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.

Taxation as Looting

asset forfeiture

Chicago Tribune 01DEC1932

So the People’s Party got 9% of the vote in 1892, then the Democratic Party copied the Communist Manifesto income tax plank into their own platform. So… what came next, once the Progressive Party levered its passage?

Chapter 9

Manley Sullivan

            A Carolina bootlegger and car dealer named Manley Sullivan was convicted of income tax evasion, but appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court in 1926. Sullivan claimed that since bootlegging was illegal, filing tax returns for it would amount to self-incrimination prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Sullivan won on appeal October 19 of 1926, but Assistant Attorney General Mabel Willebrandt appealed the Circuit Court’s decision, and the Supreme Court granted a hearing March 7, 1927.

The actual date on which attorney Manley Sullivan (or Manly Sullivan, records are inconsistent)  was originally charged, and in what location, is one of the most tightly-held secrets in American jurisprudence.  Federal Reserve bank balances (in millions) began falling nationwide when the decision freeing Sullivan under the 5th Amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court. Source, Lawrence, 1929. The nation’s economy at the time was roughly $100 billion in gold, and the Federal budget about $4 billion.

FRB reserves accelerated when the 5th Amendment was upheld in 1926, then began falling after the conviction was reinstated

The trial ended on May 16, 1927, reversing the appeals court decision and effectively nullifying the Fifth Amendment.[1] This time the dip in stock prices was much smaller. For one thing the discount rate had been carefully lowered since September of 1926, disguising somewhat any stock market effects.[2] On the heels of the Sullivan decision came the Marron case, in which the Supreme Court approved the use of a San Francisco speakeasy proprietor’s illegally seized books and records. Marron was also argued by Mabel Willebrandt and her victory eliminated what Fourth Amendment protection had survived the wartime Espionage Act.[3] Revenue agents were empowered to seize records and force confessions at will, eliminating the ditty of the times:

My sister sells snow to the snow-birds
My father makes bootlegger gin,
My mother sells love for a living,
My God! how the money rolls in.
My brother’s a big missionary
He saves little girlies from sin
He’ll save you a blonde for five dollars
My God! how the money rolls in.

 

[1] (U.S. v. Sullivan 5/16/27 274 U.S. 259)

[2] (Lawrence 1929 286-289)

[3] (Willebrandt 1929 241) (Marron v. United States 11/21/27 275 U.S. 192)

Harding pulls out of League of Nations

Party Prez Pronouncement

Harding resists League of Nations seduction: read original

Ninety-seven years ago another fake 97% consensus sought US backing in a European bid for revenge on Germany. European politicians and field-marshals cried like babies, pouted and threw tantrums in disappointed outrage.

As in the Kyoto self-immolation “protocol,” US Senators realized their constituents would hang them from lampposts if they signed away American sovereignty for a vultures’ pact over the bleeding remains of defeated Germany. We weren’t Europe’s “ally” at all. To avoid such a sucker stigma Congress entered the war on behalf of Daddy Warbucks’ Belligerents Loan Collection Agency as an “Associated Power.” These States refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles or the League of Nations, both of which showed in their Article 23 they were drug cartels out to fix prices–now that The Accursed Hun had (they hoped) been elbowed out of the dope market.

America signed a separate peace with Germany and Austria-Hungary–and had never for a minute been at war with Ottoman Turkey. (Australians were less circumspect in their dealings with the Old World oligarchies, and some lived to regret their gullibility.)

So as Progressive prohibitionist Wilson died of complications from the Spanish Flu, The Fourteen Points and a stroke, Harding and the Senate–not Trump and the Senate–became the evil cabal determined to plunge the Precious Planet into another ghastly World War by withdrawing from pacts with the perpetrators of the instant war. To avoid that horror they needed only sign the hundreds of clauses those friendly European nations needed signed… so the US government could again be entangled in their web of deadly intrigue over smoldering ruins stalked by cadaverous starvelings.

Warren Gamaliel Harding became president, scoffed at prohibitionism, hired his stoner buddies to government posts and was apparently poisoned by his own Republican Party pals in Canada after a visit to Alaska. Whatever his faults, Harding did not wreck the economy nor send tens of thousands of young men to hideous deaths in foreign feuds.

Harding’s words are an object lesson to today’s looter kleptocracy politicians:

I rejoice that America is still free and independent and in a position of self reliance and holds to the right of self-determination.

Remember this lesson, and the next time you wonder what is written on a foreign document, hire a translator to reveal its meaning.

 

Global Warming Math

 

Individualism?

Sinfest, the webcomic to end all

Does the USA need a State of Fear?

Fact: A = A
Inference: 2A = 2A
This is the way algebra works, like the scales of justice. It you add to or subtract from both sides of the equality equally, the truth value of the equation is unchanged.

Datum: over 31000 degreed scientists signed and mailed in the PetitionProject.org petition successfully urging the US Senate NOT to ratify the unconvincing Kyoto hara-kiri “agreement”.

Father of Anti-Nazi Bomb

See the original PetitionProject.org lists.

Datum: Sierra Club president statement before the Senate, “97% of the scientists” believe the Earth is “cooking and heating up and warming.”

