Travis County, Texas is known statewide as a "liberal cesspool."
Outsiders to the state are quick to ask "why" is a District Attorney from Travis County given statewide latitude; as is the case with the Public Integrity Unit? Fair question!
The newswires are buzzing with Governor Rick Perry's seemingly politically motivated indictment. A Travis County Grand Jury argues that they are "not questioning Perry's right to exercise a veto." Perry's retort is simple. "Look at the video, if you're not convinced!"
He's referencing Rosemary Lehmberg, the Travis County District Attorney and the drunken escapade that landed her 22 days in the county clinker. Without question, it was an embarrassment for Travis County Democrats. They let Lehmberg know about it! But, resign she didn't! And, as the defense insists, a lot of Texas tax payer money was on the line. And we were not talking about just any position!
Governor Perry contended that his decision to veto the 7.5 million dollars needed for the Public Integrity Unit was solely due to his lack of confidence in Lehmberg. He doubted that any Chief Executive would have responded differently. After all, District Attorney is the chief law enforcement official.
So, if it is not politically motivated, what it is? Malice cannot be proven! True, Perry isn't exactly popular with far leftists. And, in exercising his veto, he was saying "nyet" to funding for one of the few "left leaning" departments remaining in the Lone Star state! But isn't this type disagreement dealt with in the voting booths?
Republicans are not happy with Barack Obama, especially in regard to measures such as Obamacare, Keystone, and Dodd-Frank. The President has threatened to veto any and all repeal legislation that may come through the Legislature. This is the way out system of government works. If Republicans don't like it, they can elect someone from their party in 2016.
Could not Republicans indict Barack Obama for refusal to see it their way?
This is essentially the argument made by both Alan Dershowitz and Lanny Davis. Such action would amount to nothing less than the "criminalization of politics." As the former warned, such action is "befitting of totalitarian governments." In essence, it would amount to a "Sovietization" of the American legal system.
Make no mistake! Alan Dershowitz and Lanny Davis are no fans of Rick Perry! Both are professed Progressives. Their problem stems with the the attempted sedition that Perry's indictment portrays. When opposition uses the legal system to advance their agenda, we embark upon a dangerous path.
As fate would have it, Rick Perry finds himself "riding point" on perhaps the greatest illustration of the difference between "freedom" and "tyranny" in a generation. Lehmberg supporters ultimately land on the side of "suppression." It amounts to "acquiesce or consequences!" Never mind that the captain visually demonstrated both her irresponsibility and ineptitude.
Predicted outcome? The Perry camp surmises that Judge Bart Richardson is "careful." The process is quite extensive. Yet it is remembered how the Travis County Grand Juries indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Tom DeLay! Both were proven innocent. In the case of DeLay, it came with great cost.
The left has made it a standard to use the court system to advance measures that had failed legislatively. Travis County takes it a step further. Theirs is to prosecute any and all in disagreement. For them, Perry is especially dangerous.
Rick Perry is a former Democrat. He actually managed Al Gore's 1988 Texas Presidential campaign. He hails from a working class background. He brings more experience to the table than any candidate. Furthermore, his experience is Executive experience. His state is the second largest and one of the more diverse. His governorship is arguably the most successful in U.S. history, beginning with the economy and ending with border security and the environment. Last but not least, Perry flew C-130's in the Air Force. Demitry Medvedev described him as "a cowboy with deep understanding of military affairs."
The bottom line: Rick Perry connects with "Joe Six-Pack." This translates to appealing to "blue collar" Democrats and Independents, voters already skeptical about a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Perry even maintains active membership into he AFL-CI0, although he is staunchly "right to work."
The end conclusion is Perry will fix what ails America, domestically and abroad. The left sees him as the ultimate threat. He is plain spoken, personable and cordial, a stark contrast from the airy Barack Obama. Once in the White House he will be more than a "tap dancer" or an"accommodation artist."
