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."

No comments:

Post a Comment