Looter Media Attacks

Intellectuals of the looter persuasion are quoting Eric Trump as if their cynicism could modify his observation:

“That’s been the playbook in our government for so long: distract, disrupt, hurt, bash, defame, do whatever you can for your own political gain. It’s sad that we don’t have more morals or character or whatever it is.” —Eric Trump

The rough-and-tumble at issue became serious because just as the Libertarian Party was forming, Nixon’s National Socialist Congress passed the Anti-Libertarian Campaign Bribery law of 1971.  Two decades later,  a non-Kleptocracy candidate had this to say about the way the Altruist Broadcasting Corporation, Nationalsocialist Broadcasting Corporation and Communist Broadcasting Service (the dirty tricks guys) were attacking him in October of 1992:

Yes Ross Perot helped the entrenched looter kleptocracy divert voters away from the Libertarian Party. He was repaid in government cash subsidies taken out of the pockets of many honest working people who would rather not coerce anyone.  Perot reinforced the superstitious ignorance that caused These States to export brutal prohibitionism to South America, confident that would destroy the economies of Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia while setting up a fascist dictatorship in Peru. It is true that Reagan Administration manipulation of prohibition and tax laws did wreck a prohibition-created source of cash then fueling communist expansion. But the process corrupted the entire Mexican government into a huge 1930s Chicago.

Spoiler votes cast for Ross Perot unfrocked the more fanatical zealots the way The Liberal Party platform had in 1932. Perot’s spoiler votes reversed deficit spending and led to a surplus just as George Wallace spoiler votes turned Republicans into ku-klux Dixiecrats before the election subsidies law. The Clinton years were prosperous thanks mostly to the policy changes caused by Ross Perot spoiler votes. The looter press, naturally, thanked The Kleptocracy.

So yes, Eric Trump, you observe correctly, and you can do something to improve the situation. Vote Libertarian in the mid-term elections. Tell fake media that the Nixon Media Subsidies to favor the entrenched parties have polluted democracy. Come clean, follow Dad’s good example and say: “Libertarianism? I like it!” The LP platform, the one that got your Dad the nomination, takes less than half an hour to read. Borrowing our energy and Second Amendment planks landed you in the White House. I’m hoping I can count on your vote NOT as a token of appreciation. We both want back the cleaner elections we had before Richard Nixon altered the tax code to subsidize the initiation of force and undermine American morality.

“I like it. A lot of good points…” Those words guaranteed that the desperate, destitute and dishonest Gee Oh Pee urinalysis party would nominate Donald ten months later. That got Republicans government jobs, paychecks–and opportunities to have younger men violently put to death on both sides of the planet.  Three will get you five that that looter cartoonist will not quote your mention of the LP on his mudline fed by subsidized media pets.

If you need unsubsidized, competitive translations of laws, court decisions, testimony or decipherment of political speeches, come to Portugueseinterpreter.com. And for handcrafted certified immigration documents from Spanish and Portuguese to English and English into Brazilian Portuguese, visit http://www.braziliantranslated.com or http://www.juramentada.us

 

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, a million 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 medicinal and enjoyable plant leaves.

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 all 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

2016 Second Amendment Gun planks

A Free State

Gun rights vote totals 2016 election

2016 Libertarian Plank on the Second Amendment:
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition. (Yield: 3.28% of the popular vote)

2016 Republican Party plank on the Second Amendment:
Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that predates the Constitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. …, … We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law. … (Yield: 46.09% of popular vote, 56% of electoral vote)

The parties eager to violate the Second Amendment now–the same ones that wanted to prohibit the Strategic Defense Initiative in violation of the Second Amendment in the 1980s–drew even in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college. Voters in two competing parties have expressed a preference for keeping both electricity and guns legal and abundant and aggregated 49.4% of the popular vote count. That’s reality.

Libertarian votes spanned the spoiler vote gap in States casting 89 electoral votes, 15% more than the total number of electoral votes separating the party that got the pelf and political pull from the one that chose to violate rights protected by the Constitution instead of repealing prohibition.

If you understood this reality check on the outcome of hotly contested election issues, imagine how clearly you will understand my translations of legal, political or economic events in places where the news is in Portuguese or Spanish.

