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.

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

The Misanthropic Principle

nuclearwinter

Nuclear Winter nostalgia

Worshippers of gods infesting the minor Pantheon, such as the Four Horsemen, tend to also be scolders of the Seven Deadly Sins. Some, like Herbert Hoover–for whom prosperity was just around the corner–turn out to be Predictors of things that Never Happen. Millerites were horrified when Jesus failed to lift them to Heaven as calculated, and His failure to also cast their rivals into the Seventh Circle entered History as The Great Disappointment of 1844. The communist religion was prey to similar notions. Remember Nuclear Winter? 

As an undergrad exposed to nuclear winter dinning I was careful to avoid the corridors frequented by Prof. John A. Wheeler, originator of the Anthropic Principle. Wheeler’s simplest scientific papers seem an exercise in English as an Alien Language. His Goldilocks Universe principle did not belch forth Prophesy or Prediction liable to frighten excerebrose voters out of their wits (or attract students too lazy to absorb tensor calculus). Wheeler’s main line of work successfully put the National and International Socialist empires out of business. That accomplished, Wheeler surveyed appreciation of his musings on cosmological constants with lofty equanimity, and spoke out in favor of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power detractors spring mainly from the wreckage of looter kleptocracies. Their fundamental premise is that all men are disgusting wretches who can’t be trusted. Incidentally, this exactly the same philosophical premise underpinning religious conservatism–also an ideological kleptocracy, and also given to paranoid delusions about marijuana, LSD, mescalin and other things about which its faithful are equally ignorant.

Warmer Revelation holds that only some other of said disgusting creatures, never oneself, deserves what you yourself earn. This summarizes the Misanthropic Principle, keystone of the Church of the End Times and its wholly-owned subsidiary the Cult of the Holy Warmers. Global Cassandras and hand-wringing prohibition fanatics are happily unhandcuffed by data where fundamental morality-of-altruism issues come into play. The exact same mentality that seeks to ban nuclear energy also seeks to ban enjoyable substances, though they are rarely political allies.

Affirmers believe as a matter of Revealed Faith that the End is Nigh. Affirmers blame a desperate shortfall in the initiation of coercive and deadly force for the existential threat now facing humanity. Climate Cassandras are–by definition rather than evidence, The Scientific Consensus prophesied to be Saved and supported on the backs and pocketbooks of lesser luminaries. The Consensus platform in the political arena also called for the usual bombing of primitive mystics on the other side of the planet, jailing hippies and brown people over plants, and asset-forfeiture looting demanded by “both” parties.

These are moderate and popular stands according to 96% of the voters. (The Libertarian party earned 3.28% of the 2016 vote, thereby swinging 124 electoral votes in 11 states, and the econazis probably completed the rounding to an even 4%, swinging electoral votes for 3 states). The Libertarian party does not want to destroy power plants, bomb primitives or jail people and confiscate their homes. See our platform. We change laws because our spoiler votes threaten to defenstrate the more ignorant and superstitious Kleptocracy candidates.

3rdchoiceJust under half of Kleptocracy voters have been vouchsafed the Revealed Word saying that non-communist industrial nations must pay totalitarian States a carbon tithe. The other half, whose locations coincide with large numbers of electoral votes, happen to belong to a cult that prefers shoot-first prohibitionism and defenestration to redistribution of wealth. The upside is that adherents of the Cult of the Holy Warmers are, per current consensus among prophets, about to move en masse into a lower tax bracket. Economic collapse from prohibitionist asset-forfeiture is now much more likely to cause economic collapse than illiterate meddling in our generating capacity. We seek solutions that do not point guns at the voters.
If you found this interesting check out your local LP and visit reason.com

How Democrats can win

Death for Marijuana--Taiwan

Progressive Democratic Party female candidate elected President in 2016–of Taiwan!

Advice for Democrats: Hillary could have run in Taiwan without Legalization of Marijuana, but still lost for kowtowing to communism.

The DEMS LOST because they were against freedom and for communism, not because of the Grrrrrrl candidate. People who understand heat, power and energy preferred to side with christianofascists eager to coerce women and doctors–and hippies–even if it means another crash and multi-year depression… Why? Because the media ordered them to believe the only alternative was to allow evangelical econazis drunk on pseudoscience to destroy American generating capacity to please Communist China.

Even the Russians aren’t stupid enough to fall for a deal like that!

If Dems want to win next time, study some physics, and read The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear by Petr Beckmann. Beckmann is to energy data fraud as John Scarne is to gambling cheats. Then tell Dem boys in Congress to try something new. Instead of sending goons with guns to meddle in electricity, try abolishing some fascist prohibition laws. The GO-Pee will still promise to coerce women to reproduce for Positive Christianity and the Jesusjugend–but only until they LOSE five elections in a row. Compare the libertarian vote count to the difference in the races you lost. Freedom is your only way to get that hand in the till. Republican National Socialists already have dibs on the coercive alternative.

