Passage of a fourth grade English proficiency exam as a prerequisite for a voter Identification card?
"English only" for literally every form of official use? This would include drivers license testing.
A voter I.D. card that would include a photograph?
A ban on any and all offshore outsourcing for jobs requiring use of all or part of an Americans' social security number?
An immigration plan that mirrors that of Australia, clearly giving favor to applicants from N.A.T.O. countries?
To many, these ideas would seem both practical and logical. Unfortunately, they are totally counter to globalization. In essence, they present a roadblock to the "New World Order," so passionately revered by both Republican and Democrat Establishments.
"The World is Flat," Thomas Friedman's wordy analysis, outlines the globalist plan for "leveling the playing field." Americans must however, learn how to play ball! In accepting the promise of a more homogenized planet, we should be willing to compromise our standards, including our standard of living. The goal: to allow other nations, other peoples to "share in the hegenomy."
Anyone or anything that that represents a contrary objective is viewed as "out of touch, racist, bigoted" and, of course, "politically incorrect."
The aforementioned ideas are the topic of my book. For those who have not reviewed
"E" is for English, you now know. And, you can safely say, "Jeff, it'll never happen!"
Here is the real problem with the book's proposals. They are totally anti-global. They are 100% Nationalist. They are based on the premise that "charity begins at home." In other words, "America first."
Beginning with the minimum wage. Democrats and all too many Republicans favor some sort of an increase. Sounds like a good idea, right? What's the problem?
There is nothing that better illustrates the need for term limits than this issue. In reality, if the minimum wage is raised to say, $10.10 an hour, Fortune 500 companies will simply move the jobs offshore. Cheap help is available in India, Philippines, Taiwan and Indonesia. For small business, it isn't so easy! The end result is raising prices. But that's Capitalism! Right? Seriously! Who can live on $7.25 per hour?
Imagine climbing a tree. The first branch is typically the most difficult. If you saw it off, climbing just became that much more difficult!
Now imagine going to a garage sale. Everything for sale is something that another person didn't want or need. But in the stack, you see many things that you can use. Maybe it's a comforter, or a toaster or even some used golf clubs. Perhaps you see a scratch or a stain. But, for your purposes, your immediate needs, it works!
Wait a minute! If you force companies to return these low paying jobs to our shores, won't that cause a chain reaction in Bombay and Manila? In those places $400 per month is a livable wage. $750 per month amounts to a comfortable living. Shouldn't Americans be more multi-dimensional in thinking? Especially, in light of the fact that these citizens of India and Philippines are spending their earnings at Walmart and McDonalds! George W. Bush made this argument!
Two considerations. (a) We are not talking about all jobs; only those utilizing all or part of an Americans' social security number. It's about deterring identity theft. (b) These low wage jobs are not without worth in America.
Let's examine (b) first. Most minimum wage jobs are taken by teenagers. You must start somewhere. The majority of these jobs are created by small business. Raise the wage, hiring becomes more difficult for these job creators. In other words, you just sawed off the lower branch!
Older workers(62+) are also prospects for $7.25 per hour positions. They qualify for early social security. A $16,000 per year job will not compromise their entitlement. Most of these jobs include medical benefits. It might also be mention that these jobs require minimal training. It's like that quilt with a stain or that toaster with a scratch! Medicare won't kick in for a few more years. In the meanwhile, this will suffice nicely!
Deterring identity theft is sufficient reason for consideration of (a). Identity theft is the world's fastest growing crime. Offshore workers are not subject to the same kind of hiring scrutiny as stateside workers endure. Some of the world's finest "hackers" live in the far east.
Whether it's American Express, A T & T or even Dish Network, four digits of a social security number, even debit account numbers of Americans, are made available to "Jerry from New Dehli, Jon from Taiwan and Prisilla from Manila!" Sure, they work for cheap! But this is about protecting the privacy of American citizens! Not a "buck!"
Obviously, this is a "taboo" argument! In many ways it's like immigration reform. To propose that America consider a plan similar to Australia's would be scorned by the far left. They would call proponents racists and bigots. Why? Because Australia requires that (a) the applicant be fluent in English and(b) the applicant have a higher education or a trade.
Crazy? Not hardly. And, the "E" concept goes one step further! It actually proposes that preference be given to applicants under 30 years of age. And, last but not least, it gives applicants fron N.A.T.O. countries a preference.
I can hear it now! "Most of the N.A.T.O. countries are white. Are you not attempting to arrest the decline of the white majority in America?" And English fluency? "Would that not discriminate against Hispanics?"