1920s Drug Fiends

Excerpted from Prohibition and the Crash, by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 18

Drug Fiends

            A five-to-four decision by the Supreme Court in Seattle’s “whispering wires” bootlegging case settled the 4th Amendment issue of wiretapping on June 4. Our highest Court on that day pronounced government skulking over phone lines legal, ethical and good.[1] The Court’s stated position in finishing the work begun with the Sullivan and Marron decisions was that the Bill of Rights was so important that only Congress—certainly not the Judicial branch—had the authority to attribute “an enlarged and unusual meaning to the Fourth Amendment.”[2]

Thirteen Coast Guards were suspended June 2, ostensibly for accepting bribes to overlook smuggling of “liquor” from ocean liners, but that story had been suppressed for over 2 months and had developed an odor.[3] In Buffalo, June 4 was opening day for a conference between U.S. and Canadian customs officials. The meeting was organized by Assistant Treasury Secretary Seymour Lowman. This is the same Lowman, who replaced Lincoln Andrews after Andrews was forced by Elmer Irey – the heavy-artillery agent – to resign. Placed in charge of customs, Lowman’s specialties included narcotics smuggling and dismissing “dirty” agents.[4] When newsmen finally found out about this meeting nearly 3 weeks later, Secretary Andrew Mellon assured them that no railroad men had been threatened and that it “had nothing to do with prohibition or enforcement of the Volstead act.” This naturally raised suspicions about drugs, suspicions reinforced when 6 persons were shot on the floor of the Yugoslav House of Representatives. Yugoslavia was a major exporter of medical-grade opium and was reeling from widespread riots. This news hit reporters even as they tried to pry a scoop on the secret meeting from Secretary Mellon.[5]

In April 1921, the Literary Digest had run an unsigned article “Is Prohibition Making Drug Fiends?” The article raised troubling questions. The State Department understood perfectly well by 1922 that war-fed output and prohibition-enhanced smuggling facilities were thwarting all efforts at narcotics control.[6]

Repeal advocate Franklin Fabian speculated in a 1922 book that prohibition might have something to do with U.S. narcotics consumption being 6 or 7 times as high as in most European nations.[7] The very suggestion was hotly denied by prohibitionist Herman Feldman, who also denied that figures describing the true situation could be had from any source. Feldman relied on the usual apocrypha and anecdotes to shore up his beliefs, and shrugged off any hard data on arrests and convictions as proving only that enforcement was improving. Feldman’s source, a Dr. Kolb, argued that alcohol was actually a sort of gateway drug which led to narcotics use.[8] Nowhere does Feldman explain why no narcotics planks figured in U.S. political party platforms before 1924. Yet that year the Democrats—eager, of course, to exclude Asian immigration—suddenly began railing in their platform against “the spreading of heroin addiction among the youth,” while the Prohibition Party merely blinked and stood mute on the issue.[9] The sight of prisons steadily filling up with “narcotics” convicts led the Democratic Platform Committee and Herman Feldman to diametrically opposite conclusions as to why.

At prohibition hearings held during April of 1926 Congressman William S. Vare of Pennsylvania had declared the “increased use” of narcotics throughout the nation “appalling.”[10] Then on May 14, 1928, Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee reported that 28% of federal inmates were “addicts” and pushed for the Porter bill to segregate the junkies on a Kentucky “narcotics farm.”[11]

Yet the wisdom of the Harrison Act stood unchallenged even after 537 pounds of heroin and morphine were discovered in Brooklyn by New York Deputy Chief Inspector Louis J. Valentine’s staff in 1927—the year of the recent “Tong War” on U.S. soil and civil turmoil on Chinese soil.[12] Not only had alcohol prohibition increased U.S. demand for heroin and morphine, but the well-developed channels for alcohol smuggling served even better as conduits for smuggling drugs. It was probably easier to bribe a customs agent to look the other way if the agent believed that rum, not heroin, was being smuggled in.

