Severability and Spoiler Votes

http://www.blogdodemian.com.br/

Spoiler votes change the laws–escape!

The entrenched kleptocracy keeps government jobs and parasitical subsidies by duping registered voters into fearing “the” other bucket of crabs. Each bucket is a package-deal of unrelated lobbyist agendas. Many contracts are also package-deals thrown together by disparate stakeholders. Out of fear that the courts will strike down one of the more egregious clauses, a severability clause is usually stirred into the crab-boil.

A severability clause states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the contract should still apply. The Constitution works that way without the need for a severance clause. The 13th Amendment ended chattel slavery and the fugitive slave law from Article IV, yet the Constitution survived and the Supreme Court even ruled that conscription wasn’t involuntary servitude.

The Constitution is amended (for better or for worse) by small party spoiler votes. Religious fanatics casting 1.4% of the vote created the 18th amendment making beer a felony. Communist fanatics shifted the paradigm and added Communist Manifesto plank 2 as the 16th Amendment. No severability clause was needed. The severability that matters–that changes laws–is when you sever relations with both halves of the entrenched looter kleptocracy. They then have to change their platforms to try and lure back those spoiler votes.  Why? So their snouts–not the other gang’s–can be in the trough.

Crabs–scavengers for carrion–cannot escape a bucket because their fellow partisans in that bucket energetically pull down any who try to escape over the wall. In the Republican bucket, if a wealthy woman executive wants to reverse an unplanned pregnancy, that’s too bad. Mystical bigots will pull her down. If a producer does not want his son or daughter shot, robbed, raped and jailed over a plant leaf, group peer pressure grabs his ankles lest he escape the collective bucket.

Anyone in the Democrat bucket who is tired of being looted and robbed is likewise dragged down by United Front activists and scolded for attempted desertion under fire. After all, women would have no rights and there would be no roads if not for the Communist Manifesto plank 2, right? You’ve got to believe that faked temperature data is real or the Republicans will shoot, rob, rape and jail your sons and daughters over a plant leaf to please their prohibitionist hangers-on. But will they change or simply lie? Fools will believe anything, and their conformist votes identify them as dupes.

But what happens when voters can polevault into a completely different bucket, or escape to freedom? What paradigm shift results when your vote can tell politicians you say NO to robbing, murdering, bombing, or defrauding anyone? What happens when you finally realize that cowardice, dishonesty, lack of integrity is what dooms the crabs in those buckets to the boiling pot? In the past, what happened was that the laws changed, and the Constitution changed. In the present, that change can be for the better. Do YOURSELF a favor. Increase your law-changing clout by voting Libertarian.

This wake-up call has been a public service announcement from http://www.hankphillips.com

Advertisements

Shocked Democratic Voters

Econazi Oven-worshippers

Photo credit: EPA, Erde Politische Arbeiterpartei

Hillary Clinton’s published effort to protect the Democratic Party platform committee from blame for the Republican Party victory proves she never really understood Orwell’s 1984.

Her party made the mistake of copying the government bureaucracy hallucination that urges persons entirely ignorant of basic physics to believe that the industrial application of Maxwell’s equations is increasing the Earth’s temperature. The Democratic platform seeks to make These United States into another Puerto Rico–a huge electrical blackout with no nuclear reactors. Here is what its candidate imagined George Orwell wrote:

This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered.

To be fair, none of Hillary’s religious conservative prohibitionist critics noticed the error in physics. Possibly the more literate among them recalled John Galt being tortured with electrical voltage. The far more numerous Republicans, every bit as illiterate as so many Democrats, probably recalled the same scene as remade in the second Rambo movie. This is understandable error, but Winston Smith was NOT tortured with electrical shocks in Orwell’s novel “The Last Man in Europe” (published as Nineteen Eighty-Four). Nor was there electric torture in the movie version with Richard Burton as the Inner Party member. Anyone with enough basic science education to vote to keep electrical power safe and legal AND WHO HAS READ THE BOOK will easily spot the error. Winston Smith, Orwell wrote:

… did not know whether the thing was really happening, or whether the effect was electrically produced; but his body was being wrenched out of shape, the joints were being slowly torn apart. Although the pain had brought the sweat out on his forehead, the worst of all was the fear that his backbone was about to snap. He set his teeth and breathed hard through his nose, trying to keep silent as long as possible. (…) ‘That was forty,’ said O’Brien. ‘You can see that the numbers on this dial run up to a hundred.

