The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian

Issue #9, Post-Election '94



		   The  Southwestern  Missouri Libertarian
		   Issue #9               Post-Election 94

Copyright 1994.  People are at liberty to copy this newsletter in 
whole or in part for non-profit purposes provided they properly 
attribute copied portions to The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian.

Newsletter Purpose & Intent: To Educate, inform, and keep in touch
with members and sympathizers of the Libertarian Party.  The views
expressed herein are those of the editor and writers of this 
newsletter, not necessarily those of the Libertarian Party.
  Now that Show Me Freedom, the official MO LP paper is back up and
kicking, this newsletter will devote full time to pursuing Libertarian
ideology. This paper has never been "objective" and I don't intend
to start now. The dirty truth is good enough for me. 
  If anyone out there is able to string words together well enough to 
avoid embarrassment to both themselves and this paper, their 
contributions will certainly be welcomed by the editor.
Martin  Lindstedt


Shots Heard Round the Immediate Vicinity
Practical Issues and Answers
Election Lessons Learnt
Toward a New Way of Selecting Our Leaders
It's Time to Beg


			      **  Monologue  **

*   Halloween and Thanksgiving were canceled in Arkansas again this
year as the Wicked Witch left and she took the Turkey with her.

*   Election night this year, was the Second Anniversary of the 
Greatest Moment in the History of White Trash, namely the Election of 
the First Crook, Bill Clinton, hisself. The Greatest Moment, because 
everything since then has been all downhill.

*  Since the latest issue, the First Crook has been the target of 
two assassination attempts. First a truck driver driving an airplane 
crashed onto the White House lawn, then a crazed maniac sprayed the 
White House with the contents of a 30-round clip from an 
semi-automatic Chinese-made SKS.
 The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian herewith officially hopes that
every single one of the millions of potential American assassins are
as incompetent as the above mentioned pair.

*   On the Mississippi side as you are crossing the Mississippi River
on U.S. Route 82 before you get to the Lake Village, AR weight 
station, there have been since at least February of this year four 
bullet holes in the "Bill" of the "Welcome to Arkansas, Home of 
President Bill Clinton" sign.
  How could the First Crook not of seen it coming? I think we got
two suspects in this act of public vandalism.
*   Senator Jesse Helms embarrassed his Republican colleagues by 
saying the First Crook wasn't particularly welcome in North Carolina 
and that he'd "better have a bodyguard" if he comes visiting to 
North Carolina.
    Democrats took that opportunity to castigate Helms for 
irresponsibility and wonder aloud whether he is fit to become chairman 
of the Foreign Relations committee.  Republicans took still another 
opportunity to wuss out.
    Of course, Senator Helms is irresponsible. If he was really 
concerned about the First Crook's health, he'd of mentioned Alabama, 
Mississip as well as "Caroline, Anywhere below that Mason-Dixon Line," 
unearthed such potential reasons as "Are you from Dixie? Are you from 
Dixie?" and informed us as to his own motivations by forthrightly 
admitting "Well, I'm from Dixie, too."

*   Scenario: Election year, October 1996. The First Crook is locked
up without Secret Service protection in a room full of armed:
	1.  Republicans
	2.  Democrats
	3.  Libertarians
   Question: With which group is he the safest and why?  Answer at
the end of the monologue.

*   I have no prime lies to report the First Crook as saying since I
can no longer stand to listen to the rich assortment of lies, 
deceptions, evasions, half-truths, panderings, poverty-pimpings and 
assorted smarming direct from the First Crook's lips because the first 
thing I do whenever he slithers into my home via the TV set  is turn 
down the volume on the boob tube.  I look up from time to time and if 
he is still on and his lips are moving,  I just assume that he is 
   If you are honest, you are advised to do the same unless you 
suffer from low blood pressure.

*   The biggest news is the political sea change that occurred 
November 8th of this year. The Democrats, the slag metal on the 
two-faced Demo-Publican coin, found themselves scraped like green 
scum off the top of the welfare-state slop pail.  
   Not a single Republican incumbent in Congress or governorships 
lost.  The Republicans captured the House for the first time in over 
40 years.  They have a comfortable majority in the Senate, helped 
when Senator Shelby of Alabama switched the day after the election to 
the Republican side.
   So the people have spoken and they said, "Enough!" at least to
open socialism. They think that the Republicans, with their so-called
"Contract with America" will set matters right.
   Since a lot of watered-down Libertarian ideas are in this 
"Contract" and we didn't get elected, we'll just watch and wait and 
mutter under our breath, "They don't really mean it and we do."
   So the Republicans are going to cut spending, increase defense,
and balance the budget. Reaganomics lite, without the debt 
indigestion.  Hmmm.
  We'll see. We'll give these potential contract-breakers their 
chance to keep their word to an increasingly desperate populace.  But 
the words of MacCauley Culkin in Home Alone II ring true. "I don't 
think so."

*  The first test on whether the Republicans have testicles has come
and revealed a number of eunuchs. I am talking about GATT.
   There is talk, both pro and con, on the merits of GATT. Some 
Libertarians support GATT because it waves the banner of free trade
through lower tariffs and increased protection of intellectual 
property.  Others see an increased U.N. bureaucracy and loss of 
national sovereignty in a world contemptuous of human rights and the 
inherent dignity of mankind.
   I've approached it as a morsel which could contain a hook. Let the
suckers bite first. Something like this demands close scrutiny and
open debate.
   One of the former GATT cheerleaders, Senator Brown, R-CO, on a bet
from Ralph Nader sat down and read the thing and decided that he 
wanted no part of it. The other 99 Senators obviously lack the 
intellectual curiosity, honor, or ability to do such a thing as read 
legislation or treaties before they vote on them.
   Rather than wait until the new 104th Congress could bring it up
for debate, the Republicans in the Senate allowed the current 
dishonest, fired, lame-duck rascals to put it on the fast track and 
pass it like a bad enema 76-24.  The only good thing about it is that 
the 103rd Congress is no more.  The special session ended when our 
masters got their wish and GATT passed.
   So we are going to have a new Golden Age of Republicanism, are we?
It's rather doubtful if your so-called fighting men turn eunuchoid.