 

[1] (NY World Almanac 1929 91)

[2] (Olmstead et al. v. U.S. 06/04/28 [465])

[3] (NYT 8/15/28 23:4)

[4] (Merz 1931 248-249)

[5] (NYT 6/22/28 31; 6/23/28 34, 52)

[6] (Taylor 1969 150)

[7] (Fabian 1922 77-80)

[8] (Feldman 1927/30 109, 113-115, 111)

[9] (Johnson and Porter 1975 246; 249)

[10] (Feldman 1927/30 101-102)

[11] (NYT 5/15/28 10)

[12] (NYT 7/1/28 14; 1/13/27 4)

Does your company ever need to come to terms with pharmaceutical suppliers south of the border? Why not hire an interpreter familiar with the history and background of many foreign products?

Independence During Prohibition

pre-libertarian repeal

Chicago Tribune, 5 July 1931. The top step says Less Graft

1931 was the year the Liberal Party published its platform rejecting socialism, welfare and the dole and calling for repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment and all Blue Laws. This pre-libertarian party’s platform provided the framework for the repeal plank that got Democrats elected five times running.

The cartoon was published 86 years ago, but only 41 years before the libertarian party formed. Because they themselves lacked the courage to stand up to the Klan and other empires of murderous mysticsm, Republicans in 1932 began pronouncing “liberal” the way German National Socialists pronounced it–expectorated with a hiss, the same way they pronounced “Jew.” Then again, freedom is not at all popular among National Socialists.

It’s a pity the Democratic Party platform committee has been entirely taken over by ecological national socialists. Those worthies are far more preoccupied with an Aryan model of purity; not Aryan purity, mind you, but environmental purity with transfer payments from producers to non-producers. The Liberal Party was not collectivist and eschewed coercive solutions.

Do you ever need translations of environmental laws and regulations written in Portuguese or Spanish? I also translate lawsuits and contracts, and interpret depositions and full-blown hearings.

Economic Collapse, July 1930

Prohibition caused Depression

Chicago Tribune 17NOV1930

The stock market crash of 1929 marked the realization that prohibition laws would soon destroy the US economy and banking system. By mid-1930, financial collapse was so well underway that the old prohibition enforcement districts were redrawn to conform closely to existing Federal Reserve districts. This change took effect on July 1, 1930, the month Cook County Assessor Gene G. Oliver was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $12,500 by Judge Woodward in Chicago.

Here is a breakdown of the districts.

The transfer of the prohibition enforcement activity from the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice under the Williamson Act took place on July 1, 1930, under the Bureau of Industrial Alcohol in the Treasury Department, retained the duty of issuing permits for the manufacture and use of alcohol and other intoxicating liquor for non-beverage purposes, and of supervising the activities of the permitees.  The 27 prohibition districts hitherto existing were rearranged into 12 new districts, with boundaries corresponding in some measure with the 10 judicial circuits.  (Misdirection! The districts were a nearly perfect fit to the Federal Reserve Districts–tr)

1. Boston: Maine, N. Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, R. Island, Connecticut
2. New York: New York State and Porto Rico
3. Philadelphia: New Jersey; Pennsylvania, Delaware
4. Richmond: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, N. Carolina, South Carolina, DC.
5. New Orleans: Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas.
6. Cincinnati: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee
7. Chicago: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin.
8. St. Paul: Minnesota, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska.
9. Kansas City: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma.
10. Denver: Arizona, Colorado, N. Mexico, Utah, Wyoming.
11. San Francisco: California, Nevada, Hawaii.
12. Seattle: Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Alaska.
Source: NY World Almanac 1931 p 36

That same day, the Bank of Winter Park, Florida, closed its doors. As prohibition asset-forfeiture confiscations continued, many other banks would close. The Liberal Party, formed in 1930, published a plank in 1931 calling for the repeal of blue laws and the Prohibition Amendment. The Democratic Party copied this plank in the summer of 1932–in the middle of a major banking panic–and went on to win the election in November. That is s demonstration of the law-changing clout of libertarian party spoiler votes. By the time Franklin D. Roosevelt was sworn in as president in March of 1933, every bank in the nation had already closed its doors.

If you are disappointed not to have learned this in school, join the crowd. But be sure to choose a financial and accounting translator who won’t overlook things and cause added disappointment.

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.