Programmed True Believer

President of Sierra Club before US Senate. See the video.

Assume both data are true, we can calculate the minimum number of people who earned science degrees from colleges and universities and believe the Earth is “cooking and heating up and warming.” Let’s do that.

100% minus 97% is 3%, and a percent sign % stands for 100 in the denominator or divisor.

Let x equal only those 31000-and-change scientists who do NOT believe the Earth is cooking and heating up. Those 31000 are 3% of what number?

3x/100 = 31000. Multiply both sides by 100, and
3x = 3,100,000 Right? Next we divide both sides by 3, so that
x = 3,100,000/3 Still with me? Now we simplify the fraction on the right by dividing, and
x = 1,033,333 scientists. That is five times the combined membership both the American Physical Society and American Chemical Society.

So supposing the 31000+ Petition Project American scientists alone are the entire dissenting 3%. Algebra tells us the 97% has to comprise at the very least 1,033,333 scientists. That is five times the combined membership of both the American Physical Society and American Chemical Society. Enrico Fermi would ask: Where are they?

Where is the list of these “consensus scientists” listed by name and by state? 

Q.E.D. = Quod erat demonstratum

If you ever need a technical translator with an adequate command of Junior High math, search me out.

Settled Pseudoscience

Mysticism, not reason

Page 15 of The Church Guardian

Religious truth was in 1890 the same as it is today. Nowadays, its advocates call it “science.” Of course there is disagreement among folks who have rejected reason. Some of them point to “Creation Science” as proof that policemen who–in good faith–believe they detected the odor of a burning bush, should shoot unarmed teenagers and not be liable to criminal charges. It provided the moral basis for the President of These United States to go on the public record advocating the death sentence in 1989 for anyone dealing in agricultural products likely to lower the price of liquor or coffee–with their executioners given immunity. Others are congregants of climate science.

“Climate Science” is a religious truth according to which the entire global population should be forcibly subjected to health hazards in the form of blackouts, brownouts, and reduced access to the very energy that enables people to work for a living. In actuarial math, health hazards are anything that reduces the life expectancy of a population. This rests on the observation that pandemics and power outages alike cause suffering and death.

What we observe today is the merger of two distinct and mutually antagonistic pseudoscientific religions onto one, exactly as occurred in National Socialist Germany in 1933. Religious conservatives declared Germany a Christian nation dedicated to the common good, not personal profit. They wanted the Political State to provide pensions and censor not only fake news but also anything offensive to their ethical and moral feelings. Conservatives emphatically demanded “public health through protection of mother and child,” just like today, with altruist indoctrination a part of government education in Christian Germany.

National Socialists also demanded regulation of all professions, especially journalism–translations of foreign newspapers were banned, under penalties including deportation, and foreigners, especially if selfish–were deported. Asset-forfeiture laws were enacted in support of Germany’s War On Bad Things so that entire companies could be readily confiscated.

All of these things were published by Adolf Hitler in 1920, and read by German voters, some 99% of whom were Christians, 2/3 Protestant and 1/3 Catholic. Less than one percent were Jewish. But though Hitler’s party was repeatedly elected in a landslide by Protestant and Catholic voters for a dozen years, many who claim to speak for Christianity and for Socialism, deny that Hitler and his allies were Christian or Socialist. They evade mention of speeches, writings, photographs and artifacts to the contrary. Can you imagine an atheist, mohammedan or pagan being elected president of These United States today? Nor could German voters in 1928, 1932 or 1933-45. That political science was as settled then as it is today.

narcotic syrup

Page 16 of the Church Guardian, “Advice to Mothers”

And like today, the money behind the propaganda was put up by investors with a stake in the market. Banning alcohol increased demand for other stupefying drugs, such as opium. This ad for Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup is from the next page of the Church Guardian. The syrup contained morphine, which competed for adult market share with beer, wine and spirits.

Behind every prohibition law directing the initiation of deadly force in violation of individual rights you will find hidden persuaders. All such laws are an offer to kill any number of people in order to force the survivors to obey market-distorting orders lobbyists hire politicians to enact. Lobbyists who want to ban coal or hemp are cut from exactly the same ideological cloth.

If you liked this article, you might want to visit my legal and contractual translations website.

Useless Drones Claim to Represent Science Beehive–as reported by Ron

This week the AMS (American Meteorological Society) sent a letter chastising Scott Pruitt for keeping an open mind on the question of man-made global warming/climate change. The letter (here) referred to the AMS institutional statement on the matter, and summarized their position in this paragraph: In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate […]

via The Weathermen vs. EPA’s Scott Pruitt — Science Matters

Prohibition and the Crash–guest appearance

The following post The Drug Problems Jeff Sessions Complains About Are Caused By Prohibition appeared first on A Libertarian Future at A Libertarian Future – Spreading a Libertarian message across the internet.. Many libertarians were upset with Rand Paul for voting to confirm Jeff Sessions because the Attorney General has an enormous amount of leeway…

via The Drug Problems Jeff Sessions Complains About Are Caused By Prohibition — A Libertarian Future