When weighing the thought of a Perry Presidency versus one held by Hillary Clinton, or "Republicrats," Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, it is understandable why liberals would go so far as to advocate a "Soviet style" system of justice.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Paul's Presidential Run Should be Delayed until '24, '28.
The seeds of revolution are written all over Rand Paul's Presidential aspirations.
The 2016 Republican field is beginning to take shape. Surprisingly, both Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush plan to make a go of it. To Tea Party Republicans, this is glorious news! After 2012's Establishment plurality selection, it would be only fitting that Bush and Romney split the Establishment vote. Better yet, with them in the race, it's a good bet than other hopefuls such as Chris Christie and Scott Walker pass on a presidential run.
Nobody really knows what to make of Marco Rubio. Will he take on his mentor, Jeb Bush? And, if so, where will his money come from? Four years ago, the idea of a Rubio run would have excited Paul's Tea Party constituents. Post "Gang of Ocho," is a different landscape. Yet, in potentially alienating some voters, Rubio has evidently picked up others. Bill O'Reilly shocked a lot of us when he called Rubio "a moderate."
Most of the country expects Rick Perry to eventually enter the race. Perry says he's ready, having made the necessary preparations. His fiery speech at last weekends Iowa Freedom Summit reflected a clear agenda for 2016. This isn't 2012. Expect a different candidate when he does enter. Perhaps he is awaiting word on if the Travis County indictment will have legs. Most experts contend that it won't. But, it's hanging around is not good. Conversely a dismissal will bode well for Perry.
Mike Huckabee is apparently considering getting into the fray. His new book, "Guns, God, Grits and Gravy," epitomizes the hopes, promises and frustrations of mainstream America. It also paints a sordid picture of Americas ruling class. Those close to the Huckabee camp realize that money will be the biggest problem for the former Arkansas Governor. They also know that their hero holds the trust of a block of voters capable of swinging the election.
Will Ted Cruz throw his hat into the ring? Pure conservatives pray that he will. Cruz says all of the right things. In many ways, he is the conservative reflection of Barack Obama himself. While evidently as conservative as Obama has proven liberal, Cruz holds many simularities to the President:
A. Harvard Lawyer
B. Great Orator
C. Decided Ideologue
D. Razor Thin Resume
E. Questionable Eligibility
F. Lack of Executive Experience
The last factor in itself may be reason enough for Rand Paul to delay his candidacy. Paul doesn't have the looming question of eligibility that Cruz must contend with. But he does have a Kentucky law that must be considered.
Rand Paul cannot run for President and run for Senate re-election. Current Secretary of State and Mitch McConnell's opponent of last fall's Kentucky Senate race, Alison Lundergan Grimes is anticipating Paul's presidential announcement. Assuming that it comes, she might take what remains of her war chest and run for Paul's seat. This would be bad for Republicans! Grimes has been called, "Nancy Pelosi with a Kentucky drawl."
A growingly asked question: "Should Paul go full throttle into his quest for the presidency in '16? Or, should he wait, increasing his overall name recognition, while growing his constituency?
Should Paul decide to seek re-election, he will be difficult to beat. As a second term Senator, he could better formulate his argument for a later White House run. It would begin with making good on what 79% of America wants: Senate and Congressional term limits. Paul would be in ideal position to sponsor the measure. In doing so, he would become the chief spokesman for taking on the Washington political hierarchy.
The delay would likewise offer Paul time to clarify two positions inconsistent with those of the GOP base: His opposition to voter I.D. cards and his perceived "dovish" approach to foreign policy.
Successsful or not, Rand Paul can assert himself as the anti-establishment, anti-career politician voice. It would be easy for him to subsequently return to Kentucky and run for Governor in 2023. At that juncture, Rand would be 60 years old.
True, Paul's inner circle might resist Rand waiting until 2024 or 2028 to run for President. Yet, when considering the competition, waiting might be the most prudent strategy. There are two problems with Paul's message:
1) It takes on an apparatus that is largely unknown by most Americans.
