Are major US parties Nazi?

fanniefreddieRepublicans and Democrats like to call each other Nazis, but how do their policies compare with German National Socialist policies? The National Socialist German Workers Party platform of 1920 recorded: “12. Considering the enormous sacrifices of property and blood which every war demands from a people, personal enrichment because of war has to be seen as a crime against the people. We therefore demand complete confiscation of all war profits.”

The Takings Clause in the Bill of Rights says “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” But Republican Richard Nixon in 1971 declared a “War on Drugs,” and Republican Ronald Reagan signed the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 establishing the Department of Justice Asset Forfeitures fund and allowing forfeiture of “substitute assets.” Republican George H.W. Bush exported this notion through the U.N. Convention of 12/20/1988 and Switzerland and Canada were soon scrabbling for a piece of Banco Occidente Panama assets under the treaty and 21 U.S.C. 853. By March 5, 1991, President Bush Senior took to bragging in speeches how “asset forfeiture laws allow us to take the ill-gotten gains…” without once mentioning the Takings Clause in the U.S. Constitution or Hitler’s “war profits” plank.

In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), the Supreme Court tossed out the takings clause to make room for asset forfeiture, and the Special Forfeiture Fund enacted that year was soon followed by the Kingpin Act, further entrenching looters-by-law. By December 2001 even the Netherlands, once occupied by a German National Socialist transitional authority, adopted the American policy of better looting through prohibitionism, and the Dutch Supreme Court rubber-stamped the procedure in 2005.

The final straw was the Equitable Sharing Fund bribing state governments with a share of the loot. Unfortunately, the resulting orgy of forfeiture looting, with homes still under subprime mortgages being sold at auction, collapsed the mortgage-backed securities industry, bankrupted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, wiped out many large financial concerns and undercut the value long-term investment nationwide during the George W. Bush Administration.

It is true that Nixon’s party was angry about hippies, not Jewish folks. Significantly, the  GOP platform of 2012 breathes not a word about asset forfeiture and mentions the Takings Clause only in connection with eminent domain. Nevertheless, from this first comparison we gather that no good came of the Congress, Senate, White House and Supreme Court abandoning the US Bill of Rights “No Takings” Clause and adopting in its stead Adolf Hitler’s “profits confiscation” policy. The $15 trillion price tag was too high, and states are shifting from asset forfeiture payola to legalization of harmless hemp.

Fortunately for These States as a whole, Europe’s eager adoption of the idea of prohibitionism coupled with the communist manifesto income tax as justification for wholesale asset forfeiture also rendered their derivatives markets vulnerable to collapse. Foreknowledge of this causal connection put U.S. securities traders, Federal Reserve banks and Treasury officials in an advantageous position to recoup losses. They needed only to short European and Latin American futures and derivatives markets and currency exchanges before they too were overtaken by the expanding wave of asset-forfeiture-induced collapse.

Did the 1930 tariff cause the Depression?

1922tariff36sugarOne of the more ignorant candidates pretending to be Texan brayed that the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the Great Depression. Looter websites have already called this a lie (which is true) but swap in their own falsehood (that the depression was caused by insufficient socialism). As usual, neither the Christian socialist (right) nor bureaucratic socialist (left) version is correct, and it is a safe bet none actually read the tariff.
The Tariff Act of 1930 and the 1922 tariff are virtually identical. Some schedules vary in each book, but the most obvious difference is the added prohibition enforcement powers given customs and the Coast Guard in 1930. Both books were prepared during Republican administrations, but no one who hasn’t read the schedules can point to a difference in the schedules important enough to destroy the US economy. I’ve read them and I can point to the most important difference–Schedule 5, Sugar… (see above and below)

Prohibition Commissioner James M. Doran, a chemist, reported in February of 1930 that 95% of all whiskey consumed in the United States was made from corn sugar. This revealed the true reason for much of the stock market Crash of 1929. Federal grand juries were handing up true bills charging corn sugar factories with conspiracy to violate the prohibition law. Hubinger Brothers, Corn Products Refining and Fleischman were hauled into the dock because corn sugar and yeast was producing booze worth 95% of the entire Federal Revenue. Herbert Hoover, elected on the Republican prohibition enforcement platform, used federal conspiracy indictments to shut down corn sugar as a precursor, and the tariff schedule to throttle the importation of  sugar from Cuba, Brazil, the Philippine Islands–everywhere. In Smoot and Hawley’s 1930 tariff, Schedule 5, the tax on sugar was nearly doubled, on maple sugar exactly doubled, and on sugar cane the increase was 250%. But the corn sugar industry would derive no protection from imports–or from federal search parties and arrest warrants.

