices. Still, men with guns could waylay a lad barely 18 and slap him in prison till age 22, burdened with debt equivalent to two 30-year mortgages, yet with nothing to show for it but seething resentment and loss of voting and Second Amendment rights. Such “felons” and their repentant parents were the voters the Liberal Party attracted.

The potential of those spoiler votes led the Democrats to abandon the Klan and declare for repeal of the Prohibition Amendment in 1932. The economy–though still burdened with the Communist income tax–began a slow recovery and the Democrats occupied the Executive Branch for the next five presidential terms. The Dems of that era also defeated the National Socialist Christian government of Germany, with its eugenic campaign of racial extermination carried on in the name of mystical altruism. The Nationalsocialist government was also organized, as in Hoover’s Inaugural Address, for purposes of “steadily building a new race.”

The defense of individual rights is today carried on by the Libertarian Party by a passing of the torch of liberty. With 4 million votes covering the spoiler vote gap in 11 states, the LP has lately swung a total of 124 electoral votes. That’s nine times the number of electoral votes the entire State of Virginia controls with its 4 million individual votes. Here’s the LP hockey stick in a sigmoid logistic substitution curve fit for LP votes beginning with the Y2k election.

Religious fanatics encouraged to initiate force...

Libertarian Party vote share since the fascists beat the socialists in Y2k

Not bad for a party that is just now as old as President John F. Kennedy, eh? Join the Three Percent! Give your vote nine, 21 or 10,000 times the law-changing clout. Be your own spoiler vote lobbyist and frighten the crap out of those looters in Congress and their codgers on the Supreme Court. You’ll never regret winning by repealing bad laws!

This inspirational message was brought to you by Brazilian Translated, run by an independent contractor degreed and certified from Portuguese and Spanish into English and from English into Portuguese. I’m the 1% that passed the tests when it comes to translations.