Government Intelligence Language Program

Mr Dooley, of the U.S. Office of the Director of Government Intelligence (DGI) has awarded a $10.7 million grant to a team of computer scientists at Tammany Hall University (THU) to create an information retrieval and translation system for languages that are not widely used around the world.

Teedy Rosenfeld, a computer science professor in THU’s School of Engineering, is leading the 20 members of the THUGrant research team to develop a system that can respond to inquiries typed in English based on documents written in so-called “low resource” languages, which means there is relatively little written material in these languages.

“The biggest challenge we’re going to have with this setup is that there’s not much data,” Teedy says. He expects the DGI will soon send his team information on a target language for testing the system.

He says that ultimately the intelligence agency is likely to choose languages for the project that may be spoken by millions of poor, dissolute, uncovered wretches but are not prevalent in written material, languages such as Esperanto, Loglan, Pig-Latin, Klingon, Newspeak and Ido.

Several Latin American State Science Institutes, supported by grants from such eleemosynary organizations as the UN, CIA, FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG, PIAB, OFBCI, DEA, and NSA, have been commended by the DGI. Together, our neighbors to the South are working on machine translations of Desesperanto in support of US efforts to export the Noble Experiment of Prohibition everywhere. Stay tuned…

A public service message from www.portugueseinterpreter.com as interpreted from news stories.

 

Advertisements

Denier is the new Juden

Eight parties unmentioned

From the socialist Wikipedia

Ecological National Socialist candidate Albert Goracle, lost to G. Waffen Bush by three electoral votes in the Y2k election. Had voters in his home state of Tennessee backed his platform–ban electricity, continue asset forfeiture looting, jail hippies and blacks for plants–Gore’s party would have won by 16 electoral votes. The Dems could have had their hands in the till and hacks on the government payroll. Neither the Green nor Libertarian party commanded enough Tennessee spoiler votes to reverse the outcome. Still, Gore blamed Florida for his defeat.

Something similar happened to Germany and Austria back before ballots replaced bullets, Germany and its allies (Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria) lost WWI and blamed Jewish politicians. Thanks to the Jo Nova blog, the pattern of collectivist self deception can be seen in this example, in which I replace a single word with its conceptual equivalent. The context is journalist Ross Clark asked The Goracle a technical question about sea level rising versus land mass sinking.

When I put all this to Al Gore and ask him whether his film would be stronger if it acknowledged the complexities of sea level rise — why it is rising in some places and not in others — I am expecting him to bat it away, saying that it doesn’t counter his central point and that there is a limit to what you can put into a film pitched at a mass audience, but his reaction surprises me. As soon as I mention Professor Wdowinski’s name, he counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a Jew?’ Then, as I continue to make the point, he starts to answer before directing it at me: ‘Are you a Jew?’ When I say I am sure that climate change is a problem, but how big a one I don’t know, he jumps in: ‘You are a Jew.’

That is a strange interpretation of the word ‘deny’, I try to say. But his PR team moves in and declares ‘Time’s up’, and I am left feeling like the guy in Monty Python who paid for a five-minute argument and was allowed only 30 seconds. On the way out, a frosty PR woman says to me: ‘Can I have a word with you?’ I wasn’t supposed to ask difficult questions, she says, because ‘this is a film junket, to promote the film’.

If Clark had tried that at an Oswald Mosley rally, he would have been beaten by goons. But the point is that the Econazi mindset is concerned not with facts, but bogeymen and strawmen. This last election had similar planks and a similar outcome. If the Dems had not copied the Green party anti-electricity agenda, and had instead copied the Libertarian party re-legalization plank, they might have beaten God’s Own Prohibitionists.

Get in touch for translations of political party platforms, nuclear reactor specifications, energy-related bills before various government assemblies or financial and economic impact of prohibition laws on national economies.

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

 

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.

America Before NATO

These United States joined in WWI NOT as Allies with England, Serbia and France, against Germany, but certainly not as an enemy of Turkey.

Tax-happy warmunist looters

Read the original Chicago Tribune page

 

US banks, recently united via the Federal Reserve System, went to war in 1918 to ensure the money loaned to France and England would be paid back. Russia dropped out of that European alliance after its communist revolt. That raised the possibility of the Austro-Hungary-Prussia alliance winning and giving the losers an excuse for welshing. Here’s what happened.

