Independence During Prohibition

pre-libertarian repeal

Chicago Tribune, 5 July 1931. The top step says Less Graft

1931 was the year the Liberal Party published its platform rejecting socialism, welfare and the dole and calling for repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment and all Blue Laws. This pre-libertarian party’s platform provided the framework for the repeal plank that got Democrats elected five times running.

The cartoon was published 86 years ago, but only 41 years before the libertarian party formed. Because they themselves lacked the courage to stand up to the Klan and other empires of murderous mysticsm, Republicans in 1932 began pronouncing “liberal” the way German National Socialists pronounced it–expectorated with a hiss, the same way they pronounced “Jew.” Then again, freedom is not at all popular among National Socialists.

It’s a pity the Democratic Party platform committee has been entirely taken over by ecological national socialists. Those worthies are far more preoccupied with an Aryan model of purity; not Aryan purity, mind you, but environmental purity with transfer payments from producers to non-producers. The Liberal Party was not collectivist and eschewed coercive solutions.

Do you ever need translations of environmental laws and regulations written in Portuguese or Spanish? I also translate lawsuits and contracts, and interpret depositions and full-blown hearings.

Economic Collapse, July 1930

Prohibition caused Depression

Chicago Tribune 17NOV1930

The stock market crash of 1929 marked the realization that prohibition laws would soon destroy the US economy and banking system. By mid-1930, financial collapse was so well underway that the old prohibition enforcement districts were redrawn to conform closely to existing Federal Reserve districts. This change took effect on July 1, 1930, the month Cook County Assessor Gene G. Oliver was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $12,500 by Judge Woodward in Chicago.

Here is a breakdown of the districts.

The transfer of the prohibition enforcement activity from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice under the Williamson Act took place on July 1, 1930, under the Bureau of Industrial Alcohol in the Treasury Department, retained the duty of issuing permits for the manufacture and use of alcohol and other intoxicating liquor for non-beverage purposes, and of supervising the activities of the permitees.  The 27 prohibition districts hitherto existing were rearranged into 12 new districts, with boundaries corresponding in some measure with the 10 judicial circuits.  (Misdirection! The districts were a nearly perfect fit to the Federal Reserve Districts–tr)

1. Boston: Maine, N. Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, R. Island, Connecticut
2. New York: New York State and Porto Rico
3. Philadelphia: New Jersey; Pennsylvania, Delaware
4. Richmond: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, N. Carolina, South Carolina, DC.
5. New Orleans: Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas.
6. Cincinnati: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee
7. Chicago: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin.
8. St. Paul: Minnesota, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska.
9. Kansas City: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma.
10. Denver: Arizona, Colorado, N. Mexico, Utah, Wyoming.
11. San Francisco: California, Nevada, Hawaii.
12. Seattle: Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Alaska.
Source: NY World Almanac 1931 p 36

That same day, the Bank of Winter Park, Florida, closed its doors. As prohibition asset-forfeiture confiscations continued, many other banks would close. The Liberal Party, formed in 1930, published a plank in 1931 calling for the repeal of blue laws and the Prohibition Amendment. The Democratic Party copied this plank in the summer of 1932–in the middle of a major banking panic–and went on to win the election in November. That is s demonstration of the law-changing clout of libertarian party spoiler votes. By the time Franklin D. Roosevelt was sworn in as president in March of 1933, every bank in the nation had already closed its doors.

If you are disappointed not to have learned this in school, join the crowd. But be sure to choose a financial and accounting translator who won’t overlook things and cause added disappointment.

America Before NATO

These United States joined in WWI NOT as Allies with England, Serbia and France, against Germany, but certainly not as an enemy of Turkey.

US banks, recently united via the Federal Reserve System, went to war in 1918 to ensure the money loaned to France and England would be paid back. Russia dropped out of that European alliance after its communist revolt. That raised the possibility of the Austro-Hungary-Prussia alliance winning and giving the losers an excuse for welshing. Here’s what happened.

February 9, 1920, British Embassy in Washington to Treasury: “We should welcome a general cancellation of intergovernmental war debts.”  (Garrett 1932 148). British debt was 4.5 billion gold dollars. France owed the US $4 billion. The aggregate total Europe owed America in 1926 was $22.5 billion in gold, and nearly all European nations sought to welsh on the debt.

