Contact: Grant Stauffer (816) 561-3596

Says Bojarski: "I am running not as a politician but as a concerned citizen and working mother. My goals are to reduce taxes and improve education in this state. These goals are not incompatible."

"Throwing more money at the education problem is not the solution. If it was, the KC schools would be the best in the world, instead of having a 50+% drop out rate. We need radical reform though school choice and a voucher program. Parochial schools now provide a superior education at a fraction of the cost of public schools. With vouchers, more independent schools will spring up to offer our children better educational opportunities and more flexible services. We can have vastly improved education for our children at lower cost."

"Reducing taxes would have a similar effect on improving the quality of family and community life. We would not be forced into two-earner families if government stopped taking almost half of our income in taxes. I am tired of struggling to save for my daughter's education because the government thinks it can spend my income more wisely than I can."

"With a greatly reduced tax burden, families will have more flexibility in planning for their future while still having the time to spend with their children and in the community that makes a neighborhood work. Lower taxes and improved education are the keys to making Missouri a great state in which to live, work, and bring up our children."

Bojarski, 44 years old, is manager of technical communications for Control Systems International, Inc. in Fairway, Kansas. She has lived in Kansas City for over 10 years.

She is married to Grant Stauffer and has one daughter, Alexandra Bojarski-Stauffer, age 7. Alexandra attends the Ecole Longan French magnet in Kansas City. Bojarski is Secretary of the Missouri Libertarian Party and editor of the statewide newsletter, "Show Me Freedom." She is also on the board of the Broadway-Gillham Neighborhood Association and chairs the Preservation and Improvements Committee.

Bojarski became a Libertarian after studying free market economics in the Ph.D. program at the University of Chicago. She has a BA in Philosophy from New College, and is listed in Who's Who of American Women and Who's Who in the Midwest. Her 75,048 votes in the 1992 US Senate race qualified the Libertarian Party as an established political party in Missouri.

E-Letters to Queen Jeanne

To: HigginsLP@aol.com
Time: 0400 a.m. 2/7/96
Subject: This is from XXXXX; (Some Pud-Puller)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

At 09:32 PM 2/5/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Jim & LaDonna,
>
>Please forward this message to Martin, I don't have his e-mail address.

   There is, of course, a reason for this. But I will not include your 
e-mail address in my response. Very well, then, send back to XXXXX
the following response:

>
>Dear Martin:
>I rec'd your message about the filing fees. I would like to make a brief 
>point.
>
>Any candidate who has any chance of garnering a signficant percentage of
>the vote will be either a respected businessperson/professional or a 
>community/political activist with a wide network of contacts (just look 
>at the backgrounds of the Libertarians we have gotten elected in this 
>state).

   So we should tuck our tails, roll over and play dead, act like cut
dogs, self-censor our candidates, and only allow those people to run who
in your, mine, or somebody else's opinion has what we consider a 
"significant percentage of the vote?"
   Sorry, no will do. I'll run with what I got. As I look at it, it's
not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the
dog. 

 
>Persons in the first category will have the funds to pay their own filing 
>fees. Persons in the second can easily raise the money through their 
>contacts if they don't have it themselves
 
  Good, you go out to the country club and find 'em there. My candidate of
choice is some tough working stiff who won't take no crap off of nobody,
including myself.
  If I can't find my candidate of choice, I'll run whatever volunteers, 
then I'll go out and find me some more candidates. I probably won't run 
what YOU might consider the best candidate, but that is the very least of
my concerns.
  By the way, didn't you have something to do with the loss of the very
best candidate the Missouri Libertarian Party ever ran? To refresh your
memory, let's call him Bill Who-was-that or No-name Johnson. 

> (one of my less affluent county candidates in '94 took this approach).
 
  One of  YOUR county candidates? At the Convention in May, I might
take it into my head to inspect YOUR CANDIDATES for their shots, worming,
dehorning, castration or Bang's Disease papers and ask to see YOUR 
brand on their butts, and YOUR bill of sale. See to it that you have 
them on a leash.

> I feel that this is a "realist" vs an "elitist" position.

  I call it elitist "reality."

>I question the wisdom of running candidates with neither of these 
>characteristics, or of subsidizing the same. Hey, if a candidate can't 
>even raise a filing fee, how viable can he or she be? Do we really need 
>this type of "do nothing" candidate? A candidate who can't even collect 
>$10 each from 5 or 10 friends is a poor candidate indeed.

  Noted. I shall henceforth introduce myself as the piss-pore Libertarian 
candidate, 7th District Congress, because I intend to file as a pauper. 
If necessary, I shall file a pauper's lawsuit against the Missouri 
Libertarian Party in order to run as a pauper. If you haven't noticed, 
I've gotten pretty good at filing pauper's lawsuits.
  The ridicule and opprobrium arising from of this matter will be gratis.

  By the way, you are not subsidizing ANY of the candidates I turn up.
Their filing fees, if waived, are not the property of yourself or of the 
MoLP. You seem to have strange notions of what a subsidy is. I will,
if necessary, make them buy a membership if that is what it takes, but
that, and running as a Libertarian candidate might well be the limit of
subsidation that the MoLP receives. 
 
> There is a valid argument to be made for simply "fillling up" the 
>ballot.

 And it seems up to me to make it. You won't.
 
>But I wonder whether at this point of our development the party really 
>needs more "2%" candidates -  candidates who make us look 
>marginal . . .

