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

Libertarian Party Jurisprudence

Voters who have never read a party platform are told that to cast a vote on principle is to “waste your vote.” The verifiable fact is: your spoiler votes for Libertarian Party candidates repeal bad laws. Today’s example is a woman’s right to undo her unwanted pregnancy. How was that right asserted and made law? 

The LP legalized abortion

Read the original

The Libertarian Party Platform of June 17, 1972 said:

“We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.”

LP Candidates were John Hospers and Tonie Nathan. Ours was the first viable party to field a lady candidate for vice-president and secure for her an electoral vote–12 years before the Dems finally followed our lead. The popular election was 7 November of 1972, and electoral votes were counted in December.

On January 22, 1973, 45 days after the electoral votes were counted the Supreme Court decided in ROE v. WADE:

“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. …”

That most important part of the Supreme Court decision was a perfect logical paraphrasis of the Libertarian plank on abortion. Much effort was expended to distance the decision from the first three words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born…” These three words speak to the rights of individuals, but were NOT the reason the court struck down coathanger abortion laws in states notorious for mystical bigotry. The Supreme court was manned by five Republicans and three Democrats, and had been mulling this case since the first baby steps toward organizing a Libertarian Party.

Already the LP.org was against military conscription–which had just coerced 58,000 Americans to their deaths in Vietnam, formerly a French opium regie. But the Supreme Court had already committed to that version of slavery and involuntary servitude for WWI. Republicans–white and Christian like the Germans who voted for National Socialism–were terrified. Republicans feared not communism, essentially the same thing as nationalsocialism, but the “activated atheism” they associated with the Communist faith. Republicans had reason to fear that the widows and girlfriends of the boys they’d sacrificed were ready for bloody vengeance at the polls. Democrats had ditched the Klan and voted Wet in the 1932 economic collapse, and made out very well. So Democratic Justices again betrayed Southern mystical bigotry by copying the Libertarian plank, as Dems had copied the Liberal party repeal plank to defeat Herbert Hoover and elect FDR.

Nixon had tried to crush the LP within 24 hours of its formation by using the IRS to bribe the media with tax money. That politician took office, gingerly stepping over the scorched relics of the usual looter opposition–Socialist, Socialist Labor, People’s, Prohibition and Communist party–but fearing the 3674 Libertarian votes. Those votes have since grown a thousand times and now total 4 million.

21x the Clout!

Winning is changing the laws. See original

Since 1971 the Libertarian Party has been the prime mover for deregulation, repeal of censorship, defense of individual rights, non-entanglement in foreign affairs and the general increase in freedom. We are the reason God’s Own Prohibitionists finally backed away from coercing gay voters before the recent election–and the appeal to laissez-faire has also spread to more than 20 countries. The only brutal dictatorships left on earth are governments that block libertarians from organizing into political parties. Think about that next time someone is tortured or beheaded.

If you understand that maybe libertarianism isn’t all that weird, you might want to help out with a small donation at www.LP.org
If you were pleased with the clarity of this expository writing, consider www.portugueseinterpreter.com to help you get ideas across the language barrier in three directions.

“Show me a movement that doesn’t hate somebody and I will join it at once.” Robert Anton Wilson

 

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.

 

 

Florida Voters (not looters) Win Election!

Originally posted on THE LIBERTARIAN IDENTITY: BY BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN PUBLISHER – TLI One of the big pushes within the Libertarian movement is to be active on a hyper-local level – and there’s no better way to be active than to face that challenge head on and run for office on behalf of your friends and…

via Registered Libertarians Now Comprise 40% Of One Florida Town’s City Council — Libertarian Hippie

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.

What is Winning?

GOPNSDAPThe key to political campaigns is in the definition of winning. Suppose someone wanted his son shot and jailed, home confiscated, unemployment up, and all markets crashed, you’d suggest he vote Republican. Same solution if they were to want a daughter to bleed to death because of medieval approaches to accidental pregnancy. To Republican, Christian National Socialist and Islamic State legislators that’s winning–provided their candidate also gets the government job. Communists and lay socialists on the other hand prefer to forego the government job but force the kleptocracy to change the laws in response to the pressure of their spoiler votes. It’s kind of like a “sacrifice” move in a chess game, in exchange for gaining tactical or positional compensation farther along. So if their platform planks seem “extreme” (meaning consistent with their ideology), that’s not a problem. Spoiler votes will gradually make those positions seem wearily centrist. That’s the strategy that enacted the 16th and 18th Amendments.

demcommieWhen socialist parties lose, it’s because (their cheerleaders feel) that particular unverifiable secret ballot election was rigged. Deep down you know this is true–or at least unfalsifiable–so the tendency is to feel a twinge of sympathy for the raw deal they got. But it’s not just ordinary socialists. Christian National Socialists, Islamic Mohammedans and devout altruistic Communists all want essentially the same thing: decisions imposed at gunpoint by the better people who know what’s good for the riff-raff. Of course they have surrogates. National Socialists of Third Reich Christian persuasions have since 1932 been the hand inside the Republican party sockpuppet. International Socialists of the East German Communist variety have lately pulled the strings that move the arms and mouths of Democratic Party spokesmen. One can’t think independently and still have faith in altruism.

