The Three-Party Problem

Courtesy, Wikipedia commune

The Kleptocracy divides into two factions based mainly on who gets the pelf and the paychecks. Because they strive to finagle votes from the same voting population, they are as alike in platforms and positions as teevee stations in a regulated oligopsony. A rogue party is as disrupting as a pirate station.

This is old hat to looter gerontocracies. The Prohibition party, fueled by Dodge, Rockefeller, Morgan and Vanderbilt donations, sought the violence of sumptuary law. The proto-libertarian Personal Liberty League formed to resist in 1883 but was outgunned. Lobbies are no match for parties when it comes to determining the direction in which government service pistols are to be pointed.

Republicans became painfully aware of Prohibition party spoiler vote clout once the Democrats (the slave of the liquor party) began declaring against “sumptuary laws which vex the citizen and interfere with individual liberty” and elected Grover Cleveland. For similar reasons most voters twice elected Barak Obama after George Bush’s faith-based asset-forfeiture prohibitionism wrecked the economy.

John Sherman, whose brother had Marched Across Georgia, warned mystical fanatics “not to throw their votes away.” But communist Greenbackers carefully avoided mention of temperance-at-gunpoint, and looter parties generally dismissed prohibition as something they’d support IF… (there followed a list of qualifiers that cheerfully enraged the Methodist White Terror). Soon communists were writing tax planks for the Democrats just as mystical prohibitionists began dictating dry planks to Republican platform committees.

The Sixteenth Amendment embodies plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto while the 18th and 21st presume to empower men with guns to shoot people over sugar, yeast, grapes, plant leaves and anything mildly enjoyable or likely to reduce human suffering.

Both of these constitutional Amendments–AND the victimless crime laws that imprison far and away more people than all combined crimes violative of rights–were passed at the behest of two tiny, fanatical, but consistent and dedicated political parties. Together they elected practically nobody and between them hardly ever garnered 3% of the popular vote. But they were a thorn in the side of the Janus-faced communism of pelf that cares about nothing other than its snout in the trough and hand in the till. THAT changed the laws and Constitution!

The irresponsible cupidity of the entrenched kleptocracy was what allowed this despoiling of freedom. But today’s prevailing rule of terror is being reversed by the 3% of votes earned (and proud candidates elected) by the Libertarian Party–to the extent that its platform is not deliberately sullied with counterproductive nonsense.

If in need of simultaneous political interpreting, do get in touch.

 

Advertisements

Who defeated Hillary Clinton?

In a Reason article by Cathy Young, American women are depicted as angry because “the expected victory of America’s first woman president was ignominiously thwarted by a man who casually discussed grabbing women’s genitals.” This, I’ll wager, is absolutely wrong. Hillary was defeated by her own platform committee–to the joy and delight of Antichoice televangelists, Dixiecrats and mystical fanatics in general.

Pedants and mystics have since 1945 bemoaned their impression that “our moral progress” hasn’t kept up with our technological progress. And through and beyond 1948 many nations busily captured, tried, shot, hanged and imprisoned the Christian National Socialists responsible for the World War and their government’s genocidal efforts to exterminate all persons even somewhat Jewish. Mendelian genetics at the time caused Germans to presume there is a gene for selfishness. Their industrialized murdering was their effort to make the world safe for altruism. Only Ayn Rand realized during the Nuremberg Trials that altruism is the problem–the ethical error that breeds self-deception and undermines rationality. That error was adopted within and amplified by These United States.

True, Communists were horrified at Ayn Rand’s depiction of their ideal, but National Socialists in These Sovereign States and dominions were just as shocked, appalled and resentful as the communists, for theirs is the same ideal. After all, both parties to the Hitler-Stalin Pact regarded themselves as the real altruists, and the other as the impostor. Since 1957 considerable resources of nazified American political parties and the now-defunct Soviet Union have poured into the problem of trying to make “that woman’s” ethical framework go away. Moral progress is what the Kleptocracy is against!

