Antichoice loser odds

antichoice0416Oddschecker is a website outside the coercive influence of God’s Own Prohibitionists, where consenting adults may bet on outcomes of things like the election circus in These American States. The four worst losers–the politicians with the longest odds offered AGAINST their winning an election–are ALL mystical bigots who want men with guns to bully and coerce pregnant women.

The same breed of voter impersonators also wants contraceptives banned or restricted wherever ignorance and superstition make it politically feasible. But what makes for political feasibility?

It takes votes to run candidates, spoil jerk campaigns, cause fascist planks to lose elections and repeal bad laws in the bargain. Running, taking jerks off the chessboard and repealing bad laws in the process are precisely the things the Libertarian Party does better than anyone else. It’s how we win in every election. Why? Because the Libertarian Party platform is the best platform in the running–despite recent evidence of cowardice and hostile infiltration in the 2014 plank on choice.

Why infiltrate us? Ignoring the LP wasn’t an option for Nixon any more than ignoring the socialists and prohibitionists was an option for Cleveland, McKinley, TR or Taft. Tricky ditched the draft before the ink was even dry on the draft LP platform. The DemoGOP Supreme Court promptly took bans on condoms, birth control and abortion off the chessboard. “We support repeal of pornography laws” was in our first platform, remember? That was written in Colorado, alongside “We favor the repeal of all laws creating ‘crimes without victims’ … — such as laws on voluntary sexual relations, drug use, gambling”… Homosexuality was illegal then, and weed, like gambling, a felony–exactly the way the Democratic and Republican platforms ordered it be.

Speaking of gambling, British and Irish bookies are laying heavy odds on the Dem Dame to beat The Don, now that The Don, like Austin Petersen, has declared in favor of men with guns leaving pregnant women no choice other than: “reproduce or die!” Furthermore, the longest odds at the bottom of the bookies’ shitlist over at Oddschecker (Carson, Romney, Rubio, Ryan, see figure) are posted for anti-choice, woman-bullying Republican prohibitionists.

Libertarians must choose: side with coercive, superstitious, unconstitutional prohibitionism–and have voters remember that association–or speak and act for the rights of all individuals, pregnant or otherwise, the way we used to when the party had independence and backbone.

The things we opposed in 1971–no-knock laws, the communist manifesto income tax on individuals and civil asset forfeiture–just wrecked the economy down to bedrock under the reign of Bush The Second. By that administration’s policies, state looters confiscated homes and bank accounts at the urging of federal looter prohibitionists until money disappeared the way it did in 1929, 1933 and 1987. This Bush fellow was a son of George “Holy War” Bush–the CIA guy who demanded the death sentence for hemp and bombed the Ottoman Empire until suicide bombers rained down on New York civilians. Observe that Bush dynasty asset forfeiture laws are being deleted–quietly and without fanfare–now that the damage is irreversible. Repeal of prohibition is replacing those criminal usurpations, just like the LP recommended in 1972.

The LP has a lot to be proud of, and helping to defeat suicidal Republican (and Islamic State) abuse of the violence of law in furtherance of religious totalitarianism is at the very top of that list. Let’s keep it there.

 

 

 

Pânicos et Circensis

Durante doze anos os eleitores coagidos do Brasil entenderam que os altruístas do Partido Trabalhista eram menos desonestos do que os demais saqueadores–hipócritas, oportunistas e sobremaneira perigosos. De repente tudo mudou. A economia americana entrou em crise, e ao passo que a crise lá se amenizava por exportação, no resto do mundo piorava a situação–sobretudo no Brasil.

O governo americano é polichinelo de dois partidos. Um deles, o Partido Democrata, abandonou o liberalismo que nutria antes dos anos 60, quando o partido foi invadido (pela terceira vez) por simpatizantes socialistas e comunistas. Mas boa parte destas mais recentes infiltrações foram reação aos fanáticos religiosos que em 1928 se apoderaram do Partido Republicano. Antes, a lei seca só fazia parte do programa político do Partido da Proibição, que muito raramente conseguia quase 2% do voto. (Em 2014 os libertários conseguiram 3% am vários estados). Na mesma época, diafragmas e camisinhas também eram proibidas nos EUA.