1930tariff46sugarThe truth is that everyone in America understood in 1932 that the two new force Amendments–the income tax (copied from the Communist Manifesto) and the prohibition amendment (copied from the fanatically mystical Prohibition Party platform) had turned the Constitution from a limitation on government powers into machinery with which to threaten peaceful individuals with deadly force–to the detriment of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Amendments.

Governor Gifford Pinchot (R-PA) had banned all movies featuring beer or hip flasks; Marron v. United States allowed government agents to seize books and papers for evidence, no steenkin’ warrant needed for that or for wiretaps. Carolina bootlegger Manly (Manley?) Sullivan’s victory for the Fifth Amendment was reversed when the Supreme Court issued its Catch-22 decision that bootleggers had to report illegal income. Herbert Hoover helped tamper with judicial matters such as jurisdiction, jury selection… and even threatened the Supreme Court justices of Puerto Rico over their nullification of local prohibition.

Not all states had income taxes but those that did Hoover unleashed on beer barons, sugar and yeast producers by letting state income tax collectors peek at their corporate federal income tax returns. This “publicity” was one of the blackmail threats on excise tax returns exploited in 1911 to overcome opposition to the income tax amendment. But the income tax never replaced the tariff or excise once the suckers were fleeced; all three remain to this day.  Every Amendment in the Bill of Rights was mangled beyond recognition by income tax and prohibitionist jurisprudence. The income tax–itself the main culprit in the Panic of 1893 and subsequent Depression, The Great Depression, the 1987 Crash and Depression and the recent Asset-Forfeiture (mislabeled Subprime) Crash–still threatens every American with the same sort of altruist dictatorship that crushed Russia from 1917 to 1991, plus crashes and depressons. For the past 45 years voters in all semi-free States have had the option of lowering taxes and repealing bad laws by casting spoiler ballots for Libertarian candidates. Every spoiler vote you cast has approximately ten times the law-repealing power of a vote wasted on looter party candidates.

Need translations of what was happening in other countries during that economic collapse?

Misdirection and the Constitution

LPbannerMisdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract it from noticing another. Up for election are 34 seats in the Senate, average age over sixty, and 435 seats in the House, average age there, 57. All of these politicians are mystical altruists, and every last one is committed to the initiation of force for both political and social goals.

These politicians all want you to concentrate on the limited-term presidential candidates. Why? For one thing, congressional reelection rates are all well over 80%, and every such reelection would increase their average age to 61–further entrenching an incompetent looter gerontocracy, and there are no term limits. This gerontocracy–not the President–is what makes the laws. I’m serious. You won’t see this on teevee, but the Constitution says that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” That includes the power “To declare war” and “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;” for which debt our children and grandchildren will be liable. This is debt they may not question, but may be gunned down wholesale for resisting, just as anyone and anything may be shot on orders from a number of those elder statesmen–with or without a declaration of war.

The President does not pass or repeal any laws or amendments. Instead, the President’s job is to “be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” and to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Other than that all he really does is hand out a bunch of government jobs.  This fact should alert the reader to what is really at stake. Political jobs–including seats in the Congress–are the plums, the chance to be paid to sit on your ass at the expense of people forced at gunpoint to pay your wages.

Every participant in the Roman Holiday pitting the GOP’s Sir Oswald Moseley (scratch that) Don of Real Estate against other looters equally committed to the initiation of force and violence ought to alarm voters as to how they can expect power to be wielded over them once in the hands of these creatures.  Please listen closely to everything the Democratic and Republican candidates are saying about each other. Remember those truths when you see the LIB (that’s Libertarian,, Legalize Pot, Legalize Peyote, Legalize Peace, Legalize Profits) option on the ballot, and be sure and vote for Libertarian candidates for the Congress and Senate.

[Voters in any of the National Socialist states, identified in red on this map have no such choice. Voters in Venezuela, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia and other undemocratic dictatorships can vote Libertarian through their US Consulates by timely getting the ballot forms].

Disclaimer: I am not a spokesman for anyone, nobody pays me, all I know is what I read in the Constitution.