Winston Smith was being subjected to the initiation of force strong enough to deform his spinal column and cause intense pain.  The units are hardly important except in the proportional sense intended to intimidate, but one might expect some such result from 40 kilograms-force amounting to nearly 400 Newtons. (I do not vote Republican and am not a torture buff, so I’m only guessing). The point is that the torture was accomplished by the use of blunt force, not electric potential, in both book and movie. True, there may have been an electric motor compressing air or turning gears to make the table move.

There is considerable mention of electricity in 1984. In the book’s second paragraph Winston doesn’t bother trying the elevator… the electricity was cut off during daylight hours, so he climbed the seven flights of stairs–as happens today in North Korea or Puerto Rico. But there was always power for the teevee. Just as in Amerika, the Ingsoc teevee delivers the Two Minutes Hate in reaction to any defense of freedom of speech:

A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer,
seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.

Does that quote remind you of any loser demonstrations after half the electorate preferred the Republican and Libertarian access to energy planks? The two pro-energy parties arguably won the popular vote because the Libertarian Party got as many votes as were cast in the entire State of Virginia, way more than the “almost 3%” Hillary claimed for the Dems. Those Democrat protesters should be hunting down their own platform committee members–the ones that pushed planks to ban power plants instead of re-legalizing enjoyable plants.

Econazi policies cost the Dems a whole passel of cushy government jobs, grants, subsidies, handouts and opportunities to be the better people whose goons know what’s good for the riff-raff. They lost because of Fifth-Column infiltrators, not because of the candidate who can’t correctly read her own ghostwritten Mein Kampf.

But Hillary was right about another scene in 1984, where Two soft pads, which felt slightly moist, clamped themselves against Winston’s temples. O’Brien said to Winston “This time it will not hurt…” There was undoubtedly a blinding flash of light. Winston was not hurt, only prostrated. (…) “Just now I held up the fingers of my hand to you. You saw five fingers. Do you
remember that?”
“Yes.”

This, in Orwell’s book was cure, not torture. This electroshock therapy, which happened once, is what DemoGOP politicians, their lobbyists and backers mean by “providing help” for deniers with “mental health problems.” Peer-reviewed Government Health political scientists will show us altered records of temperature data and we will actually believe the data have not been tampered with! But that party lost the election, and all its votes were wasted

Ignorance is Strength!

Courtesy, Tony Heller, Realclimatescience.com

I voted libertarian, for the same party whose woman candidate for vice-president obtained an electoral vote in 1972. That 0.01% of the electoral vote forced the Supreme Court to strike down George Wallace Dixiecrat coathanger abortion laws 45 days later. Our votes won us the repeal of superstitious laws, and a victory for individual rights. That’s winning!

If you ever need translations of laws, political analyses or court decisions, you might want to look for Portugueseinterpreter.com

 

Superstition against Science

 

First there was Mussolini’s Pope, signing Lateran treaties with Il Duce in exchange for religious indoctrination and conditioning in government schools. Then Pacelli was elevated to papal infallibility as Hitler’s Pope. Today, at long last, Herr Gavin Schmidt of the Econazi Internationale has finally managed to secure a Pope of his own, and one evidently predisposed to revive that Holiest of all Inquisitions, no less. That’s progress!