  Time to talk reality.
  To the majority of voters, we are a marginal party as it is. The ones 
who have heard of us, think we are a bunch of dopers who don't like 
paying taxes.
  I remember one time when some old lady asked me, "What do you 
Libertines stand for?"
  I restrained my errant sense of humor and did not say, "Why we believe
in legalizing dope, and when we get that, we will have one BIG dope-orgy
wherein all the teenage girls will get knocked up and get abortions that
their parents will have to pay for because we DO believe in abortion,
prostitution, and free-love, but not in paying taxes.
  By the way, we'll take away your Social Security check, you old
welfare queen. No more tooling around in your big Medicare sled of a 
Mercury, either."
  No, I restrained my sense of black humor, barely, and said, "That's
the LIB-ER-TAR-I-AN Party, ma'am. We believe in less government and less
taxes."

  There is, of course, a reason for above story. Remember the fuss 
caused when Bill Johnson didn't put in a doper's rights plank in his
draft platform at the June 1995 MoLP convention? I remember the person
who wrote a letter to all and sundry chewing him out for THAT.
  So I put back in a plank(s) which framed it as simply ending Drug
Prohibition. Perhaps if I added a line to the effect that "Drugs are
GOOD for you," perhaps some of the MoLP drug warriors will be euphoric.

  But don't talk to me concerning "marginalizing" the Missouri LP.

  Besides, the best county chairman that I found recently refused to
sign his charter establishing a McDonald County LP Committee. When I 
asked him why, he said that he was thinking of getting the Republican
nomination for county commissioner and it would not be offered if it
got out that he was LP county chair.
  I was saddened, as that character had gravitas and dignitas. He was 
prime rib as far as a candidates go. I tried to talk him out of it as
if he did get the Republican nomination, he would win, the trick was 
winning the nomination in that sleeze-bag of a county.
  And did not Francis Shands decide to jump Libertarian Party ship and
run as a Republican as Lt. Governor?
  The fact of the matter is that the people who really want to get 
elected and have a good chance usually prefer to run as DemoPublicans.
  So why should I go out and target the best candidates in order to 
have then "stolen?"

>and confirm the 
>political establishment's view of us as "fringe elements" by having NO 
>obvious vote-drawing power or qualified background.

  I thought the political establishment was the enemy. Shall we beg 
for respect from them?

> signed, XXXXXXX, 

>PS. The reason I don't have your address is that I deleted your message 
>after skimming it.
 
  As the lion said to the ostrich head dug out of the sand, "I dig this
critter's defensive strategy.

>I am tired of implicitly being called "names" by you, and feel that if 
>you have a valid point of view, you should be able to present 
>it in a rational, rather than insulting manner.
 
  So much for being implicit. Was above diatribe explicit enough?
Besides, you have been known to call a few names yourself.

>You are certainly winning no allies by your approach.

  Did you not read my little article concerning friendship in the last
issue of The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian? I don't intend, in the 
guise of "friendship," to be the female dog on the bottom.
  I have a lot of respect for the way that you do your job for the MoLP.
Things have indeed improved under your tenure, as I have remarked time 
after time and as I say so now.
  However, you are one of the "Libertarians" who used majority rule to
strip me of my proxies and to disenfranchise eight of your fellow
Libertarians at the Platform Convention of Sept. 17, 1995. It is 
appalling to see how fast libertarian principles slough off whenever
it conflicts with your (and your allies in the Pud-Puller wing) love
for power. By your actions, you have shown that you are NOT interested
in growing the Party if it means you will no longer rule. There is
not much trust between Pud-Puller and Shooter. Whose fault is that?
  By all means, go out and run your section of the Party any way you
want. But I'm not going to sit by and watch you destroy what I have 
tried to get accomplished in my neck of the woods. If I must, I will 
exploit the differences between what you profess and what you actually 
do and make you behave yourself in accordance with professed Libertarian
principles.
  Do you follow my line of reasoning? Of course it was insulting. There
is no way to express such things politely. Was it rational enough for 
you?

Martin Lindstedt, Head Shooter
Delegate, 7th District Expediting Committee, Missouri Libertarian Party
Piss-Pore Libertarian Candidate, 7th Missouri Congressional District '96

Bcc: Everyone with an interest in above matter. 
     Some of them will laugh. 

Blame it on the extremely low mental and moral qualities of Missouri "Libertarians," but what we have here is just another politician who whines about the need for school reform, yet sends her kid off to a "magnet" school in Kansas City which is not paid for out of her own property taxes, but looted from the entire state of Missouri.

"Magnet" schools were Judge Russel Clark's notion to improve the Kansas City Public School System by looting the entire State of Missouri's treasury to pay white parents to send their kids to school in lavish elementary schools. This would "improve" the plight of black students, who supposedly need the proximity of white students to make them learn more, or some other vague elitist racist rot. Queen Jeanne has no problem with sending her kid to a school where they need paid security guards, and at the expense of the entire state subsidizing this nonsense. But, just like your average lying sneaking politician, she has no problem in wailing the standard LibberToonian Party line. How did that go again?

Throwing more money at the education problem is not the solution. If it was, the KC schools would be the best in the world, instead of having a 50+% drop out rate. We need radical reform though school choice and a voucher program. Parochial schools now provide a superior education at a fraction of the cost of public schools. With vouchers, more independent schools will spring up to offer our children better educational opportunities and more flexible services. We can have vastly improved education for our children at lower cost.

.

Back to Get Squirted by More Pud-Pullers? or
Do You Prefer Relative Sanity?