People who talk about other people

same old same old

Before Women Got the Vote

A republican infiltrator at the Reasonoids meetup in Austin could only talk about who the LP should listen to and support. The bait? More people would like us (as opposed to vote for our platform and candidates).

There is nothing new about this particular dodge. The purpose, as always, is to get us to dilute our message by wasting votes on candidates fielded by looter parties.

This is the same as it was over a century ago. Men still thought in terms of personalities rather than principles, issues or freedom. Every election was a flinging match over what adjectives to apply to wannabee politicians. Fools get caught up in the excitement rather than leverage a vote so as to shape the votes and mindfully direct the policies and actions of those selfsame politicians. They don’t have to like us or agree with us. They need only fear that our spoiler votes will cause them to lose to some other, less objectionable looter candidate.

This is how the communists and prohibitionists used their tiny percentage of the vote share to rewrite the constitution, saddle us with an income tax and make beer a felony.

Le plus ça change…

See the full cartoon

If in need of financial or legal translations from South America, look me up.

Advertisements

Vote Repellent

Alabama and Louisiana both gave their electoral votes to George Wallace’s platform of de jure racial segregation and forcing women to reproduce in 1968. In the 2016 election both States went heavily for the party with the platform most resembling the Dixiecrats’ racial collectivism and planks urging the initiation of force against women and physicians.

Alabama gave the Republican Party a 15% overkill victory, and netted the Libertarian ticket 36% fewer votes than the reported national average. Libertarian votes there amounted to only one-seventh the amount needed to cover the gap between the two Kleptocracy parties. Alabama plainly needed seven times the libertarian voter turnout to qualify for message-sending, law-changing spoiler vote clout status in the rough-and-tumble earning of respect as a force to be reckoned with in George Wallace territory.

Louisiana voters handed antichoice prohibitionist Republicans an 11% lead over the other looters, and dismissed Libertarian candidates even more brutally than Independent American Party fans in Alabama. The LP ticket there got 42% fewer votes than we earned on average in These Sovereign States.  That’s less than an eighth the turnout needed for the law-changing spoiler vote status that forces Kleptocracy parties to drop cruel planks to keep from losing perks, paychecks and political power. 

Commies for McGovern!

Message: The Libertarian Party demands uninspected entry of strangers!

So where would you look to recruit false-flag infiltrators to make libertarians look like the kind of fools that have never read the Constitution, worked under oath or even bothered to learn the definition of government, rights or law?

Here is the text of a “resolution” sent to the National LP by persons claiming to represent what few libertarians voted for our unadulterated 2016 platform in those states:

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Alabama believes that the only proper role of law is in the protection of the natural rights of individuals from the initiation of force or fraud;

WHEREAS, no individual has a natural right to prohibit consensual visitation to or consensual habitation on the private property of another individual;

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party believes that eminent domain is a violation of private property rights;

WHEREAS, we affirm the right of individuals to set whatever standards they wish for entry onto their own private property but not that owned by others;

WHEREAS, we believe that all individuals have the same natural rights regardless of their citizenship;

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party acknowledges that economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Alabama condemns and opposes efforts to build a governmental border wall.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Alabama supports open borders.

Maybe it’s not brazen sabotage at all. Perhaps open borders means what the US currently has: ports of entry at which travelers may produce visas and inoculation documents and be inspected by Americans against lists of persons known to be violent or dangerous–as in the LP Migration plank before it was gutted by Platform Committee personnel AFTER our record-setting capture of national spoiler-clout status. But what would be the point of that? Indeed, what was the point of damaging the plank to make voters perceive it as an enticement to uninspected entry? What better way is there to repel voters than setting us up as anarchists aiding and abetting reckless endangerment?

Would it not be more honest to say that they who presume to speak for those scarce LP voters want uninspected entry to not be a deportable offense? That would be easily understood as pressure to change federal law. Pitifully hopeless pressure, true enough, from states that were utterly lacking in libertarian spoiler votes even when our platform was mostly sensible–but clear enough to understand as a demand from Whitney Bilyeu, Thomas Knapp, Alex Merced and C.A. Harlos that any and everyone walk or climb right in. Even the locust-swarm of illiterates that recently attempted uninspected entry at the California stretch of the U.S. border at least had the courage to say what it is they figure the world owes them. 

For clear and accurate simultaneous interpreting of Latin American news, legislation, contracts or court cases, get in touch.

 

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 are 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.

Why do refugees flee Statesward? Because the Republican Party’s 1928 Good Neighbor Policy began the exportation of the fanatical prohibitionism that brought on the Crash and left the US economy smoldering in the Great Depression. Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929, explains how looter fanatic agents raiding banks in a fractional-reserve monetary structure SHRINK economies here, there and everywhere into black holes of banking panics and liquidity crises. LIVE on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages.

 

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.

hankdotcom

For certified translations from Spanish and Portuguese visit.

 

Libertarian voters in Brazil

Not voting for the communist or fascist candidate is illegal

NONE OF THE ABOVE and ABSTAINING Brazilian presidential runoff votes in 2018

When America’s prohibitionist asset-forfeiture collapse of 1987 hit South America, the situation resembled that of Germany when President Warren Harding was pronounced dead with no inquest or autopsy. Inflation went through the roof, the government collapsed and looter politicians set to work on a “new” constitution.

You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.

Paper rights inflate into worthlessness like paper money.

