Libertarian voters in Brazil

Not voting for the communist or fascist candidate is illegal

NONE OF THE ABOVE and ABSTAINING Brazilian presidential runoff votes in 2018

When America’s prohibitionist asset-forfeiture collapse of 1987 hit South America, the situation resembled that of Germany when President Warren Harding was pronounced dead with no inquest or autopsy. Inflation went through the roof, the government collapsed and looter politicians set to work on a “new” constitution.

You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.

Paper rights inflate into worthlessness like paper money.

Droves of Brazilian voters illegally boycotted the first election under the new, book-length Constitution (14.4% abstaining and 5.82% casting blank ballots).  As collectivized “rights” inflated into worthlessness, about 2.5 million Brazilians emigrated to other countries in a massive brain-drain.

Aside from its role in writing the court decision that enforced a woman’s right to control her own reproduction, Americans hardly remembered the infiltrated and weakened Libertarian Party in 1988. But dictatorships absolutely dominated by looter ideologies recognized in the LP an existential threat to the continuity of totalitarian coercion. Borrowing from Nixon’s anti-libertarian law, politicians elsewhere began preferentially subsidizing parties that extort money at gunpoint.  With scary lessons learned from Ayn Rand’s essay on collectivized rights, male-dominated governments given to every shade of communo-fascist cleptocracy proceeded to inflate the number of looter parties empowered to suck sustenance through the government teat. And it worked!

Nationalistic socialists controlling European elections eagerly subsidize, regulate, smear and smother libertarian parties out of existence. Lateran-treaty Juntas in South America do the same, and one or two inject subsidies to inflate to over 32 the number of communist, socialist and fascist parties gobbling at the trough of Brazil’s tax revenue. That’s nearly the number of parties operated in Weimar Germany when Hitler was made Chancellor.  Since all parties are perforce tax-subsidized, the Kleptocracy says it “cannot afford” to add a non-looter party. Pretty neat, huh?

The upshot of all this is that Brazilian voting machines offer three (03) choices: communist soft machines, fascist soft machines and NONE OF THE ABOVE. These blank and spindled NO votes can realistically be counted as votes that would likely be cast in favor of Libertarian Party platform candidates, if such a thing weren’t excluded by the violence of law. The 21% turnout means 79% of eligible voters broke the mandatory voting law. In some cities, None of the Above got more votes than the winning kleptocrat. The spoiler vote fraction is what they call the taxa de alienação. Even if we ignore the no-shows, NOTA got 10% of the votes cast. That’s three times the vote percentage earned by the U.S. Libertarian Party! Here’s how they describe the national results:

O PT e TSE juntos elegeram a Junta

Green represents potential Libertarian Party votes

With the upcoming repeal of the Red Arbeiterpartei’s Kristallnacht gun laws, the suppression of libertarian voters is bound to become increasingly difficult. When coerced and subsidized election restrictions do collapse, spoiler votes will leverage the coalescing kleptocracy into repealing bad laws and deleting parasitical taxes. This, after all, is what the LP has been doing in the USA for 46 years now. Instead of electing our own politicians, we help voters defeat the worst of the opposition.

Brazilians, Colombians, Argentinos… transplants in the US can either vote or donate to the US  and Canadian Libertarian Parties, and the LP will continue to euchre politicians into repealing bad laws. How? By giving voters the opportunity to emphatically reject the socialist and nationalsocialist tendencies that have taken over the Democratic and Republican parties. These are the American parties that run the NSA and CIA that are empowered to snoop on Latin American politicians and leak damaging information to their adversaries. Many bad laws that cripple Latin American economies were exported there by America’s violent runaway Kleptocracy.

When in need of translators skilled in international contracts and court cases, look us up at Speakwrite or Falascreve.
My other blog is mostly in Portuguese.

Advertisements

Second Amendment Antinuclear Weapons

Go ahead, make my day.

By 1992 preemptive surrender wasn’t a thing, and the SALT treaties were wastebinned. This is the Second Amendment in action. SEE ORIGINAL

The nationwide defense debate best represented in Physics Today had by 1982 descended into plans for surrendering to the Soviet Union based on Pascal’s Wager and Ignoring Kennan’s Long Telegram.

