Severability and Spoiler Votes

http://www.blogdodemian.com.br/

Spoiler votes change the laws–escape!

The entrenched kleptocracy keeps government jobs and parasitical subsidies by duping registered voters into fearing “the” other bucket of crabs. Each bucket is a package-deal of unrelated lobbyist agendas. Many contracts are also package-deals thrown together by disparate stakeholders. Out of fear that the courts will strike down one of the more egregious clauses, a severability clause is usually stirred into the crab-boil.

A severability clause states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the contract should still apply. The Constitution works that way without the need for a severance clause. The 13th Amendment ended chattel slavery and the fugitive slave law from Article IV, yet the Constitution survived and the Supreme Court even ruled that conscription wasn’t involuntary servitude.

The Constitution is amended (for better or for worse) by small party spoiler votes. Religious fanatics casting 1.4% of the vote created the 18th amendment making beer a felony. Communist fanatics shifted the paradigm and added Communist Manifesto plank 2 as the 16th Amendment. No severability clause was needed. The severability that matters–that changes laws–is when you sever relations with both halves of the entrenched looter kleptocracy. They then have to change their platforms to try and lure back those spoiler votes.  Why? So their snouts–not the other gang’s–can be in the trough.

Crabs–scavengers for carrion–cannot escape a bucket because their fellow partisans in that bucket energetically pull down any who try to escape over the wall. In the Republican bucket, if a wealthy woman executive wants to reverse an unplanned pregnancy, that’s too bad. Mystical bigots will pull her down. If a producer does not want his son or daughter shot, robbed, raped and jailed over a plant leaf, group peer pressure grabs his ankles lest he escape the collective bucket.

Anyone in the Democrat bucket who is tired of being looted and robbed is likewise dragged down by United Front activists and scolded for attempted desertion under fire. After all, women would have no rights and there would be no roads if not for the Communist Manifesto plank 2, right? You’ve got to believe that faked temperature data is real or the Republicans will shoot, rob, rape and jail your sons and daughters over a plant leaf to please their prohibitionist hangers-on. But will they change or simply lie? Fools will believe anything, and their conformist votes identify them as dupes.

But what happens when voters can polevault into a completely different bucket, or escape to freedom? What paradigm shift results when your vote can tell politicians you say NO to robbing, murdering, bombing, or defrauding anyone? What happens when you finally realize that cowardice, dishonesty, lack of integrity is what dooms the crabs in those buckets to the boiling pot? In the past, what happened was that the laws changed, and the Constitution changed. In the present, that change can be for the better. Do YOURSELF a favor. Increase your law-changing clout by voting Libertarian.

This wake-up call has been a public service announcement from http://www.hankphillips.com

Advertisements

Electoral Spoiler Votes, 1968

Ku-klux Klanbake

Read the original article

Judge Roy is as clearly a whack job as George Wallace, so no need to belabor the point. To voters residing in Alabama, the much more pressing concern is: what candidates can be found to run on a libertarian platform as the opposition? Much of what is wrong in Dixieland is the lingering effect of George Wallace’s candidacy and the electoral spoiler votes it gained among–whatever their faults–fiscally conservative low-tariff states. Offering LP candidates as an alternative wields more law-changing clout than joining the character-assassination frenzy endemic to kleptocracy political races.

JFK had more than his character assassinated, but his refusal to enslave youth as cannon-fodder for a takeover of the French opium regie in Cochin-China set an example for the world.  His coldly calculated murder set These States back several decades and many lives. As witness, here is a graph showing how the organized criminal gang that killed JFK is currently meddling with the former British opium regie in Afghanistan. Republican protectionism favoring stupefacient dope has fostered an epidemic of fatal overdoses.

But the Libertarian Party had changed national jurisprudence by 1973. Tonie Nathan and John Hospers’ electoral vote prompted the Supreme Court to add the Libertarian Platform plank on women’s individual rights to its Roe v. Wade decision by early 1973. By the time Nixon was facing impeachment charges, military conscription was trying its best to look inconspicuous. But it’s still there, just waiting to be reactivated.

Libertarians need to explain that “free trade” means the exact same revenue only tariff that financed all government expenditures until the second Tariff of Abominations written by Justin S. Morrill passed shortly after Lincoln was elected. Another mischaracterization is calling the LP migration plank “open borders,” The LP supports excluding dangerous people from These States, but does not support another Berlin Wall.

What the LP does not need is more goofy platform planks. The Texas Libertarian Party platform is a dog’s breakfast of pusillanimous pettifoggery much more liable to frighten than reassure voters. The national party platform experimenting with communist anarchism approaches to the death sentence is another example of bad platform drafting. Non-libertarians read it and imagine the idea is to hire mercenaries to go around killing criminals. Libertarians see in it higher taxes to support folks like Robert Dear in lifetime warmth and comfort. The numbskull experiment of 1990–infiltrators waving a red flag to anger religious conservatives in exchange for NO VOTES whatsoever–is not the sort of thing that bears repeating.

