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.

 

Voter Comparison Shopping

When was the last time you saw political party platform planks compared? The entrenched Kleptocracy parties both claimed to be different in 2016. Are they?

The Democrats still want your kids incarcerated for marijuana, only now they want to class it in the same category as methamphetamine and cocaine instead of heroin. The Libertarian Party is against sending men with guns to kick down doors–especially when no harm has been done to merit such violence. The Republican Party wants that Old Testament Prohibitionism that caused most of our financial crashes and economic depressions. Sound farfetched? Exaggerated?

Here is the 2016 straddle plank the Democratic party added to its lengthy platform by the narrowest of margins before choosing a candidate:

Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1″ federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization.

Here is the Libertarian plank that covers policy on marijuana:

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. [Banned from televised debates]

Here is the Republican plank on some drugs:

The progress made over the last three decades against drug abuse is eroding, whether for cultural reasons or for lack of national leadership. In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. At the other end of the drug spectrum, heroin use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2013, while deaths from heroin have quadrupled. All this highlights the continuing conflicts and contradictions in public attitudes and public policy toward illegal substances. Congress and a new administration should consider the long- range implications of these trends for public health and safety and prepare to deal with the problematic consequences.

True, the Dems pretend to believe they can repeal the Second Amendment, enact Kristallnacht laws, abolish guns and turn These States into a banana republic or European satrapy. And the GO-Pee platform flatly asserts it wants to change the 14th Amendment so that “All Persons Born” will again be interpreted to mean “All Ova Fertilized,” everywhere, not just in Dixieland as it was before the Libertarian Party electoral vote earned in December of 1972. That vote led to the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing that pregnant women have individual rights in January 1973. (Yep. Libertarian spoiler votes have been vacating bad jurisprudence for 45 years). Their biggest mistake was to cave in to Green Watermelon spoiler votes aimed at making electricity generation more difficult and expensive than it already is. That is the only real difference between the GOP-Tea Party-Klan and the DEM-Green-CPUSA United Fronts.

There is no difference between being flung in jail or shot by conscience-stricken Democrats or lustily bragging Republicans.  Both want hemp users arrested by the violence of law–that, fines and imprisonment are what their platforms offer voters–and visit upon those too young to vote or buy beer. Prohibition laws are marketing tools passed and enforced for a profit that is well-hidden from view. They distort the supply and demand curves to raise prices; that is the purpose of all marketing.

If you are surprised that these precursors to legislation are what make the laws, try not to be surprised by bad translations of legal material in court.  A competent court interpreter can be as valuable as a competent attorney in defense of your rights.

 

 

 

Brennt Paris?

France, of course, surrenders to German National Socialism at every opportunity. This 1940 French Translation of Mein Kampf (as Mon Combat–My Struggle) appears in the first 5 minutes of the 1966 movie Brennt Paris? The movie shows Parisians mostly riding bicycles, with the wealthy saving gas driving those horse-drawn Hoovercarts used in America during Prohibition After the Crash. The Occupation of Paris was Ecological National Socialism in black & white.

But France’s own media set them up for permanent obloquy in the Fawlty Towers Pantheon of Pathetic Poltroons. Seen this French hagiography of the current International Socialist Chanceller of Germany? It’s not all that different from Time Magazine thrice putting another nationalistic, Socialist German Chancellor on its cover a few decades ago. At least two such Chancellors made Time’s Person of the Year. Back in 1938 the Chancellor’s crowds shouted Raus juden! Today it’s Keine Atomkraftwerks!

If votes count for anything, America still prefers to keep electric power safe, legal and abundant. No Nukes, Nuclear Disarmament, Surrender to Soviet, Ban Coal, Ban Fracking, and other Gaian collectivist shibboleths notwithstanding.

But the Democratic party digs itself deeper and deeper into the pseudoscience of ecological national socialism. This cost them the votes of many who also want an end to the Republican régime of prohibitory televangelist pseudoscience, mass incarceration, cops shooting children and asset-forfeiture looting. The Democratic Party platform committee made the bed those loser politicians and their frustrated supporters get to lie in. They lie awake hearing God’s Own Prohibitionists Make Amerika Grate Again.

This appeals hugely to Libertarians. Unlike the socialist-prohibitionist DemoGOP, our platform says to relegalize self-medication, free the victimless-yet-persecuted from prisons and expunge their records. We seek to ABOLISH most taxes & regulations and all wars soon. Every Libertarian vote forces looter politicians to repeal or modify at least 6 times as many rights-destroying usurpations now masquerading as laws–or lose their seats.  Libertarian spoiler votes cover the gap between the main looter parties, and currently swing 90 electoral votes in major elections.

So Democrats, why not heat up some tar, cut open a few pillowcases and throw an outdoor party for your former platform committeemembers? Teach their replacements to spell R-E-P-E-A-L. Who knows? Maybe you can get jobs for some of your ward heelers and a hand in the till to boot? Failing that, try voting Libertarian instead: the other parties offer you warmunists, bureaucrats and politicians, we offer you freedom.

Did this help clarify why the US  need not sacrifice taxpayer earnings on the altar of pseudoscience?  Clarity is what many people want in their translations. This is why I have repeat customers. I look out for their pocketbooks.

 

Global Warming Great Lakes prediction

In 2011 Global Warmunists published dire prophesies of what would surely maybe perhaps happen to the Great Lakes.

Here’s an update of what they’re like now. No loss of water, ice and temperatures normal. This all reminds me of the “scientists” and “doctors” who said marijuana and LSD would surely maybe perhaps turn teenagers into zombies and axe-murderers any minute now. Forty years later at least one of these is legal in most US states and many civilized countries around the world.

I found this in the comments section at realclimatescience.com

The Petition Project alone lists by state and alphabetically 32000 scientists unconvinced by warmer pseudoscience. For them to be the 3% there would have to be at least a million and sixty-seven thousand degreed scientists listed somewhere as the 97% endorsing the conclusion that the world is fast becoming a rotisserie. But of the handful I can identify, most were claiming 30 years ago that the Earth was entering into an ice age. Yet temperature charts are flatlining like the funding figures for econazi hysterics.

But the global warming scare and Carbon Tax sure as hell defeated the Democratic Party this last election. It was the only real difference between “the two” parties. Maybe next election the Dem Platform Committee will copy a repeal plank from the Libertarian Party instead of copying more prohibition and taxes from Luddites.  They copied a plank to repeal the Prohibition Amendment from the Liberal Party in 1932, and never regretted the move.