Science advisor George Keyworth built on Sam Cohen and Edward Teller’s ideas, then stepped out of the conflict spotlight, which was taken over by William Robert Graham and Gen’l Daniel Graham. The foolishness of Robert Strange McNamara’s insane policy of mutual civilian genocide with nuclear weapons sank in after Dr. Strangelove, and Sam Cohen’s defensive strategies developed a large following–and some pro-surrender opposition. The Libertarian Defense Caucus organized by LP Presidential candidate John Hospers, Michael J Dunn, Virginia Postrel and others favored defensive weapons policies. One LDC member questioned assertions by German-American physicist Wolfgang HK Panofsky in Physics Today regarding treaties under the Constitution.

Dr Panofsky’s statement that “Nothing in the U.S Constitution dilutes the responsibility of a president to comply with existing treaties in force.” [Physics Today, June, 1985, p. 37] ought to be evaluated in light of the actual text of the Constitution itself. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution specifies, in clause 15, that “Congress shall have the power…To provide for calling forth the militia to… repel invasions;”. Article IV, section 4 charges the United States with the responsibility to protect each of the States from invasion. Finally, Article II of the Bill of Rights guarantees that our right to “keep and bear arms”, within the context of a well regulated militia, “shall not be infringed.” While it is true that Article II of the main body of the document grants the President the power to make treaties (Section 2, clause 2), and it is also true that these treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land” (Article VI, Section 2), it is nowhere stated that this treatymaking power shall override the Bill of Rights or the main body of the Constitution. In fact, Article VI, Section 2 specifies only that the treatymaking power takes precedence over “…anything in the Constitution or laws of any STATE to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Emphasis mine). In fact, the very last clause of Section 10 in Article 1 allows the States to defend themselves if “…actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” Nothing in the Constitution supports the conclusion that the treatymaking power is arbitrary and unlimited and supersedes all individual rights guaranteed us by the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One can readily infer, however, that all arms limitation treaties which infringe on our right to have our military forces keep and bear defensive weapons of our choosing are unconstitutional and therefore illegal. This would apply specifically to the ABM treaty as well as both versions of SALT. Because I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution would have subordinated their rights or those of their countrymen and descendants to any arbitrary power, foreign or domestic; and because the legal language supporting this conclusion is clear and precise, I submit that the ABM treaty is unconstitutional and illegal.

This issue, it turns out, had been addressed by President Calvin Coolidge when Panofsky was not quite five years old. At a news conference on November 2, 1923, Coolidge tried answering a question about a prohibition-enforcement treaty with wet Great Britain changing the definition of international waters. (…) “The question here is raised as to whether this treaty would be in conflict with the Constitution or the present Volstead Law.”

Coolidge improvised an answer that reporters thought missed the point entirely, and so the press insisted:

PRESS: Mr. President, some of the editorial writers seem to think that the proposed treaty would contravene the Constitution–not the Volstead Law, but the Constitution itself. Do you believe it within the power of the government to make a treaty that would contravene the Constitution itself?
PRESIDENT COOLIDGE: Of course not. The only power the government has to make a treaty comes from the Constitution, and there wouldn’t be any question about it, for any treaty that might be made, that was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, would be absolutely void.

Panofsky’s immediate reply, like Coolidge’s did not satisfy all readers:

J. H. Phillips raises the interesting point whether any arms-control treaty violates the Constitution of the United States. He agrees that Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution states that treaties entered into by the United States preempt the constitution or laws of any state that might have contrary provisions. Indeed, the United States Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief and gives him responsibility to conduct foreign affairs and thereby provide for the national security. Yet one must recognize that increased armaments and increased national security are by no means synonymous; in fact post-World War II history has amply demonstrated the contrary. The power of the President to negotiate treaties, even if they conflict with private rights involving arms or ownership of property, has been confirmed by numerous Supreme Court decisions.
Negotiated arms control is rightfully considered a component of the conduct of foreign affairs. According to Article VI of the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, subject only to other provisions of the Constitution. They can be modified by mutual renegotiation or abrogated unilaterally under specific provisions that provide for prior notice and invoke the supreme national interest of one of the signatories.
The specific claim by Phillips is that arms-control treaties are in conflict with the provision of Article II of the Bill of Rights that “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.” No court has ever held the Second Amendment to impose any limitation on the President’s power to conduct foreign affairs, but the specific relation of arms-control treaties to Article II has, to the best of my knowledge, never been explicitly litigated. In view of the foregoing it seems to me to be patently absurd to claim that the US President and Executive Branch cannot negotiate and sign a treaty that limits weapons by all signatories if the President believes this to be in the security interest of the United States, and I see nothing in the Constitution that would prevent such a treaty from entering into force once the Senate, by a two-thirds majority, has recommended its ratification to the President and the President has then executed the instruments of ratification. The Constitution has done well in weathering the transition to the nuclear age. If Phillips were correct in his interpretation it would be a sad day indeed.