Then, in the fall of 1922, a nationalistic government headed by Dr. C.J.W. Cuno took command of Berlin. The Allies charged Germany with willful default and her reparations payments, and at the beginning of 1923 French and Belgian troops occupied the Valley of the Ruhr, attempted to take over industries, but were balked by German passive resistance.
The mark fell from 7000 to the dollar in the first days of January, 1923 to 4 trillion in November. German credit abroad was wrecked.  (Nat’l Geog December 1928 667)

Calvin Coolidge conference September 16, 1924: I haven’t any plan or policy about the settlement of the French debt at present. That is all provided for by statute law and I suppose that the only representation I would be entitled to make about it is that which I am ordered to make by law. That [obtaining approval of Congress] was what was done with the British debt. It wasn’t settled exactly in conformity with the terms of the law. (…) What we have constantly kept in mind in that policy is that the debt that is due to us from one country hasn’t any direct connection with the debt that might be due to us from another country. That is why we have not mixed up the German indemnity in any way with our own debt.  (Quint & Ferrell 1964 188-189)

Mar 31, 1927‑‑German Reichstag unanimously demands a downward revision of reparations payments. (NY World Almanac 1928 102). What follows is from Prohibition and the Crash.

Chapter 151

The Moratorium

President Hoover declared on June 20, 1931, what would later be styled the “Moratorium on Brains” by postponing all inter-governmental debts for a one-year “standstill agreement.”[1] Since the United States was owed money by just about everyone involved in WWI, this meant a drying up of what revenue had been forthcoming, mainly interest at $250 million a year. Its real effect was to strengthen the debt repudiation movement, jeopardize private loans to Germany and even the loan principal owed the Treasury by the Allies.

Veterans stared in bewilderment and wondered how a government too broke to advance a couple of billion on their bonus bonds could casually toss away over $20 billion with a wave of the hand—and for the accursed Hun! The total amounts involved in all the major war debts ran into some $22 billion divided among five countries in 1925, and had changed little since then.[2]

A much more pressing concern, however, were the private loans which Dr. Hjalmar Schacht had assured Americans would be repaid as soon as the Allies’ reparations monkey were lifted off Germany’s back. Hoover, determined at all hazards to convince voters that the world economic crises did not originate in America, had no choice but to again direct attention “over there.” If Schacht were right, at least the bulk of the money owed to American investors might actually arrive. Reversing this flow was important, since Europe had put the touch on Americans for over forty billion dollars in private loans in less than fifteen years. The moratorium did get people’s attention, but not in any way that would redound to Hoover’s credit. Latin-American politicians, impressed by the largesse with which El Presidente altruista dispensed other people’s monies, began sidling up for a moratorium on their arrearage. Already Hoover’s move was backfiring. There was something of a stock market rally in New York when the news hit, but U.S. government bonds all closed behind minus signs.[3]

[1] (Hoover 1931 1976 325)

[2] (Time Capsule 1/12/25 105-6)

[3] (Hoover 1931 1976 331) (Garrett 1932 57, 67)

In today’s looter press the NATO parasitism situation is depicted as stingy selfishness on the part of the DemoGOP Congress that passes laws the President is required to enforce… exactly as when FDR was Prez. Europeans also whine that American voters do not buy their doomsday beliefs. US voters came out against the latest doublethink version of European National Socialism–a pogrom against electric generating capacity–and scientists specifically rejected all eugenic and pseudoscientific theories claiming industrial society causing global broiling, 31,000 to 18. As for nuclear energy, Econazi Germany is acutely aware that the atom bomb was developed to broil its socialist government. Germany managed to escape through surrender and suicide. Americans have no reason to fear nuclear power plants or weapons… except in the hands of socialists or religious fanatics.

Looting is Generosity

The Repo Man

Political planks on legalization, 1932

Liberal Repeal party

Repeal party threatens to earn spoiler votes

In 1932, platform debates were aired nationwide and reported in newpapers everywhere. Here are the Democratic, Republican, Prohibition and Liberal Party planks on legalization of alcoholic beverages:

Prohibition party plank: [Invokes Almighty God and the Prince of Peace…] We unequivocally oppose the repeal or weakening of the Eighteenth Amendment or of the laws enacted thereunder, and insist upon the strengthening of those laws. …can and will coordinate all the powers of government, Federal, State and local, strictly to enforce, by adequate and unescapable punishment of all violators, this wise and beneficent law. (…) We indict and condemn the Republican and Democratic parties for the continued nullification of the Eighteenth Amendment and their present determination to repeal the amendment on the excuse that it cannot be enforced… (Johnson and Porter 1975 337-338)