Chamberlin’sThe Bad Popes” may be due for an added chapter soon. The Dark Ages were those centuries in which Europe was dominated by Protestant, Catholic and Mohammedan warfare, torture and superstition. Eight centuries later, James Clerk Maxwell organized Faraday’s and Coulomb’s research into the equations of electrodynamics. This work proceeded even as Britain bombarded China to preserve an outlet for opium grown by Indians, themselves reduced to near-enslavement, and while tax-and-spend advocates of extortionate protective tariffs in These States bombarded, shot, pillaged and burned neighbors whose laziness had made them dependent on the exploitation of chattel slavery.

Science, not suicidal superstition, wins

Science overcame superstition when the derivative was 2.1%–The Pill saved the Planet

Yet here we are, 1867 years after the invention of the Jesus myth and actual ex-scientists, now devote their efforts to the spread of mysticism and superstition. This same ex-scientist seeks, in addition to interfere with the electrical generation that has increased human life expectancy. Earth’s population has grown from two billion–when Christian prohibition enforcers shot beer smugglers in cold blood–to 7.5 billion less than 90 years later–when Christians send men with guns to shoot people for harvesting the “wrong” plants, and to jail doctors for offering a safe alternative to coathanger abortions.

The Catholic papacy fought to have the pill banned, and today its agents control politicians who deny the individual rights of women in backward countries. Pope Francis is the person most responsible every time a woman dies for lack of medical assistance with an unwanted pregnancy. Everything that could forestall a Malthusian catastrophe or make life possible on an overcrowded planet the infallible coot opposes. Still, the Vatican burns electricity like it was going out of style, while Puerto Rico is without power.

Need a translator for power dams, nuclear reactors, coal or uranium mining?

Adjustment of data into Truth

At Orwell’s fictional Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith labored to erase from the newspaper morgue facts inconvenient to The Party and replace them with “rectified” versions.

As in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the better folk–fully deserving of their government jobs and hand in the till–can plainly discern Truth. Their inability to differentiate a constant or read a thermometer to within a single degree is just the sort of spurious irrelevancy one would expect Deniers (in the pay of dollar-worshipping egotists) to criticize by way of misdirection. Today that penchant for rectification via alternative facts is applied by recipients of transfer payments from taxpayers to modern “researchers.” Here, courtesy of Tony Heller, is how political pseudoscience persistently altered the past record of ordinary temperatures to meet present exigencies in the wake of the defeat of the Democratic candidate in 2000:

Data tampering

realclimatescience.com

Yet sudden changes in the policies and laws advocated and passed by “the elect”–those better voters ensconced in the Congress–are not news. Those better people are paid $174,000 apiece in annual remuneration for the discerning way in which they direct the initiation of force to the benefit of fellow Party members by whom they are elected. In November 1892, practically 9% of all voters cast ballots for candidates enamored of the “graduated income tax”, plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

In just over a year the income tax neither entrenched kleptocracy party wanted became law. It wouldn’t do for the Great Unwashed to realize that a vote for its own party was what changed the law. Therefore no History book in any government school calls attention to that timely succession of events, much less to the economic collapse that caused the Supreme Court to strike down that tax law the following year.

Government subsidies today call for ex-post-facto rectification of sea level measurement data. The largest changes are reported by Communist China, Ecological National Socialist Brazil and three primitive islands in Oceania, home to fewer than a million inhabitants frightened into a state of fear by pseudoscientific documendacities.

data adulteration

Who controls the present controls the past…

But we’ve also seen how 1.4% of the total vote, when cast by religious fanatics in 11 successive campaigns, added a Mohammedan Sharia law ban on alcohol to the Constitution. Religious racial collectivists formed Germanic-style parties to compete with republicans even after  Prohibition enforcement caused the Crash and Depression and made that party the hateful thing it is today. Constant draining of spoiler votes by socialist, socialist-labor and communist parties had a similar affect in seducing the  Democratic party away from the salutary influence exerted on it by the Liberal Party during the campaign of 1932, when the economy collapsed entirely.