Some real attorneys were also attracted to this questioning of authority and chimed in:

The letter by J.H. Phillips and the response by Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky (April, page 90) raise interesting issues regarding the relationship between the Federal treaty-making power and the constitutional rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Although both Phillips and Panofsky deal solely with issues arising under the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” provision of the Second Amendment and with alleged infringements of this “right of the people” by arms control treaties, the issues are significantly broader in scope and deserve more careful analysis. According to Panofsky, the constitutional authority of the executive branch to conduct foreign affairs extends to the power of the President to negotiate arms control treaties, and such treaties when ratified by the Senate may abrogate any provision of the Bill of Rights. Although Phillips disagrees, both Phillips and Panofsky limit their discussion to consideration of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. However, there is nothing in the underlying issue that should limit the argument to the Second Amendment; rather, the issue should be treated more broadly for a better understanding. For example, it is not difficult to imagine a treaty with the following provision: Due to the utmost importance of this arms control treaty and the practical reality that it cannot be successfully implemented without mutual trust and harmonious relationships between the signatory nations, any critical or derogatory remarks, oral or written, against a signatory shall constitute a criminal offense against that signatory, and such signatory may search for and seize any offending writings, as well as punish the person making said criticism, in such manner as it deems appropriate, including trial by judge without jury in the courts of the signatory as it deems appropriate.
Of course, such a treaty would clearly abrogate the provisions of the Bill of Rights contained in Amendments I (free speech and press), IV (unreasonable search and seizure), V (due process of law), VI (right to counsel) and VII (trial by jury). But in spite of the fact that the constitutionality of treaties that conflict with the Bill of Rights has never been litigated, some obvious conclusions as to how the US Supreme Court would treat this sort of treaty can be drawn.
Moreover, that the precise issue has never been litigated does not justify Panofsky’s conclusion that it is “patently absurd” to claim that the treaty-making power cannot supersede the Bill of Rights. It is true that a treaty can override a state constitution or a state statute, but a Federal statute passed at a later date than a treaty prevails over the treaty, according to a line of US Supreme Court cases beginning with Head Money Cases, 112 US 580, 598-590 (1884). It is also well established that even Federal statutes violative of the Bill of Rights can be declared null and void by the judiciary. Thus, since Federal statutes can abrogate treaties, statutes have at least as high a dignity as treaties, and since statutes violative of the Bill of Rights can be invalidated by our courts, so can treaties.
Panofsky’s conclusion that arms control treaties can abrogate the Bill of Rights is thus, fortunately for America, clearly unwarranted. –David Caplan, NY & Richard Laumann, NJ

Panofsky of course denied having come to that conclusion, but the legalistic house of cards which Soviet weapons specialists had hoped would bluff These United States into submission came tumbling down. Soviet planners realized not even a single American State could be disarmed while the Second Amendment remained intact. The Strategic Defense Initiative grew, a German lad landed a Cessna near Red Square, and Soviet Socialist totalitarianism collapsed as entirely as German National Socialism had collapsed in May of 1945.

Having felt it on their hides...

Logarithmic decay of Communist vote, Russia

Prospects for resurrecting Soviet Communism are as hopeless as for bringing back the German National Socialism that prompted development of modern weapons in the first place. Russian voters are shrinking the communist party even faster than American voters are chipping away at the Dem & GOP kleptocracy. But the shrieking against the Second Amendment is today much shriller than in the 1980s, when gun violence was high but already eroding thanks to decreased initiation of force. Whether that–coupled with the feverish falsification of science by a tiny group of scientist-impersonators and former scientists in concerted efforts to lay an Energy-Conversion Tax on everyone except Not-Exactly-Communist China–is some sort of desperate comeback attempt by intellectuals of the looter persuasion, is unclear. After all, Republicans have published platforms for 46 years to Amend the Constitution to overturn the results of the 1972 Libertarian birth control plank–a fixation no less fanatical and hopeless.