Droves of Brazilian voters illegally boycotted the first election under the new, book-length Constitution (14.4% abstaining and 5.82% casting blank ballots).  As collectivized “rights” inflated into worthlessness, about 2.5 million Brazilians emigrated to other countries in a massive brain-drain.

Aside from its role in writing the court decision that enforced a woman’s right to control her own reproduction, Americans hardly remembered the infiltrated and weakened Libertarian Party in 1988. But dictatorships absolutely dominated by looter ideologies recognized in the LP an existential threat to the continuity of totalitarian coercion. Borrowing from Nixon’s anti-libertarian law, politicians elsewhere began preferentially subsidizing parties that extort money at gunpoint.  With scary lessons learned from Ayn Rand’s essay on collectivized rights, male-dominated governments given to every shade of communo-fascist cleptocracy proceeded to inflate the number of looter parties empowered to suck sustenance through the government teat. And it worked!

Nationalistic socialists controlling European elections eagerly subsidize, regulate, smear and smother libertarian parties out of existence. Lateran-treaty Juntas in South America do the same, and one or two inject subsidies to inflate to over 32 the number of communist, socialist and fascist parties gobbling at the trough of Brazil’s tax revenue. That’s nearly the number of parties operated in Weimar Germany when Hitler was made Chancellor.  Since all parties are perforce tax-subsidized, the Kleptocracy says it “cannot afford” to add a non-looter party. Pretty neat, huh?

The upshot of all this is that Brazilian voting machines offer three (03) choices: communist soft machines, fascist soft machines and NONE OF THE ABOVE. These blank and spindled NO votes can realistically be counted as votes that would likely be cast in favor of Libertarian Party platform candidates, if such a thing weren’t excluded by the violence of law. The 21% turnout means 79% of eligible voters broke the mandatory voting law. In some cities, None of the Above got more votes than the winning kleptocrat. The spoiler vote fraction is what they call the taxa de alienação. Even if we ignore the no-shows, NOTA got 10% of the votes cast. That’s three times the vote percentage earned by the U.S. Libertarian Party! Here’s how they describe the national results:

O PT e TSE juntos elegeram a Junta

Green represents potential Libertarian Party votes

With the upcoming repeal of the Red Arbeiterpartei’s Kristallnacht gun laws, the suppression of libertarian voters is bound to become increasingly difficult. When coerced and subsidized election restrictions do collapse, spoiler votes will leverage the coalescing kleptocracy into repealing bad laws and deleting parasitical taxes. This, after all, is what the LP has been doing in the USA for 46 years now. Instead of electing our own politicians, we help voters defeat the worst of the opposition.

Brazilians, Colombians, Argentinos… transplants in the US can either vote or donate to the US  and Canadian Libertarian Parties, and the LP will continue to euchre politicians into repealing bad laws. How? By giving voters the opportunity to emphatically reject the socialist and nationalsocialist tendencies that have taken over the Democratic and Republican parties. These are the American parties that run the NSA and CIA that are empowered to snoop on Latin American politicians and leak damaging information to their adversaries. Many bad laws that cripple Latin American economies were exported there by America’s violent runaway Kleptocracy.

When in need of translators skilled in international contracts and court cases, look us up at Speakwrite or Falascreve.
My other blog is mostly 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.

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

Econazi v. Econazi

Canadian-born Green Party enthusiast tried in Econazi Germany for questioning “settled history.” (Since this was posted, a way was found to make the original photo vanish down a memory hole. So, picture a blonde with braided pigtails…)

national socialist child

Rectifies malreported memoryhole Partymember

Monika Schaefer (on the right on the elided picture), the perfect Green Party candidate and poster child, is on trial in a post-National Socialist People’s Court for throughtcrime. This highly-redacted  video was her undoing. Germany has no free speech guarantees, and concepts like initiation of force and individual rights are evidently as baffling there as in 1933. The charge is “Volksverhetzung,” an ungoodthinkful sort of incitement to hatred. Volksverhetzung is the perfect vehicle for selective political persecution. It’s even money that before the year is out indictments will be true-billed for wondering aloud why there is no ozone hole at the North Pole, in the hemisphere where 8/9 of humanity live. Indeed, to question whether eco-Gestapo-ordered replacements for regular freon cause air conditioners to fail–making folks feel like climate is getting warmer–ought to be good for at least a 5-year prison term. A case of beer became a 5-year felony in America in March of 1929, so such things CAN happen. 

Circulating graphs of tampered-with ground thermometer measurements compared with satellite data ought to be good for a prison terms plus some asset forfeiture and heavy fines.
The German penchant for forced labor instead of Buckminster Fuller “energy slaves” has already led new-left and econazi politicos to legislate the shutdown of demonically-possessed nuclear power plants that generate no carbon dioxide but (gasp!) increase the supply of electrical power.

The prewar English translation of “Mein Kampf” recommended “extirpation” of all things Jewish in the name of altruist collectivism. Postwar editions changed the operative term to “extermination.”  Surely there is a clue about Holocaust eugenics to be had in the published works of politicians elected to office and preferred by those huge Christian majorities in Germany and Austria.

If ever in need of technical translations from Spanish, Portuguese or English involving mining or nuclear energy, look me up.

I also have a book out in two languages explaining the causal connection between Prohibition pseudoscience and The Crash and Great Depression it caused.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle