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.

League of Looter Nations, 1929

After President Harding and the Senate said no, the League of European stupefacient warmongers limped on without us. So what happened? Here is an excerpt from Prohibition and the Crash by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 12

The League of Nations

            On the international front the State Department Division of Far Eastern Affairs had approvingly read the Geneva Opium Convention of 1925, and lent a sympathetic ear to the so-called Scheme of Stipulated Supply. The idea was to use futures trading for all legal narcotics procurements. The effect would be to greatly limit production for the illegal market.[1] The World Anti-Narcotic Union had held a gala meeting early in March and obtained verbal support from Governor Al Smith, Mayor Jimmy Walker and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini—but nothing was actually done.[2]

Since 1924 Pennsylvania Congressman Stephen G. Porter had been an influential figure in U.S. drug negotiations with the League of Nations. But the man was a mystical pedant and alienated League members (See and compare A.G. Sessions). Indeed, it was on Porter’s motion that the American delegation to the Geneva conference had petulantly withdrawn from the Convention of 1925. The truth was that delegates from India, Turkey and Persia understood perfectly well that any sudden curbs on opium production would bring on acute economic crises and political instability in their countries. Porter understood none of this and stormed out in a huff, convinced of the foreign delegates’ insincerity. Even before the Great War German chemical interests had struggled against curbs on drugs, and not without reason.[3]

 

[1] (Taylor 1969 211, 228) (Eisenlohr 1934 129)

[2] (NYT 3/8/28 8)

[3] (Taylor 1969 178-9, 184; 193, 201, 107-8, 213) (Eisenlohr 1934 227, 231, 256-7)

 

Voter Comparison Shopping

When was the last time you saw political party platform planks compared? The entrenched Kleptocracy parties both claimed to be different in 2016. Are they?

The Democrats still want your kids incarcerated for marijuana, only now they want to class it in the same category as methamphetamine and cocaine instead of heroin. The Libertarian Party is against sending men with guns to kick down doors–especially when no harm has been done to merit such violence. The Republican Party wants that Old Testament Prohibitionism that caused most of our financial crashes and economic depressions. Sound farfetched? Exaggerated?

Here is the 2016 straddle plank the Democratic party added to its lengthy platform by the narrowest of margins before choosing a candidate:

Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1″ federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization.

Here is the Libertarian plank that covers policy on marijuana:

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. [Banned from televised debates]

Here is the Republican plank on some drugs:

The progress made over the last three decades against drug abuse is eroding, whether for cultural reasons or for lack of national leadership. In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. At the other end of the drug spectrum, heroin use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2013, while deaths from heroin have quadrupled. All this highlights the continuing conflicts and contradictions in public attitudes and public policy toward illegal substances. Congress and a new administration should consider the long- range implications of these trends for public health and safety and prepare to deal with the problematic consequences.

True, the Dems pretend to believe they can repeal the Second Amendment, enact Kristallnacht laws, abolish guns and turn These States into a banana republic or European satrapy. And the GO-Pee platform flatly asserts it wants to change the 14th Amendment so that “All Persons Born” will again be interpreted to mean “All Ova Fertilized,” everywhere, not just in Dixieland as it was before the Libertarian Party electoral vote earned in December of 1972. That vote led to the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing that pregnant women have individual rights in January 1973. (Yep. Libertarian spoiler votes have been vacating bad jurisprudence for 45 years). Their biggest mistake was to cave in to Green Watermelon spoiler votes aimed at making electricity generation more difficult and expensive than it already is. That is the only real difference between the GOP-Tea Party-Klan and the DEM-Green-CPUSA United Fronts.

There is no difference between being flung in jail or shot by conscience-stricken Democrats or lustily bragging Republicans.  Both want hemp users arrested by the violence of law–that, fines and imprisonment are what their platforms offer voters–and visit upon those too young to vote or buy beer. Prohibition laws are marketing tools passed and enforced for a profit that is well-hidden from view. They distort the supply and demand curves to raise prices; that is the purpose of all marketing.

If you are surprised that these precursors to legislation are what make the laws, try not to be surprised by bad translations of legal material in court.  A competent court interpreter can be as valuable as a competent attorney in defense of your rights.

 

 

 

Brennt Paris?

France, of course, surrenders to German National Socialism at every opportunity. This 1940 French Translation of Mein Kampf (as Mon Combat–My Struggle) appears in the first 5 minutes of the 1966 movie Brennt Paris? The movie shows Parisians mostly riding bicycles, with the wealthy saving gas driving those horse-drawn Hoovercarts used in America during Prohibition After the Crash. The Occupation of Paris was Ecological National Socialism in black & white.

But France’s own media set them up for permanent obloquy in the Fawlty Towers Pantheon of Pathetic Poltroons. Seen this French hagiography of the current International Socialist Chanceller of Germany? It’s not all that different from Time Magazine thrice putting another nationalistic, Socialist German Chancellor on its cover a few decades ago. At least two such Chancellors made Time’s Person of the Year. Back in 1938 the Chancellor’s crowds shouted Raus juden! Today it’s Keine Atomkraftwerks!

If votes count for anything, America still prefers to keep electric power safe, legal and abundant. No Nukes, Nuclear Disarmament, Surrender to Soviet, Ban Coal, Ban Fracking, and other Gaian collectivist shibboleths notwithstanding.

But the Democratic party digs itself deeper and deeper into the pseudoscience of ecological national socialism. This cost them the votes of many who also want an end to the Republican régime of prohibitory televangelist pseudoscience, mass incarceration, cops shooting children and asset-forfeiture looting. The Democratic Party platform committee made the bed those loser politicians and their frustrated supporters get to lie in. They lie awake hearing God’s Own Prohibitionists Make Amerika Grate Again.

This appeals hugely to Libertarians. Unlike the socialist-prohibitionist DemoGOP, our platform says to relegalize self-medication, free the victimless-yet-persecuted from prisons and expunge their records. We seek to ABOLISH most taxes & regulations and all wars soon. Every Libertarian vote forces looter politicians to repeal or modify at least 6 times as many rights-destroying usurpations now masquerading as laws–or lose their seats.  Libertarian spoiler votes cover the gap between the main looter parties, and currently swing 90 electoral votes in major elections.

So Democrats, why not heat up some tar, cut open a few pillowcases and throw an outdoor party for your former platform committeemembers? Teach their replacements to spell R-E-P-E-A-L. Who knows? Maybe you can get jobs for some of your ward heelers and a hand in the till to boot? Failing that, try voting Libertarian instead: the other parties offer you warmunists, bureaucrats and politicians, we offer you freedom.

Did this help clarify why the US  need not sacrifice taxpayer earnings on the altar of pseudoscience?  Clarity is what many people want in their translations. This is why I have repeat customers. I look out for their pocketbooks.