There is, however, no question that infiltration of the Democratic Party Platform Committee by Socialists Against Buckminster Fuller Energy Slaves (and power plants in general) cost Democrats the Executive branch, both Houses of Congress, and appointments to the Judiciary, together with all associated pelf, paychecks, funding, graft and boodle. Now that Americans have notebooks and iPhones, getting them to ban electricity–even for Altruria–is as Quixotic a chimera as has ever before been dreamt up. The current war on energy is the one significant difference between the platforms published by the Dem and GOP factions of the ruling kleptocracy.

If the research that went into this article on legal questions was surprising, just imagine how surprised your competitors could be.  The author can be hired to translate materials pertinent to international legal cases involving your law office.
My other blog is usually in Portuguese.

Econazi v. Econazi

Canadian-born Green Party enthusiast tried in Econazi Germany for questioning “settled history.”

Monika Schaefer (on the right), the perfect Green Party candidate and poster child, is on trial in a post-National Socialist People’s Court for throughtcrime. This highly-redacted  video was her undoing. Germany has no free speech guarantees, and concepts like initiation of force and individual rights are evidently as baffling there as in 1933. The charge is “Volksverhetzung,” an ungoodthinkful sort of incitement to hatred. Volksverhetzung is the perfect vehicle for selective political persecution. It’s even money that before the year is out indictments will be true-billed for wondering aloud why there is no ozone hole at the North Pole, in the hemisphere where 8/9 of humanity live. Indeed, to question whether eco-Gestapo-ordered replacements for regular freon cause air conditioners to fail–making folks feel like climate is getting warmer–ought to be good for at least a 5-year prison term. 

Circulating graphs of tampered-with ground thermometer measurements compared with satellite data ought to be good for a prison terms plus some asset forfeiture and heavy fines.
The German penchant for forced labor instead of Buckminster Fuller “energy slaves” has already led new-left and econazi politicos to legislate the shutdown of demonically-possessed nuclear power plants that generate no carbon dioxide but (gasp!) increase the supply of electrical power.

The prewar English translation of “Mein Kampf” recommended “extirpation” of all things Jewish in the name of altruist collectivism. Postwar editions changed the operative term to “extermination.”  Surely there is a clue about Holocaust eugenics to be had in the published works of politicians elected to office and preferred by those huge Christian majorities in Germany and Austria.

If ever in need of technical translations from Spanish, Portuguese or English involving mining or nuclear energy, look me up.

Kleptocracy vote fraud

The 2-faction kleptocracy hates competition from emerging parties. So intense is this hatred that from 1850 till the early 70s, everything the Communist, Socialist and Prohibition parties demanded got written into U.S. law.

Before the Libertarian Party

See November 1970 original article

The Comstock laws of 1872-3 provided ten years on a chain gang for even talking about birth control, abortion or possessing a condom or diaphragm. These weren’t struck down until the Libertarian Party platform of 1972 demanded it.

Forced collectivization of labor, with mandatory tithing to union goons, the Communist Manifesto income tax, withholding for old-age pension demanded by Hitler’s National Socialist program and endorsed by Father Coughlin, regulation, licensing and extortion for every trade and profession were real by the 200th Birthday of These States. Yet all of these things were moonshine, pipe dreams back when Looking Backward, Equality, The Iron Heel and A Traveller from Altruria assured readers that altruism required aggression by naked force to make an Earthly Paradise of this vale of tears. How?

You’ve heard that power corrupts, but when was the last time you saw political power defined as the rate at which a Political State can have people killed? Any physics textbook explains that work is the product of a force acting over a distance, and that power is the instantaneous rate at which work is done. The word is recycled into politics because the meaning is practically the same, not some farfetched analogy. But for purposes of draining tax money into the personal comfort or politicians and their remoras, obfuscation, not clarity, is the useful tool.