*   On Nov. 7 the U.S. Supreme court said to hell with the Sixth 
Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses when it upheld the 
criminal conviction for child molestation of a Seattle couple, 
William and Katherine Swan, based upon the hearsay testimony of 
social workers who said they heard the Swan's three-year-old and a 
friend accuse Mummy and Daddy of molesting them.  Hearsay, as long as 
it is committed by someone affiliated the government, is perfectly 
legal evidence in a court of law.
   The Swans have been legally raped no less than five times as their
case has been appealed to the Washington State supreme court, then
in Federal District, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, and now the U.S.
Supreme Court.
   Since 1990, The Supreme Court ruled that people can be convicted
of child abuse without face-to-face confrontations with their 
accusers.  A criminal defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses 
"may be satisfied ... only where the reliability of the testimony is 
otherwise assured."
   The Swans' appeal contended that day-care workers' have been known 
to lie, some are even predisposed to do so.
   But no matter. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts' 
decision stood, just because, and then headed for the tall grass by 
reviewing no other cases for the week. Committing evil is hard work 
and the tired old senile corrupt fossils need their rest.

*   According to the latest legal reasoning by Federal judges and
prosecutors, a defendant must make sure that his defense don't 
embarrass, hurt or bother the government. This legal notion serves 
the government well as an execution ax of tyranny.
  The "Reverend" Paul Hill wanted to use "justifiable homicide" as
his defense against both Federal charges of  blocking abortion clinics
and state charges of first-degree murder.  The prosecutor argued that
it wasn't in the best interests of the government to allow Hill to
do so.  The judge agreed with the prosecution.  Then Hill refused to
put up any other defense at all in both cases.  He was quickly 
convicted on all charges in both cases.
  Since when does the government get to choose what a defense a 
defendant chooses?  If a judge refuses to allow a particular defense, 
then shouldn't he come up with one guaranteed to succeed, unless he 
is a non-impartial, government-backed toady who should sit next to 
the prosecutor?  Doesn't running a corrupt court designed to churn 
out a death penalty call for a death sentence against such corrupt 
judges and prosecutors if the other side wins? Moses thought so.  
   Paul Hill wants to be the next John Brown in our upcoming abortion
civil wars. He said, "In an effort to suppress this truth, you may
mix my blood with the blood of the unborn and those who have fought
to defend the oppressed. However, truth and righteous will prevail." 
  No, Hill should have been allowed to claim whatever defense he wanted
and let a jury decide. Since that didn't happen, new trials should
be convened and Paul Hill retried for first-degree murder and allowed 
to use whatever defense he pleases. The prosecutor and judge should 
be tried for attempted first-degree murder using color of law.  While 
it may be just for them not to be allowed to defend their cases as 
they please, justice demands that they be allowed the justice they 
   For all the appeals to God from both sides, remember it was Jesus
who said "Judge not, lest ye be judged." And under the same rules
you render unto others.

*   Last month a black man walked into a Washington D.C. police 
station with a TEC-9 machine pistol and shot six people before being 
killed himself.  He took out four white people, including a cop, two 
FBI agents and somebody's wife.
  The story didn't make the front page around here, but not because
it's no longer uncommon. It's just that the authorities don't want
the criminal element learning that FBI agents bleed and die when shot
too. Brady bill, Crime Bill, where were you when needed?
  Didn't hear much about the shooter. Maybe he was just a disgruntled
loser who snapped. Maybe he had a justifiable grievance against the
government. For if there is no Justice, there can be no Peace and
everyone, both high and low, armed and unarmed, must live in Fear.

*   Robert N. Joos, Jr. is a member of the "Nazarite" sect and he 
doesn't have a drivers license, he's repealed his Social Security 
number and he refuses to use Federal Reserve notes. He lives in the 
poorest, crookedest, most Southwestern county in Missouri, McDonald 
County.  He is now in jail on a conviction of falsifying a court 
order, writing a writ begging for Yahweh to strike a state judge dead, 
weapons charges, owning dynamite, resisting arrest, and possible 
complicity in the shooting of a highway patrol trooper by a 
co-religionist last September while he was in jail.
   According to the papers, this all snowballed from a traffic stop
ten years ago when Mr. Joos claimed that since he had a human and
Constitutional right to travel, he didn't need a driver's license.
Ever since, he has been a threat to the state.
   Mr. Joos is being judged by a cabal of the same judges who say he
threatened them. One of them goes around wearing a bulletproof vest,
saying that Joos is a menace but that he has an obligation to serve
the public.
   On a KOAM-TV program entitled "God's Law vs. Man's Law," the 
prosecuting attorney said that people like Joos attract white 
supremacists, tax protesters, and assorted anti-government riffraff 
and he wants to get Joos put away before year's end for fear that 
the new Democrat prosecutor appointed by governor Carnahan might not 
want to be bothered with the case. 
   Such is the judicial temperament in Southwestern Missouri.  You 
sure can trust them to vigilantly observe the full proprieties
of the due process against a corrupt government, can't you? 
   For where there is no Justice there can be no Peace and all must
live in Fear. 