2) It is easy to misrepresent and even easier to demagogue.
To tackle the former, groundwork is necessary and allies are desperately needed. Both will be discussed in a future post.
The latter amounts to a prediction of what Hillary Clinton would do, if she were Paul's general election opponent. Hillary has no record to run on. But, she will have a "truckload" of cash with which to launch a negative scare campaign against Rand Paul. This is something that the Kentucky Junior Senator must avoid.
The Republican field is crowded. The good news is, it could become much less crowded overnight. It will depend on the maturity of Tea Party Republicans. When they come to grips with the fact that Ted Cruz would be a better Supreme Court Justice than President and Ben Carson is about as qualified to be President as Charles Barkley, they'll be there!
Marco Rubio remains the wildcard. If he finds "dinero sufficiente," look out! Smart money predicts "he won't; if Jeb runs!" At that point, look for Marco to entertain any and all VP overtures.
Meanwhile Rand Paul should nurture his precious seed. In truth, it isn't ready to be sown. What must come first is a "cleansing" of the current order. All indications would conclude that only Rick Perry has both the will and stamina to make this happen.
The 2016 Republican field is beginning to take shape. Surprisingly, both Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush plan to make a go of it. To Tea Party Republicans, this is glorious news! After 2012's Establishment plurality selection, it would be only fitting that Bush and Romney split the Establishment vote. Better yet, with them in the race, it's a good bet than other hopefuls such as Chris Christie and Scott Walker pass on a presidential run.
Nobody really knows what to make of Marco Rubio. Will he take on his mentor, Jeb Bush? And, if so, where will his money come from? Four years ago, the idea of a Rubio run would have excited Paul's Tea Party constituents. Post "Gang of Ocho," is a different landscape. Yet, in potentially alienating some voters, Rubio has evidently picked up others. Bill O'Reilly shocked a lot of us when he called Rubio "a moderate."
Most of the country expects Rick Perry to eventually enter the race. Perry says he's ready, having made the necessary preparations. His fiery speech at last weekends Iowa Freedom Summit reflected a clear agenda for 2016. This isn't 2012. Expect a different candidate when he does enter. Perhaps he is awaiting word on if the Travis County indictment will have legs. Most experts contend that it won't. But, it's hanging around is not good. Conversely a dismissal will bode well for Perry.
Mike Huckabee is apparently considering getting into the fray. His new book, "Guns, God, Grits and Gravy," epitomizes the hopes, promises and frustrations of mainstream America. It also paints a sordid picture of Americas ruling class. Those close to the Huckabee camp realize that money will be the biggest problem for the former Arkansas Governor. They also know that their hero holds the trust of a block of voters capable of swinging the election.
Will Ted Cruz throw his hat into the ring? Pure conservatives pray that he will. Cruz says all of the right things. In many ways, he is the conservative reflection of Barack Obama himself. While evidently as conservative as Obama has proven liberal, Cruz holds many simularities to the President:
A. Harvard Lawyer
B. Great Orator
C. Decided Ideologue
D. Razor Thin Resume
E. Questionable Eligibility
F. Lack of Executive Experience
The last factor in itself may be reason enough for Rand Paul to delay his candidacy. Paul doesn't have the looming question of eligibility that Cruz must contend with. But he does have a Kentucky law that must be considered.
Rand Paul cannot run for President and run for Senate re-election. Current Secretary of State and Mitch McConnell's opponent of last fall's Kentucky Senate race, Alison Lundergan Grimes is anticipating Paul's presidential announcement. Assuming that it comes, she might take what remains of her war chest and run for Paul's seat. This would be bad for Republicans! Grimes has been called, "Nancy Pelosi with a Kentucky drawl."
A growingly asked question: "Should Paul go full throttle into his quest for the presidency in '16? Or, should he wait, increasing his overall name recognition, while growing his constituency?