Another bad platform plank

rapefugeesEurope is awash in prohibitionist and antiabortion fanatics. Like America’s Rapture-awaiters, Millerites and Left-Behind fans, these lot are basically suicidal. Laws cannot control those who do not value their own lives. Europeans call their newcomers rapefugees, in honor of their religious custom of raping and killing women. It therefore makes as much sense to import this form of induced mental illness as to make it a policy to import Ebola, Yellow Fever and Anthrax victims. The difference is that the latter at least mean no harm, but the consequences of their crossing borders uninspected could be catastrophic. Given this background, what is the dumbest thing a political party could possibly put in its platform but a confusing straddle plank that serves only to arouse the most baleful misgivings? I’ll just lay it out for you:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders… 

It starts with a platitude more easily interpreted as a jab against tariffs (present since colonial times) than against the income tax (a Communist Manifesto plank injected into the Constitution). Through this, the Federal government has taken up running an asset-forfeiture racket and seeks to indict individuals for “laundering” money to thwart such parasitism. But we already have a plank denouncing the income tax. The second part once had useful meaning–when Democratic German Todes-schutzen sharpshooters shot entire families attempting to escape their Socialist paradise. Today it is a platitude best left to those capable of drawing inferences–inferences other than that the LP wants Ebola-packing Saracen berserker terrorists streaming in through unmarked borders. For that is what DemoGOP demagogues are gleefully bandying about as the “libertarian” policy. So widespread is this gleeful bandying that a second clause was tacked on in a desperate attempt to keep wiser heads from scrapping the entire error: However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

The only politician in history capable of pulling this off was Republican prohibitionist Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy’s campaign perorations ran into many dozens of words arrayed in serried ranks of subordinate clauses and modifiers that practically cancelled each other entirely. Mr. Dooley’s satire sums up the formula perfectly:

“The Trusts? I’d crush ’em underfoot! Then again, not so fast!”

Today’s voters listen to so many bipartisan attackers tearing apart insurgents’ pronouncements in search of contradictions that straddling only damages the cause it is intended to promote. Libertarians have already placated Republican lynch mobs and gunmen stalking Planned Parenthood clinics to the point of changing THEIR platforms. Now they admit they haven’t a leg to stand on constitutionally. Still they seek to enlist the help of the budget-cutting Congress in order to again endanger public health and–if miraculously successful–cause the Rumanian-style violent crime wave the statistics in Freakonomics lead us to expect would result. Our work is done, the mooted threat to women’s rights can safely be ignored. The alternative is to needlessly reinforce fanatics and invite voters to tar-and-feather us alongside them.

Scrapping both straddles would improve OUR platform. After all we still have the Non-Aggression Principle as a guiding light and protection from conspiracy buffs. Instead of painting ourselves with easy targets, let the anarchists, religious torturers and communists look for new ways to twist and misinterpret that. Their  parties all advocate violent coercion, and we get more votes than all of them put together. Once you’ve beaten them, don’t join them. 

Platform planks and suicide vests


Ebola virus

The Center for Disease control is a federal government bureaucracy, yet 90% of poll respondents do not want it privatized. Why? Planned Parenthood allows women to exercise individual rights, yet also offers the same service as the CDC: protecting US residents from a biological health hazard that population biology studies of the past and mathematical models into the future both identify as catastrophic.

The political argument for defunding PP is at best an argument for making it into another government bureaucracy surrounded by armed guards with orders to shoot Rapture fanatics and lynch mobs. In a heavily-mixed economy our priority ought to be to attract votes to back a platform for reducing coercion of individuals. Alienating the rights of half the voters–while reducing the life expectancy of the entire population–to please a tiny band of superstitious bigots is the job of other political parties, not the LP.

The Democratic Party platform for 1916 stated “We favor a thorough reconsideration of the means and methods by which the Federal Government handles questions of public health to the end that human life may be conserved by the elimination of loathsome disease, the improvement of sanitation and the diffusion of a knowledge of disease prevention. ” This was an elegant slap to the face of prohibitionists, who in my parents’ day banned condoms and diaphragms, defunded health inspection of prostitutes near military bases, and brutally censored all mention of the sexually transmitted diseases they themselves incubated. It was too early then to talk of abortion. Besides, the world’s population was way less than 2 billion in 1916.

Today that same party is expected to win, and its voters are promised, in addition to socialism and taxes, that:  “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

The Tea Party and the Christian Conservative party are both spinoffs of the murderous Prohibition Party–policies of which caused the Great Depression and made even Communism appear attractive as an alternative. Their tool since 1928 has been the GOP, which still copies its platform from the Prohibition Party: “Thus, we oppose abortion…” and rewords it in the 2012 GOP platform: “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage.”