But suppose a voter wants freedom? That is, not the initiation of force, but rather, voluntary cooperation? Suppose you want the Marxist personal income tax abolished, its collectors disarmed and returned to the productive labor market? What about those who want to eat, drink and smoke what they prefer–people to whom winning means becoming the masters of their own financial decisions?

LPeagleIn that case, the recommendation can only be to vote for the LP platform Gary Johnson is standing on. It is easy to verify that, as in 1892 or 1908, each third-party spoiler vote has way more law changing power than a vote wasted on shape-shifting actors fronting for soft machines. Dry Christian Progressives backing small parties in the 1890s paved the way for Prohibition making light beer a felony. Likewise, dry Christian Socialists paved the way for Soviet Communism in Russia, National Socialism in Germany, and transfer payments to non-producers elsewhere. Yet all their parties–Greenback, Farmer-labor, Anti-monopoly, Socialist, Socialist labor, Prohibition, LOST by their candidates getting less than half the electoral vote. However, they eventually won what they wanted by changing the laws, whether through enactment, court decisions, or repeal.

I’d wager that even if Gary Johnson were to receive 60% of the votes, a way would be found to defraud the election. But the fright would nevertheless cause the looters to abolish a mess of bad laws–which is what I really want. THAT’s winning. Consider making a Paypal donation at LP.org I absolutely guarantee your donation will change 600% to 3600% as many words in laws as it would if wasted on either of the Kleptocracy soft machines.

Lysander Spooner, anarquista ou libertário? Fascículo 18

trqrcode10

Uma das leis que Spooner mais criticava durante a ocupação militar dos latifúndios algodoeiros sulistas foi a que nomeava cobradores de impostos. Tamanha era a desconfiança federal neste ofício que os cargos vinham ouriçados de compromissos, com multas e penas de prisão se o cobrador embolsasse o dinheiro arrecadado em vez de entregá-lo aos mandantes federais. 

 

XII

 

E é justamente por isso que os compromissos de todos os demais pretensos agentes deste bando secreto de assaltantes e assassinos são, sob os princípios básicos do direito e da razão, igualmente destituídos de qualquer obrigatoriedade. São compromissos para com ninguém, feitos apenas com o vento.

Os compromissos dos fiscais e agentes fazendários do bando são, nos princípios gerais do direito e da razão, de nenhuma valia. Fosse qualquer desses fiscais embolsar o dinheiro que arrecada, recusando-se a entregá-lo, os membros deste bando não teriam como dizer a ele: Arrecadaste esse dinheiro enquanto agente nosso, para as nossas finalidades; juraste entregá-lo a nós, ou a pessoa por nós designada. Nos traíste, e violaste a nossa fé.

Bastaria, como resposta, dizer-lhes:

Nunca vos conheci. Nunca se apresentaram a mim individualmente. Jamais fiz compromisso com vocês enquanto indivíduos. Podem ou não ser membros daquele bando secreto que designa agentes para assaltar e assassinar; porém cujo precavimento é tal que nem se identificam sequer aos seus agentes, nem àqueles aos quais seus agentes são incumbidos de assaltar. Se é que são membros daquele bando secreto, que designa agentes para praticar assassinatos e assaltos em seu benefício, não dispõem de prova de que alguma vez me encarregaram de praticar assaltos em seu benefício. Nunca os conheci individualmente, e portanto nunca prometi entregar-lhes a verba proveniente dos meus assaltos. Pratiquei os assaltos por conta própria e para o meu benefício. Se me julgaram tolo a ponto de permitir que se mantivessem às ocultas, utilizando a mim como instrumento seu para a rapina de terceiros; ou que assumiria todo o risco pessoal desses assaltos, pagando a vocês o saque, foram muito parvos. Conforme assumi todo o risco dos assaltos, cabem a mim todos os lucros. Sumam! Pois além de pilantras, são otários. Se é que fiz compromisso algum, o tenho com outros e não vocês. Mas na verdade, não fiz com ninguém, apenas com o vento. Veio de encontro aos meus propósitos à época. Possibilitou que me apossasse do dinheiro que queria, e com o qual agora pretendo ficar. Se esperavam que o entregasse a vocês, dependeram apenas da honra que dizem prevalecer entre os ladrões. Entendem agora quão débil essa suposição. Estou confiante de que terão o juízo de não repetir esse erro. Se é que me cabe algum dever nesta questão, seria de devolver o dinheiro àqueles que dele desfalquei; e não de entregá-lo a pilantras como vocês.

Continua adiante essa tradução de http://www.tradutoramericano.com…