Should Paul decide to seek re-election, he will be difficult to beat. As a second term Senator, he could better formulate his argument for a later White House run. It would begin with making good on what 79% of America wants: Senate and Congressional term limits. Paul would be in ideal position to sponsor the measure. In doing so, he would become the chief spokesman for taking on the Washington political hierarchy.
The delay would likewise offer Paul time to clarify two positions inconsistent with those of the GOP base: His opposition to voter I.D. cards and his perceived "dovish" approach to foreign policy.
Successsful or not, Rand Paul can assert himself as the anti-establishment, anti-career politician voice. It would be easy for him to subsequently return to Kentucky and run for Governor in 2023. At that juncture, Rand would be 60 years old.
True, Paul's inner circle might resist Rand waiting until 2024 or 2028 to run for President. Yet, when considering the competition, waiting might be the most prudent strategy. There are two problems with Paul's message:
1) It takes on an apparatus that is largely unknown by most Americans.
2) It is easy to misrepresent and even easier to demagogue.
To tackle the former, groundwork is necessary and allies are desperately needed. Both will be discussed in a future post.
The latter amounts to a prediction of what Hillary Clinton would do, if she were Paul's general election opponent. Hillary has no record to run on. But, she will have a "truckload" of cash with which to launch a negative scare campaign against Rand Paul. This is something that the Kentucky Junior Senator must avoid.
The Republican field is crowded. The good news is, it could become much less crowded overnight. It will depend on the maturity of Tea Party Republicans. When they come to grips with the fact that Ted Cruz would be a better Supreme Court Justice than President and Ben Carson is about as qualified to be President as Charles Barkley, they'll be there!
Marco Rubio remains the wildcard. If he finds "dinero sufficiente," look out! Smart money predicts "he won't; if Jeb runs!" At that point, look for Marco to entertain any and all VP overtures.
Meanwhile Rand Paul should nurture his precious seed. In truth, it isn't ready to be sown. What must come first is a "cleansing" of the current order. All indications would conclude that only Rick Perry has both the will and stamina to make this happen.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Present System at Odds With Average American
An interesting question surfaced from a long time Ohio conservative:
"What if the TARP money that was used to bail out the banks, had gone directly to the homeowners?
700 billion dollars, or something like that.
As the gentlemen surmised, "it would have worked like a giant stimulus package. People's mortgages would have been paid down or off. The lenders would have gotten their money. Everyone would have been happy!"
Well, not quite everyone! As he continued, "the banks didn't like that idea at all." You can't make money on interest when your not owed.
It would seem that 700 billion would not have made a dent in the nation's mortgage debt. Well, maybe a small dent!
"Think of it this way," the Ohio man added,"You set the max at the standand FHA cap of $271,200. And, only primary residences are allowed. No second homes. No investment real estate. If you live in a high cost area, you would still be subject to the same cap."
Wouldn't you still be quite a bit short?
He concluded in admitting that "yeah, it probably would have been short. But what if we had also taken the money used to bail out General Motors? After all, Chapter 11 wouldn't have been the end of the world for them!
"And, we could have diverted Obama's giant "stimulus package," which, as we all know, was nothing but an ensemble of chits and boonies for his supporters! Put it all together and you're talking about a lot of cheese!"
Too bad things aren't so simple!
In truth, the entire country bailed out a obscenely small number of people. They represented the better connected and in many cases, some of the best off! Meanwhile, the average American, AKA "Joe Six Pack," was thrown under the bus.
"And yet," the Ohioan reminded,"these decision makers knew what they were doing. You take John Boehner, for example. The guy controls an obnoxious amount of money. With money comes leverage. In other words, if a Congressman doesn't see things the Speaker's way, there will be the devil to pay! Or, should I say, that money won't find it's way into the disobedient Congressman's re-election coffers!"
Ugh!
In Boehner's thinking, the average guy simply doesn't understand how things work! There are too many "loose cannons," too many "well intentioned ideologues" who "don't understand when" to a part of the team. It's a matter of "picking your battles."
