For every action force…

...curse, when first we practice to coerce!

…there is an equal but opposite reaction force. –Isaac Newton

Since the Republican Party’s Comstock Laws of 1873 crashed the economy while making a chain-gang offense of so much as talking about birth control, mystical Republicans have marveled at the uppity reactions of the women so coerced. Women, you see, had no enforcement of their right to vote in 1873.

Womens’ right to vote was finally enforced by the 19th Amendment, and by 1932 women–especially the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Repeal–exercised that suffrage to throw Hooverville-generating prohibitionism out of the saddle and into the ditch for five elections in a row. One hundred years after the Comstock Laws banned ALL birth control (including condoms, diaphragms and pamphlets describing the rhythm method), the 1972 Libertarian Party plank:

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

suddenly became the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision ordering men with guns to start backing away from pregnant women and their doctors:

“(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. …”

Republican and Prohibition Party attempts to rewrite the Constitution, bring back Comstock laws, infiltrate the LP.org and force women into involuntary labor have garnered nearly enough votes to threaten the Libertarian Party plank that is Roe v Wade. These coercive pressures engendered an almost Newtonian reaction to the attempted initiation of force. Fully half of U.S. voters in 2016 supported planks to tax, prohibit and hobble energy generation. This is coercion every bit as ignorant, superstitious and drastic as Republican attempts to create new legislation to single out and bully women–calling them selfish. Surprised?

So shall ye reap!

As ye sow…

German voters in 1933 supported planks to tax, deport, disarm, disenfranchise and bully everyone they imagined might be selfish by birth. They too were surprised when bombs rained down–some 15 of which bombs are even NOW being found every day in German soil. Their Christian altruist politicians, officers and leaders were just as surprised when dropping trapdoors tightened nooses about their throats at Nuremberg–in accordance with international law and Newton’s law involving mass and acceleration.

If you need surprising news translated, get in touch.
See my foreign language blog.

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.

Ayn Rand and Sex

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

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

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

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

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

“And I am not accustomed to obeying orders!”

“You will learn!”

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

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

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

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

hankdotcom

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

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.

Divide and Conquer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mixed economy advocates (yellow) believe freedom is divisible

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