Sunday, May 26, 2013

Could Eagles for America Actually Push "E" Through?

 They could. But it might take a while!

The challenges are enormous. But the mood in the country has never been better. Let's take a quick review of the original purpose of the "Eagles for America." For those who have read "E" is for English, you might want to review chapters seven and eight.

A Constitutional Amendment is an ambitious undertaking. Some would conclude that it would be a "next to impossible" undertaking! Getting two-third of the United States Congress to agree on anything looks like a lost cause. To imagine both the Congress and Senate reaching such a consensus is even more unlikely.

And, of course, we are not finished! 37 of 50 states would need to ratify the proposed "E" Amendment. Impossible?

If there is any encouraging aspect of the amendment process it is the fact that the President would not be involved in the decision. That's right! Hollingsworth versus Virginia answered that question in 1798.

University of Kentucky Professor of Economics, John Garen suggested that "we might not need a constititional amendment to accomplish our goal." Dr. Garen knows what he is talking about. But there is one minor problem, not going the amendment route: "An expected onslaught of litigation efforts."

The "E" Amendment would make English, the official language in the United States. But, it would go further. The proposal mandates "passage of a fourth grade English proficiency examination as a prerequisite for a voter identification card." The I.D. card would have a photograph and thumb print. A voting booth retinal scan is likewise discussed as an option.

The proposal disallows all languages save English for voting ballots, drivers license testing, official documents and literally anything done under the auspices of government. In short, the objective is "accelerated assimilation."

Without question, the "diversity cultists" would cry foul. There would be screams of "disenfranchisement." Al Sharpton would "have kittens!"

The Eagles' mission would be to patiently explain the legislation's rationale to America. The second objective would be to hammer away at elected leaders, stressing the need for a "smarter, stronger more secure America."

Eagles would be headquartered in thirty individual "cells" from one end of the country to the other. The "Cell Directors" would generate correspondence to all interested parties within their designated area. They would lead by example in email and texting campaigns designed to recruit new Eagles while helping sell their local, state and federal political leaders on the proposal's merit.

Their primary guide would be the Eagles for America Internet Newspaper. This would be the national sounding board for all who were activists in the movement.

According to Washington, D.C. based, U.S. English, 87% of America favors making English the official language. U.S. English, Pro-English and English First are the three Washington based foundations currently engaged in the endeavor.

Which brings us to the next question: "If foundations are already attempting to make it happen, why would we need Eagles for America to push a constititional amendment that would have a similar effect?" The answer is cut and dry.

These foundations are made up of wonderful committed Americans. They have made  progress. But, they appear willing to settle for the "low hanging fruit."

The "E" Amendment tackles illiteracy. The goal is total literacy in America. The desire is to make Americans the "masters of the language." A deeper inspection of the proposed amendment reveals a national public school requiremenmt of "six years of a second language," beginning in third grade. It also proposes teaching "Transformational Grammar," as opposed to "Traditional Grammar."

Transformational Grammar is the art of "transforming" a sentence from "surface structure to deep structure."(All languages are the same in deep structure) Many contemporary English teachers complain that Transformational Grammar is a "mathematical approach to English." Others suggest that it is confusing, likely forcing the teachers themselves to return to the classroom to get the full grasp.

The requirement of six years of a second language has some support. Especially the plan that the book discusses that is described as a "slow assent." A language begins with "who is speaking it," the book argues. Learning the history, geography and culture of those who speak a language is believed to broaden understanding of the language itself. Or, as the book phrases, "our goal is to teach our children how to think."

The overall concept is revolutionary. Make no mistake! There will be a lot of members of the educational establishment who will vehemently oppose it. And Eagles will counter this opposition in pointing out that the "E" Amendment's ultimate goal is to "turn Sheeple into People."

Eagles will actually draw energy from criticism. When the idea is scoffed as expected by some, their tone will change. All not in favor of this legislation are "un-American, un-patriotic and unfit for leadership in the country."

Eagles for America will attempt to drive home a simple point: "Everyone in America should have a shot at the American Dream. This is impossible if you do not have a grasp of the language."

Could this point be argued? Probably! But, who wants to make that argument? According to Eagles the argument will be made by power brokers interested in keeping a segment of the population in permanent bondage. It amounts to "drone duty:" or life as a "thrall." Illiterate people are much easier to control than those who can read. And, as the book emphatically states, "literate people begin asking tough questions" that these power brokers don't want to answer!