*  Hancock II was never meant as anything other than a club to punish
and handcuffs to restrain an out-of-control state government. A club
because the government  violated taxpayer rights in shoving Senate
Bill 380 down our throats and handcuffs to  keep government criminals
from taking another penny of taxpayer money without taxpayer approval.
  The crookedness began the minute all those signatures poured in.
  The legislature added some alarmist bullshit about how Hancock II
would devastate the state government by taking away $1-5 billion in
revenues. Even though the government is not supposed to interfere
with  initiative petitions, the courts didn't have a problem with
that at all. It wasn't until three weeks before the election that
one judge ruled that the exact amount lost to the government couldn't
be figured out with exactitude. But then that ruling was appealed
by the government and a government judge ruled that the language stayed.
By then it was too late to print new ballots anyway.
  State workers and schoolteachers used their positions and public
money to defeat Hancock II. Kids were taught all about the evils of
Hancock II and they wearied even Libertarian fathers and mothers with
their state-financed brainwashing.
   State attorneys fought Hancock II with no less than three lawsuits.
The lawsuit most valid, one concerning the number of signatures in
the St. Louis First Congressional District, was finally dropped once
it was figured out that the propaganda war against Hancock II was
finally won. By tying up our money and supporters in their court,
the Hancock II forces didn't have time or money left for voter 
  As a last straw, property tax statements weren't mailed out in 
Joplin and Springfield until after the election so that voters 
wouldn't see how their property taxes had risen by a third or half 
as a result of Senate Bill 380.
  Hancock II polarized the electorate like no other issue. When it
came down to it, it was revealed that half of the people in this state
think that the government gives them more than what it'll take away
from them. They got 20% of the fools to go along with them. That left
about a third of the people who knew that the government doesn't 
create wealth, it merely takes it away from those who produce it.
   So will us Libertarians hold grudges against the state? Do you
really need to ask? We supported Hancock II even though we didn't
think it went far enough; stopping the flow of taxpayer's money to
the government was only the first step towards cutting both taxes
and government.  That is why many of us despise our Republican 
opponents more than the Democrats. The Democrats were honest in 
their opposition to Hancock II.  Republicans just sat on the fence 
and bellered their overwhelming love of taxpayers.  I won't support 
Hancock II lite, as it is a fraud.

*   The answer is Libertarians, of course.
    Republicans would shoot the First Crook dead and claim 
justifiable homicide.  Panicky Democrats would shoot the First Crook 
dead and claim self-defense. Libertarians would protect the First 
Crook so that he could have due process of law before we stretched 
his neck.

End of Monologue


* Liberty's Calendar *

Springfield Meeting: Every third Tuesday of the month, at 7:30 p.m.
at the Imo's Pizza on South Glenstone across from the Battlefield

Springfield Public Access Cable TV: Phil Horras, Mo. Libertarian 
Party Chairman, has a public-access show entitled: "What I Think" at 
the following times on Channel 26. 
      8:30 Friday, 11:30 Tuesday

Coming: A Libertarian Computer Bulletin Board System in January 1995.

In the Springfield area contact:

Phillip W. Horras
State Chairman, Missouri Libertarian Party
1530 E. Berkeley
Springfield, MO 65804
Home phone (417)-886-3328
Office Phone 889-1776
Wats 1-800-838-1776

Bill Johnson, State coordinator,  US Senate Candidate 1994
Southwest Missouri Libertarian Party
2005-I East Kearney
Springfield, MO 65803
Office Phone 417-889-1776
Wats 1-800-838-1776

In the Joplin Area Contact:

Martin Lindstedt,
Editor, The Southwest Missouri Libertarian
Rt. 2  Box 2008
Granby, Missouri 64844
(417) 472-6901


** Shots Heard 'Round the Immediate Vicinity **

     * Who controls taxpayers' money? *

    I have no doubt which side MSSC is on. I've read in The Chart
page after self-serving page of whining, bitching and belly-aching
against Hancock II. Which stands to reason. This institution grows
fat from the productive exertions of taxpayers. Letting them have
a say in how high their taxes become isn't in your best interests,
not in the short term.

   I am one of your adversaries. I am the Libertarian candidate
for 132nd State Representative. I went from door-to-door this summer
asking people to sign the Hancock II petition, campaigning for 
Libertarian principles of less government and lower taxes. I got over 
250 signatures, and consequently am endorsed by the Hancock II people. 
No politician, Democrat or Republican, in this area that I know of 
has done as much.

   [[Get this straight. If this petition manages to run the gauntlet
formed by your special-interest tax-and-spend politicians and judges
and is allowed to take its rightful place on the ballot Nov. 8, you're
gonna lose. The tax-producing voters are pissed. Ain't that wonderful?]]

   When I visited the taxpayers in their native habitat, the most
common objection to signing Hancock II wasn't sanctimonious drivel
about how I was being mean to "Our friend, the government." Nooooo!
The most common objection, by about 40-3 was, "Those lying, thieving,
sneaking politicians will just do whatever the hell they want. Why
should I sign?"

   I knew better than to try to defend the honor of politicians, 
especially since I was using the opportunity Hancock II provided to 
campaign as a different kind of politician. I talked about Senate 
Bill 380, using such terms as "extortion," "kidnapping," "blackmail," 
"thievery," "rammed the biggest tax increase in Missouri history 
right down our throats" and "Are you gonna let them bastards get away 
with it?" I had fun. I also got 75 percent of them to change their 
minds and sign.

    Now for those of you who are saying that I inadvertently deceived
those stupid peasants because I didn't know what I'm talking about,
let me tell you this: I read the Hancock II petition, all of it, front
and back, all of it except the part at the end covering various 
portions of the Missouri Constitution and interpretation by the 
Revised Statutes of Missouri as I don't have an acre of law books in 
my shack.

    I did get a copy of the Moody Report, the lavish, bought-and-
paid-for report bemoaning the impact of Hancock II on the ruling, 
chattering class's favorite projects and how it just wouldn't do to 
let working people hold on to so much of their own money.  [[ I 
looked at it all, especially the last part where Alex Bartlett, a 
Jeff City lawyer, formed a mutual-admiration circle with James Moody, 
bureaucrat. I couldn't have believed it more if five thousand Jeff 
City lawyers cussed out Hancock II.

   No, ]]  I went out and simplified my pitch, saying, "Do you want 
to decide on how high your taxes are or do you want to let 
politicians do it?"  I got more signatures quicker that way.

    My conscience didn't bother me a bit. Now that I've read the
Cato report detailing Mr. Moody's deceptions using twice as many 
tables, citing court cases, and 40 footnotes and no lawyer 
besmirching it, I'm sort of annoyed I didn't start earlier and get 
500 signatures.

    For all those of you who say you support the taxpayer having 
more of a choice as to how much we pay in taxes, but that Hancock 
II goes too far, it's an ax where only a scalpel was needed, well, 
where were you when John Ashcroft and the legislature handed over 
state money to finance desegregation schemes in Kansas City? Where 
were you when Senate Bill 380 passed? Why didn't you get off your 
butts and circulate your own tax limitation petition? Who do you 
think you're kidding?  If left to yourself, you would still be 
comfortably feeding at the public trough.