The proposal promotes requirement of six years of a second language. But the choice of languages is left up to the individual school districts. The "slow ascent" would result in learning both a language plus the historical and geographical attributes of peoples' utilizing that language. In the end, our kids would learn how to think! This is at odds with the "dumbing down" goal of the New World Order!
For those illegally in the country, "if you can pass a 10th grade English test," a "path" to citizenship is yours! Same would hold true for any International earning a Doctorate. Isn't this the "Dream Act?" No. Only the individual applicant is included!
Literacy tests, any literacy test, will result in a constitutional fight. There is no way that it can be done without an adjustment to the constitution.
Voter I.D. laws are already in effect and being challenged every step of the way. To make this part of comprehension legislation would result in an outcry of "voter suppression." Oh well!
In short, "E" is for English introduces some thought provoking ideas. To package them into a single amendment to the constitution would be a longshot at best! Unless...
A constitutional convention is held. Article Five is invoked. Angry leaders from states ready to bolt decide to bypass Congress. Several measures are adopted, including the "E" Amendment. Suddenly, we have a new America.
Other measures are on the wish list. They include a balanced budget amendment, term limits for Congressman and Senators, and the end of the I.R.S..
The 16th amendment was never ratified by the required number of states. A large number of Americans would like to see the 14th and 17th amendment repealed. What about the "E" Amendment?
A Constitutional convention will happen through reactionary reasoning. It will occur only because the majority of Americans have given up on their leaders, not on their form of government. It might be the preamble to a peaceful separation of states.
You must go back to 1861 to find the nation as divided as it is today. Unlike then, however, the divide is more ideological than sectional. The two sides are approaching an impasse. Unlike 1861, we don't live in the "Age of Innocense." We have television. We have the Internet. Nobody wants an "1860's style" bloodbath!
Maybe we could co-exist as two nations. Without question we could be allies and trading partners, as with Canada. The question becomes, "where" would we draw the boundaries? Would some of the individual states separate, as was the case with West Virginia? In California, Maryland and Colorado, we have already seen inclinations to consider such initiatives.
The deep seeded argument is actually about "to what degree" should the federal government be involved in the lives of individual Americans. Perhaps an experiment, peaceful in nature, is imminent.
In many ways, we can already see the lines being drawn. But, there are some distinctions. They are especially noted in the larger states.
Both sides are convinced that their interpretation is the correct one. Hence, as in 1861, we have a "clash of perceptions."
Those of the "Federalist persuasion" are certain that the second that government is reduced and regulations relaxed, the economy will "take off like a rocket," to use Texas Governor Rick Perry's words. The other side sees a more "France like" America, where the emphasis is placed upon a "cradle to grave" partnership with government and the people.
The middle ground is shrinking; along with the middle class.
Would the "anti-Federalist" forces allow such a peaceful separation? Possibly not! Unless, they are as arrogant as they appear to be! Let's assume for the moment that they are.
Those states opting to go with a more "10th amendment focused" vision, implement their theory. The federal government becomes increasingly insignificant in their lives. Regulations are reduced. Taxes reduced. Job creation becomes the number one priority. So does the need for financial independence. Which translates to energy independence. Suddenly, these states are both the "world's supermarket and filling station!"
Due to their lack of resources, both agricultural and energy, the "anti-federalist" states are forced to "crank up the printing presses." Otherwise, their entitlement society will quickly become derailed. Within five years, it's possible that their entire argument would be lost! At that juncture, the only way out would be to "crawl" to their American brothers and beg for readmission.
Proponents of both Federalism and "E" would predict a reunion similar to that of East and West Germany. With one exception: The kids of the returning states would be less individualized and more institutionalized than those of the Federalist states. In other words, "behind" in all aspects of their studies.
You could also expect some map changes, designed to reduce representation of the returning parts of America. In the end, the argument would be over! America would have decided, once and for all, that we were the United States of America. Not, the United American States.
Acceptance of a revised constitution that included the "E" amendment would be required for the returning states. Suddenly, we would have a new world. Complete with a new United Nations.
When one nation with superior military capabilities, is both feeding and providing energy to its "customers," the promise of peace and stability can never be greater. Why any American would strive for anything less is questionable.
Perhaps it is due to their failure to grasp what America truly is. At the heart of the "E" Amendment is a crazy notion. It's called "America first." It is based on the premise that you can only serve one master.
Anything less is found wanting.
Post a Comment