These thirty Eagles for America "cells" would constititute the national movement. The Internet Newspaper would be their homing beacon. The goal is relatively simple. But, the impact would shake the nation.

Not surprising would be the billions of dollars that would be saved on unfunded mandate costs that have come from the U.S. Justice Department. There has not been a study confirming how much. But, as Dr. Garen suggested, "state and local governments would defintely feel it."

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Defining Conservatism. What is and what isn't?

Recently a friend from the Bay Area of California made an interesting observation after reading "E" is for English.

"It is conservative in parts, but it's both innovative and progressive," the woman described.

She professed to be a "liberal Democrat." Amazingly, she was not the least bit offended by the insistence that a literacy test was the key to attaining 100% literacy in America. She added that "it neither criticized or praised Barack Obama." The book title "insinuated that it was anti-Obama, but it wasn't."

 She admitted liking the immigration proposal's path to citizenship and agreed that "accelerated English assimilation" was necessary for all.

Our conversation moved first to global warming, then to welfare. I realized that this intelligent women, the holder of two advance degrees, lacked depth on both subjects.

She was stunned to learn the existence of fern fossils in Siberian museums and the "mini-ice age" of the mid-eighteenth century. The heat wave of 1936 that set records in the United States was a surprise. She was utterly shocked when I informed her that "one-third" of all welfare recipients resided in her home state!

I came away with the impression that this person was taken aback by sheer facts suddenly brought to her attention. It was like being told that there "were only Magnolia trees in Mississippi," later learning that there were also Pines, Oaks, Hickories and Dogwoods.

 The subject turned to Obamacare. She admitted that it would likely be "continuously amended." When I suggested that we might ultimately be looking at "nullification" by several states, she questioned, "do you think people feel that strongly about it?"

In short, this well intentioned person had taken the liberal line as gospel. However, when the facts were presented, she was more surprised than offended.

Perhaps I disarmed her when I suggested that "California is too nice of a place to have the all of the countries' career welfare recipients congregating there."

"Because the climate is mild, people naturally find it easier to survive." she proffered. Then she admitted that even the liberal minded Governor, Jerry Brown had recently proposed stop gap measures designed to assist the chronically unemployed return to the work force.

"Many are volunteering for the training. But, upon conclusion of the training, they have difficulty finding suitable positions," she mused.

In other words, it's more profitable to stay on the welfare rolls than accept a ten- dollar per hour job!

 She then inquired, "how would you  fix the healthcare system?"

Referencing a proposal that was seen on a previous Eagles for America post, I detailed the establishment of a catastrophic pool that would be available to everyone. In amazement, she  explained, "Politicians on both sides refuse to sit down and find a solution that benefits the people. It's about "which hand" is feeding them."

Shaking her head, she surmised, "I consider myself a liberal. You consider yourself a conservative. But, we are close on many issues. How could that be? You are either more liberal or I more conservative than originally thought!"

What is the definition of liberal? What is the definition of conservative.It depends on the individual perception.

In Washington, both sides of the aisle have come to one general agreement: "Government is better centralized; the bigger the better." Never mind the constitution! Or, as Nancy Pelosi exclaimed, "are you kidding?

Doesn't the old Chinese proverb state, "divide and conquer?" Our political leaders have mastered the art. By keeping our people at arms length and pitting them against each other, they have completely distracted them from the real issue at hand: "the continuing consolidation of power in Washington, D.C.."

Is the constitution our benchmark for defining conservatism? It's supposed to be. The more strict the interpretation, the more conservative. The less strict, the more liberal. It is really very simple.

A "strict constructionist" would use "Obama care" as a prime example of "liberal" or "loose construction." After all, there is nothing in the constitution that even hints about health care  being handled at the national level! But, you could say the same about the Department of Homeland Security. Or, a program like "no child left behind." Or, for that matter, the Department of Education! 

In our attempt to label our opponents, we have allowed our political leaders to maintain the century old argument referenced on a previous, Eagles for America post. The Bolsheviks and Trotskyites had numerous disagreements. But they were in total agreement on the need for a large central government that exercised maximum control over the population.

A lot of self-described "liberals" are actually conservatives in the sense that they want more individual freedoms. They are not ready to become "wards of the state' in the Stalinist tradition. Nor, do they want to lean on big brother for the important things, as Trotsky implied.

There are those who claim that they are "conservatives."  Then they describe historic support for U.S. involvement in  Viet Nam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  They likewise had no problem with the increase monitoring and surveillance of Americans by Federal Agencies. Does "KGB" sound familiar? How about "exporting the revolution?"

