Why voting Libertarian works

Why would anyone bother to drum up votes for the Libertarian party?

Read' em and weep, looters!

Libertarian share of votes earned in national elections.

Why ask for libertarian votes? Simple. Every such vote benefits ME, not the Kleptocracy candidate, by getting rid of violent laws.  Every time Ram Johnston loses an election by 3% when the Libertarian Candidate got 2% of the vote, that–like a smack upside the head–is a learning experience. For a Texas State Legislator, the loss of pay comes to $43,000 (not counting bribes and kickbacks).  Women voters who want to keep birth control safe and legal need not help the Democrats make electricity scarce and unaffordable. The Libertarian Party platform of 1972 wrote the Roe v. Wade decision into law with fewer than 4000 votes nationwide. Comstock Law Republican and Prohibition Party organizers are painfully aware of this fact, though they struggle to evade it. Your vote can count if it replaces a bad 19th-Century party with a good 20th-Century party that values freedom and individual rights.

Here is what a logistical substitution curve looks like. This is how the Whigs replaced the Federalists, and Red Republicans replaced the Whig Party.

Freedom replacing Left=Right coercive collectivism

The Libertarian vote share curve starts at 0 but never reaches 100% in a democracy.

Technically competent individuals who understand that electrical power generation drastically reduces the death rate are free to vote Libertarian. You need not help Republican-funded militarized police crowd prisons, shoot foreigners and confiscate property because mystical pseudoscience says to ban plant leaves. Conscientious voters change bad laws by keeping their integrity. Simple arithmetic makes voting for candidates that support the Libertarian Party Platform the most effective use of the franchise.  The only wasted vote is one that tells violent looters to keep trying to ban electricity, prohibit plants and repeal the Bill of Rights.

Energy enables eudaimonia

Interfering with energy increases the death rate

I am asking naturalized citizens to vote Libertarian and resident aliens to contribute to Libertarian campaigns.  The hardest part is helping voters understand that that your vote should benefit YOU, not some force-initiating politician. I prove this with algebra showing 1.4% of the vote in 11 campaigns brought the 18th Amendment which caused the Great Depression. Earlier, 9% of the 1892 vote brought an income tax law, so if 9% has the law-changing clout of 51%, then each People’s Party vote counted for six Republican or Democrat votes in terms of its effectiveness in forcing at least one of the soft machine factions to change its platform. These are examples of spoiler vote leverage.

Solving the 1892 equation for x yields 6. This shows us that every populist vote had six times the law-changing power of a vote wasted on a machine politician. In the Prohibition case, 1.4% of the vote made beer a felony as if it were the same as 51%. So set 1.4x=51, x=36 means every such vote packed 36 times more law-changing clout. This is the mechanism whereby the entire Socialist platform of 1920 became law by 1980, even with the candidates all losing.

The libertarian party is simply reversing that process. Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Lenin, Mussolini, Ceaușescu and Pol Pot have demonstrated the legal and economic results of socialism via historical events not on record in 1913. That was the year American voters believed the Communist Manifesto income tax was a good idea.

Do you have a good idea that needs translation for a larger audience?


Libertarian hockey stick

A little money riding on the Maple Leafs

Speak Softly, and carry a Hockey Stick! Special thanks to Online Curve Fitting

Organized coercion is fond of graphs that indicate growing popularity of a pretext for forcing folks. The hockey stick analogy is by now so overused as to have become an embarrassment to pseudoscientists of the looter persuasion–mainly because it has made no impression whatsoever on thermometers. 

Voters, on the other hand, are deciding–in accelerating numbers–that the initiation of force has had its opportunity to produce results worth having. Entrenched, subsidized Kleptocracy parties are stalled. Unable to attract voters, they successfully depict each other as repellent, dangerous, socially evil. Both such parties depict the Communist Manifesto income tax and the subsidies their electioneering receives from the IRS as necessary and good.

The Libertarian party, as you see, has been growing as in the graph showing the vote shares earned since the Y2k panic and New Millerite Climate Armageddon prophesying craze set in. Based on the last 5 elections, the above amateur sigmoid replacement curve fit suggests a Libertarian majority by 2074. Leveraged spoiler vote clout will meanwhile repeal and pacify much of the violence of law you see whenever the initiation of force is the preferred modus operandi.

No violence needed, and we don’ need no steenkin revolution. Simply cast your vote for the peace and freedom platform and opportunistic politicians will make change happen or be replaced trying to keep pushing aggression and coercion. A small donation couldn’t hurt, and will definitely bear dividends. Increasing freedom is winning!

Should the need arise for translations involving actual data obtained by measurement, think of it as an opportunity to seek out a libertarian translator.