Good advice? Well coined wisdom? Or, maybe it's a simple of matter of 24 years in the House of Representatives.
In a recent post, the subject of term limits was briefly discussed, along with the possible sponsor of an amendment. In a perfect world, a simple debate and floor vote should be on the horizon. Sadly, we don't live in that utopia! We are talking about three fourths of the House and Senate surrendering the best jobs in the country. And, with it power and a lot of it!
There is a growing call for a Constitutional convention. Yet, even anti-etablishment, pseudo conservative, Glenn Beck warned of the "danger" of a "con con." Perhaps, there is another way.
Obviously, something needs to give in Washington. It likely will start with a tough, outside the beltway reformer, assuming Presidential duties in 2016. There is no argument that we need a Washington outsider, holding little if any ties to "K" street.
One of the quickest way to reduce the power of Lobbyiests is to shorten Congressional and Senate terms. It might also be a smart idea to term limit bureaucrats. A President, joined by a Senator and Congressman who jointly sponsored such an amendment would capture the nation's attention. Together, the trio could demonize any and all who opposed them.
I like this idea better than a Constitutional Convention, personally.
"What if the TARP money that was used to bail out the banks, had gone directly to the homeowners?
700 billion dollars, or something like that.
As the gentlemen surmised, "it would have worked like a giant stimulus package. People's mortgages would have been paid down or off. The lenders would have gotten their money. Everyone would have been happy!"
Well, not quite everyone! As he continued, "the banks didn't like that idea at all." You can't make money on interest when your not owed.
It would seem that 700 billion would not have made a dent in the nation's mortgage debt. Well, maybe a small dent!
"Think of it this way," the Ohio man added,"You set the max at the standand FHA cap of $271,200. And, only primary residences are allowed. No second homes. No investment real estate. If you live in a high cost area, you would still be subject to the same cap."
Wouldn't you still be quite a bit short?
He concluded in admitting that "yeah, it probably would have been short. But what if we had also taken the money used to bail out General Motors? After all, Chapter 11 wouldn't have been the end of the world for them!
"And, we could have diverted Obama's giant "stimulus package," which, as we all know, was nothing but an ensemble of chits and boonies for his supporters! Put it all together and you're talking about a lot of cheese!"
Too bad things aren't so simple!
In truth, the entire country bailed out a obscenely small number of people. They represented the better connected and in many cases, some of the best off! Meanwhile, the average American, AKA "Joe Six Pack," was thrown under the bus.
"And yet," the Ohioan reminded,"these decision makers knew what they were doing. You take John Boehner, for example. The guy controls an obnoxious amount of money. With money comes leverage. In other words, if a Congressman doesn't see things the Speaker's way, there will be the devil to pay! Or, should I say, that money won't find it's way into the disobedient Congressman's re-election coffers!"
Ugh!
In Boehner's thinking, the average guy simply doesn't understand how things work! There are too many "loose cannons," too many "well intentioned ideologues" who "don't understand when" to a part of the team. It's a matter of "picking your battles."
Good advice? Well coined wisdom? Or, maybe it's a simple of matter of 24 years in the House of Representatives.
In a recent post, the subject of term limits was briefly discussed, along with the possible sponsor of an amendment. In a perfect world, a simple debate and floor vote should be on the horizon. Sadly, we don't live in that utopia! We are talking about three fourths of the House and Senate surrendering the best jobs in the country. And, with it power and a lot of it!
There is a growing call for a Constitutional convention. Yet, even anti-etablishment, pseudo conservative, Glenn Beck warned of the "danger" of a "con con." Perhaps, there is another way.
Obviously, something needs to give in Washington. It likely will start with a tough, outside the beltway reformer, assuming Presidential duties in 2016. There is no argument that we need a Washington outsider, holding little if any ties to "K" street.
One of the quickest way to reduce the power of Lobbyiests is to shorten Congressional and Senate terms. It might also be a smart idea to term limit bureaucrats. A President, joined by a Senator and Congressman who jointly sponsored such an amendment would capture the nation's attention. Together, the trio could demonize any and all who opposed them.
