Pro-life or Anti-life?

Speaking in tongues

Yes, many, many languages…

Anti-Life is a chapter in Ayn Rand’s 1957 best-seller Atlas Shrugged, in fact, it’s the chapter that follows Anti-Greed.

Anti-Greed is foreshadowed as part of a newspaper item so distorted as to upset Hank Rearden’s secretary, but

He laughed aloud. “I can see where such a distortion of the English language would make you furious”

It turns out that Anti-Greed is a chapter about Project X, a weapon that broadcasts death.

PRO-LIFE COP-KILLER

Colorado Clinic Shooter

Conservative altruists still advocate sending men with guns to threaten doctors and coerce pregnant women into back-alley surgery. Impressed by that good example set by elected officials, some superstitious characters did indeed march out and murder unarmed doctors by shooting them in the back, or from outside their windows. This trend began shortly after the LP platform of 1972 demanded and got enforcement of individual rights for women. The latest in the long list or religious conservative assassins was Robert Dear, who is now under indictment on federal counts, several of which invoke capital punishment by a just society.(link) The most recent amendments to infiltrate the LP platform call for letting religious terrorists enter the U.S. uninspected, (a Democratic Party idea) then protecting them from the death sentence (a Republican idea) with taxpayers billed for room and board for life. Those planks are an example of how hostile ideologies are again boring in to make Libertarians look like fools to voters.

These are the people Ayn Rand preferred when she declared voting for the Tonie Nathan-John Hospers LP ticket “immoral.”(link) So what? We all make mistakes–and Tricky Dick wouldn’t wreck the economy for another year yet. At age 67, few of us are at the top of our game, but the ability to learn from mistakes is a valuable skill at which Ayn Rand did not excel. Unlike Nixon’s party, she did advocate individual rights for women. The LP did write the boilerplate the Supreme Court used as its Roe v. Wade decision, blocking race-suicide Dixiecrats from sending men with guns out to cause women bleed to death. When was the last time you heard about that in a Republican publication?

Why not delve into what sort of voting caused the 1929 Crash? Prohibition and The Crash–Cause and Effect in 1929 does exactly that, matching newspaper accounts against stock market reactions and competing theories. It is live on Amazon Kindle for the price of a pint.

My other-language blog, Expatriotas.blogspot is amigra.us

 

 

LP Migration Plank v. Constitution

Jon Roland of Austin, Texas runs a blog on the Constitution. This entry explains why the LP had better restore the Migration plank to what it said in 2016, when it brought us 4 million votes–before it was disfigured into repellent absurdity.

2019/02/16

Constitution authorizes declarations of emergency

The U.S. Constitution states:

[Congress shall]  provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Art I Sec. 8.

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
This last clause is key. The President has authority to call up the militia, and call-ups of militia are for emergencies, not to do the job of the regular military, which is provided for elsewhere. So to call up the militia is to declare an emergency.

So can the President declare an emergency without calling up the militia? All U.S. citizens, including government employees and contractors, are militia. Directing them to reallocate funds for defense is to act within that power. No special statutory authority is needed.

So are entries into the U.S. without consent an invasion? Yes.  Any such trespass is an offense against the law of nations, which Congress has the power to define and punish. They have done that, although first-time simple entry is merely a “deportable offense”, a kind of misdemeanor. However, reentry after having been deported is a felony.

It does not need to be an armed force to be an invasion. A child chasing a butterfly across the border is an invader. It also doesn’t matter whether the invaders are, or can be expected to be, criminals. Peaceful people seeking work are also invaders, if they enter without consent.

So is the situation on the southern border an emergency? If it were only a few a day, no. But thousands flooding the border, faster than they can be managed, is an emergency.

Does it matter that the thousands are seeking asylum? No. U.S. law only recognizes political asylum, not economic asylum. Most of those  thousands are economic refugees. If they are fleeing criminals or corrupt officials, then they have the duty to fight in their own countries, not in ours.

What is the President’s alternative? He could station troops along the border with orders to repel invaders with deadly force. He could erect gun turrets every few hundred yards. That would be more expensive than a wall. Do opponents of a wall really want invaders to be repelled by automatic weapons? Democrats would not get many votes from those.

Jon blogs at constitutionalism.blogspot.com

The Constitution once made Beer a felony, enforcement as which collapsed the economy. Get the complete story in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in two languages

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us

Write me:

All persons born…

See many men among these voters?

Individuals who Voted to Enforce their Rights–and WON! Irish women won individual rights (link)

Does the Constitution allow men with guns to threaten physicians or coerce pregnant women? The Harrison Act enabled pseudoscience-addled politicians to have men with service pistols step between doctors and patients in 1914. See why missing an opportunity to vote Libertarian is tantamount to desertion under fire as mystical and collectivist reality control delegitimize individual claims to freedom of action.