Observe that the GOP faithful understands perfectly well that the Constitution does not prohibit but rather protects the individual right of every woman–“All persons born”–to control her own reproduction. God’s Own Party prohibitory policies are everywhere repudiated–everywhere except in mohammedan theocracies.  Libertarian Party members understand these things, and that this prohibitionist amendment to the Constitution would require another 2/3 vote in Congress, hence can safely be ignored.

Still, the Libertarian Platform Committee has again been infiltrated, this time with a destructive agenda to produce this plank: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Any woman who reads that cowardly straddle can conclude that the Libertarian Party–like the Tea Party, Christian Conservative Party and Republican Party–is another death-rattle spinoff of the dying Prohibition and National Socialist parties of the 1920s. The 2012 Libertarian plank on abortion is a suicide vest.

Observe that the appeal to superstition as justification for the force of law is copied from a 1991 George H.W. Bush harangue to prosecutors urging violation of individual rights and due process, to wit: “We need a crime bill that will stop the endless frivolous appeals that clog our habeas corpus system. One that guarantees that criminals who use serious weapons faced serious time, and one that ensures that evidence gathered by good cops acting in good faith is not barred by technicalities that let bad people go free.

Naked before you is the National Socialist conception of “bad people,” this time calling for Christian Socialist legislation to force women to reproduce against their will, die of sepsis, or be robbed by a price-gouging medical cartel with competition-free salaries the highest of any profession. That zombie ideology now stands poised to selectively kill and impoverish pregnant females, thanks to the Republicans and Democrats. Yet that is what the Libertarian party platform committee was tricked into imitating in its platform for 2014.

No abortion plank was included in the 1972 LP Platform. By 1974 the Supreme Court had mooted the issue entirely, just as the draft was also repealed out of fear that it would drive voters to vote Libertarian. The Republican Party is toppling because it has been propped up since 1932 by hatred of the Soviet Communist Empire. Now that that threat is happily gone, the elephant is toppling over. The LP should replace the monster, not be crushed under the weight of the hapless beast’s baggage.

Third party votes change laws




Every election year Republican Svengalis come hunting Libertarian Trilbys to convert to the Immutable Platform cast in stone  by God’s Own Prohibitionists. This is  what happened in 1887. The episode is reported in the words of John Sherman, Congressman, Senator, Secretary of both State and Treasury and brother to Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman. Eventually, it is the Major Party platform that changes because integrity wins out over equivocation.  People willing to kill you to take your money are also willing to lie–the easier to to rob you with, my voter!

transitional“The only danger he (Governor Foraker) encountered was in the active movement of the Prohibition party. This party ran a separate ticket, the votes of which, it was feared, would mainly come from the Republican party. In a speech I made at Oberlin, on the 4th of November, I made an appeal to our Prohibition friends to support the Republican ticket. I said: “There are but two great parties in this country, one or the other of which is to be put in power. You have a perfect right to vote for the smaller Prohibition party, and thus throw away your vote, but you know very well that either a Republican or a Democratic legislature will be elected, and that there will not be a single Prohibition candidate elected. Will it not be better to choose between these two parties and give your assistance to the one that has done the most for the success of your principles?”

Observe that the prohibitionists wanted the laws to change. They did not care a whit about which politician is grinning from the podium. Yet Sherman immediately offered them a false choice between a grinning Republican and a supposedly wasted vote. Sherman then dangled the real bait. 

“We think the Republican party is still entitled, as in the past, to your hearty support. Among other of its enactments there is the ‘Dow law,’ looked upon you with suspicion, yet it has done more for temperance than your ‘prohibition laws’ at present could have done. That law enables you to exclude the sale of liquor in more than 400 Ohio towns. It was passed by a Republican legislature. By it more than 3,000 saloons have been driven out of existence. “Then you have the repeated declaration of the Republican party, a party that never deceived the people with false promises, that they will do anything else that is necessary, or all that is possible by law, to check the evils that flow from intoxicating drinks.” (It took the GOP another thirty years to completely wreck the economy through prohibition enforcement in 1930. That drove plenty of people out of business, and did it again in 2007.)

“Is there not a choice between that party and the Democratic party, which has always been the slave of the liquor party, and whose opposition to the enforcement of the Dow law cost the state $2,000,000? The Democratic party, if put in power, will repeal that law and will do nothing for prohibition that you will accept.” (To frighten fanatics, threaten them with the horrors of freedom!)