Small wonder then that a government once dedicated to the protection of individual rights was changed–by persistent casting of looter spoiler votes by tiny but violent minorities–and mutated into a truthless looter kleptocracy. We’ve seen where such spoiler votes took Russia, Germany, China and half of Korea. Since 1972, however, libertarian parties have offered voters a peaceful, rights-respecting path back to freedom, and now function in at least 21 countries. Will 9% of US voters avail themselves of the opportunity to change history? Possibly.

Orwell wrote: “The trouble is that if you lie to people, their reaction is all the more violent when the truth leaks out, as it is apt to do in the end.” –Through a Glass, Rosily, (Collected… V.4 p 35). If 9%–about a third of Americans able to frame concepts and make comparisons–deign to cast their vote for rights and reality, looter altruism may give way to individual rights just as the communism of pelf gave way to union goon violence and communist taxation in 1894, and ecological nationalsocialism in 2008.

This interpretation of current events in the light of historical precedent was brought to you by http://www.portugueseinterpreter.com

 

The LIB for Liberal gambit

Randal Paul–Son of Ron and survivor of the Bernie Sanders Volunteer Killing Fields gunfight–is tolerated by God’s Own Prohibitionists as handy bait and a false flag lure for libertarian defection; he is a useful Libertarian impersonator.

Randal’s function is to lure wavering mystics away from the LP and into the rights-destroying  mob he himself reinforced with his vote for Anointed General Beauregard Sessions, the new Prohibition Czar. The strategy is a variant on the 1932 tactic of suddenly calling communist looters “liberals.” To visualize how odd this is, here is how liberal is defined in the dictionary on my Apple computer:

(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform: a liberal democratic state.

Need I remind the reader that freedom (in a political context) means freedom from coercion? Anyone can search Google News Archives and see that Liberal meant something akin to Libertarian before the summer of 1932. The stratagem arose in the Corn-Sugar Belt as the Prohibition Party and God’s Own Prohibitionists knelt before the guillotine of the November elections. The Liberal Party in its 1931 platform gave mystical bigots short shrift:

The Liberal Party aims at the dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan, because that society, suppressing the social and political rights of Jews, Catholics, and Negroes, is a foul vulture that is eating the heart out of the body politic; and when it was in its greatest power it continued to enroll new thousands in its membership through the encouragement which Mr. Ford gave to its propaganda with his senseless campaign of libel against the Jews.

Henry Ford and the Klan were pillars of prohibition enforcement, completely immune to rational thought or objective facts. Actual Liberals were organized by Carnegie Institute regulars, captains of industry, railroad presidents, college teachers, steamship officials, bankers, merchants, authors, journalists, publishers, labor leaders, and statesmen in the Steel Belt, not corn farmers, distillers or glucose magnates.

Drys want men with guns to shoot people over alcohol, and conservatives are drys against repeal or relegalization. Wets–mostly meaning liberals–wanted nobody with a gun banning the production, sale and transportation of beer, wine, sauerkraut or liquor in 1932, or hemp, LSD, peyote or mushrooms today. By 1932, wet was the freak flag of liberals against the initiation of force. Mrs Pauline Sabin explained how the former slur became a mark of distinction.

Liberals sought repeal of Republican and Mohammedan Sharia prohibition and blue laws the mystical autocracy had imported from the Mohammedan Middle East. The Liberal Party platform of 1931 explicitly repudiated communism. The rest of their platform could have been written by low-tariff, prohibition repeal liberals in Ontario. Their pre-election propaganda in America, however, was stinging.

The Liberal Party wet plank had already been added to the Democratic platform, and the Dems then won five (05) elections in a row. Today’s mystical prohibitionists hope to trick illiterate voters into thinking “commies” when they see the LIB on the ballots. Make no mistake; the Libertarian party platform is the antithesis of imported communism or Germany’s religious nationalsocialist dictatorship. People who speak of left and right really want communism or nazionalsocialismus. Libertarians seek to protect the constitution from the tendentious initiation of force no government can afford to indulge in this 72nd year of the nuclear era.