For translated Spanish and Portuguese, especially contracts and law, get in touch.

Looter Vote Counts

Here are reported 2016 election returns for Boulder County, Colorado, from the Longmont Times-Call. The last column was simply left blank on the assumption that most voters do not know how to add or subtract.

Voters who rely on looter press vote counts are simply kept unaware of the existence of libertarian spoiler votes. How then are they to figure out that those spoiler votes pack at least six times the law-changing clout of a vote wasted on the looter kleptocracy that newspaper serves?

Countywide Clinton Trump Libertarian?
Longmont 55.3% 33.1% 11.6%
Boulder 80.8% 10.9% 8.3%
Erie 56.8% 32% 11.2%
Lafayette 68.6% 21.2% 10.2%
Louisville 78.1% 20.7% 1.2%

It is possible that Green econazis or ku-klux Tea-partiers may have gotten some of those unreported votes. But the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in all 50 states. And it is definitely true that looter parties–the ones that rob you at gunpoint–are perfectly willing to lie, cheat and steal the vote count. The Longmont Times-Call newspaper, through its staff Writer Karen Antonacci, clearly lied about the election outcome.  Looter kleptocracy parties do it to each other all the time.

Al Franken lost the Minnesota Senate race by a couple of hundred votes, then won on recount by over twice that many. The initial and final count of those decisive votes differed by 245%. What better proof that looters lie, cheat and steal to get access to the initiation of force? I personally want verifiable voting. Mark Twain voted by bawling out his choice in the public square, but I would settle for a QR code (like a secret but verifiable ATM receipt) to let me check online how MY vote was tallied. Until then, we are groping in the dark–as Lysander Spooner described during Reconstruction–under a secret band of robbers and murderers.

Looter parties set up fake Mexican standoffs so that even honest and well-informed voters are gulled away from supporting freedom. Just now Boulder politicians offered an either-or “choice.” The fake choice was not between freedom and coercion, but between a monopoly on a natural gas power plant and another monopoly on worthless, self-destructing windmills. Boulder is home to chinook winds nearly as powerful as the hurricane that just destroyed the windmills and solar panels Puerto Rican taxpayers were duped into installing.

Fourteen candidates were presented, and any libertarians among them were barred by law from identifying themselves on the ballot as against the initiation of force. Their vote counts would doubtless be misreported. Single digits you say?

We got same kind of digits in 2016 as the 9% spoiler vote commie populists in 1892 used as a springboard for getting Congress to enact a federal income tax by 1894. A single digit is the same as the Prohibition Party 1.4% vote average for the 11 campaigns leading up to the 16th Amendment. For 14 years beer, wine and sauerkraut were felony narcotics, with gunfights everywhere until the economy completely collapsed in February 1933.

Our 0.01% of the electoral vote in 1972 was arguably less than a single digit, but in 45 days it pressured the Republican Suprema Corte into enforcing the individual rights of women and their physicians in Roe v. Wade. We got no electoral vote in 2016, but libertarian votes spanned the gap between the looter parties in 11 states casting 90 electoral votes. Casting spoiler votes that increase freedom is winning. Letting the looter kleptocracy destroy our freedom is losing. This is binary, either-or, simple, true and inescapable.

The Libertarian parties in Texas need candidates to help improve the laws there. Canada’s Libertarian Party now has a woman president and is accepting donations from Canadian residents. Is you want to understand something written in Spanish by libertarians, or have a libertarian message to divulge in Portuguese, get in touch.

 

2016 Second Amendment Gun planks

A Free State

Gun rights vote totals 2016 election

2016 Libertarian Plank on the Second Amendment:
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition. (Yield: 3.28% of the popular vote)

2016 Republican Party plank on the Second Amendment:
Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that predates the Constitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. …, … We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law. … (Yield: 46.09% of popular vote, 56% of electoral vote)

The parties eager to violate the Second Amendment now–the same ones that wanted to prohibit the Strategic Defense Initiative in violation of the Second Amendment in the 1980s–drew even in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college. Voters in two competing parties have expressed a preference for keeping both electricity and guns legal and abundant and aggregated 49.4% of the popular vote count. That’s reality.

Libertarian votes spanned the spoiler vote gap in States casting 89 electoral votes, 15% more than the total number of electoral votes separating the party that got the pelf and political pull from the one that chose to violate rights protected by the Constitution instead of repealing prohibition.

If you understood this reality check on the outcome of hotly contested election issues, imagine how clearly you will understand my translations of legal, political or economic events in places where the news is in Portuguese or Spanish.