“They say they want license, but they know it can never be brought about without a change in the constitution. They want the liquor traffic to go unrestrained. It does seem to me that with all the intelligence of this community it is the duty of all its candid men, who are watching the tendencies of these two parties in this country, not to throw their votes away.” (Again, the Republican platform contained what the prohibition voters did not want, yet proffer it as a future possiblity, and point to the Hobgoblin as the only alternative to surrendering their integrity.)

“It is much better to do our work by degrees, working slowly in the right direction, than to attempt to do it prematurely by wholesale, and fail. More men have been broken up by attempting too much than by ‘going slow.'” (Softlee, softlee, catchee monkey–old Chinese proverb)

“Your powerful moral influence, if kept within the Republican party, will do more good, a thousandfold, than you can do losing your vote by casting it for a ticket that cannot be elected. Next year will present one of the most interesting spectacles in our history. The Republican party will gather its hosts of progressive and patriotic citizens into one grand party at its national convention, and I trust that when that good time comes our Prohibition friends and neighbors who stand aloof from us will come back and join the old fold and rally around the old flag of our country, the stars and stripes, and help us to march on to a grand and glorious victory.”
(Sherman 1895 p. 770–of the single-volume edition) 

The prohibitionists of course did not fall for it, but other voters reelected the candidate–who was defeated the subsequent year. Prohibitionists cast their votes for what they really wanted–a change in the laws. To the Republican, his ticket meant his party’s hand in the till. The Prohibition Party did not want a hand in the till. They wanted men with guns to take to the streets and arrest people for beer and liquor. The Major Party seduction relies on the fallacy of equivocation to trick the voters into betraying their own values and sacrificing them instead to what the Major Party wants. By preferring their own misguided lust for the power to coerce others, the prohibitionists injected next to the Bill of Rights an amendment transforming the Constitution into a religious fetish for the initiation of deadly force against peaceful individuals.


A onda libertária nos EUA

LPeagleA empresa Gallup faz perguntas e dessas enquetes calcula estatísticas. Seu levantamento anual sobre governança pergunta: 

  1. Tem gente que acha que o governo está tentando fazer muita coisa que melhor seriam feitas por indivíduos e empresas. Outros acham que o governo deveria fazer mais para resolver os problemas do país. Das duas, qual atitude é mais parecida com a sua?
  2. Tem gente que acha que o governo deveria promover determinados valores na nossa sociedade. Outros acreditam que o governo não deveria favorecer nenhum determinado conjunto de valores. Qual dessas atitudes mais parece a sua?

São duas questões, cada qual com duas possibilidades, resultam quatro respostas possíveis. Eles (Gallup) calculam os resultados em 4 grupos: conservadores, libertários, populistas e socialistas leigos. Numa quinta categoria cabem os que anularam ou não conseguiram responder com competência. O maior grupo foi o dos libertários, com 27%, que acham que o governo se intromete demais e que ele NÃO deveria favorecer nenhum conjunto específico de valores. Em segundo plano os conservadores (26%), seguidos pelos socialistas leigos (23%) e de lanterna os populistas (15%). Segundo a revista Reason, no ano 2000 a categoria libertários estava em meros 18%. Se verdade, houve aumento de 33% em 15 anos neste sentimento “libertário” segundo a interpretação da organização Gallup. Essa mesma organização assevera que a satisfação do povo com o governo americano vem caindo e que 58% querem um terceiro partido.

Se isso é verdade, então por que tanto candidato das correntes socialista, proibicionista, conservadora e populista entre os pré-candidatos dos dois grandes partidos que formam o cartel político nos EUA? Uma hipótese é que como são um cartel, mentem sobre a contagem dos votos. Essa prática é muito antiga e piorou bastante depois da instalação do voto não verificável. (Voto secreto é outra coisa, onde só você verifica seu voto–assim como verificar o seu saldo no caixa eletrônico com senha). Outra é que o eleitor tem medo daquilo que desconhece e–como na mídia subsidiada pela lei do Nixon nunca aparece nada sobre o partido libertário–ninguém sabe o que está na sua proposta e mesmo sabendo que seu voto único ali valeria mais, prefere continuar na mesma e reclamar.

Consta que no Brasil o Partido Novo passou pelo corredor polonês do TSE. São muito encabulados, com pouca coisa no manifesto, mas se defenderem os direitos individuais e sempre procurarem alternativas que dispensam a coação, a coisa só pode melhorar.