Sunday, June 16, 2013

Rubio's Overture First Step Toward "E"

This past week Florida Senator, Marco Rubio came out in favor of "requiring passage of an English proficiency exam" for a Green Card. Could he have read "E" is for English? For those who did, you'll remember that this was one of the proposals.

These are troubled times in our country. While everyone continues to anticipate an economic rebound, there remains creeping doubt on if things will ever truly turn around. It comes from an economy that is not producing jobs at a rate that is keeping up with population growth. There are millions who remain under employed. Still others have given up, either taking early Social Security or finding other ways to make ends meet.

Obamacare rests squarely on the horizon. Those in the industry are getting a preview and don't like what they are seeing. As one veteran senior administrator put it, "people are being booted out of hospitals prematurely. They don't understand." The question most asked is, "how could AARP endorse such a program?"    

The 108 million Baby Boomers are beginning to retire. There are not sufficient numbers to replace them. Pragmatists see proper immigration reform as a partial answer. Yet, like the Soviet Union in the mid-1980's, we are so caught up in political correctness, lawsuits and threats of some sort of discrimination that we are essentially "bound and gagged."

For those who were around during the Reagan years, you remember that we were surging ahead with computers and the "Strategic Defense Initiative," AKA "Star Wars." Meanwhile, the Soviets were enmeshed in endless Communist prohibitions. The Reagan led America left them in the dust. In 1989 the U.S.S.R. died quietly.

Perhaps we have forgotten the eighties. If so, it's time for a refresher course. Thirty years ago, Walter Mondale and friends were touting that they would "draw the line" on placing  defense missles "into the heavens."

When the Reagan tax cuts were introduced, it was Mondale who protested, "in the name of decency."  Their alternative was "higher taxes" for the rich. The intrepretation of "rich" amounted to anyone making more than $20,000 per year(1984 money).

They talked about "social justice." This translated to a federal government that sought greater involvement in our everyday lives. Out-of-touch Federal Judges were handing down mandates that generally equated to needless and unjustified spending for state and local governments.

It appears that we have gone full circle.

Reagan left office 25 years ago. Today's 40-year-old wasn't likely engrossed in civics at age 15. Most can't remember the Soviet Union or the Cold War. What some do remember, vaguely, is 1992. That was the year that Bill Clinton came into office. It was the period when we began to hear that increasingly utilized term: "Political Correctness."

Check history! "Political Correctness" is derived from Marxism. Somehow, it became "uncool" to criticize anything or anybody who might be at odds with the status quot. During Clinton's tenure, America benefited greatly from the demise of the Soviet Union. Money originally ticketed for defense became available for other needs.

Clinton and company made a bid for Universal Health Care in 1993. Remember "Hillary Care?" It crashed and burned, leading to a 1994 Republican takeover in the House and Senate. As was his practice, Clinton moderated. Some meaningful legislation did pass.
Was Bill Clinton actually a moderate?

A better word was "pragmatist." He assessed the landscape and elected to play "small ball,"gaining minor victories while securing his legacy.

Those who lived in Arkansas at the time of his Governorship contended that Bill was "right" of his wife. Hillary was always seen as the "liberal outsider" who adversely influenced her husband. Yet, those who knew Bill Clinton described his as "Walter Mondale with an Arkansas drawl." It came as no surprise when he aggressively stumped for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid.

Which leads us back to our "full circle."

We may have "1980 in 2016." Current polls are not predicting it. But, it is early. A lot could happen over the next 30 months! Including, the introduction of legislation that would "bag" all concerns in one brilliant stroke of  "politically incorrectness."

Obamacare could ultimately lead to nullification. The more states that exercise nullification, the more that will consider it. Once it starts, other federal laws and mandates will come under the microscope! In the end, "opt out" might become a watch phrase!

This is a dangerous path for the country. Yet it is constititional. So is a states right to dissolve it's relationship with the union. Some states may be quietly contemplating this development. Has anyone noticed Texas $1,000,000 advertising expenditure in the hope of luring New York and Connecticut based companies to move their operations  to the Lone Star state?

Sound crazy? Don't bet the the ranch on it! There are a lot of angry people in the country. Very angry people! As in, mad enough to take up a gun and look for targets.

 Obamacare represents one-sixth of the economy. More than half of the country doesn't want it. Yet the proponents are hell bent on cramming it down the rest of the countries throat! Bad idea!

Even worse is the push to naturalize every possible "non-incomed" person, promising them boonies(including medical cards) in exchange for support. Who would have believed such arrogance! Yet, it is upon us. The bet is Americans will sitting back and do nothing, allowing those with "no skin" in the game to call the shots.

What Senator Rubio supports is the first step toward arresting this momentum. If we can have a literacy test for a Green Card, we can have a literacy test for a Voter I.D. Card. And this is the predicted path that will ultimately lead to a paradigm shift in America.

Can it happen? Yes it can! Fed up Americans will happily consent to this change in the suffrage standard. Even those "on the fence" will gladly acquiesce when introduced to an apocalyptic alternative that promises war, bloodshed and worse.

Amazingly, what is front of us is not new! The Mondale people were talking these same ideas in the seventies and later the eighties. True, many who were around then are not here now. The hope is that the "new blood" can re-introduced to these same tired arguments.