This brings us to vote counting in Minnesota. Today’s kleptocracy is the same old political soft machine operated by interchangeable minions to rob money. The Republican faction retains many of its original influences: communism, christian altruism and racial purity eugenics. It seeks a return to Comstock Laws and National Prohibition, plus a Religious War against the Saracen blackamoor and his satanic plants. The Democratic faction longs for low tariffs, chattel slavery in its communist version, exploitation of immigrants, suppression of all things suppressable and extortionate gratuities for looking the other way. Both favor any excuse for armed asset forfeiture. By their lights, looter Third Parties added to their power, and are no longer needed anymore. The worst thing either faction can imagine is a party bent on undoing the corruption of a century in order to restore individual rights!

Mixed-economy elections are moneyed affairs with minute calculations of return on investment in the flim-flamming of fools. One of the best illustrations is the election of comedian Al Franken as Senator for Minnesota.

Under Minnesota state law, automatic recounts occur in the following general election circumstances:
1. the margin of victory in a state legislative contest is less than 0.5 percent of the total number of votes cast for that office…
2. the margin of victory in a contest… is less than 0.25 percent of the total number of votes cast for that office…

This law tells us that, to Minnesota lawmakers, the closer the election the greater the temptation to fraud–which, after all, is the whole point of running kleptocracy candidates for office! Al Franken lost by a couple of hundred votes, then won on recount by over twice that many so the initial and final count of those decisive votes differed by 245%. There’s your honor among thieves.

Looter parties fear honestly-cast spoiler votes. Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead only voted once, then rejected all choices between two evils. It’s a pity Garcia never heard of the Libertarian Party, for he might have understood that a winning vote is a vote that repeals bad laws. But the fact does underscore the importance of ending the Nixon subsidies to entrenched looter parties.

Whenever you need translations of electoral politics in Central or South America, look me up.

My other blog is Brazilian.

Either-Or, revisited

You can deal with people by persuasion, that is, voluntarily. The alternative is to do it by force, that is, by threatening to harm or kill them, then killing a statistical sample to show the survivors you mean business. Nearly all who opt for the use of force try to disguise the fact even from themselves–by appeals to altruism. The economic systems that result from each of these alternatives converge on libertarian or totalitarian solutions.

Germany’s Christian National Socialism and Soviet Communism have clearly identified themselves in practice as genocidal slave camps. The two régimes are indistinguishable to anyone save their own brainwashees. Here is how appreciation of the two alternative political systems is shaping up as measured by the ballots cast by voters.

Communism in Russia judged as shown by vote share given to the Communist Party:

Communist religion is fast losing congregants

The trendline shown is a logarithmic decay curve of communist party votes.

The vertical axis is the communist percentage of the votes counted in the past five admittedly rigged and tampered Russian elections.

Libertarian Party popularity in These United States is shaping up as follows:

Voluntary persuasion replaces initiation of harmful and deadly force

US libertarian party vote share data fitted to a sigmoid replacement curve.

These graphs show that the pseudoscientific superstition known as socialism is declining in popularity as fast as its Papist and Lutheran competitors (nationalsocialism). Force-initiating dictatorial political philosophies are being replaced by ethical values that uphold the rights of individuals.

You can hasten this transition by donating to and voting for Libertarian Party candidates (the kind who wrote the 1972 platform language the Supreme Court used in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision). Voting Republican is ethically the same as supporting German National Socialism. Voting for the Democratic soft machine strengthens the communist and lay socialist ideology that now controls the Democratic party. Both parties have fallen into the hands of violent looters. Your libertarian vote gives them an incentive to snap out of it and focus on reality.

If ever you need translations of political data expressed and illustrated by mathematical functions. Look me up.
My other language blog.

 

Individualism vs. Socialism

This is a Letter to the Editor of Physics Today from during the Cold War, March of 1982. Background as a letter from another subscriber urging preemptive surrender to the USSR, which Petr Beckmann, on the Reason Board at the time, believed was the real purpose of all such defeatist whimpering. At that time I was a dues-paying member of John Hospers’ Libertarian Defense Caucus, not the regular LP.  Here’s the letter:

I’ve enjoyed reading the articles and letters addressing the topic of nuclear weapons in recent issues. There is, however, one point which has been conveniently ignored by both sides during the debate: the difference between the philosophic bases upon which the Soviet and American governments are based.
Capitalism is rooted in individualism, and is retaliatory in nature, as can be seen in our code of laws. Socialism is altruism applied to government; its collectivist and egalitarian aspects can be traced to that basic premise. All socialist states, whether communo-fascist or redistributionist, depend on the initiation of force to achieve their goals. This basic difference is generally omitted in the course of “scenario building,” and the result is that the conflict is viewed as though both nuclear powers had similar goals.