    Who do you think owns public property? Hmm? If anybody does, 
could it be the taxpayer? Aren't they the ones who paid for MSSC? 
What if they decide that they don't want to support it as lavishly 
as in past times, because they're afraid and they don't have the 
money?  Taxpayers are not cash cows whose tits politicians get to 
squeeze long past the point where they've gone dry.

    A college degree means little more than a high school diploma.
A college degree doesn't mean you are intelligent, academically 
challenged or that you learned to think. All it means is that you 
are docile, as proven by the way you spent four years of your 
time and got into debt over a piece of paper like gerbils running 
on a treadmill not of their own making.  When you graduate, just 
try to find a white-collar management job. You could have learned 
more, and cheaply, by reading and studying on your own in libraries 
and on computer networks.

    When you eliminate the trivialities and misinformation 
manufactured by both sides, Hancock II poses the ultimate question 
as to who owns the money produced by productive Missourians. The 
government or the taxpayer? A decision made in favor of the 
government by the government is not going to be respected by the 

   [[ I have a sneaking hope that the Missouri judiciary proves 
itself corrupt and that it pulls Hancock II from the ballot. When 
they rip the Hancock II check valve right off the boiler, watch it 
explode. Judges and politicians are playing with the makings of a 
tax revolt.  That is where all the peasants grab their pitchforks 
and all the guns they bought at gun shows and set out to lynch 
their chattering class lords from their ivory towers.

  This has been a thousand-word letter. But ]] it's good for you 
to know what the real world thinks. Don't say you haven't been 

Martin Lindstedt,  Alumni, Dec. 1984
Granby, MO 64844

  Editor's Note: This letter appeared in the Oct. 27 issue of  
The Chart, the Missouri Southern State College student newspaper. 
To give them credit, they edited this lengthy letter with a light 
hand.  Perhaps they found it necessary, after all the articles  
hostile to Hancock II. The president of the college even worried 
aloud that MSSC would be disbanded to form a prison.  Such  
opportunistic hysteria in the college press demanded a  response.

[[  ]] encloses editorial cuts.


            *  Let the tax revolt begin * 

     Let me tell you what will happen if Hancock II doesn't pass 
or is stricken from the ballot.

  Since 1980, bureaucrats, politicians and judges connived to 
increase funding for their own pet projects and empire-building 
schemes in defiance of Hancock I. According to the Cato Report, 
they sneaked in $5 billion more in additional taxes over 12 years 
and that the tax-refund hysteria squealed aloud by these 
hoggenheimers is overblown eight-fold.  But enough of figures 
easily available to those who would look.

  If state courts rule for whatever reason that Hancock II be 
gutted of meaningful reform or be stricken altogether, then 
petition signers and other tax-weary onlookers will conclude 
these courts are dependent, corrupt, tax-and-spend statists, and 
the initiative and referendum process in Missouri is fraudulent. 
That reform is impossible and the only solution is  revolution.

  If 34 or more signatures are disallowed in St. Louis's First
Congressional district and Hancock II is overturned as a result, 
then it means that rural Missouri is chained at the neck to 
inner-city welfare reservations.  This generates pressure for 
tax-producing areas to secede from tax-consuming areas.

  If Hancock II goes to the polls and fails Nov. 8, then it 
distinctly tells Missouri tax-producers they are outnumbered by 
Missouri tax-consumers. Then tax-producers have three choices: 
Move away; Let them tax you to death; or Simply refuse to pay 
any taxes at all and shoot-to-kill anyone who attacks your person 
or property.

  The only moderate solution left is passage of Hancock II, as 
written.  If not, then to hell with moderation.  Let the tax revolt 

Martin Lindstedt
Granby, MO 64844

Editor's Note: The above letter was published in the Oct. 26 
issue of The Joplin Globe with some editing and the title 
"Hancock or else."  The scrappier Marshfield Mail cut not a word 
and gave it the above title.

               * Decline and fall *

  Numerous philosophers, ancient and modern, have pointed out that
democracies inevitably decline and fall once the majority learns or
succumbs to the temptation to vote themselves rich at the expense
of the minority. Not once in human history has a democracy pulled
itself out of this moral sinkhole and voted for survival through 
restoring a Republic. No! Instead they follow the path of least 
resistance and good intentions towards civil war and anarchy until 
a tyranny is established, self-discipline having failed.

  Such thoughts, in various forms, are running through the minds
of the third of us who voted for Hancock II. It is obvious that 
two-thirds of Missourians believe they will get more out of 
government than what they put in, and they want us to make up 
the difference.

  But Hark! What goes on there! Now the "moderates" and 
"conservatives" in Jeff City are talking about a new tax-limitation 
proposal, just as long as those nasty 'ol refunds and tax cuts 
aren't mentioned.  How generous. That ought to pacify us militant 

   So the mangy wolf gets to run off into the deep woods with the
Senate Bill 380 baby, to digest it in peace. Two-thirds of you      
didn't want the sharper-eyed of us to shoot the wolf and recover 
the baby, much less skin the wolf to boot. But don't worry. The 
wolf will come back when it's hungry.

Martin Lindstedt
Granby, MO 64844

Editor's Note: This letter was published in The Joplin Globe 
Nov. 28 and in the Neosho Daily-News Nov. 27. A  form of it was 
published under the title "Voters must decide long-range 
priorities" in the Springfield  News-Leader of Nov. 20.

   Now I might seem to be quite the windbag by writing and 
submitting so many letters to the editor. But I think that it is 
quite essential that the voters know exactly where you stand on 
the issues, and you never concede the media high ground to 
tax-and-spend statists.  By writing letters to the editor, 
especially in non-election years, you help ensure yourself 
inexpensive name recognition.  Also the imposed discipline of 
putting your message and the train of thought behind it in 200 words 
or less helps you with your sound bytes, indispensable for any 
Libertarian politician.

    By writing letters about the activities of your local crooked
cops, lawyers, politicians or statists of all stripes, you can 
quickly put the kibosh on all manner of public mischief.  The last 
thing any smarmy rascal holding public office wants is public 
scrutiny and/or resulting humiliation  because of his actions.