Today’s guest repost is by Austin’s Constitutional Scholar Jon Roland, constitutionalism.blogspot.com.

U.S. Supreme Court: Issues with current contenders

Unenumerated rights

The first issue is presented by the statement by nominee appointee Brett  Cavanaugh in his acceptance speech, that he would not find rights not explicitly recognized in the main Constitution.. This has been an issue since the nomination of Robert Bork, who considered the Ninth Amendment, which calls for the nondisparagement of rights that are not “enumerated” (made explicit) somewhere in the Constitution, as amended, to be an “ink blot”. There is strong opposition to Supreme Court judges doing that, especially from so-called “conservatives”, who don’t understand that constitutional rights are all “immunities”, restrictions on the powers of government. They are not “privileges” to receive a sufficient amount of public resources, such as for education, healthcare, elder support, or any other objects of public subsidies.

Interestingly, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Fifth Circuit decided that a “right to an abortion” was a Ninth Amendment right of a woman  “to choose whether to have children”, which by the 14th Amendment, was “incorporated” for the states. This presented the Supreme Court with an apparent problem,  because there was opposition to funding unenumerated rights in the Senate. The Fifth Circuit found a Ninth Amendment “right  to choose whether to have children”. So the SC tried to sustain the Fifth Circuit without embracing the Ninth Amendment. The result was an incoherent opinion. There was no way to avoid the Ninth Amendment.

It would perhaps too much to expect a nominee to venture into an extended discussion of what a “right” is, and what it is not. It is awkward to say “I will not find a ‘right’ to a sufficient amount of a public resource.” That is too complicated for most senators. So the candidate denies he will try to find any “unenumerated” rights. That is somewhat disingenuous, but the issue needs to be discussed.

1968, NO LIBERTARIAN PARTY!

Republicans, Dixiecrats, No Libertarian Party!

When “life” begins

One of the potential nominees, Amy Barrett, has been reported to have stated that human “life” begins at conception. That is a misstatement of the issue in Roe v. Wade. which in its essence was not about “life” but about “personhood” because “Rights (immunities)” attach to “persons”, (roles in court), not to “life”, despite what the Declaration of Independence says. (That is why some activists have sought to move the commencement of “personhood” back to conception. That would be a mistake. We cannot allow each state to redefine “personhood”, because if we did, a state could define some people to be nonpersons, without rights. So there has to be a uniform definition across all states if the protections of the Constitution are not to be meaningless. That is the basis for finding the right to be incorporated under the Ninth Amendment, as the Fifth Circuit did.

So when does “life” begin?

Not at conception. Each individual is the latest in an unbroken chain of life that goes back to at least the point when the first single-celled organism became a multi-celled animal, which occurred about 650 million years ago, during the pre-Cambrian era, when the surface of the Earth was covered with ice (“snowball Earth”) and there was only one continent, Rodinia. We are all descended from that multi-celled organism. That is when “life” began.

So when does “personhood” begin?

This was declared by the jurist Edward Coke in the 15th century, and later restated by legal scholar William Blackstone, in the early 18th century, who provided most of the definitions for terms used in the U.S. Constitution. They held that “personhood” begins at natural birth, or induced natural birth (they had Cesarean sections in those days). Some of the states later found that personhood began with baptism, entry of a name in church records, or even later. Not at “conception”, the date of which could not have been defined with any precision in those days, or even now.

Consider what would happen if we defined “personhood” to begin at conception? It would make every fetus the ward of a court, with the court having power to supervise the pregnancy. It could order the woman to continue a pregnancy, and not terminate it, under penalty of law. That would be forced pregnancy. Do we want that? Every pregnant woman chained to a bed. Anyone see the play “A Handmaid’s Tale”. Good way to stop everyone from having sex.

Forcing women into involuntary servitude and labor

Sinfest.net webcomic 2 awe

Need for uniformity

Incorporation of a Ninth Amendment right is required by the need to have a uniform definition of “personhood” (legal role) across all jurisdiction, since constitutional rights attach to “persons” and not just to “citizens” or “life”.  If states could define personhood, they could deprive anyone of rights by defining him to be a “nonperson”. Thus a state could find that Blacks are not persons as a way to deprive them of their liberty.

Notes:

1. Roe v. Wade, 1221 (N.D. Tex. 1970) (“On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couple of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree.”).

2. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

3, A Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood.