During the second World War, no American strategist would have considered the extermination of the Jews as a tactic and many were surprised when Germany’s National Socialist government embarked on that very program. Today we tend to think that the Soviet Socialist government would not target civilians because we ourselves see no strategic benefit in such a course. The fact is that we have different goals and different philosophies. The possibility that the Soviet state might regard us as the National Socialist state regarded the Jews cannot be dismissed by any who have compared the original documents on which those systems were built.

It is possible, therefore, that the option of surrender may no more exist for Americans than it did for the Jews during the last war.

Our best option seems to be to follow the advice of Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov and increase our defenses to the point at which we can sustain a first strike and still defeat the aggressor. Any less of an effort will simply serve to reinforce the tendency to fire on warning and thus increase the possibility of an accidental war.
J. H. PHILLIPS 3/82 Austin, Texas
PHYSICS TODAY / MAY 1982 131

 

This letter was written 36 years ago this month. As I look around I still see many of the same things.

Many at the time urged surrender to the communist dictatorship whose policies they literally worshipped. Even this issue included a hand-wringing appeal from Italian “scientists.” Those “peace” appeals relied on a Pascal’s Wager form of intimidation and never (except for a letter in a preceding issue of Physics Today) advocated surrender to totalitarianism in so many words. Propagandists for looter statism simply blocked off all other alternatives as insane, misguided, ill-informed or unrealistic, and let the reader arrive at the only alternative left standing.

Those same people today urge totalitarian control of the economy and impoverishment of every aspect of life on the strength of the Millerite supposition that another trace gas (carbon dioxide, not freon anymore) stands poised to wipe out humanity. The only country not required to give up a kilowatt-hour of electrical energy to please the Vichy Paris Accord proponents is itself a communist dictatorship. Search Google News Archives for members of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists, Stockholders for Corporate Responsibility, _X__ Anti-Pollution League, _X__ for Social Responsibility and you will find today’s CO2ercion advocates among the survivors. The phenomenon is a political 5th Column meme that worships slavery and death as alternatives to the delusions of Armageddon and Rapture that “the left” (correctly, in my view) attribute to “the right”. (The Libertarian theory of  non-aggression and individual rights is completely different from the European politics of 19th-Century political parties).

That same issue of Physics Today raised the question of whether a bolide impact might have–in a matter of hours–so completely changed the climate as to wipe out the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If such a danger arises again–and a look at the Moon clearly shows hundreds of thousands of such events–only an advanced energy-converting industrial civilization would stand a prayer of warding off or surviving such a  test of humanity’s competence to survive. This is the test the dinosaurs failed.

Co2ercion advocates have nothing to say about that proven scenario. The article on the Monte Carlo algorithm in that issue of Physics Today, incidentally, relates to a mathematical technique developed by designers of thermonuclear weapons (Nicholas Metropolis, John von Neumann and Stanislau Ulam). The purpose of those weapons was to defeat National Socialist Germany and their Japanese allies in the 1940s.

Bolide impact is the “Alvarez Theory” because geologist Walter Alvarez asked his physicist father Luis why the clay boundary? Luis Alvarez designed the geodesic detonation cord for the plutonium bombs used at Alamogordo and Nagasaki. These competent people whose technology defeated National Socialism and held off International Socialism until it rotted and collapsed are the ones whose ideas make sense to me. The Fifth Columnists still recite the exact same totalitarian formulas and slogans, and care nothing for measurement data, definitions or conceptual clarity. They are the villains in Atlas Shrugged.

The Libertarian Party had by 1982 already seen to the repeal of cruel, Medieval laws against birth control, and provided the philosophical and ethical arguments that toppled totalitarian parasitism. I’m proud to be a Libertarian Party member and supporter, and hope we can count on your spoiler vote to repeal another mess of really cruel and unusual laws the kleptocracy and its lobbyists use to eat out our substance. That’s winning!