The 3% Energy Vote Solution

Freedom cancels climate fraud

Energy plank vote totals, 2016

It behooves politicians to look backward at the votes cast in the 2016 elections in the USA. Stripped of personalities and cancelling out the nonsense, the two parties with platforms advocating uncoerced access to energy pulled even with the four parties of Altrurian Cassandras in the much-ballyhooed popular vote, viz:

Libertarian and Republican presidential candidates: 49.4%
Green, Socialist, communist and Democrat candidates: 49.4%

The 2% 
Dem/GOP  partisan difference is more than covered by the 3.28% won by Libertarian party presidential candidates. The LP platform did not advocate a carbon tax or suicidal treaties with foreign interests. Libertarian voting stock is up over 300%. Bear in mind that a difference of only 77 electoral votes decided which party politicians took office for the Executive branch on Inauguration Day in January 2017.

Libertarian votes spanned the spoiler vote gap in States casting 89 electoral votes, 15% more than the total number of electoral votes separating the party that got the pelf and political pull from the one that chose to hobble electrical energy production instead of repealing prohibition.

Per-capita access to energy is a factor in population control. No access to energy means a Malthusian catastrophe. That is what is at stake here. Claims that CO2 (like water vapor, just another trace gas) has increased the planet’s temperature are contradicted by ordinary thermometer data. As in so many previous cases, the apocalyptic shrieking is a symptom of folks being hoodwinked by junk science. Republican insistence on Byzantine sumptuary laws, a National Socialist approach to immigration and Mohammedan-style Sharia laws interfering with the individual rights of pregnant women are what made this a dangerously close election. Your libertarian vote is a vote against all the bad planks in the Republican and Democratic platform. Whichever big party ignores our platform loses, but because we repeal bad laws, we always win.

If your business requires energy in order for you to accomplish work, bear that in mind when you need to select a translator.

 

Mysticism and Fascism

Altruistic nationalsocialism

Read the original 1929 Chicago Tribune article

Remember the Lateran Agreements? The Romish Church doesn’t, but newspapers record how King, Dictator and Pope entered into another Byzantine Tordesillas pact–this one to divvy up power over the population of Italy. By Mussolini’s decree, Italian schools were required to include Catholic indoctrination of children too young to resist such conditioning.

In laissez-faire France, so many could afford cars that a movement was afoot to ban collective transportation. A decade later, National Socialist tanks rolled into Catholic (and Protestant) France and replaced Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité with Travail, Patrie, Famille. Jewish families were packed off to 40,000 Nazi camps, but every Catholic or Protestant in Germany acted surprised to learn in May of 1945 that even a single such death camp had ever existed.

Here is the current pope of Rome’s endorsement of Ecological National Socialism:

“The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast.” For this reason, the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion. It must be said that some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is an “ecological conversion,” whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience. (Laudato Si’, 217)

Below is a sample of current papist equivocations berating libertarian non-aggression. The speech, worthy of any South-American integralista surrounds the concept of “freedom” with a Vatican-worthy wall of conditionals, adjectival qualifiers and vagueness to disguise its collectivist calls to coercion. Observe how this Argentine Holy Father rearranges the National Socialist plea to put “The Common Good before the Individual Good” (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz in the 1920 original)

Calling for integral development means engaging in widening the space of dignity and freedom of people: freedom, however, not only in the negative sense of the absence of impediments, nor only in a positive sense as a choice. It is necessary to add freedom “for”, that is, the freedom to pursue its vocation of both personal and social good. The key idea is that freedom goes hand in hand with the responsibility of protecting the common good and promoting the dignity, liberty and well-being of others, reaching the poor, the excluded and future generations.

Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences on the theme Towards a Participatory Society: New Roads to Social and Cultural Integration (Casina Pio IV, 28 April – 2 May 2017). Freedom in a political context is freedom from government coercion. But in the infallible speech, coercion by harmful or deadly force replaced by the more euphemistic equivocation “impediments,” suggestive not of government action, but ordinary features of terrain.  The dictionary in Mac OS defines impediment: “a hindrance or obstruction in doing something.” The example: “a serious impediment to scientific progress.” In a very real sense, faith and initiation of force are the two primary impediments to scientific progress.

The Pope’s mystical claim that temperatures are rising and coercion must be resorted to as an emergency measure is another example. Thermometer records not tampered with clearly show that temperatures have been decreasing since the Lateran Treaty was signed, as in these measurements for Texas.

Disclosure: this interpreter was as a child enrolled in two mystical schools in a country politically subservient to Rome. The conditioning evidently didn’t “take,” and in college I took physics and math classes. Indoctrination attempts nevertheless provided first-hand experience with the conditioning whereby mystical altruism offers the initiation of force as the only acceptable solution to imaginary political or social conundrums.

