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.

Advertisements

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?

The LIB for Liberal gambit

Randal Paul–Son of Ron and survivor of the Bernie Sanders Volunteer Killing Fields gunfight–is tolerated by God’s Own Prohibitionists as handy bait and a false flag lure for libertarian defection; he is a useful Libertarian impersonator.

Randal’s function is to lure wavering mystics away from the LP and into the rights-destroying  mob he himself reinforced with his vote for Anointed General Beauregard Sessions, the new Prohibition Czar. The strategy is a variant on the 1932 tactic of suddenly calling communist looters “liberals.” To visualize how odd this is, here is how liberal is defined in the dictionary on my Apple computer:

(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform: a liberal democratic state.

Need I remind the reader that freedom (in a political context) means freedom from coercion? Anyone can search Google News Archives and see that Liberal meant something akin to Libertarian before the summer of 1932. The stratagem arose in the Corn-Sugar Belt as the Prohibition Party and God’s Own Prohibitionists knelt before the guillotine of the November elections. The Liberal Party in its 1931 platform gave mystical bigots short shrift:

The Liberal Party aims at the dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan, because that society, suppressing the social and political rights of Jews, Catholics, and Negroes, is a foul vulture that is eating the heart out of the body politic; and when it was in its greatest power it continued to enroll new thousands in its membership through the encouragement which Mr. Ford gave to its propaganda with his senseless campaign of libel against the Jews.

Henry Ford and the Klan were pillars of prohibition enforcement, completely immune to rational thought or objective facts. Actual Liberals were organized by Carnegie Institute regulars, captains of industry, railroad presidents, college teachers, steamship officials, bankers, merchants, authors, journalists, publishers, labor leaders, and statesmen in the Steel Belt, not corn farmers, distillers or glucose magnates.

Drys want men with guns to shoot people over alcohol, and conservatives are drys against repeal or relegalization. Wets–mostly meaning liberals–wanted nobody with a gun banning the production, sale and transportation of beer, wine, sauerkraut or liquor in 1932, or hemp, LSD, peyote or mushrooms today. By 1932, wet was the freak flag of liberals against the initiation of force. Mrs Pauline Sabin explained how the former slur became a mark of distinction.

Liberals sought repeal of Republican and Mohammedan Sharia prohibition and blue laws the mystical autocracy had imported from the Mohammedan Middle East. The Liberal Party platform of 1931 explicitly repudiated communism. The rest of their platform could have been written by low-tariff, prohibition repeal liberals in Ontario. Their pre-election propaganda in America, however, was stinging.

The Liberal Party wet plank had already been added to the Democratic platform, and the Dems then won five (05) elections in a row. Today’s mystical prohibitionists hope to trick illiterate voters into thinking “commies” when they see the LIB on the ballots. Make no mistake; the Libertarian party platform is the antithesis of imported communism or Germany’s religious nationalsocialist dictatorship. People who speak of left and right really want communism or nazionalsocialismus. Libertarians seek to protect the constitution from the tendentious initiation of force no government can afford to indulge in this 72nd year of the nuclear era.

Are you surprised to learn that a libertarian-style party existed and wrote the plank for repeal of the Prohibition Amendment? Interpreters have to think outside the box to mediate between languages and cultures.

 

 

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)