A lei seca complementar à emenda proibicionista completava seus 8 anos quando a corrente xiíta republicana resolveu fazer uma cobrança ríspida da lei usando o IR (artefato do Partido Comunista de 1848). Com esta façanha, destruíram completamente a economia do país, pois o dinheiro fugiu dos bancos para evitar o confisco pelas autoridades armadas. Até hoje esses fanáticos dominam o partido republicano, e não pensam em outra coisa senão mandar meganhas armados para coagir e prender os jovens. Odeiam “liberais” com uma intensidade que até os nacionalsocialistas da Alemanha admirariam se estivessem vivos. Hoje, o partido da Proibição está de dividindo, travestido com novas máscaras, tais como partido “da Constituição” e “Tea Party”, mas por trás das máscaras a caveira é a mesma, e os eleitores fogem da repressão que apregoam.

pop0416A matemática do crescimento vertical da população do planeta ajudou o governo americano a cair na real logo após a formação do Partido Libertário, mas essa matemática ainda consta do Index Expurgatorius do Vaticano, cuja Santíssima Inquisição é mantida viva e alerta pelas hordas de políticos milionários e atletas do televangelismo estuprador. Aliás, esses mesmos são aliados naturais dos partidários republicanos nos EUA–os mesmos que, tão logo despachado o presidente Kennedy, mandaram navios e agentes para instalar ditaduras facínoras no Brasil, Chile e Argentina.

A oligopolia americana formada pelos fanáticos coercitivos, xenófobos e proibicionistas não gostou dos governos do Lula ou da Dilma. Quando os gringos despiam passageiros do Brasil, cutucando-os e tirando impressões digitais, o a alfândega brasileiro teve o desplante de fazer os americanos esperarem em fila no aeroporto para também fazer impressões digitais–mesmo quando o Bush Filhote mandou (a gente) parar. E quando os gringos grampeavam telefones e comunicações pela internet, o que vazava de Snowden e Manning deixou claro que bastaria os espiões da águia fazerem alguns vazamentos seletivos–gravações de políticos e industrialistas de economia mista–para desestabilizar qualquer país do mundo.  Quando no primeiro turno da reeleição a Dilma derrotou o televangélico dos helipópteros, os EUA despacharam A Embaixadora Exterminadora de democracias pra cá. Talvez por causa do petróleo, ou para instalar espiões na fronteira com a Bolívia–não se sabe o que eles querem. Mas da maneira de conseguir, disso não resta dúvida.

Nos últimos 20 anos morreram 14.600 mulheres brasileiras que passaram por abortos malsucedidos na clandestinidade. Para os fanáticos, cuja superstição está paulatinamente cedendo lugar à racionalidade, só a lavagem cerebral de crianças indefesas pode restabelecer a hegemonia do misticismo pedófilo. Mas pode mesmo?

religião censoNos EUA, desde a guerra em que os cristãos da Alemanha tentaram exterminar os judeus, o numero de americanos que abriram mão da superstição cresceu em 600%, e aborto é direito individual desde 1973.  A mesma tendência, com atraso, se revela no Brasil.

Só que aqui ainda estamos em 1972 no que diz respeito aos direitos indviduais da mulher ou pela democracia que defendia esses direitos. Embora nos extertores o misticismo ameaçado de extinção se torne violenta, antidemocrática e até terrorista, a tendência é de a racionalidade pacífica tomar o seu lugar. A evolução funciona assim.