Do tariffs wreck economies?

Historians, economists, investors–people in the thrall of government control over the economy–urge us to believe the 1929 Crash was a leper’s bell reaction to the approaching Tariff Act of 1930. But comparison with the previous prohibition-era tariff of 1922 reveals huge differences in search, seizure and asset forfeiture powers for Coast Guard and Customs. There were large increases in tariffs on the corn wet mills made into sugar and the sugar bootleggers converted into moonshine, but not much else.

Sugar and corn tariff of 1922:

PAR. 501. Sugars, tank bottoms, sirups of cane juice, melada, concentrated melada, concrete and concentrated molasses, testing by the polariscope not above seventy-five sugar degrees, and all mixtures containing sugar and water, testing by the polariscope above fifty sugar degrees and not above seventy-five sugar degrees, 1&24/100 cents per pound, and for each additional sugar degree shown by the polariscopic test, forty-six one-thousandths of 1 cent per pound additional, and fractions of a degree in proportion. …

PAR. 724. Corn or maize, including cracked corn, 15 cents per bushel of fifty-six pounds; corn grits, meal, and flour, and similar products, 30 cents per one hundred pounds.

Sugar and corn tariff of 1930:

PAR. 501. Sugars, tank bottoms, sirups of cane juice, melada, concentrated melada, concrete and concentrated molasses, testing by the polariscope not above seventy-five sugar degrees, and all mixtures containing sugar and water, testing by the polariscope above fifty sugar degrees and not above seventy-five sugar degrees, 1.7125 cents per pound, and for each additional sugar degree shown by the polariscopic test, three hundred and seventy-five ten-thousandths of 1 cent per pound additional, and fractions of a degree in proportion. …

PAR. 724. Corn or maize, including cracked corn, 25 cents pe: bushel of fifty-six pounds; corn grits, meal, and flour, and similar products, 50 cents per one hundred pounds.

Tariffs on opium and coca leaf products did not change. 

Europeans, amid the wreckage of another of their opium wars, liquidated stocks when the US pressured Austria and Germany into passing laws against some drugs, including heroin and hemp. European stock markets peaked at about the time the Fifth Amendment was gutted so that bootlegger money could be seized under the income tax. The French stock market peaked in February, 1929.

US stock markets followed suit when prosecutor Mabel Willebrandt–whom HL Mencken called “Prohibition’s Portia”–explained these facts about the Fifth Amendment and asset forfeiture confiscation of liquor and drug money in a syndicated column in August and September of 1929. Comprehension dawned as the First Lady of Law gave legal details of how government enforcement transformed wealth into poverty. Those same puritanical prohibition and looter laws caused money to flee banks and brokerages and the economy collapsed.

The Kleptocracy to this day attributes the crash to exaggerated reaction to the tariff, thereby distracting economists and historians from the prohibitionist measures that actually wrecked the economy. Those economy-wrecking measures prompted formation of the Liberal Party for repeal. When writing on economics, it is good practice to separate these variables. The tariff is blamed in order to avoid mentioning something more embarrassing: the sanctimonious asset-forfeiture looting that wrecked the economy and caused the Great Depression–and again in 1987 and again in 2007. Protective tariffs are ungood, but certainly not as dangerous as the communist manifesto income tax injected into the Constitution as “a replacement.”

Conservative mystics also pretend that the protective tariff did NOT cause the Civil War, when they know perfectly well that it did, just as it caused the Nullification Crisis. They then turn around and believe just as fervently that such armed extortion is “good for the economy” in the same way making beer a felony was salutary. Today a bad but impotent tariff of Abominations is blamed for the entire Crash and Depression following use of new tax laws to enforce new prohibition laws. Conservatives worship a mythical dead body invented 150 years after the fact and clothed in imaginary sermons preaching altruism and wielding whips against those who use money.

Surely one does not expect reasoned consistency from these ideologies, but rather, apologias holding their pseudoscientific policies harmless from all blame and liability for ensuing disasters. Ask yourself: have not the noble experiments of 1987 and 2007 given the lie to this superstitious evasion?

If in need of economic, financial or legal translations from Spanish and Portuguese to English or English into Portuguese, look me up.
My non-English ex-pats blog is http://www.amigra.us

Ticking Turing Machines

Why did British codebreakers—Polish codebreakers, actually–call their cipher machines “bombes”?

Background: before National and International Socialism signed the pact agreeing it was OK to invade and dismember Poland, Polish mathematicians were already working on breaking Enigma machine codes. These gadgets used wired wheels inserted into a cipher machine to scramble and unscramble text. Since business and Die Ewige Staat are much the same in Germanic Altrurias, commercial Enigma machines quickly evolved into military coders to meet the exigencies of the initiation of force. The initiation encountered resistance, much as in Newton’s Second Law, and war was declared.

