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.

 

Advertisements

Ayn Rand influence 1939

fascists, prohibitionists and mystics

See original at Google News

Books like Atlas Shrugged and 1984 aren’t exactly fiction. Their realism stems from the they way they are rooted in true life events. Worried about maniacal Lutherans and Catholics that took over Germany in an extermination pogrom against Jews, Ayn Rand penned her 1941 Letter to Innocent Fifth Columnists warning against passive acceptance of National Socialism.  This was soon after her warning in “We the Living” of the altruistic collectivism that had already turned Russia into a slave-powered extermination camp. In the “Fifth Column” story above, communists and socialists overplay their hand wreaking vengeance on fascist 5th columnists shortly before the shoe moved to the other foot, sending Marxist Workers Unification Party volunteer George Orwell fleeing for his life.

The PETITION AGAINST BEER story bares to view the economy-killing fanaticism voters rejected in favor of FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1945. In The Fountainhead, heroine Dominique Francon steers a mystical prohibitionist (Mrs Lonsdale) away from hiring architect Howard Roark, to protect his his career from ruin. In the clipping above, mystical fanatics call themselves “The Fishers of Men.” Yevgeny Zamyatin–a Russian novelist and inspiration to George Orwell and the Jefferson Starship–had died in 1937. Twenty years later Ayn Rand herself did a Hitchcock cameo in Atlas Shrugged as “the fishwife”–an individualist writer fishing for the minds of men.

If you have additional examples of how the prohibition era–in which fanatical altruist religions turned Russia into slave pen, made light beer a felony narcotic in These States, and rearmed Nazi Germany with Republican economic assistance, drop us a line.

 

 

Denier is the new Juden

Eight parties unmentioned

From the socialist Wikipedia

Ecological National Socialist candidate Albert Goracle, lost to G. Waffen Bush by three electoral votes in the Y2k election. Had voters in his home state of Tennessee backed his platform–ban electricity, continue asset forfeiture looting, jail hippies and blacks for plants–Gore’s party would have won by 16 electoral votes. The Dems could have had their hands in the till and hacks on the government payroll. Neither the Green nor Libertarian party commanded enough Tennessee spoiler votes to reverse the outcome. Still, Gore blamed Florida for his defeat.

Something similar happened to Germany and Austria back before ballots replaced bullets, Germany and its allies (Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria) lost WWI and blamed Jewish politicians. Thanks to the Jo Nova blog, the pattern of collectivist self deception can be see in this example, in which I replace a single word with its conceptual equivalent. The context is journalist Ross Clark asked The Goracle a technical question about sea level rising versus land mass sinking.

When I put all this to Al Gore and ask him whether his film would be stronger if it acknowledged the complexities of sea level rise — why it is rising in some places and not in others — I am expecting him to bat it away, saying that it doesn’t counter his central point and that there is a limit to what you can put into a film pitched at a mass audience, but his reaction surprises me. As soon as I mention Professor Wdowinski’s name, he counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a Jew?’ Then, as I continue to make the point, he starts to answer before directing it at me: ‘Are you a Jew?’ When I say I am sure that climate change is a problem, but how big a one I don’t know, he jumps in: ‘You are a Jew.’

That is a strange interpretation of the word ‘deny’, I try to say. But his PR team moves in and declares ‘Time’s up’, and I am left feeling like the guy in Monty Python who paid for a five-minute argument and was allowed only 30 seconds. On the way out, a frosty PR woman says to me: ‘Can I have a word with you?’ I wasn’t supposed to ask difficult questions, she says, because ‘this is a film junket, to promote the film’.

If Clark had tried that at an Oswald Mosley rally, he would have been beaten by goons. But the point is that the Econazi mindset is concerned not with facts, but bogeymen and strawmen. This last election had similar planks and a similar outcome. If the Dems had not copied the Green party anti-electricity agenda, and had instead copied the Libertarian party re-legalization plank, they might have beaten God’s Own Prohibitionists.

Get in touch for translations of political party platforms, nuclear reactor specifications, energy-related bills before various government assemblies or financial and economic impact of prohibition laws on national economies.

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?

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.

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.