 

Tit for Tat

Each or these separate-yet-unequal provisions is assigned the number two:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
2. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

commietaxThe heavy, progressive or graduated income tax is what communist dogma considers necessary to the preservation of the sort of state that is important to them–one in which the government exercises its monopoly on force to obtain entitlements and coerce transfer payments without regard to rights. In actual practice, history has shown that the closer a government comes to achieving the communist ideal, the more people are willing to pay or risk to escape it. People whose political ideologies favor allowing the national government to send men with guns to lay and collect income taxes from individual citizens are hostile to individual citizens owning guns

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights gives individual citizens by way of rights what duty confers as privilege upon tax collectors, politicians’ bodyguards, and agents of regulatory and investigatory bureaucracies–guns. In actual practice the fewer restrictions a government places on the purchase and ownership of guns, the more time and money people are willing to pay or risk for the chance to live under that government. Communist East Germany retained National Socialist Kristallnacht gun prohibitions, and expanded them to include everyone–not just those of Jewish extraction or orientation.  By the same token, the higher the taxes levied at gunpoint by a local, national or state government, the more eager are the taxpayers laboring under its thrall to acquire guns and ammunition. This was certainly the case in 1774, when the Hanover Militia, led by Patrick Henry,  requisitioned the weapons in the armory abandoned by Governor Dunmore (of emancipation proclamation fame).

The question is this: “both” sides in this controversy of taxation versus ownership of weapons claim to be reasonable, moderate, not given to extremism and eager to arrive at bipartisan compromises. The thought experiment is simple. When confronted by advocates of the communist income tax, ask them: Would you give up the 16th Amendment in exchange for repeal of the 2nd Amendment? This is not a complicated question. Likewise, to the advocates of citizen freedom to own weapons, pose this question: Would you give up the 2nd Amendment in exchange for repeal of the 16th Amendment?

Go ahead, ask the questions. Let me know their replies.

Origins of Atlas Shrugged

dooleyagitatorBefore Ayn Rand’s third birthday in Russia, the financial world was turned upside-down by the Panic of 1907. China had suffered a humiliating defeat by the reach of the Japanese navy, and that empire’s hegemony along the Chinese coast proved itself capable of ousting the Russians. Japan and England then funnelled opium, morphine and syringes into the Celestial Empire at will, aided and abetted by wealthy Yankee traders (to the embarrassment of the Roosevelt Administration). The Boxer Rebellion of 1900-01 was not America’s finest hour and the Chinese were disappointed for good cause.

Things came to a head when the Chinese organized a boycott of American products. One of the reasons was that the U.S. export version of Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup–unlike its English competitor–did not identify morphine as a baby-soothing ingredient on the label. The Pure Food law of 1906 soon fixed that. But when it became effective in 1907, the gates swung open to a stampede of prohibitionist fanatics and trade regulation lobbyists. Whiskey, sardines, glucose syrup and margarine were regulated and redefined, and ice houses were quickly surrounded by torchlight parades and pitchfork posses of angry Christian teetotalitarians. Looming economic troubles caused investors to liquidate stocks and hoard cash. The collapsing economy galvanized organized labor into action for interesting times indeed, and these were commented on by Peter Finley Dunne, poet laureate of the Chicago Irish. His Mr. Dooley protagonist raised the possibility of bankers and industrialists going on strike:

Supposin’ Rockyfellar an’ Pierpont Morgan an’ Jim Hill shud form a union, an’ shud demand a raise iv a millyon dollars a year, reduction iv wurrukin’ time fr’m two to wan hour ivry week, th’ closed shop, two apprentices f’r each bank an’ no wan allowed to make money onless he cud show a union card? Whin th’ sthrike comity waited on us we’d hoist our feet on th’ kitchen table, light a seegar, polish our bone collar button with th’ sleeve iv our flannel shirt an’ till thim to go to Bannagher.

So thought Americans back when Communism would, according to clergy, reformers and politicians, be altruistic and good and Individualism–again, in theory–was a thing to be abolished by force of law.

Bipartisan fence-sitting

newton0216e

newtonsilva@blogspot.com.br

Professional politicians, their ads subsidized by producers on orders of Richard Nixon, present a united front against change. Republicans portray each election as a choice between God (on their side) and Satan. Democrats, on the other hand, conjure visions of a struggle between Adolf Hitler and Edward Bellamy. Their common purpose is to block from consideration any small outside parties with long range plans for change.