After actual bombs rained down on British assets, the folks at Bletchley Park hired Alan Turing to work on decryption. Alan was comfortable with mechanical approaches and improved codebreaking machines the Poles called “bombes.” Why bombes?

The explanation in several Turing books that mention the name had to do with the ticking sound they made. The writers then leapt to the conclusion of ticking time bombs, nèe (or is it née?) “bombes,” Quod Erat Demonstratum. This explanation was, for some reason, facile and unsatisfactory.

Another unsatisfactory answer to a simple question was given by a couple of Brazilian students being prodded, poked, inspected and detected by Amerika’s own imitation of Germanic Altrurian officiousness. I refer, of course, to the Transport Sozialist Arbeiterpartei, affectionately dubbed the Tea Essay at U.S. airports. The unionized government employee doing the poking, prodding, inspecting and detecting produced from their luggage a plastic box with some heft to it, a wire going in and a tube coming out, and asked “Wuz dis?”

The Brazilian students knew exactly what it was: an aquarium pump to keep tropical fish from drowning—a bomba de ar.
“Eat ease a air bomb,” they replied politely–albeit none too fluently–and were immediately surrounded by semiliterate steroid abusers First Responders™ with loaded guns, handcuffs, pepper spray, clubs, nylon straps, badges and governmental impunity.

So returning to the bombes that defeated Europe’s christianizing eugenics program:
Q: what goes tick tick tick and is familiar to Polish scientists?

A: a vacuum pump.

Ever need technical translations?

Duterte to replace Sessions

As usual, rumors are everywhere that El Presidente is about to fire or replace someone. And yet barely two centuries ago such rumors in Europe were about a ruler preparing to burn or behead someone. That’s Progress. But Beauregard Sessions is more than a reproach. The Alabama bigot is a return to George Wallace partisans keeping “dark people” in their place–much as satirized in Mr. Dooley and George Orwell’s “Burmese Days.” So why not enlist experienced help for prohibition enforcement?

“Our number’s up.** Best thing we can do is to shut up shop and let ’em stew in their own juice,” remarked Senator Grassley (R-IA).

“I don’t agree, I simply don’t agree,” Senatrix Feinstein replied. “We could put things right in a month if we chose. It only needs a pennyworth of pluck. Look at Amritsar. Look how they caved in after that. Dyer knew the stuff to give them. Poor old Dyer! That was a dirty job. Those cowards at the UN have got something to answer for.”

There was a kind of sigh from the others, the same sigh that a gathering of Roman Catholics will give at the mention of Bloody Mary. Even Mr Trump, who detested bloodshed and martial law, shook his head at the name of Dyer.

“Ah, poor man! Sacrificed to the liberals at the UN. Well, perhaps they will discover their mistake when it is too late.” “What about this fellow Duterte? Might he be a replacement for Mr. Magoo?”

** With apologies to Eric Arthur Blair–son of British Sub-Deputy Opium Agent Second-class, –and author of “Burmese Days.”

Ever need a translator for travel visas, immigration or contract interpreting?

The word comprehensive

The guy the Republicans hired to win the election likes two things: libertarianism and the word “comprehensive.”

The libertarian part is easy to understand. It was Trumps way of telling God’s Own Prohibitionists that he could hand them government jobs or hand them another beating–the same way Ross Perot got George Holy War Bush fired.

But my favorite Soviet website (we will Doonesbury you), recently took issue with the word comprehensive. After JFK negotiated the Limited Test Ban to keep strontium 90 out of children’s milk, communist intellectuals sought to puff comprehensive up into the entering wedge for unilaterally disarming the USA. That ran aground on the Second Amendment. So after the Soviet bloc collapsed like a Berlin Wall or US Embassy in Saigon, “comprehensive” went out of fashion. This graph shows the decline and fall of the word “comprehensive” before Trump.

Look into my eyes...

Go ahead, try it yourself

This we know from Wolfram Alpha, a collection of programmers who appreciate math AND language. The graph shows a falloff in stock (quotes, usage) for comprehensive dating from about the time the looters started mothballing their tens of thousands of fusion bombs after the failure of The Altrurian Experiment in the crumbling Soviet Empire. So, why is this important?

The current president got the nomination ten months after saying something nice about a burgeoning minor party. Four months later he was President and Libertarian Party stock (in votes) was up 328%. If comprehensive is welcomed back into the vernacular, its reformation glittering over its faults, that would suggest there is some truth to “master of hypnosis” theories for Trump being elected.