I voted Democratic once. Jimmy lacked the guts to oppose prohibition, and failed when armed fanatical Mohammedans occupied Mecca and stirred up an anthill that got two U.S. embassies invaded. I voted Republican in one race, and Reagan did deliver on a nuclear defense initiative that collapsed a large Communist dictatorship. But Reagan also pandered to fanatical teetotalitarians of the sort that Herbert Hoover represented. Let go of Stalinism, and you will force the GO-Pee to let go of Hitlerism. If fellow Democratic partisans insist on looter prohibitionism, show them you mean business by joining the Libertarian Party.

Fact: the Prohibition party made light beer a felony for nearly 14 years by averaging 1.4% of the vote over the course of 11 election campaigns. The LP.org has managed similar performance, and repeal of prohibition is sweeping These States.

Gary Johnson’s long lever

2016nmspoilerArchimedes had one, of course, but Gary Johnson’s is longer. I am talking about law-changing spoiler vote leverage in his home state of New Mexico. New Mexico’s five electoral votes went to the other faction of the looter Kleptocracy, that also wants cops to stop and shoot your kids–or at least asset-forfeit your car–claiming they “thought they smelled” marijuana.

Were it not for Gary, those electoral votes might have gone to the party that disagrees on forcing women to reproduce, but is OK on Chinese Carbon Tax transfer payment sacrifices in support of the Church of Misantropomorphic Global Warming.  They’ll not forget those 72, 000 votes and five electoral votes. Those votes will cause God’s Own Prohibitionists to defenestrate the Tea Party mystics infiltrating their platform committee–to keep from losing that battle.

Gary Johnson’s libertarian party got more votes than the difference between asset-forfeiture prohibitionists and other looters in several other states–more than enough to change the election outcome. That is how we small parties change the laws–by moving the carrot this way and that.

Small Party Changes Constitution

“Your candidate can’t possibly win!” yelp “both” parties to the looter Kleptocracy.

They then shift gears to claim your Libertarian vote davidpearsongearswill only elect “the other” prohibitionist totalitarian party. Sound familiar? But if the Libertarian vote is so insignificant and irrelevant, why are they so worked up about it?

In 1872 two corrupt soft machines competed for government jobs with appointees paying salary kickbacks to the parties. The Spoils System experienced increasing problems after the Panic of 1873, just as today’s Kleptocracy is faltering in the train of the Asset Forfeiture Crash of 2007.

OBSERVE that the only thing that matters to the looters is who is getting elected. Unlike some of their excited followers, they are not at all concerned what kind of laws those politicians are going to vote for. The invisible hand in the till is what counts. By using the sprocket of spoiler votes to slam the cash drawer shut on those probing fingers, a third party can exercise a leveraged influence on what kinds of laws looter party candidates are able to pass. If that leverage weren’t there, they wouldn’t care. So how do we measure that leverage? What is the gear ratio?

How many votes did it take a small party to WIN what its voters wanted by changing the US Constitution? Al Smith would say “let’s look at the record.” Here is the percentage of Prohibition Party votes it took to change the Constitution of the United States to make beer a federal felony. The vertical axis is their percentage of the popular vote.

prohivoteamendsThe average Prohibition Party vote share was 1.4% of the popular vote. The huge jump in 1880 occurred because the likes of Morgan, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt began donating money to dry organizations.**

Only thrice did the Prohibition Party earn over 2% of the popular vote, and it never obtained a single electoral vote. Yet its cohesive supporters did not rest until the Constitution was amended and the Amendment enforced by law making it a felony crime with permanent loss of individual rights to make, move or sell a gallon of water into which a single can of beer had been poured. This was accomplished with just over two million presidential race votes. The gear ratio, based on the supposition that success requires some 50%, is 36 to 1. Your Libertarian party vote repeals bad laws with 36 times the clout of votes wasted on the Kleptocracy.

History has begun to unravel. One wealthy individual just made a large donation to the most visible Libertarian candidate’s committee, just as other well-informed tycoons backed the prohis in 1880. They did this after a lengthy recession and preoccupation with the growth of socialism sounded the alarm.  Today the depression brought on by Republican asset forfeiture looting–the same outgrowth of prohibition that toppled that party for decades beginning 1932–requires that America stop criminalizing other people’s harmless enjoyment or go the way of the Whigs, Kings, Czars and Soviet. Already These States are repealing prohibition laws and outlawing asset forfeiture looting, just as in 1933. Libertarians averaged 3% in the Texas Senate race of 2014, and nationally have amassed 3,8 million presidential race votes since 1972. Why not give your vote 36 times the law-changing clout this election?

** The sharp falloff in votes at 1896 was probably a reaction to Theodore Roosevelt’s Sunday closing of saloons and other venues of entertainment as NY Police Commissioner in 1895. 

If this interpretation of historical facts was easy to understand, why not ask me for a bid on translating laws or financial regulations from Portuguese or Spanish into English?