When Reagan was running 36 years ago, Democrat 3-minute-men prophesied he would singlehandedly abolish all welfare and the streets would clog with the victims of starvation shortly after inauguration day. Republicans today are equally worked up over a Bernie victory tossing CEOs through plate glass windows till those same streets are choked with the bloody victims of communist rioting. These fanciful scenarios are hobgoblins neither branch of the Kleptocracy has the power or the guts to pull off. They are circulated by lobbyists and amplified by the unproductive hands that cash government paychecks every week or month.

None of this is accidental. Every vote cast for a Republican keeps power within the bipartisan Kleptocracy that has enthralled the land  these past 160 years. Small parties, like the communists and prohibitionists, fed their platform planks into its grinding lust for power and appetite for boodle. But the new figure looming fast on the horizon seeks neither wealth nor power. The Libertarian Party’s platform planks will undo much of the damage done by the prohibition and communist parties–both of which are alien interests the Bill of Rights was designed to repel.

confidenceincongress

What remains to be seen is whether internet-savvy voters will keep falling for the same sucker bait and misdirection that gulled our grandparents’ generation–and their grandparents’ before them. All you have to realize is that roughly the entire population is convinced that at least half the Congress are lying cowards. Opinion only varies as to which half, and voters are advised to listen closely while “both” the Democrats and Republicans describe each other.

Now consider casting a vote for the Libertarian party. To do otherwise will only further entrench the lying cowards. Democrats aren’t going to repeal the 2nd Amendment nor are the Republicans going to overturn Roe v. Wade and repeal the 14th Amendment. Yet both have consistently raised taxes and caused depressions and wars for 156 years running. What’s in it for you, to cause you to ignore other relevant possibilities?

Why keep the individual income tax? Why allow men with guns to arrest and shoot our kids, or kidnap them into extortionist courts and prisons when they’ve harmed no one? Why bring coffin-loads of our young citizens back from the other side of the world? Why allow prohibitionist asset-forfeiture to rattle the economy, double unemployment and wreck our retirement savings? Those things are happening right now, for no good reason. All are evils the Libertarian Party has struggled to eliminate for 44 years. Even if you don’t value your own money, why not spare a thought for your family’s future and freedom?

Drug tests for dole recipients

assetforfeitureThe Republican party platform’s insistence on bullying women of fertile age has alienated a large voter segment. Realization has dawned that the GOP’s control of the Congress is up for grabs. As I write, London bookies lay 2-to-1 odds that a former First Lady will win the election.

The only votes God’s Own Prohibitionists can count on are millionaires (not counting Bernie), senescent old maids, religious altruists, eugenics enthusiasts, munitions workers and, of course, televangelist clergymen. Adding these together brought home the certainty of a landslide defeat, and that possibility adds to the importance of recent changes in the welfare dole.

According to Connor D. Wolf over at The Libertarian Republic, dole recipients went from 17 million–before the Bush-Administration II brought Mohammedan attacks on New York and the Pentagon–to almost 47 million welfare cases in 2014. The reason for this was the Bush Administration II’s enforcement of George ‘Holy War’ Bush’s asset-forfeiture plan enacted in October, 1987 (when it sparked the stock market crash). It was repeat of Herbert Hoover dangling tax forfeitures as bait to enlist States in prohibition enforcement in 1933. Naturally, the forfeitures brought recession after 1987, and in 2007 collapsed much of our financial structure when it coincided with interest rate changes in variable rate mortgages of homes being confiscated over hemp plants.

None of this is news or mystery to the Republican governors who leapt with whoops of joy upon the bandwagon to rob assets from the avatars of Satan–only to have the plunder explode in their faces. Now, peering from the smoking ruins of the Jim Crow revival that failed to discourage enough voters to defeat ‘The Kenyan,’ Republican state governors are feeling the attraction of Kristallnacht tactics to rid their states of the exact same hostile registered voters THEIR policies put on the dole when they collapsed the nation’s economy. Where Germany’s Christian National Socialists used phrenology, eugenics and religious ideology tests, Republican theocrats are casting their lot with no less flyblown a solution than Reagan-era pee-in-a-Dixie-cup urinalysis to separate Good from Evil dole moochers.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of cretins.