February 9, 1920, British Embassy in Washington to Treasury: “We should welcome a general cancellation of intergovernmental war debts.”  (Garrett 1932 148). British debt was 4.5 billion gold dollars. France owed the US $4 billion. The aggregate total Europe owed America in 1926 was $22.5 billion in gold, and nearly all European nations sought to welsh on the debt.

Then, in the fall of 1922, a nationalistic government headed by Dr. C.J.W. Cuno took command of Berlin. The Allies charged Germany with willful default on her reparations payments, and at the beginning of 1923 French and Belgian troops occupied the Valley of the Ruhr, attempted to take over industries, but were balked by German passive resistance.
The mark fell from 7000 to the dollar in the first days of January, 1923 to 4 trillion in November, over 570,000 times as worthless. German credit abroad was wrecked as individual rights also converged on worthlessness.  (Nat’l Geog December 1928 667)

Calvin Coolidge conference September 16, 1924: I haven’t any plan or policy about the settlement of the French debt at present. That is all provided for by statute law and I suppose that the only representation I would be entitled to make about it is that which I am ordered to make by law. That [obtaining approval of Congress] was what was done with the British debt. It wasn’t settled exactly in conformity with the terms of the law. (…) What we have constantly kept in mind in that policy is that the debt that is due to us from one country hasn’t any direct connection with the debt that might be due to us from another country. That is why we have not mixed up the German indemnity in any way with our own debt.  (Quint & Ferrell 1964 188-189)

Mar 31, 1927‑‑German Reichstag unanimously demands a downward revision of reparations payments. (NY World Almanac 1928 102). What follows is from Prohibition and the Crash.

Chapter 151

The Moratorium

President Hoover declared on June 20, 1931, what would later be styled the “Moratorium on Brains” by postponing all inter-governmental debts for a one-year “standstill agreement.”[1] Since the United States was owed money by just about everyone involved in WWI, this meant a drying up of what revenue had been forthcoming, mainly interest at $250 million a year. Its real effect was to strengthen the debt repudiation movement, jeopardize private loans to Germany and even the loan principal owed the Treasury by the Allies.

Veterans stared in bewilderment and wondered how a government too broke to advance a couple of billion on their bonus bonds could casually toss away over $20 billion with a wave of the hand—and for the accursed Hun! The total amounts involved in all the major war debts ran into some $22 billion divided among five countries in 1925, and had changed little since then.[2]

A much more pressing concern, however, were the private loans which Dr. Hjalmar Schacht had assured Americans would be repaid as soon as the Allies’ reparations monkey were lifted off Germany’s back. Hoover, determined at all hazards to convince voters that the world economic crises did not originate in America, had no choice but to again direct attention “over there.” If Schacht were right, at least the bulk of the money owed to American investors might actually arrive. Reversing this flow was important, since Europe had put the touch on Americans for over forty billion dollars in private loans in less than fifteen years. The moratorium did get people’s attention, but not in any way that would redound to Hoover’s credit. Latin-American politicians, impressed by the largesse with which El Presidente altruista dispensed other people’s monies, began sidling up for a moratorium on their arrearage. Already Hoover’s move was backfiring. There was something of a stock market rally in New York when the news hit, but U.S. government bonds all closed behind minus signs.[3]

[1] (Hoover 1931 1976 325)

[2] (Time Capsule 1/12/25 105-6)

[3] (Hoover 1931 1976 331) (Garrett 1932 57, 67)

In today’s looter press the NATO parasitism situation is depicted as stingy selfishness on the part of the DemoGOP Congress that passes laws the President is required to enforce… exactly as when FDR was Prez. Europeans also whine that American voters do not buy their doomsday beliefs. US voters came out against the latest doublethink version of European National Socialism–a pogrom against electric generating capacity–and scientists specifically rejected all eugenic and pseudoscientific theories claiming industrial society causing global broiling, 31,000 to 18. As for nuclear energy, Econazi Germany is acutely aware that the atom bomb was developed to broil its socialist government. Germany managed to escape through surrender and suicide. Americans have no reason to fear nuclear power plants or weapons… except in the hands of socialists or religious fanatics.

Looting is Generosity

The Repo Man

 

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.