Republican prohibition plank: We do not favor a submission limited to the issue of retention or repeal, for the American nation never in its history has gone backward, and in this case the progress which has been thus far made must be preserved, while the evils must be eliminated.
We therefore believe that the people should have an opportunity to pass upon a proposed amendment the provision of which, while retaining in the Federal Government power to preserve the gains already made in dealing with the evils inherent in the liquor traffic, shall allow the States to deal with the problem as their citizens may determine, but subject always to the power of the Federal Government to protect those States where prohibition may exist and safeguard our citizens everywhere from the return of the saloon and attendant abuses.
Such an amendment should be promptly submitted to the States by Congress, to be acted upon by State conventions called for that sole purpose in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the Constitution and adequately safeguarded so as to be truly representative. (Johnson and Porter 1975 348-349)

Liberal Party prohibition plank: We demand the immediate repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. We demand that, without modification or compromise of any kind, the entire question of liquor control shall be returned to the States, where the use of beverages can be regulated by local option in each State, county, city, or otherwise, or prohibited, according to the wishes of the people therein. With this local option, or other control established, the sale of beverages, except that saloons are permanently abolished, should be freely permitted by law. (…)
To those who say that the system should be modified so as to permit the sale of wine and beer, we answer that you cannot modify anything that is essentially wrong. You have not thought the matter through. Besides, any modification of any kind would fail to correct the central evil. The bootlegger would still rule the situation, and the traffic in hard liquors, now so universally effective, would still make it necessary to preserve the whole system of futile enforcement, together with the violence and corruption which now disgrace it. Therefore, the Eighteenth Amendment must go out of the Constitution, root and branch. (The Liberal Party in America, 1931 pp 106-7)

Democratic prohibition repeal plank: We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. To effect such repeal we demand that Congress immediately propose a Constitutional Amendment to truly represent the conventions in the states to act solely on that proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the several States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the states.
We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable the states to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their laws.
Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act; to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue.
We condemn the improper and excessive use of money in political activities. (Johnson and Porter 1975 332)

Observe that the Republicans copied the Prohibition Party platform (in 1928) and the Democrats copied the 1931 Liberal Party wet plank (calling for repeal of the Prohibition amendment). In both cases, small parties casting less than 1.4% of the vote caused the major parties to adopt or reject important changes in the laws. This is the spoiler vote leverage effect.

Choosing a legal translator or court interpreter is also easier when you check their credentials to see what they offer.

Houston Translator Association Irregularities

The Houston Translators and Interpreters Association has in recent years been a model of competence in the industry. Yet the current bylaws amendment ballot looks more like a model of practices to avoid. The online bylaws dated April 14, 2010, define members as follows:

Article III – Membership…

Section B – Classes and Qualifications

The Association has three (3) membership classes: individual, corporate and institutional.

  • Individual: An individual who is engaged in translating, interpreting or related work (and may include students)

  • Corporate: A business with an interest in translation or interpretation

  • Institutional: An institution with an interest in translation or interpretation.

Directors elected in single-candidate elections now propose to change those member classes by creating a special class of students who at this time would not be allowed to vote to elect their teacher nor be listed in the online members directory (where the public expects to find professional linguists). To propose the change, voters were told that “new text is indicated by underlining, deleted text by strikeout.” But for the ballot proposal sent to members to change the bylaws, the board of directors approved the following:

Section B – Classes and Qualifications

The Association has four (4) membership classes: individual, corporate, institutional and student.

The above introductory sentence (followed by four, not three bullet items) appeared with no underlining for the new text nor strikeouts for deleted language. It gives the incorrect impression–instructions elsewhere to the contrary notwithstanding–that the student category already exists whether one likes it or not, and that there is mere quibbling to be decided on some trifling point of verbiage in the last of four preexisting bullet points.

In an association of quilt-makers, brewers, basket-weavers or kickboxers, the omission might be brushed aside as simple incompetence, the result voided and new ballots produced. Indeed, one such error in ballot translation into Spanish for the Texas State government had precisely that outcome and cost taxpayers about $100,000 to reprint.

The bad ballot language at issue, however, is presented as approved by the very people immigrants depend on for legal defense of their individual rights in courts that order execution by letal injection. Credible fear reviews can shield dissenters or whistleblowers from extrajudicial execution or torture by junta-style dictatorships, and HITA hosted a presentation on those. Professionals educated abroad want their syllabi competently translated with all legalities accurate so they may exercise a profession despite entrenched lobbyists erecting barriers to entry.  Our newsletter and web tips just now alerted linguists of at least a dozen different fraudulent scams. But more perfidious scams are perpetrated from within the profession. Must we circulate ballots that are an indictment of the board’s competence to frame and edit a simple bylaws amendment proposal?

For over a decade beginners were advised by prominent HITA and AATIA members not to bother to apply for municipal and county court interpreting in Texas. From a position of public trust they emphatically proclaimed that a license was required as a prerequisite. Nevermind that this was a law urged by three individuals claiming to represent the profession without their lobby efforts appearing in our trade publications. The persistent lie was finally exposed at a regulatory meeting at which a government regulatory attorney explained on the public record that the law meant nothing of the sort.