   Libertarian meetings, if allowed to, quickly degenerate into 
philosophical debate forums among the already converted. Well, a 
larger audience, one that could be yours, awaits for the price of 
a sheet of paper, postage and a bit of time.  
   So I urge Libertarians out there to churn out at least one letter
to the editor every quarter. It is, it 'tis a glorious thing,  to
be a non-pirate king, i.e. a Libertarian.


	*  Let's support patriots  *

    All of us share a bit of the blame.

    Elections are supposed to be for and by the people. Yet, I cannot
blame Americans for refusing to participate in a game with a stacked
deck. Lincoln would not have a chance today, because he ran on a 
third party.

    Today, the media (all of them) ignore or ridicule candidates
who try to present themselves outside the limits of a 100-year-old
two-party system. Many of us can no longer support nor respect those
parties who:
	1. Ignore our U.S. Constitution.
	2. Enact laws which contradict it.

    Will we see good folks lining up to support these parties again
and again? Let's support patriots instead.

Mary Lou Graham
Joplin, MO 64801

  Editor's Note: Mary Lou Graham ran for Eastern County Commissioner
of Newton County and got  7.42% of the vote in a three-party race.
She is the other active Libertarian in Newton County and we swap the
offices of Chairman and Secretary/Treasurer on a monthly basis, 
depending on our moods.
  The above  concise, cogent  letter of less than 120 words was 
published in The Joplin Globe on Nov. 22. 


		 **  Practical Issues & Answers  **

  Part Six of a continuing series this election year.  This column 
intends to give Libertarian politicians running for office a 
practical guide on issues to bring up and exploit to the dismay of 
Demo-Publicans, who have no idea of how to solve the problems they 
have created.

   Following is a speech made to the Lawrence County Christian 
Coalition, presided over by the husband of my Republican opponent. 
I doubt that I got many votes, but I was told my speech was the 
most dynamic and interesting of the lot. I had to remind some 
Christian Coalition members that I was running against one of 
their members, who had a previous appointment. Later on, I got a 
letter saying she was too busy to debate with me concerning the 
future of the 132nd District.


   * I am a Libertarian politician. What do I stand for? *

   The Libertarian party stands for less government interference in
people's lives, and the best way to accomplish this bloodless 
revolution is to remind some people and educate the rest that the 
government has no more power than what we give it. If, at any time, 
a sizable minority deliberately refuses to file income-tax returns, 
refuses to obey the laws that governing bodies churn out at the 
behest of special interests, refuses to take seriously the decrees of 
the trumped-up lawyers known as judges, if the people go on strike 
and flee to their homes, lock the doors, and take up arms, saying 
"Enough! No More!" then the government must come to a decision: 
"Will we listen to their grievances or will we kill them?"  Then 
each person must come to the decision: "Liberty or Death." "Freedom 
or Slavery," "Will I knuckle under now so that I may survive 
tomorrow?"  And when this Day of Decision arrives, either the King 
must die or the people must be enslaved.

   I often ask, "How long do you think that this country has?" in
the same sense that I judge how long a $300 used car will get me to
where I have to go. And I listen to the answer. And I ask more 
questions, especially if I get unrealistically long answers. I 
estimate that this country has from four to twenty years left in 
it. Closer to four than 20. Like many Christians that I have talked 
to, I am getting a bit antsy at the arrival of the Seventh 
Millennium, although for different reasons.

   If you vote for a Democrat, the odds are that he will advance 
this Day of Decision. If you vote for a Republican, he or she will 
skirmish around a little bit, might even hold the Day of Decision 
off for a while.  But since Republicans have no vision, the people 
will perish.  Republicans have no idea of how to wage a successful 
counter-attack, much less wage offensive warfare, retake new ground, 
and take the war to the enemy, to the government's heartland.

   For American society is engaged in a civil war, a Kulturekampf,
against the forces who would destroy it; who have destroyed it. This
Cultural Struggle won't be won if your champions only act to protect
themselves. A series of Dunkirks, of withdrawals, won't win this war.
You need someone who will counter-attack, then fight hard for your
legitimate interests of civil peace and prosperity.

The first counter-attack I waged was to collect 277 signatures for
Hancock II. I went from door-to-door, explaining to people why they
should trust no politician with the decision as to whether their 
taxes should be raised. I included myself when I said "You should 
trust no sneaking, lying, thieving politician, and the best way to 
do that is to sign Hancock II." "Don't put yourself in a position 
to where you must trust any politician; Sign Hancock II." "Take away 
power from the rascals in Jeff City; Sign Hancock II."

  And I got a bunch of people to sign Hancock II. I have noticed 
that most Democrats consider Hancock II to be the Mark of the Beast 
and Mel Hancock to be the Anti-Christ. Most Republicans put their 
finger to the air, saw which way the wind was blowing, and signed 
it themselves, maybe even got friends and family to sign it. And 
that's about it.  Most Republicans have damned Hancock II with faint 

   As far as I know, there is no area politician who has gotten as
many signatures as I have for Hancock II. Makes sense. Hancock II
is the curse of the political class.
  The second counter-attack involves struggles with the Granby City
Council. It is foolish for a Libertarian to say, "bring things back
to local control," and then turn around to find that the local hogs
are clubbing the local flock of sheep over the head, then skinning
and devouring them. Well, I've picked up the club, and I will render
those hogs to bacon.

   If elected, I intend to take new ground. I will initiate an 
Anti-trust suit against the American Bar Association. I will make it 
possible once each year for the humblest citizen to make a complaint 
against local elected officials and bureaucrats and have it stick by 
means of grand jury investigation. No more immunity for doing evil 
in the name of the people. I will change the educational landscape 
by releasing vouchers to parents so that they can freely choose how 
to educate their children and let inefficient public schools die.  I 
will make it so that no longer can so-called civil servants harass 
private citizens and get fat pensions for committing 20 years of 
mischief.  No citizen has a right to 20 or more years at the public 
trough.  Other problems that I will address I have listed in my 

 I don't have time enough tonight to fully attack all the problems
that an out-of-control government has imposed upon us. I fight, I
struggle because I clearly see what is coming and I want to avoid
it. We should have enough sense to follow the rule of holes: When
you are in one, you had better stop digging.