Christian altruism and communist altruism, one and the same

William Shatner and Spencer Tracy in Judgment At Nuremberg, 1961

It’s working. Hostile infiltrators have caused the Libertarian Party–the party whose 1972 platform is the key verbiage in the Roe v. Wade decision–to impale itself on suicidal planks since its 2016 victory. But similar infiltration by nationalsocialist fanatics first led the Democratic Party to adopt suicidal planks. The party that once elected JFK is now reduced to attacking and weakening America’s economy, defensive capacity and energy infrastructure in preparation for attack by a communist dictatorship that has already collapsed. Pseudoscience elevated to superstitious hysteria wrote those planks, defeated Hillary Clinton, and now endangers the individual rights Libertarians managed to secure for women since that 1972-73 court case.

Men have no business voting on birth control

 

Republicans are no less guilty. Their party created the Comstock Laws, then copied communist taxation and mystical prohibitionism until it was able to completely destroy the economy from 1929 through 1933, then repeated the process in 1987, and again with gusto in 2008. So OF COURSE the Democrats won, and began pushing a Soviet socialist agenda as avidly as the GOP pushed a Nationalsocialist, Comstock Law, prohibitionism and asset-forfeiture agenda until the collapse resulted.

In 2016 the GOP had to hire a former Democrat to defend its platform eschewing a Carbon Tax and de-industrialization, and heartily defending electric power generation and transmission. The prohibitionist mystical bigots they ran in 2008 and 2012 were rejected by voters just as prohibition-weary voters rejected Hoover, Landon, Willkie and Dewey. The Dems–already compromised by lay looter altruism–were induced to promise to strangle electrical generation and impose a carbon tax on the air we breathe. Whoever wrote those planks defeated the Dems, not Donald Trump. Trump (who I do not support) has turned out way less fanatical a prohibitionist, and far less inclined to coerce women and doctors in order to ban birth control than any Republican in recent memory. This is due in part to the millions of libertarian spoiler votes cast in support of individual rights for women.

Women have met the enemy, and that enemy sits on the Republican, Democratic, and sometimes (it hurts to admit this) Libertarian platform committees.

Do you need audiobook recordings of Gordon D. Shirreffs novels? Translation of laws or interpreting of political speeches?

Libertarian Victory in Ireland

Women before LP.org got 4000 votes

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

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

Repeal 13th, 14th Amendments!

LP.org message legalized abortion–nullifying Wallace!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My other blog is in Portuguese.

Brexit or Anschluss?

Crowds are 97% catholic and protestant

Crowds cheer as Austria is annexed by engraved invitation into Reich

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

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

http://ddees.com/

Fool me twice, shame on me!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brazilian polling place

I walked to the polls in the local Brazilian precinct. They used to be at the school, but this year the voting took place at the intersection of Church and State. Brazilian citizens are forced by law to subsidize, then vote for, 33 parties. Here’s the sign…

Gott Mitt Uns!

Parish of the Apostle Polling Place

When you walk inside this is what you see:

Complete with spelling errors...

1st seek the Kingdom of God… Trust Jesus, don’t give up…

Then this

So is it any wonder the party most closely resembling the NSDAP led the vote count? Oddly enough, the other party standing for runoffs has a name that (no kidding) translates as Arbeiterpartei in German!

Servers are down so the list of party coalitions is unavailable… Maybe it’s just as well. There is a special gang of election judges that decide who can organize a party. National Socialists and International Socialists have 32 parties between them, and the gatekeepers make good and sure there is no Libertarian Party. The Cuban, Venezuelan, Peruvian, Chilean and most African governments or those of North Korea, China, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, et alii do not permit libertarians to organize into parties.

Here is an apropos cartoon that appeared the morning after the elections. Other countries with no LP.org are Cuba, Venezuela, post-colonial African and Asian countries and so forth. Name a country people want to move to and I’ll show you a nation with a working Libertarian Party.

Translators are aware of goings-on in many parts of the world.
My other blog, Expatriotas, is mostly read by brasileiros

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.