The old law merely formalized a procedure for showing an incompetent interpreter the door and ordering up a substitute, typically someone grandfathered in irrespective of real credentials or ability.  The dissembling was a sales platform for quickie diploma mill courses pushing test answers, podiums for grandfathered insiders to talk down to aspirants, and a loophole enabling agencies possessed of counsel to quietly and without fanfare exploit inexperienced youngsters at pauper rates. The law was only repealed after a libertarian interpreter put up a website playing a recording of the regulatory lawyer’s explanation in language too clear and simple to falsify.

If sidetracking students from earning a degree liable to make them employable is deemed a good idea, it ought to be passed by honest vote of fully-informed members using a ballot prepared in conformity with its own instructions and specifications.  Leaving out the underscores and strikethroughs is a demonstration of lack of competence or subterfuge that can only lead to the outcome being challenged. That is not the sort of attention the board needs to be focussing on the Houston Interpreters and Translators Association.

Any association of actual linguists can raise revenue and provide a public service by hosting interpreting contests. Winners selected by the attendees could thereby earn credible credentials by live testing. A similar competitive approach is used to select and rank athletes, speakers, dancers, writers–even tire-changers or jugglers performing at association events. An interpreting contest need be no more complicated than a live debate or a spelling bee, and its results would carry weight with the membership, judges, attorneys, doctors and honest regulators interested in an objective assessment of competence in performance.

If you are an interpreter or translator interested in the honest defense of individual rights, by all means do get in touch.

 

Puerto Rico Libre!

Independencia o muerte!

Freedom from Teetotalitarianism. Read the original…

There was a time when Borinken had the cojones to demand freedom from President Herbert Hoover and his dry Gestapo.

Puerto Rican demands for freedom from America’s Sharia Law Amendment and dry laws declaring light beer and even Bacardi Rum felony narcotics were getting hard to ignore.  Rebellion was also brewing in These States.

From Prohibition and The Crash–Chapter 144:

Illinois State Senator Walter A. Huebsch warned executives that their businesses were secure only as long as the government was secure. The popular will, he claimed, was for repeal, and governments which set themselves against the popular will were inevitably overthrown by force. He urged that government restrict itself to maintaining peace and defending property.[1]

This seemed to be the sentiment in “Porto Rico,” where the Supreme Court had held on December 19 that the “People of Porto Rico” would no longer prosecute the U.S. Government’s prohibition cases. The truth was that the people of Puerto Rico had never had a fanatical dry movement, nor any quarrel with bootleggers or smugglers. Farmers on the island were anxious over lost profits and longed for a return to the good old days when rum flowed freely and sugar was sheik.[2]

[1] (CT 1/18/31 9)

[2] (CT 1/19/31 26)

As always when browbeating the little people of the banana republics, Hoover traveled by fully armed naval warship and the White House announced his intention to tour the possessions. The Chicago Tribune had since January 19 of 1931 given front-page coverage to the conquered island’s struggle for freedom and independence.

March 14/31, White House statement on the President’s Caribbean tour: To SECURE a short rest and to settle certain administrative problems regarding American possessions in [the] Caribbean, President Hoover will go to Porto Rico and probably to the Virgin Islands next week on the reconditioned battleship Arizona which is undertaking its 10-day test run at sea. (…)
The trial run of the Arizona has been scheduled to the Caribbean to start on March 17. (…) (Hoover 1931 1976 143-144)

Behind the scenes, Puerto Rican judges had refused to hear cases against their dashing, romantic, defiant bootleggers running the Demon Rum to America’s thirsty millions.  El Presidente Prohibicionista was not going to sit still for back talk from uppity natives. America’s altruism toward our little brown brothers, outlined for the world by William Howard Taft would not let up. In the words of Chicago’s philosophical saloonkeeper, Mr. Dooley, to the inhabitants of the conquered Philippine Islands:

An’ now, ye mis’rable, childish-minded apes, we propose f’r to larn ye th’ uses iv liberty. In ivry city in this unfair land we will erect school-houses an’ packin’ houses an’ houses iv correction; an’ we’ll larn ye our language, because ’tis aisier to larn ye ours than to larn oursilves yours. An’ we’ll give ye clothes, if ye pay f’r thim; an’, if ye don’t, ye can go without. An’, whin ye’re hungry, ye can go to th’ morgue—we mane th’ resth’rant—an’ ate a good square meal iv ar-rmy beef. An’ we’ll sind th’ gr-reat Gin’ral Eagan over f’r to larn ye etiquette, an’ Andhrew Carnegie to larn ye pathriteism with blow-holes into it, an’ Gin’ral Alger to larn ye to hould onto a job; an’, whin ye’ve become edycated an’ have all th’ blessin’s iv civilization that we don’t want, that ‘ll count ye one. We can’t give ye anny votes, because we haven’t more thin enough to go round now; but we’ll threat ye th’ way a father shud threat his childher if we have to break ivry bone in ye’er bodies. So come to our ar-rms,’ says we.