   I am running because there are issues that have been tabled for
so long. I will go from door-to-door in October and November and 
feel the political pulse, inject Libertarian solutions, ask for 
support.  I have challenged my opponents to debate.

   I won't win this election. Too many of you white-chickens still
blindly peck the Republican or Democrat ticket.  Mrs. Bartelsmeyer
and Mr. Fenske are good people.  But they can't and they won't 
change anything.  They have the same vision that has gotten us into 
this mess of our own making. Two years from now, the social rot 
will have grown worse. You have a choice, now. Seek out us 
Libertarians while we still may be found.


		   **  Election Lessons Learnt  **

  What happened this year, nationally and in Missouri, is that voters
turned away from liberal, big-government Democrats, anyone tarred
with the Bill Clinton brush and so they elected Republicans. And not
just any Republicans.  They brought into power Newt Gingrich 
Republicans, mouthing ripped-off weakened versions of Libertarian 
economic ideas.

  The Republicans made a clean sweep. Not a single Republican governor
or Congressman lost his seat. The whole country went conservative.
Republicans steamrollered Democrats and pretended not to have ever
heard about Libertarians, especially if any were around to take the

   So how did we do in Missouri? Better than in '92.

   If a Libertarian was running against both a Democrat and a 
Republican, usually the voters when faced with three choices gave 
us around five percent of the votes.  If the Libertarian was running 
against only a Democrat or Republican, then he usually got in 
accordance with the political equivalent of Pareto's Law (where even 
in the midst of 80% of the population doing anything, 20% will do 
something else) somewhere between 15-20%. This is for paper 
candidates.  Candidates who went out and campaigned hard usually 
got a few percentage points more.

    Looking back at the 1992 results, the election returns this
year were up by about forty percent. The average return for paper
candidates then was a little bit under three percent. This year we
averaged a little bit under five percent. We had more candidates 
running, especially in areas dominated by effective one-party rule, 
such as Democrats in Kansas City and St. Louis and Republicans in 
Southwestern Missouri.  So with more candidates we got more votes, 
even with the Republicans stealing most of our economic freedom 

   The reason that voters chose Republicans is that they still 
haven't got over the two party system. They don't know that there 
is a third party choice, and Republicans this year certainly weren't 
telling the voters about Libertarians.  They wished to get elected, 
and they didn't want the voters knowing about political choices 
closer to their true feelings for less government and taxation.

    It didn't help that here in Newton county close to 25 percent
of the voters voted straight-ticket Republican and eight percent 
straight-ticket Democrat. A little less than one percent of the 
votes were straight-ticket Libertarian. This means only one percent 
of the voting population has had it with the two party system; 
one-third of the white chickens still blindly peck on the two-party 

    But don't worry. The voters in Missouri and the nation rushed
to Bill Clinton two years ago and they found no salvation there. 
Quite the opposite.  So now, in reaction, they chose the Republicans 
who in their "Contract with America" mouthed a few Libertarian 
verities, and they wait for the new rascals to keep their promises.

   So with five/fifteen+ percent of the vote, we got stomped again.
Why are we so happy? Because our future arrives, if we don't muff

    Now the talk is about the formation of a third political party
when the contract-breakers fail after their one-hundred days. And
if we get organized now, that third party will be us. If it isn't
us, then there is no one else left to take up the reins except the
new Nazis preaching messages of the new totalitarianism.

   Will Ross Perot form a third party, as he claims? Of course 
not. Even if he runs to cause mischief, there is no one among the
scattered white chickens fit to support him by running for lower 
offices.  The few leaders scattered about have no hold on the 
discontented fifth who voted for him in 1992. He might be a danger 
to Bill Clinton, or a George-Bush Presidential clone running in '96, 
but he can't birth a new third party.  A Mussolini-sized ego like 
his will only tolerate yes men, and any new third party needs strong 
people merely to survive, much less supplant the old system.

   Some collection of socialists or fascists? We have that already,
in both parties. Such a party has no future because the current 
two-partys have already gobbled down most of the unattached  
discretionary  slop.

  So the new third party will be Libertarian, or there will be 
nothing except the two-parties fighting over a dwindling America.  
So how do we go about ensuring a Libertarian future?

    Our strengths are our people. Libertarians are the smartest,
best, most morally-upright people around. Demographically, most of
our candidates were young men in their thirties who have had it 
with the way this country is going down the tubes and a 
determination to stabilize, then reform the system.  New Founding 
Fathers. Intelligence Quotients forty or more points above average.

   But we have weaknesses, some which can be seen at any Libertarian
meeting. We have such egos that most meetings degenerate into 
debates concerning fine points of Libertarian theology, as us 
politically active people strive to form pecking orders.  Trying to 
herd a group of Libertarians to a given goal is like trying to herd 
cats.  We have no discipline at all.  And most of us propose things, 
then don't even start doing it, much less finish.

     For example, most of us supported Hancock II, far more than 
tepid Republicans or hostile Democrats did. But how many of us 
collected signatures to the point where Hancock II became a 
Libertarian trademark?  Hancock II did very well in Southwest 
Missouri, but the night of the election when it got defeated by 
55-45% margins in some counties and by 70-30% margins elsewhere, 
the lament was "Why didn't more of the Hancock II support go to 
Libertarians?" Why indeed!

    We could learn from the Communists and Nazis. They have never 
been more than a minority of the population, yet when the old 
monarchical social order collapsed into anarchy due to its own decay 
and apathy, they were ready to grab hold the reins of power. They 
had goals and discipline.  If we remain nothing more than a debate 
club of masturbatory intellectuals we will never be able to seize 
the day, much less save our country.

    So that is why the election of Bill Johnson, the U.S. Senatorial
candidate, to the office of State Coordinator of the Missouri 
Libertarian Party on Nov. 20 was a good thing. It merely ratified 
the current reality of him being the most respected statewide 
leader.  Since Bill is willing to devote full time to Libertarian 
concerns and bring in money, he gets to keep some of it for expenses. 
The feeling was that a portion of a new, growing something was 
vastly preferable to all of a stagnant nothing.