I like this idea better than a Constitutional Convention, personally.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
The Ugliness Behind English Only Opposition
According to Washington D.C. based foundation, U.S. English, "87% of Americans" favor making English the official language in the United States. With this super majority, "why" hasn't the proposed legislation made it out of sub-committee?
There are opinions, ranging from the "foundations don't want passage, because they'll be out of a job," to "it will empower functionary illiterate voting blocks who are deemed "reliable" by power brokers.
In truth, there are many politicians who fear reprisal from the Hispanic community, now 16% of America. The very notion of repealing the voting rights act is considered racist. Yet, section five's interpretation opened the door to multi-lingual voting ballots. Adopting an English only standard is perceived to be harsh, ultimately discouraging voter participation.
The topic of my book, "E" is for English, amounts to presenting an alternative to the country; in the name of "creating a stronger, smarter, more secure America." The goal is "accelerated assimulation" of immigrants. The concept is based on the premise that America is a "melting pot, not a salad bowl." Forcing new Americans to adopt English as their primary language will grant them greater access to the American dream.
The proposal is comprehensive, normally a "dirty word" in conservative vocabularies. In addition to making English the official language and going "English only" in all government related activities, the amendment mandates "six years" of a second language for all public school participants, beginning in third grade.
The latter concept would be viewed by most conservatives as "more top down control from Washington." While such a mandate would be more comparable to a directive, it still would be seen as federal encroachment. While the individual school districts would be allowed to choose the second language options, the directive would be law.
The question becomes, "why?"
In an article written by Judy Willis, M.D., M.Ed., November 22, 2012, "recent studies of children growing up in bilingual settings revealed advantages over single lingual children. They included both increased attentive focus and cognition.
Compared to monolinguals, the studied bilingual children, who had five to ten years of bilingual exposure averaged higher scores in cognitive performance on tests and had greater attention focus, distraction resistance, decision making, judgment and responsiveness to feedback. The correlated neuroimaging (fMRI scans) of these children revealed greater activity in the prefrontal cortex networks directing these and other executive functions."
When seen in this light, we can quickly understand the true motives of New York Senator, Charlie Schumer and others who oppose English as official language. In actuality they are based on bigotry.
Making allowances for alternative language use "creates," in the words of former Florida Senator, Mel Martinez, "linguistical ghettos in America." When immigrants master English literacy, they are more difficult to control. Hence, those opponents of "English only" see a potential loss of power and influence over these constituents.
While 87% of the country may favor English as official language, nobody knows what percentage might support six years of a second language in the public schools! True, Hispanic families might embrace such a plan. But, what about the majority of Americans?
The proposal outlines a "slow ascent" strategy, designed to teach children, both the language and the history, geography and culture of those who speak it. The six-year journey would literally begin with comic book and video cartoons and end with a field trip to one of the countries utilizing the language.
Accompanying the ascent would be full immersion into "transformal grammar; the act of transforming sentences from surface structure to deep structure." All language is the same in deep structure. This proposal alone would outrage much of the education community.
Overall, the proposal is revolutionary. It represents more than a compromise. It attempts to make good on "something higher," as Abraham Lincoln described.
America would cement it's identity as an English speaking country. But it would simultaneously interject the European standard of "two languages are better than one."
From a parents perspective, maybe it's time for America to become a bit less colloquial, slightly less provincial. In the words of John F. Kennedy, "not because it is easy but because it is hard."
The concept of "English only" can likewise be utilized as a benchmark for future immigration reform. Should English literacy and Education become prequisites for legal immigration, the quality of our immigrants will improve drastically.
Our biggest single hurdle will be to overcome the nuisance notion of "political correctness." This, coupled with our ability to identify true bigots such as Senator Schumer can make for a better America.
An America where "inclusion," not "diversity" is the watchword.