Are you surprised to learn that a libertarian-style party existed and wrote the plank for repeal of the Prohibition Amendment? Interpreters have to think outside the box to mediate between languages and cultures.

 

 

Political planks on legalization, 1932

Liberal Repeal party

Repeal party threatens to earn spoiler votes

In 1932, platform debates were aired nationwide and reported in newpapers everywhere. Here are the Democratic, Republican, Prohibition and Liberal Party planks on legalization of alcoholic beverages:

Prohibition party plank: [Invokes Almighty God and the Prince of Peace…] We unequivocally oppose the repeal or weakening of the Eighteenth Amendment or of the laws enacted thereunder, and insist upon the strengthening of those laws. …can and will coordinate all the powers of government, Federal, State and local, strictly to enforce, by adequate and unescapable punishment of all violators, this wise and beneficent law. (…) We indict and condemn the Republican and Democratic parties for the continued nullification of the Eighteenth Amendment and their present determination to repeal the amendment on the excuse that it cannot be enforced… (Johnson and Porter 1975 337-338)

Republican prohibition plank: We do not favor a submission limited to the issue of retention or repeal, for the American nation never in its history has gone backward, and in this case the progress which has been thus far made must be preserved, while the evils must be eliminated.
We therefore believe that the people should have an opportunity to pass upon a proposed amendment the provision of which, while retaining in the Federal Government power to preserve the gains already made in dealing with the evils inherent in the liquor traffic, shall allow the States to deal with the problem as their citizens may determine, but subject always to the power of the Federal Government to protect those States where prohibition may exist and safeguard our citizens everywhere from the return of the saloon and attendant abuses.
Such an amendment should be promptly submitted to the States by Congress, to be acted upon by State conventions called for that sole purpose in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the Constitution and adequately safeguarded so as to be truly representative. (Johnson and Porter 1975 348-349)

Liberal Party prohibition plank: We demand the immediate repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. We demand that, without modification or compromise of any kind, the entire question of liquor control shall be returned to the States, where the use of beverages can be regulated by local option in each State, county, city, or otherwise, or prohibited, according to the wishes of the people therein. With this local option, or other control established, the sale of beverages, except that saloons are permanently abolished, should be freely permitted by law. (…)
To those who say that the system should be modified so as to permit the sale of wine and beer, we answer that you cannot modify anything that is essentially wrong. You have not thought the matter through. Besides, any modification of any kind would fail to correct the central evil. The bootlegger would still rule the situation, and the traffic in hard liquors, now so universally effective, would still make it necessary to preserve the whole system of futile enforcement, together with the violence and corruption which now disgrace it. Therefore, the Eighteenth Amendment must go out of the Constitution, root and branch. (The Liberal Party in America, 1931 pp 106-7)

Democratic prohibition repeal plank: We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. To effect such repeal we demand that Congress immediately propose a Constitutional Amendment to truly represent the conventions in the states to act solely on that proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the several States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the states.
We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable the states to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their laws.
Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act; to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue.
We condemn the improper and excessive use of money in political activities. (Johnson and Porter 1975 332)

Observe that the Republicans copied the Prohibition Party platform (in 1928) and the Democrats copied the 1931 Liberal Party wet plank (calling for repeal of the Prohibition amendment). In both cases, small parties casting less than 1.4% of the vote caused the major parties to adopt or reject important changes in the laws. This is the spoiler vote leverage effect.

Choosing a legal translator or court interpreter is also easier when you check their credentials to see what they offer.

Houston Translator Association Irregularities

The Houston Translators and Interpreters Association has in recent years been a model of competence in the industry. Yet the current bylaws amendment ballot looks more like a model of practices to avoid. The online bylaws dated April 14, 2010, define members as follows:

Article III – Membership…

Section B – Classes and Qualifications

The Association has three (3) membership classes: individual, corporate and institutional.