Rubio's position is new and somewhat startling. He is positioning assimilation as the gate keeper to citizenship. English as the official language will soon follow. The majority of America is with the Florida Senator. When the last piece of the puzzle, literacy, becomes part of the mix, the nation will then move toward it pivotal choice:

At that juncture, the debate will be over.

Enter the "E" Amendment.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

The "Heart and Soul" of the "E" Amendment

Yes, the proposed "E" Amendment would be easy enough to "demagogue." The mere thought of a "literacy test" evokes painful memories of the 1960's civil rights movement. Yet, when the full proposal is laid out and properly explained, a new revelation begins to take shape.

Marty G., an agent from a New York based, E-Publisher recently shared his thoughts on "E" is for English. In a three-way meeting with myself and my book distributor, Marty professed to be a "liberal Democrat." He admitted support for all left wing causes, ranging from abortion rights, same sex marriage, universal health care and a progressive tax system. But he also supported universal English literacy in America.

"I am a Progressive," Marty lauded. "but that doesn't make me a Communist. Your book identifies a block of Americans, perhaps 15, maybe even 20% who are functionally illiterate in English. That's scary!

"What's even more disconcerting," Marty admitted, "is that there are a small number of "power brokers" who want to keep it that way! Because, as you pointed out, illiterate people are easier to control."    

When Cary J., the distributor's representitive questioned "IF" nationwide support would be possible for the "E" Amendment, Marty mused. "I grew up in Boston and have lived in both Providence and Montpelier. I can tell you now, those states would ratify the "E" Amendment."


Cary J. is a Chicago native. Calling herself a "Bill Clinton Democrat," her original observation of the book described it as a "sweet spot" between Republican Establishment and Tea party. Marty was opening up a new dimension.

"Face it," Marty explained, "this book is totally non-partisan. But, it is somewhat revolutionary." He went on to note that the public school mandate of six years of a second language, beginning in third grade, would have "heavy support" in the East. So would the teaching of Transformational Grammar.

When I pointed out Dr. Tomas Mauricio's(former University of Kentucky Associate Professor of Liberal Arts) prediction that "half the children would take Spanish, the other half electing a different language," Marty agreed.

"There would be more available Spanish teachers. Besides, 16% of the country has Spanish roots. The thought of their children learning Spanish history, geography and culture, not to mention proper "Castilian" Spanish, as opposed to "back alley "Spanglish" would have these parents aboard! Believe me! They are as focused on assimilation as my Jewish ancestors from Poland were in the 1890's! 

"The "slow assent" Jeff described would be just that: a gradual immersion into the language.  Third graders would start with "comic books" and word games. In the fifth grade, they would be studying geography and history of those countries that used the language.

"By the time that they were in the eighth grade, they would be reading classics like "Don Quixote.(assuming they had elected Spanish as their second language)." The summer following their Freshmen year, there would be field trips taken to those countries using their selected language."

"What does this have to do with Transformational Grammar?" Cary wanted to know. "As a matter of fact, what is Transformational Grammar?"

At that juncture, I explained that all languages were the same in deep structure. Transformational Grammar is the tranference of language from surface structure to deep structure. The goal is to teach children "how to think."

After agreeing that it all "sounded good," Cary had another question. " Why do we need to make people take a fourth grade English proficiency test to qualify for a voter I.D. card? What does this have to do with teaching six years of a second language in the public schools."

Marty had a ready answer. "Children are our future. We must make them better than we were. Learning a second language will strengthen their use of English.

"But, English is the language that most favor. If we do not "raise the bar," and force people to learn it, they won't! If we make "English only" the law, those resisting will be forced to live by it.

"People are lazy, let's face it!" Marty concluded. "We have made it possible for them not to assimilate!"

Both Marty and Cary were especially impressed with the potential savings that would come from "English only" official use, ranging from voting ballots, drivers license testing, government signage and official documents. Not to mention the immigration plan that was introduced in the book.

"There have been a lot of immigration ideas floating around." Marty reminded. "None have suggested that "passage of a 10th grade English proficiency exam," be part of the mix! But it accomplishes a lot of what the Dream Act would do. At the same time, it clarifies the 14th amendments reference to qualification. Not to mention defining entitlement eligibility."

Marty left convinced that "gaining two-thirds majorities" in both House and Senate would be "easily achievable."

When asked to predict Barack Obama's reaction to the legislation, Marty laughed, "He's a front man. Most of those behind him would not want to lose their "Sheeple." Him personally? I agree with that Chicago lawyer. I think that he would buy it!"

In essence, the "heart and soul" of the proposed "E" Amendment is "accelerated assimulation" through acceptance of English as the official language. But the goal is not for mere ceremonial use! We want our people to be the "masters" of the language, with our children taking the lead.

We also want a society that is culturally deeper. A multi-linguel population will make us stronger as a nation. We need to use this "strand" that binds us as a "unifier." Those opposing English as the official language seek to weaken us. Their aim is a global society where we are mere spoke in  the wheel. Our thrust is to maintain American exceptionalism. To achieve this goal, we must be 100% literate in one language.

87% of the country says that language should be English.