4. Robert Bork and the Inkblot, Kurt Lash.

5. Constitutional views on abortion

See also: Ayn Rand (link)

Get the complete story on other prohibitions in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in either if two languages for the price of a craft pint. After this you’ll be able to explain to economists exactly how fanaticism and loss of freedom wrecked the U.S. economy in 1929 and 2008.

ProhicrashAmazon

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us

 

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.

All anarchists are communists

When one first discovers the Libertarian Party, the biggest surprise is the swarm of anarchists buzzing about the organization. These worthies rarely join and pay dues, to say nothing of making campaign contributions. The overall impression they produce is much the same as that of a swarm of flies–which is precisely the intended effect! 

Not that there is anything new about anarchism. One quickly gets a sense of just how flyblown the theory is by searching the Google News Archive for specimens. Here’s one from 1894–the year a small communist party got 9% of the U.S. vote and cowed Congress into tacking Manifesto Plank 2 onto a tariff bill. An aggressor fired a pistol at Italian Premier Crispi, missed twice and was overpowered by his intended victim. A few days later another anarchist social revolutionary shot and killed French president Carnot. 

Observe that neither anarchist raised a pistol on the field of honor; both instead ambushed unarmed victims. Crispi’s wannabee assassin, captured by his intended victim, begged for the death sentence. Hanging was deemed too good for him. Carnot’s murderer was decapitated–not without irony–using a good, old-fashioned, Red Terror guillotine. Garfield was shot in the back by a similar political parasite and McKinley’s anarchist murderer carried with him a dog-eared copy of Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” translated into Polish.

The general rule in these cases is that a sort of Transubstantiation occurs as the bullet leaves the barrel, such that the communist aggressor suddenly always was an anarchist. George Orwell illustrated the phenomenon, describing the way communists and nationalsocialists began French-kissing before the ink was dry on the Hitler-Stalin pact. In his novel Nineteen Eighty-four he again stressed how the faithful believed that “Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.” This is the method of inference that concludes that anarchists “are really” libertarians. 

Americans educated in the free market system weren’t susceptible to doublethink. Garfield and McKinley’s assassins were promptly tried and hanged on the tried-and-true theory that dead anarchist madmen did little additional harm. Congress showed showed how little sympathy there was for the anarchist push to decriminalize murder when it passed the Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1903. The Libertarian platform of 2016 contained equivalent language against importing “foreign nationals who pose a credible threat” until hostile (Republican? Anarchist?) infiltrators struck it out.  

The idea that an ideology of murdering madmen is compatible with the Libertarian Party is a 2+2=5 equivocation. Membership requires signing the Non-Aggression Principle penned by Ayn Rand in 1947, while hangmen were still busy cutting down murdering altruist National Socialist madmen at Nuremberg and other venues. In 1947 everyone recalled clearly that competition in the forcible restraint of men is War.  The Libertarian Party is concerned with freedom and peace. Any argument that our platform is compatible with murder-legalizing anarchism is a division-by-zero error. Yet in Peru and Chile today there are anarchist communists blatantly posing as “libertarian” parties. 

     


Libertarian candidates seek a constitutional government empowered to enforce laws protecting individual rights from theft, fraud and aggression. This is what anarchists are AGAINST or there would be nothing for them to criticize in the LP platform.  What we regard as the rule of law they see as obstructions interfering in the labor of murderers and highwaymen. The fact that most parties corrupt government power to put into practice the ethics of parasitism is all the more reason to distance ourselves from the anarchist branch of that same philosophy.

With friends like anarchists, freedom needs no enemies. 

My other blog is usually in a foreign language.

My book explaining the Crash and Depression is out in two languages too…

29coversmall

For certified or juramentada translations or interpreting contact Portugueseinterpreter or Speakwrite.

Libertarian platform word cloud

Word clouds are popular in the sound-byte blogosphere. After all, nobody who hasn’t read all 70,000-odd words of both looter kleptocracy platforms has a clue what those parties want. On the telescreen one sees only blurbs. The difference is like comparing a commercial selling a health insurance policy and the actual text of that same written policy. Here’s the Libertarian platform word cloud. 

The Libertarian Party platform is typically seven pages long and takes a half-hour to read or listen to. That’s twice the size of the Declaration of Independence. Still, apathy runs deep, so word clouds can provide the injudicious more info about two parties than, say, political cartoons. At least word clouds are based on what the parties actually propose in writing. Free–as opposed to coerced–is visible, and there is clearly concern for freedom, liberty, individual rights. Peace is also there, as you’d expect from a party that is against aggression and seeks to legalize non-violence.

For comparison here is the word cloud for the lengthy platform published by Richard Nixon’s party.