If you need technical translations (oil, mining, power dams, reactors, agribusiness, and yes, contracts, laws and environmental regulations) from or for Latin America, check out my websites.

Getting their Attention with Spoiler Votes!

Dad used to tell a story about this farmer whose mule wouldn’t obey.

They’d be plowing along and the farmer would holler “HAW!” The fool mule would turn right, or not turn at all, or stop! The furrows were all crooked. Finally the farmer found a “mule trainer” with a telephone number on the bulletin board at the general store. The farmer called the trainer who agreed to come out and serve up one free lesson as a special introductory offer.

Soon the trainer pulls up in his pickup and asks, “Izzat the mule?”
The farmer sez “Yep,” and before he could tell the trainer the mule’s name, the man pulls a two-by-four out of the truck bed, walks over to the mule, winds up and whacks him upside the head with the piece of lumber. The mule’s head swung round like a tetherball, smacked against the critter’s rump and barely bounced back in time to not get fallen on as the beast crumpled to the ground, blood coming out of one ear.

“Stop it!” hollered the farmer. “Heck, if I wanted him dead I’d a kilt him myself.”
“Calm down,” said the mule trainer. “This is what I do for a living. To teach a mule anything at all, first you gotta get his attention!” **

Sensei of solid smack upside the haid!

Meet my little friend, spoiler vote Dokuro-chan!

Political parties are like mules in this regard. They write platforms, usually to rob and cheat voters, then hire candidates to pretend the platforms (you’ll never read) are their own idea and that they can change them at will. They can’t–at least not until after they LOSE an election running on that platform.  For instance, George Waffen Bush’s first Executive Order called for packing the Executive Branch with faith-based prohibitionist bigots. Sure enough, those worthies colluded with dishonest State officials to waylay and rob motorists and confiscate homes, farms, bank accounts, securities portfolios and cash because “Reefer Madness” and “looters-by-law,” just like Herbert Hoover did from 1929 to March of 1933 (when FDR was sworn in, declared light beer not a felony and became President for life). Parties in States whose economies collapsed under that altruistic asset-forfeiture experiment wrote new platforms, and marijuana and forfeiture laws have been repealed like prohibitions on beer from 1923 to 1933.

One LP electoral vote made Roe v Wade decision!

Wet Dems elected 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948

No Republicans were ever elected again until Dick Nixon (a Quaker like Herb Hoover) slid in on Ike’s coattails in 1952 and lost to JFK in 1960. Nixon barely squeaked in by 0,7% of the popular vote because George “Klan” Wallace and Curtis “Nukem” LeMay parlayed their 14% 0f the popular vote into 46 electoral votes. To Nixon Republicans, those Dixiecrat spoiler votes were a heavy bludgeon upside the haid, and overnight they again became God’s Own Prohibitionists eager to kill commies on the other side of the planet and put hippies and naygurs in jail. When stingy old Ross Perot got enough votes to make George death-to-potheads Bush lose, Slick Willy Clinton instantly became a fiscal conservative, but prohibition still prohibited plants.

Equal but opposite reaction force...

Religious fanatics retaliate Bush meddling!

Then when Al Warming-oil Gore lost Tennessee and blamed Green party spoiler votes, the entire Democratic party became a wholly-owned-subsidiary of the Church of the Green Goddess Gaia. Data-altering scientist-impersonators rectified past temperatures cooler and faked post-freon-ban temperatures hotter than what thermometers said. But political laws still sent police to waylay, rob and kill motorists and confiscate homes, farms, bank accounts, securities portfolios and cash because “Reefer Madness” and “looters-by-law“… oh, and bomb the Saracen blackamoors on the other side of the planet.

Spoiler votes carry a big stick... bigger!

Fisher-Pry analysis anyone?

Before you vote or contribute, think of how badly you could hurt God’s Own Prohibitionists (Gee-Oh-Pee) AND the Damned Econazi Myrmidons (DEMS) by supporting Libertarian change. Your vote/donation packs the law-changing wallop of at least 6, probably 21, and possibly as many as 500 votes/donations wasted on tax-subsidized, entrenched kleptocracy parties.

**No mules were hurt posting this blog, and that joke is about 100 years old!

When you need political material, laws or oilfield financial reports translated, remember me. I’m also http://www.miningtranslator.com