    Bill will remain in Springfield and pay the bills out of income 
he generates for the party. As a political candidate traveling with 
the Democratic/Republican circus he got to meet other Missouri 
politicians and leaders, some of whom he respects and most of whom 
respect him.  Maybe he can cozen some money out of disgruntled 
losers.  In any case, this set-up takes nothing away from the 
current party leadership, effective or not.

    Also noted at the meeting was the fact that some of our 
candidates got booted off the ticket or had to pay fines to the 
Missouri Ethics Commission because many of them didn't have the 
sense to get around forming campaign committees by the simple 
expedient of simply filing an exemption at the local courthouse and 
with the Missouri Ethics Commission.  Not a single Libertarian 
candidate in Southwest Missouri with the exception of Bill Johnson 
spent $1,000, much less raised that much money.  So why was it a 
problem elsewhere in the state? 

   The fault lies somewhat with the candidates filing since they 
didn't read the papers given them by the Secretary of State's 
office, but part of it lies with the Missouri Libertarian Party in 
not warning our candidates after we took their filing fees.  
Ignorance is not bliss when it costs money.  Will those people file 
again if they feel, justifiably or not, that we let them down?

   We need to have a system where if we take a candidate's filing
fee, we tell him how to file for exempt status and avoid getting 
screwed for trying to help us. We owe him that much.

   A system independent of Bill Johnson's efforts to raise funds
for candidates was approved on Nov. 20. If it works, then fine. If
it doesn't, then it was a waste of time and perfectly good hot air.

   For the next election, it would be a good thing to have 
standardized state/federal soundbytes. This way, you won't have one 
candidate saying one thing about an issue such as welfare reform or 
social security and another candidate saying another. The goal is to 
have a turnkey brochure or flyer that a candidate for State 
Representative or State Senate can add his picture and local 
policies to and send for about a dime's worth of bulk postage to 
every mailbox in a given precinct.

   A person running for higher office should have enough sense
to make many of his own policies. But those who are running for 
the first time and have absolutely no chance of winning should be 
instructed on how to take advantage of every moment of free 
publicity granted them by a witless media looking for something new 
and different.  Our candidates, paper and otherwise, are the best 
people in their communities.  They shouldn't waste time trying to 
re-invent the political wheel.

    Lastly, we need to strengthen the ties that bind us together. 
The Nov. 20th meeting was the first time I went to a state-wide 
meeting.  There were over 40 people there in the room of the law 
school of the University of Missouri-Columbia.  I was told it was 
the largest meeting ever held, and that much was accomplished.  Most 
there were candidates from all over the state, Kansas City, St. 
Louis, Columbia, Springfield, Cape Girardeau.  There might not be 
another as large as we all scatter to our homes and resume our 
non-political lives.  So what we need to do is keep in contact, 
cheaply in terms of time and money.

  Newsletters such as Show Me Freedom need to continue growing. 
New ones for Cape Girardeau, St. Louis, Kansas City and elsewhere 
need to be founded and maintained.  Centers of population such as 
St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield need to form computer 
Bulletin Board Systems or provide presence on established 
sympathetic BBS's.  In cities over 20,000 people where local calls 
are free, we need to reach out and motivate the "small l" 
libertarians.  The fax-modem is today's electronic printing press. 
If we cannot communicate among ourselves, how can we expect to 
inspire others?

    If there is going to be a third political party that saves our
country then it must be Libertarian. We must rise above being a 
party of amateurs that promises but don't deliver.  Let us coordinate 
our actions and freely submit to a small measure of responsible 
discipline so we can seize the moment when this country slides into 
anarchy and despotism.


       **  Toward a New Way of Selecting Our Leaders  **

    Warning: The following article is not suitable for shitheads.

    Growing, young stalwart nations have always expected much from
their great men.   
   Tacitus, in his book Germania, scored moral points against 
dissolute Romans by informing them that the Semnones, a tribe living 
on the banks of the Elbe in Northwest Germany, mustered their great 
men from the leading families to a sacred woods every nine years 
and sacrificed the "winner" of a special lottery to the tribal gods.

  The Visigoths and Ostrogoths, second only to the Vandals as 
synonymous with barbarians, followed the custom of skinning alive 
any one of their magistrates found corrupt, tanning his hide and 
using it as a seat cushion for the next great man elected to the 
post.  They thought that such an example so close to home would 
encourage the next tribal official towards honesty.  It worked; at 
least until they met (and conquered) the civilized Romans and the 
custom fell into disuse.

   Even in Nazi Germany, if you were a nobleman and/or a college
graduate, you were expected to serve as an officer, and junior 
officers were expected to lead from the front.  As the war continued, 
the percentage of officers as opposed to the other ranks fell from 
five to four to two percent, but the Germans throughout the war 
preferred to keep quality control in place.  Even though the 
nobility, both Catholic and Prussian, despised the Austrian corporal, 
they served the State and him very well up to the end.

    The leaders of the American Revolutionary War took their 
chances with their men. Colonel Alexander Hamilton competed for the 
privilege of storming the British barricades at Yorktown.  This war 
was fought without a draft.  It wasn't until the Civil War that the 
custom of drafting poor men, giving exemptions to rich men able to 
pay $300 to the Treasury, and the saying, "A rich man's war and a 
poor man's fight!" originated.  Later on the practice of student 
deferments and political wire-pulling festered to the point where we 
have the best practitioner of these political arts, the present First 
Crook, sending the children of his poorer and simple-minded peers to 
such tasty "police actions" as Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti.

    It has always been understood by the natural aristocracy of a 
growing nation that social privilege demands social responsibility, 
borne by those who benefit most from the social order.  This lesson 
has been lost by our present leaders. But then again, our leaders 
are certainly not aristocrats.  The word "aristocracy" comes from 
the Greek phrase meaning "rule by the best."  The word that best 
describes our current rulers and their methods is "DuKakistocracy," 
meaning rule by the worst, and, over the worst because we allow it 
to happen.  Government of, by, and for shitheads. For Justice will 
always prevail, somehow.