Social pressure is for losers

incometax1913“I will vote for any electable candidate who stands for liberty, or against the greater of two evils. It is my duty to do so.” This is not something I made up, and the bloke that said it honestly believes it to be an intelligent plan… but is it?

The questions it raises are: 
1. Which is better, an electable candidate or an electable platform
2. Given a chance to vote for freedom, why vote for coercion instead–especially when that weakens my vote by nine-tenths?
3. Suppose the greater evil is an electable candidate, and the preferable good is an electable platform: which is the best way to vote?

In a democracy with free, unrigged, verifiable elections, any candidate can win, regardless of what the polls and bookies say. In other words, neither your choice nor anyone else’s has been acted on before Election Day, and every voter has the right to decide at the last minute. Some jihadist might take out the Dem and GOP candidates at a debate to avenge their bombing of his village. A plane might crash, lightning could strike–improbable things happen. But when I vote I vote to make the world a better place for myself and those I like–not to elect or defeat a candidate.

Candidates whose party platforms favor voluntary cooperation and peace are preferable to those in favor of coercion and  aggression, irrespective of any other details. So if you cast an honest vote to the dictates of your conscience, there is no law of physics or mathematics, nor theory of probability or averages that says you can’t get what you voted for. Because I know my Libertarian vote works to make the world a better place for me, I have already won the very day I cast it. My purpose is to benefit myself, not some candidate I’ve never even met, and to maximize the effect of that choice. Clearly, in answer to (1), the electable platform is the better choice.

From 1848 until 1917, “everybody knew” that the communist candidate–under whatever name–would lose the election. Yet communists, socialists and looters of all persuasions and pigmentations voted in favor of taking by force that which they neither own nor earned. To keep those sincere votes from benefiting “the other” party, oligopoly parties changed their platforms and politicians changed the laws until Plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 became the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That the American people–people who made money would do such a thing greatly inspired Russian communists, and their revolt soon turned that great nation into a pitiful, starving dictatorship of genocide, murder and war, despite all theories that the result of the noble experiment would be a workers’ paradise. Communists and socialists lost practically every U.S. election, but by voting their conscience looters got the government they deserved for trusting in altruism and coercion. This is because each of their spoiler votes had ten times the law changing power of votes cast by blind consensus.  So the answer to (2) is that you vote for freedom because it is right and good, and because integrity makes your vote worth ten times as much. 

The definition of government as a circumscribed monopoly on the use of force had not even been formulated with any precision before 1914. But that definition allied with Thomas Jefferson’s statement of the purpose of government–to secure these rights–finally completed the whole when studied by Ayn Rand, born 1905 and Robert Heinlein, born 1907, and converged on a theory of rights based on the value of an individual human life. Students are taught in college that a right is a moral claim to freedom of action. To secure your right to freedom you must express your understanding of its value when casting your ballot. But as we have seen from the multiplier effect that results from the reaction of the kleptocratic oligopoly to smugly-cast partisan spoiler votes, it does not matter which candidate the milling herd is backing to win. The important thing is that the platforms for which support is shown by votes that place, or simply show, as  reported in election returns the next morning, are the platforms that will someday become the law of the land and repeal the platforms (such as communism, nationalsocialism, prohibition) which experience, history, the evidence of our senses and the facts of reality now show us were wrong, evil, miserable failures. The answer (3) is to vote against evil (meaning wrong) and for the preferable good (meaning right). With 5% of the vote your platform is sure to become the law of the land provided only that it is increasing its market share when you vote. Right now the Libertarian Party platform is increasing its market share in every country in the world where elections are the least bit free and honest. 

Why, then, do people have this impression they are voting for candidates, not ideals? Why do people believe obvious lies? In a 1955 experiment Psychologist Solomon Asch proved that 4 out of 5 intelligent, educated people vote against what their senses tell them is true.