  • Individual: An individual who is engaged in translating, interpreting or related work (and may include students)

  • Corporate: A business with an interest in translation or interpretation

  • Institutional: An institution with an interest in translation or interpretation.

Directors elected in single-candidate elections now propose to change those member classes by creating a special class of students who at this time would not be allowed to vote to elect their teacher nor be listed in the online members directory (where the public expects to find professional linguists). To propose the change, voters were told that “new text is indicated by underlining, deleted text by strikeout.” But for the ballot proposal sent to members to change the bylaws, the board of directors approved the following:

Section B – Classes and Qualifications

The Association has four (4) membership classes: individual, corporate, institutional and student.

The above introductory sentence (followed by four, not three bullet items) appeared with no underlining for the new text nor strikeouts for deleted language. It gives the incorrect impression–instructions elsewhere to the contrary notwithstanding–that the student category already exists whether one likes it or not, and that there is mere quibbling to be decided on some trifling point of verbiage in the last of four preexisting bullet points.

In an association of quilt-makers, brewers, basket-weavers or kickboxers, the omission might be brushed aside as simple incompetence, the result voided and new ballots produced. Indeed, one such error in ballot translation into Spanish for the Texas State government had precisely that outcome and cost taxpayers about $100,000 to reprint.

The bad ballot language at issue, however, is presented as approved by the very people immigrants depend on for legal defense of their individual rights in courts that order execution by letal injection. Credible fear reviews can shield dissenters or whistleblowers from extrajudicial execution or torture by junta-style dictatorships, and HITA hosted a presentation on those. Professionals educated abroad want their syllabi competently translated with all legalities accurate so they may exercise a profession despite entrenched lobbyists erecting barriers to entry.  Our newsletter and web tips just now alerted linguists of at least a dozen different fraudulent scams. But more perfidious scams are perpetrated from within the profession. Must we circulate ballots that are an indictment of the board’s competence to frame and edit a simple bylaws amendment proposal?

For over a decade beginners were advised by prominent HITA and AATIA members not to bother to apply for municipal and county court interpreting in Texas. From a position of public trust they emphatically proclaimed that a license was required as a prerequisite. Nevermind that this was a law urged by three individuals claiming to represent the profession without their lobby efforts appearing in our trade publications. The persistent lie was finally exposed at a regulatory meeting at which a government regulatory attorney explained on the public record that the law meant nothing of the sort.

The old law merely formalized a procedure for showing an incompetent interpreter the door and ordering up a substitute, typically someone grandfathered in irrespective of real credentials or ability.  The dissembling was a sales platform for quickie diploma mill courses pushing test answers, podiums for grandfathered insiders to talk down to aspirants, and a loophole enabling agencies possessed of counsel to quietly and without fanfare exploit inexperienced youngsters at pauper rates. The law was only repealed after a libertarian interpreter put up a website playing a recording of the regulatory lawyer’s explanation in language too clear and simple to falsify.

If sidetracking students from earning a degree liable to make them employable is deemed a good idea, it ought to be passed by honest vote of fully-informed members using a ballot prepared in conformity with its own instructions and specifications.  Leaving out the underscores and strikethroughs is a demonstration of lack of competence or subterfuge that can only lead to the outcome being challenged. That is not the sort of attention the board needs to be focussing on the Houston Interpreters and Translators Association.

Any association of actual linguists can raise revenue and provide a public service by hosting interpreting contests. Winners selected by the attendees could thereby earn credible credentials by live testing. A similar competitive approach is used to select and rank athletes, speakers, dancers, writers–even tire-changers or jugglers performing at association events. An interpreting contest need be no more complicated than a live debate or a spelling bee, and its results would carry weight with the membership, judges, attorneys, doctors and honest regulators interested in an objective assessment of competence in performance.

If you are an interpreter or translator interested in the honest defense of individual rights, by all means do get in touch.