The Republican platform is of course wordier and repeats must, will and state a lot. Public, by which they mean government, is there, along with support, which to them usually involves men with service pistols. Women are there, but mainly as targets for the service pistols. Amendment is something the Republicans have asked for ever since the Supreme Court used the first Libertarian platform as a draft for freeing women from forced labor. But I do not see it. The Amendment they want would reimpose the forced labor and put doctors in jail along with hippies, latinos, blacks and as many foreigners as can be arrested.

Here is the cloud for Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party. For some reason it came out bluish–in the Yellow Submarine sense of the word. This is my first time to use this software so I have no explanation.

The Dems are clearly into making you believe stuff, but I detect no global warming or carbon dioxide. They make it  clear you MUST work to support their health-insurance-at-gunpoint policies. Women are also here–as a pressure group for handouts rather than as free individuals or moving targets. At any rate, here you may compare image blurbs of platforms for the three leading parties–two old and shriveling and one young and growing.

Here’s hoping you will vote for your own freedom rather than to destroy someone else’s. By voting for freedom you are casting a leveraged lure that will cause looter politicians to repeal bad laws–kind of like the Invisible Hand that makes nations wealthy, and different from the Unproductive Hands that weaken and impoverish nations like so many parasites, weeds or bacteria.

If ever in need of translations of platforms, promises or other flim-flams, look us up.

My other blog is usually in a foreign language.

My book explaining the Crash and Depression is out in two languages too…

29coversmall

Live on Amazon Kindle in 2 languages

Libertarian Party Jurisprudence

Voters who have never read a party platform are told that to cast a vote on principle is to “waste your vote.” The verifiable fact is: your spoiler votes for Libertarian Party candidates repeal bad laws. Today’s example is a woman’s right to undo her unwanted pregnancy. How was that right asserted and made law? 

The LP legalized abortion

Read the original

The Libertarian Party Platform of June 17, 1972 said:

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

LP Candidates were John Hospers and Tonie Nathan. Ours was the first viable party to field a lady candidate for vice-president and secure for her an electoral vote–12 years before the Dems finally followed our lead. The popular election was 7 November of 1972, and electoral votes were counted in December.

On January 22, 1973, 45 days after the electoral votes were counted the Supreme Court decided in ROE v. WADE:

“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. …”

That most important part of the Supreme Court decision was a perfect logical paraphrasis of the Libertarian plank on abortion. Much effort was expended to distance the decision from the first three words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born…” These three words speak to the rights of individuals, but were NOT the reason the court struck down coathanger abortion laws in states notorious for mystical bigotry. The Supreme court was manned by five Republicans and three Democrats, and had been mulling this case since the first baby steps toward organizing a Libertarian Party.

Already the LP.org was against military conscription–which coerced 58,000 Americans to their deaths in Vietnam, formerly a French opium regie. But the Supreme Court had already committed to that version of slavery and involuntary servitude for WWI. Republicans–white and Christian like the Germans who voted for National Socialism–were terrified. Republicans feared not communism, essentially the same thing as nationalsocialism, but the “activated atheism” they associated with the Communist faith. Republicans had reason to fear that the widows and girlfriends of the boys they’d sacrificed were ready for bloody vengeance at the polls. Democrats had ditched the Klan and voted Wet in the 1932 economic collapse, and made out very well. So Democratic Justices again betrayed Southern mystical bigotry by copying the Libertarian plank, as Dems had copied the Liberal party repeal plank to defeat Herbert Hoover and elect FDR.

Nixon had tried to crush the LP within 24 hours of its formation by using the IRS to bribe the media with tax money. That politician took office, gingerly stepping over the scorched relics of the usual looter opposition–Socialist, Socialist Labor, People’s, Prohibition and Communist party–but fearing the 3674 Libertarian votes. Those votes have since grown a thousand times and now total 4 million.

21x the Clout!

Winning is changing the laws. See original

Since 1971 the Libertarian Party has been the prime mover for deregulation, repeal of censorship, defense of individual rights, non-entanglement in foreign affairs and the general increase in freedom. We are the reason God’s Own Prohibitionists finally backed away from coercing gay voters before the recent election–and the appeal to laissez-faire has also spread to more than 20 countries. The only brutal dictatorships left on earth are governments that block libertarians from organizing into political parties. Think about that next time someone is tortured or beheaded.

If you understand that maybe libertarianism isn’t all that weird, you might want to help out with a small donation at www.LP.org
If you were pleased with the clarity of this expository writing, consider www.portugueseinterpreter.com to help you get ideas across the language barrier in three directions.

 

“Show me a movement that doesn’t hate somebody and I will join it at once.” Robert Anton Wilson