I am looking for other libertarian translators. If you know of any, please let me know.

1920s Drug Fiends

Excerpted from Prohibition and the Crash, by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 18

Drug Fiends

            A five-to-four decision by the Supreme Court in Seattle’s “whispering wires” bootlegging case settled the 4th Amendment issue of wiretapping on June 4. Our highest Court on that day pronounced government skulking over phone lines legal, ethical and good.[1] The Court’s stated position in finishing the work begun with the Sullivan and Marron decisions was that the Bill of Rights was so important that only Congress—certainly not the Judicial branch—had the authority to attribute “an enlarged and unusual meaning to the Fourth Amendment.”[2]

Thirteen Coast Guards were suspended June 2, ostensibly for accepting bribes to overlook smuggling of “liquor” from ocean liners, but that story had been suppressed for over 2 months and had developed an odor.[3] In Buffalo, June 4 was opening day for a conference between U.S. and Canadian customs officials. The meeting was organized by Assistant Treasury Secretary Seymour Lowman. This is the same Lowman, who replaced Lincoln Andrews after Andrews was forced by Elmer Irey – the heavy-artillery agent – to resign. Placed in charge of customs, Lowman’s specialties included narcotics smuggling and dismissing “dirty” agents.[4] When newsmen finally found out about this meeting nearly 3 weeks later, Secretary Andrew Mellon assured them that no railroad men had been threatened and that it “had nothing to do with prohibition or enforcement of the Volstead act.” This naturally raised suspicions about drugs, suspicions reinforced when 6 persons were shot on the floor of the Yugoslav House of Representatives. Yugoslavia was a major exporter of medical-grade opium and was reeling from widespread riots. This news hit reporters even as they tried to pry a scoop on the secret meeting from Secretary Mellon.[5]

In April 1921, the Literary Digest had run an unsigned article “Is Prohibition Making Drug Fiends?” The article raised troubling questions. The State Department understood perfectly well by 1922 that war-fed output and prohibition-enhanced smuggling facilities were thwarting all efforts at narcotics control.[6]

Repeal advocate Franklin Fabian speculated in a 1922 book that prohibition might have something to do with U.S. narcotics consumption being 6 or 7 times as high as in most European nations.[7] The very suggestion was hotly denied by prohibitionist Herman Feldman, who also denied that figures describing the true situation could be had from any source. Feldman relied on the usual apocrypha and anecdotes to shore up his beliefs, and shrugged off any hard data on arrests and convictions as proving only that enforcement was improving. Feldman’s source, a Dr. Kolb, argued that alcohol was actually a sort of gateway drug which led to narcotics use.[8] Nowhere does Feldman explain why no narcotics planks figured in U.S. political party platforms before 1924. Yet that year the Democrats—eager, of course, to exclude Asian immigration—suddenly began railing in their platform against “the spreading of heroin addiction among the youth,” while the Prohibition Party merely blinked and stood mute on the issue.[9] The sight of prisons steadily filling up with “narcotics” convicts led the Democratic Platform Committee and Herman Feldman to diametrically opposite conclusions as to why.

At prohibition hearings held during April of 1926 Congressman William S. Vare of Pennsylvania had declared the “increased use” of narcotics throughout the nation “appalling.”[10] Then on May 14, 1928, Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee reported that 28% of federal inmates were “addicts” and pushed for the Porter bill to segregate the junkies on a Kentucky “narcotics farm.”[11]

Yet the wisdom of the Harrison Act stood unchallenged even after 537 pounds of heroin and morphine were discovered in Brooklyn by New York Deputy Chief Inspector Louis J. Valentine’s staff in 1927—the year of the recent “Tong War” on U.S. soil and civil turmoil on Chinese soil.[12] Not only had alcohol prohibition increased U.S. demand for heroin and morphine, but the well-developed channels for alcohol smuggling served even better as conduits for smuggling drugs. It was probably easier to bribe a customs agent to look the other way if the agent believed that rum, not heroin, was being smuggled in.

 

[1] (NY World Almanac 1929 91)

[2] (Olmstead et al. v. U.S. 06/04/28 [465])

[3] (NYT 8/15/28 23:4)

[4] (Merz 1931 248-249)

[5] (NYT 6/22/28 31; 6/23/28 34, 52)

[6] (Taylor 1969 150)

[7] (Fabian 1922 77-80)

[8] (Feldman 1927/30 109, 113-115, 111)

[9] (Johnson and Porter 1975 246; 249)

[10] (Feldman 1927/30 101-102)

[11] (NYT 5/15/28 10)

[12] (NYT 7/1/28 14; 1/13/27 4)

Does your company ever need to come to terms with pharmaceutical suppliers south of the border? Why not hire an interpreter familiar with the history and background of many foreign products?