The true standard of conservatism amounts to "how literal" the constitution is interpreted. Those subscribers will support Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "when people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty." Nancy Pelosi would probably suggest that Jefferson was "kidding."

To denounce both Stalin and Trotsky is easy . At the same time, most politicians welcome the notion that "a massive central government"  is the key to any and all ailments; the solution to all perceived problems.

It comes down to a basic contradiction. True conservatives are constitutionalists, which translates to a more defined acknowledgement of the 10th amendment. Amazingly, many self professed liberals are more in line with Libertarians than Democrats. This is due to their lust for greater individual freedoms. 

When we draw these distinctions the battle line magically changes.


Sunday, May 5, 2013

America in need of Visionaries, Risk Takers

In July 2010, I initiated correspondence with Cory Fritz, John Boehner's Press Secretary. He was cordial and extremely receptive. At his direction, I sent both he and Boehner first edition copies of "E" is for English. Cory told me to send the book to his Washington D.C.townhouse, "to insure that it would not be lost in the shuffle."

The book itself is complementary of John Boehner. It calls him "a snapshot of
Middle America." I recall standing not seven feet from him in a rally for Andy Barr's Kentucky, 6th District Congressional campaign, October 2010. He made a short, fiery speech and was back on the bus. Later, I emailed Cory, applauding Boehner's visit while adding that "people were disappointed that he couldn't hang around for ten or fifteen minutes." Cory promptly replied that he looked forward "to our getting together in the very near future."

The mid-term elections came and went. Republicans recaptured the house. Boehner assumed his current position as Speaker.

West Chester, Ohio is exactly 100 miles north of Lexington, Kentucky.  In December 2011, I personally delivered a carton of second edition copies of "E" is for English to the Speakers home district office.

When I entered John Boehner's headquarters, I was impressed by it's modesty. The 1980's furniture and inexpensive photographs reflected the Speakers "blue collar" origins.

The Secretary was all business. She was polite and attentive, telling me that the Speaker was out, had been out since Congress had recessed and nobody knew when he would return. Attached to the box was a personal note, thanking him for his review.

One week later, I called Speaker Boehner's office. He had not returned. But, the secretary admitted that "everyone in the office" was reading the book. That was my last contact. I never heard any more from John Boehner, Cory Fritz or any associated with the office.

At best, Boehner or likely an aide, glanced at the first few pages of the book, recognized it's aim and quickly dismissed it saying, "it would never get out of committee."

That is how Washington works. No time to spend on hopeless projects, no matter how much credence they may hold. Boehner has been through a tough two and one-half years. He has the Tea Party contingent wanting to remove him. He has the sly Eric Cantor standing in the background, awaiting his chance. He has both the Senate Majority Leader and Administration banking on a Democrat retake of the House in the mid-term elections.

Boehner will later be remembered as the "damage control Speaker." He was literally "damned if he did and damned if he didn't!" Amidst all of the bickering, infighting and name calling that characterizes a "split" Republican party, word eeked out that the Speaker's health was not good. Will this be his last two years as House Speaker?

Nobody truly knows. America is in deep water eyeing a shore that gets smaller with each passing day. There is a growing cynicism throughout the country. Splinter groups are sprouting coast-to-cost, predicting Armageddon. Conservatives are suspiciously looking at other conservatives suggesting that they are not actually conservatives but impostors. And the energized Democrat Party is smiling, smugly positioning themselves for the kill.

Why have we allowed this to happen? Simple. We gave up.

A lot of smart, well intentioned people have come to the conclusion that there is nothing that can arrest our nations' decline. Their comeback is "let's just try to make a little money and enjoy our families. Because there is nothing that we can do to stop what is happening. Just accept it."

In short, visionaries are no longer wanted in America. Nobody wants to stick their neck out. Some even fear a possible reprisal from the Obama camp in the event that their voice might become too distinct!

True, there are few dreamers who are not quite ready to accept the inevitable. They are generally dismissed with a shake of the head. In best cases, they are simply ignored. In worst cases they are ridiculed and chastised. Even those who might ideologically agree with their ideas or positions are quick to discourage them from "wasting their time and energy!"

Yes. We as a people have given up. We have lost our passion. We have grown lazy and complacent. We have taken the word of a society that tells us that "this is the way that it is." We have been lulled into a "dreamy apathy" by a standard that is quick to make excuses.