    So how should we go about wiggling out from under the government 
we deserve? Here is a modest proposal:

    Since we can expect out fearless leaders to promptly shit on
all of us upon their election and doubly so upon re-election, it is
about time that we return the favor in the selection of our ruling
rascals. So let us replace the ballot box and subsume it in
choosing  leaders with the public outhouse.

   Yep, chain those [ bastards ] candidates up to the bottom of the
public outhouse and let the people vote on them the natural way, 
solid or liquid, as the mood (and need) strikes the electorate.  For 
a full two weeks, so that those voters suffering from constipation 
won't be outvoted by the incontinent.  Put a scale in so society can 
accurately measure the people's approval or disapproval of the 
candidates and what they stand for, if anything. Let the people's 
[voices] will be [heard] known !!!

   As has been often remarked "Everyone has an opinion and an 
asshole."  It's past time both be unleashed upon our ruling classes.

   If, knowing the ground rules, no politician dares to run for any
public office, then let that office remain vacant. While no good can
be done, neither can any evil. If there is only one candidate for
the office, then let him take his place -- after the people have
[spoken] ruled.

   So what if there are two or more candidates for public office?
Then let them take their chances. So we elect the one who is covered
with the least amount of shit?

    Of course not. Such a measure encourages politics, and we can't
have that!  Even though the thought of someone like Dan Rostenkowski
drowning in a cesspool makes most readers chortle with righteous
satisfaction. No, we take the one who has the most excrement and the 
one who has the least, (as any third or fourth candidate who is 
neither greatly hated or loved are mediocrities and should be 
ignored) and flip a coin for the job.  Let God or impartial fortune 

   Now some might say "Well what if someone is so esteemed that he
don't have a single turd on him?" Tough. Let him be proclaimed a 
public saint.  But remember, sainthood is far more of a handicap in 
politics than a prerequisite.

    Who gets to vote?  Why, everyone in the district, of course. 
Don't worry about voter fraud.  Let even the felons vote; they are 
only getting back some of their own on those who imprisoned them. 
By opening up the political process to all who suffer under it, you 
get rid of political corruption.  There won't be any more Chicagos 
or South Texican elections because dead men can't piss.

    Under this scheme, you let people "vote" as much as they want
as often as they can.  This has a number of desirable side-effects.
The ones who feel the most strongly about something, the more 
dedicated, will openly have a chance to "vent" their feelings.  No 
one will have an excuse for feeling powerless.  That's the way it 
works out now in secret. For the benefit of the poor, vendors could 
set up tables upwind to sell food and drink, and donate the profits 
to charity. And it will certainly free us from negative advertising, 
as the smarter pols figure out that the least said to attract 
attention, the better.  They might even behave themselves better 
during their campaign, and after, as they won't want to see a truly 
dedicated voter hoisting his buttocks time after time atop the toilet 
seat.  No, they will become the very last to bitch about voter 

   The qualification and election process itself will get rid of
all but the most dedicated or determined. Choosing the winner in 
contested elections by a coin flip will tend to get rid of 
incumbents, but in case that is not enough, a ruling that incumbents  
not be allowed to wear raincoats, hoods, or rubber boots should 
suffice to get us term limitation.

   So what do we do about big elections, like for President and such?
Even though I would have loved to cast innumerable votes for Bush,
Clinton, and Perot back in '92 and would never have considered for
a minute a single one of them to be wasted, two weeks isn't enough
to let every voter have his fair shot, and more than two weeks ain't
fair, even to politicians.

    It is time for something called the Electoral College to again
become more than the vermiform appendix of American politics. After
the Representatives have been "elected" by direct vote and the 
Senators "chosen" in the same way by the State legislatures, we 
gorge these rascals on laxatives, pour prune juice down their gullets 
and let them let fly for King and Country during their two weeks.  
Just like the Founding Fathers intended.

    Now some of you readers still with me might think that I'm being
facetious, but I really think this modest proposal will work. We all
know that the present system sure ain't. Either way, it's time to
invest in Ex-Lax stock and store up a supply for the upcoming '96
political shitstorm.


		     **  It's Time to Beg  **

 For money of course. Although I will take anything offered. I have
before. I especially like well-written letters or articles.

   I'd say that this is the Christmas holiday, cadge for small change,
ring my bell, and appeal to the holiday spirit and all if it wasn't
for the fact that I detest Christmas because it's my birthday and
I haven't liked a single birthday since my 21st and I could go and
buy my own liquor at package liquor stores without having to bully
and load up my mother to buy it for me.  Every birthday since then
has been downhill ever since.

   Or I could act like National Public Radio and Public TV which is
financed by the government and big corporations and plop down a load
of leftist horseshit like I'm doing you a big favor and lay a mincing,
minatory guilt trip on you but I don't think that it would work since
any healthy Libertarian in good mental health wouldn't even think
of packing more than an ounce or two of guilt even on a bad day.

   No, I'll make it simple. If you don't have a subscription, done
something for me recently, or have something I want, I might just
cut you off. 

  Please ignore this message if it don't apply to you. To subscribe,
just  follow the subscription directions on the back.


Check the box on the back cover that best matches your position 
regarding The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian subscriptions:

*   Martin is right. I don't have a whole lot of moola and more than
seventy-five cents per issue would just spoil him rotten.

*  Nick and Bill are right. The Southwestern Libertarian is the best
thing since sliced bread and well worth a buck an issue.

*  I was cleaning underneath the couch and found more money than what
I intend to dust. I'm sending all of it in right now.
   After you have decided which box to check and how much you want
to pay for your subscription, photocopy this box and send your check
or money order to: Martin Lindstedt, Renegade Intellectual,  Rt 2
 Box 2008,  Granby MO 64844. 


   Missouri Libertarian Party membership costs $15 annually. Along with
your membership fee you get the official newsletter, Show Me Freedom.
SMF covers statewide Libertarian news and has recently greatly improved.
So for a good deal for both yourself and our cause, send 15 bucks
to MoLP, PO Box 32731, Kansas City, MO 64171.


		The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian
		Issue #9           Post-Election 1994




Back to Patrick Henry On-Line