That, in effect, was Hoover’s message to recalcitrant boricua judges in 1931, albeit couched in a much more diplomatic threat to make them diplomats in some equally dry satrapy dominated by Saracen berserkers where women wore balaklavas. From Hoover’s news conference of March 26, 1931 at Porto Rico. (…)

I am advised from every quarter in the island that there would not be a popular vote of 5 per cent in favor of independence. (…) It [PR] has a population of nearly 900,000… There are 760 police in the island. That includes all forms of peace officers. (…) I was a great deal struck with the many capable people there, especially the judges and the Chief Justice. He is a man of very considerable parts. We could use them to advantage. We should give them an opportunity in our diplomatic service. narcotics (Hoover 1931 1976 153-4, 157)

So now that relegalization of the Demon Rum and boricua womanhood’s realization that statehood is preferable to murdering their superstitious bruto pendejo idiota papist husbands for trying to ban abortion have both worked to increase the vote for statehood by an order of magnitude. The said statehood, if achieved, will necessitate the redesign of “th’ starry banner iv Freedom,” I have here a modest suggestion for that new flag.

Thinking outside the box gives a better reflection of our position–oh jes, I am boricua and proud of it–as advance guard in defense of the Panama Canal. Jackbooted minions of the Papacy of Rome might likewise torment the flower of Cuban womanhood, and if that island decides the 14th Amendment is preferable to papal coathanger abortion laws, starvation, or communist slavery, there could someday be two estrellitas down in the Caribbean portion of the starry banner. Until voters replace Republicans with Libertarian politicians, there is danger that godless Canada might beat us to the punch and offer Canadian freedom (with zero abortion laws and not much prohibition) to those happy escapees from the cruel hand of the Spanish Inquisition.

If you ever need a crisp and idiomatic translation of Puerto Rican papers for emigration, or contracts or laws for investment, think of me, HenriquePhillips.com or www.tradutoramericano.com

Trump Brennt Paris?

Remember the debates? the platform? The Republican party published a huge platform way before the election with lots of fanfare. (Disclaimer: I vote libertarian!)

The GOP platform independent of any candidate announced its plans BEFORE candidates and election. The language is not at all difficult to understand:

1. We oppose any carbon tax.
2. We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower.
3. We support expedited siting processes and the thoughtful expansion of the grid so that consumers and businesses continue to have access to affordable and reliable electricity.

The other kleptocracy party, instead of a repeal prohibition plank, ran to Paris like Woodrow Wilson with an opium cartel League of Nations. There, its leader tried to circumvent the Senate with a non-treaty transferring sovereignty to National Socialist and International Socialist parasites in Europe. Trump had nothing to do with the clumsy trap nor with plans for disarming it. All he did was accept the job of shoving that published platform down everyone’s throat. Here’s how voters reacted:

The GOP energy plank is their only plank that makes sense and is almost kind of libertarian in places. When was the last time you saw these platform planks mentioned anywhere? Here is another one you definitely will not see mentioned.

Protection Against an Electromagnetic Pulse
A single nuclear weapon detonated at high alti­tude over this country would collapse our electrical grid and other critical infrastructures and endanger the lives of millions.

Clearly the platform portrays electricity and access to energy as  positive thing, like the capacity to do work, earn a living and survive catastrophes. That anyone feels the need to point this out is sufficient cause for alarm. It shows that government and mystical schools have produced a populace unable to understand the elementary definition of energy, much less grasp the work-energy theorem or safety statistics. But Republican emphasis on mystical prohibitionism, asset forfeiture and the bullying of pregnant women guarantees they will again lose as soon as the Democrats learn and delete carbon taxes and efforts to ban electricity from their platform.

The Libertarian Party seeks unfettered access to energy. Its platform is short and easy to understand. Each one of the 4 million libertarian votes cast in the presidential race alone packs the law-changing clout of sixteen votes wasted on the corrupt looter kleptocracy.

If this helped make Econazi Europact rejection announced by the US president less mysterious, just think how well this translator can clarify legal or engineering documents written in Spanish or Portuguese.