If it doesn’t, the fact would lend weight to the theory that infiltrators in the Democratic party platform committee threw the election by injecting the platform with pseudoscience depicting reliable electric power plants as a life-threatening plague. This was the way all US power generation facilities were depicted during the Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev and Yanayev dictatorships. The 2016 Republican platform also broke ranks with Prohibition Party’s ecological nationalsocialism planks of 2016:

We advocate… subsidies for consumers wishing to change from fossil fuels to renewable domestic sources of energy.
We believe that climatic change is an existential threat to civilization.

The Gee Oh Pee urinalysis platform trashed carbon taxes, promised to toss the Paris Capitulation into the same dustbin as the Kyoto Proctocol. The platform protects power plants and fuel from fanatical fearmongers, and even improves transmission line infrastructure.

The Libertarian party platform is also in favor of access to energy. Here is the LP energy plank in its clear and unambiguous entirety:

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Can you say Hockey Stick?

WANTED: Fisher-Pry least-squares curve fit for these burgeoning vote counts

But what of that hockey-stick growth in Libertarian spoiler votes? Did the LP suddenly become popular because a real-estate mesmerist admitted to liking libertarianism? Perhaps it was because the recycled Republican candidate the LP resorted to abandoned his 2012 promise to try to bring back the coathanger abortion laws struck down by the reincarnation of the 1972 LP birth control plank as the lead paragraph in the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. Is there a third hypothesis? Perhaps the American voter is discovering that the less you try to coerce others, the less others will respond in that particular kind.

Do you ever need simultaneous interpretation of a speech, or sight translation of a legal document?

God, Government Guns & Graft

Prohibition Party bigotry still writes the platform of the Republican Party, as it has since the 1870s, to the detriment of individual rights in the State of Texas.

Satan's Burning Bush!

Kid, we don’t like your kind

America’s political equivalent of the Mohammedan Islamic State, The Prohibition Party, recognizing God as the source of all governmental authority, even today makes totalitarian declarations of principles and policies:

1. We would deploy sufficient resources to stop all illegal traffic in people and drugs across America’s land and sea borders.
2. We deplore the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage as an abomination to God.
3. We consider abortion to be morally repugnant.
4. We advocate… subsidies for consumers wishing to change from fossil fuels to renewable domestic sources of energy.
5. We believe that climatic change is an existential threat to civilization.
6. Beverage alcohol is America’s #1 narcotic drug problem.
7. Prohibitionists oppose the traffic in… Cannabis and so-called “hard drugs”…

Observe the disconnect between hallucinatory coercive obeisance to invisible masters and the facts of reality. When the Republicans were running Sarah Palin on a platform to use armed government agents to coerce Planned Parenthood physicians, the Prohibition party platform read: “We recognize that, according to the Constitution, ‘no person’ (including those unborn) ‘shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’”

The Fourteenth Amendment of 1868 begins with: Section 1. All persons born… The Amendment was passed under a Republican Administration elected when many Democratic states were under military occupation, and the Republican party claimed 63% of the electoral votes. Prohibitionists contradict their own puppet régime out of zeal to coerce women.

Yet when Palin was candidate in 2008–seven years after Saudi religious fanatics attacked civilian skyscrapers and retaliated against the military-industrial complex on U.S. soil–the God’s authority party also declared: We favor continued prohibition of such harmful drugs as heroin, LSD, cocaine, and marijuana. The Stockholm Syndrome has never been more glaringly evident than in this dedication to violent, faith-based policies.

Now compare the Libertarian Party platform. Our 1972 abortion plank became Roe v. Wade and sparked the lighting of crosses by enraged prohibitionists. On immigration, Libertarians are not keen to import dangerous mystical fanatics nor prop up fanatical dictatorships whose prohibitionist coercion cause violence, collapse and fleeing refugees.

Libertarians have no interest in coercing or alienating gays, or countenancing superstitious opprobrium directed at women who practice birth control on a crowded planet. Nor do most Libertarians, many with training in science and math, perceive clear evidence for the existence of Global Warming. We advocate no fuel subsidies from producers to non-producers. Nor do we ascribe to that particular pseudoscience, or to the more ancient pseudoscientific assertions of prohibitionism, grounds for emergency police powers disruptive of the economy of a free society.

True, Prohibitionists have toned down their demands in step with Prohibition spoiler vote increases, and keep a low profile nowadays. But so does the CPUSA. Nobody who reads today’s Democratic party dogma can fail to spot its source of inspiration at CPUSA.org and European-style Green parties any more than Republican watchers can overlook the ominous parallels most boastfully set forth at Prohibitionists.org and in the National Socialist platform and in other socialist and theocratic requests for the coercion of citizens.

Do you need legal translation or deposition interpreting services?