Is it fair to blame John Boehner for focusing on what he might accomplish as House Speaker rather than some hopeless cause presented by a well intentioned dreamer? Not really! Boehner, for all of his positive qualities is not a visionary.

Playing the odds and numbers has always been the Washington way. In fairness to Boehner, he has faced long, if not impossible odds on nearly everything since he assumed the role as House Speaker! Which brings me to another American who faced long, if not impossible odds: General Robert E. Lee.

Arguably the greatest military genius of all time, Lee prolonged a war that should have been over in 10 months to four years. And he did it by recognizing an age old fact about odds. "When odds are already against you, by slightly lengthening them, you create an element of surprise that is based on unpredictability."

Lee broke a lot of military axioms considered "doctrine" at the time. They began with his willingness to divide his army. In 1861, this practice was considered folly. He did it because he believed in himself and his ability to anticipate the opposition. It was indeed profound, if not revolutionary military logic. The result was devastating, very nearly resulting in Southern Independence.

What if John Boehner had taken the proposed legislation introduced in "E" is for English by the horns and run with it? Without question, it would have languished in committee. And even if he had gotten it to a floor vote, it is doubtful that it would have gained the two-thirds necessary. Remember, we are speaking of a Constitutional Amendment.

Why could we not pass such legislation without going the amendment route. There are a number of reasons. Beginning with an almost certain Presidential veto. An amendment to the constitution bypasses the President, going directly to the states. The President could voice his thoughts and opinions of it. But, he would not be involved in the amendment process.

Of course, with the current Senate composition, it is a given that Harry Reid would never allow such legislation to come to a vote. Let's suppose Republicans were to regain the Senate majority. Would it be possible to gain 67 "yea" votes? Probably not!

For those who have reviewed the proposed "E" amendment, just imagine the reaction to an English literacy test in America. Al Sharpton and critics would demagogue the proposal mercilessly! They would be joined by "left wing zealots" such as Charlie Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi." These parties would label Boehner and any supporter of the "E" amendment as a "racist, bigot, fascist," and who knows what else!

That was the purpose of creating the "Eagles for America" movement. It might take years for the idea to catch on. But it could, eventually. Then, legions of "Eagles" would turn the tables on the Sharpton's, Schumers and Pelosi's" driving home the assertion that they were "un-American, un-Patiotic and unfit for leadership roles" in the United States of America.

Could this really work?

Yes. According to Washington D.C. based foundation, "U.S. English," 87% of America favors English as the official language. My primary issue with both U.S. English and Pro-English, the second D.C. foundation, has been their willingness to settle for "the low hanging fruit." Why not package voter fraud, immigration reform and identity theft in one sweeping amendment to the Constitution that would ultimately save America?"

"Eagles for America" would position opponents of the "E" amendment as opponents of "English as the official language and immigration reform."  They would be "proponents of voter fraud." Opponents of the "E" Amendment would "favor shipping American jobs overseas," compromising individual privacy in favor of "creating a level playing field globally." Read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat," if you remain unconvinced!

Wow! Talk about "anti-American!"

 "Eagles" would position Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein and Sharpton as "globalist thugs holding a long standing aspiration to enslave America in Stalinist style Communism." They would create images of mass starvation, Middle Class internment in big city ghettos, concentration camps and gas chambers. According to Eagles, all would be done under the guise of "sustainability."

The rhetoric would be intense. Because the "E" supporters would be, as a whole, better educated than their opponents, they would win. In doing so, they would save the less educated people from ignorance, poverty and eventual liquidation at the hands of their globalist overlords.

The media would be surprisingly neutral. A provision in the "E" Amendment amazingly would end media bias as we have witnessed over the past fifty years. Born from simple fear of material loss, subjective journalism would take a back seat to factual reporting.

The ultimate goal of Eagles for America would be to force the Schumers, Pelosi's, Feinsteins and Sharptons, along with their constituents, to literally rethink their U.S. citizenship. After all, who would want to live in a land where they were publicly scorned?

Is this "E" approach too far out in left field? Maybe for some. Unfortunately, America has reached a point of no return. We can continue to drift aimlessly toward some uncharted shore, with the assumption that everything will work itself out. Or, we can arrest the erosion by solidifying our population with a single defining ideal.

"A stronger, smarter, more secure America."  

Is John Boehner the messenger for such a theme? At first glance, he looked to have the  pedigree. The very same was thought of Union General, George B. McClellan. With everything stacked in his favor, McClellan never truly recognized the nature of the conflict, what was at stake and what it would take to win.