There are opinions, ranging from the "foundations don't want passage, because they'll be out of a job," to "it will empower functionary illiterate voting blocks who are deemed "reliable" by power brokers.
In truth, there are many politicians who fear reprisal from the Hispanic community, now 16% of America. The very notion of repealing the voting rights act is considered racist. Yet, section five's interpretation opened the door to multi-lingual voting ballots. Adopting an English only standard is perceived to be harsh, ultimately discouraging voter participation.
The topic of my book, "E" is for English, amounts to presenting an alternative to the country; in the name of "creating a stronger, smarter, more secure America." The goal is "accelerated assimulation" of immigrants. The concept is based on the premise that America is a "melting pot, not a salad bowl." Forcing new Americans to adopt English as their primary language will grant them greater access to the American dream.
The proposal is comprehensive, normally a "dirty word" in conservative vocabularies. In addition to making English the official language and going "English only" in all government related activities, the amendment mandates "six years" of a second language for all public school participants, beginning in third grade.
The latter concept would be viewed by most conservatives as "more top down control from Washington." While such a mandate would be more comparable to a directive, it still would be seen as federal encroachment. While the individual school districts would be allowed to choose the second language options, the directive would be law.
The question becomes, "why?"
In an article written by Judy Willis, M.D., M.Ed., November 22, 2012, "recent studies of children growing up in bilingual settings revealed advantages over single lingual children. They included both increased attentive focus and cognition.
Compared to monolinguals, the studied bilingual children, who had five to ten years of bilingual exposure averaged higher scores in cognitive performance on tests and had greater attention focus, distraction resistance, decision making, judgment and responsiveness to feedback. The correlated neuroimaging (fMRI scans) of these children revealed greater activity in the prefrontal cortex networks directing these and other executive functions."
When seen in this light, we can quickly understand the true motives of New York Senator, Charlie Schumer and others who oppose English as official language. In actuality they are based on bigotry.
Making allowances for alternative language use "creates," in the words of former Florida Senator, Mel Martinez, "linguistical ghettos in America." When immigrants master English literacy, they are more difficult to control. Hence, those opponents of "English only" see a potential loss of power and influence over these constituents.
While 87% of the country may favor English as official language, nobody knows what percentage might support six years of a second language in the public schools! True, Hispanic families might embrace such a plan. But, what about the majority of Americans?
The proposal outlines a "slow ascent" strategy, designed to teach children, both the language and the history, geography and culture of those who speak it. The six-year journey would literally begin with comic book and video cartoons and end with a field trip to one of the countries utilizing the language.
Accompanying the ascent would be full immersion into "transformal grammar; the act of transforming sentences from surface structure to deep structure." All language is the same in deep structure. This proposal alone would outrage much of the education community.
Overall, the proposal is revolutionary. It represents more than a compromise. It attempts to make good on "something higher," as Abraham Lincoln described.
America would cement it's identity as an English speaking country. But it would simultaneously interject the European standard of "two languages are better than one."
From a parents perspective, maybe it's time for America to become a bit less colloquial, slightly less provincial. In the words of John F. Kennedy, "not because it is easy but because it is hard."
The concept of "English only" can likewise be utilized as a benchmark for future immigration reform. Should English literacy and Education become prequisites for legal immigration, the quality of our immigrants will improve drastically.
Our biggest single hurdle will be to overcome the nuisance notion of "political correctness." This, coupled with our ability to identify true bigots such as Senator Schumer can make for a better America.
An America where "inclusion," not "diversity" is the watchword.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Paul's Term Limits Amendment Could Set Table for 2024
Term limits.
Enter Rand Paul, the Tea Party poster boy. The Junior Senator from Kentucky has advocated term limits. In fact, he has listed term limits as a key to reforming Washington.
A super majority of Americans agree with him, per Gallup and Quinnipiac. The question becomes, would sponsorship of such an amendment merit delaying his other ambition: to be President of the United States?
Paul hasn't decided on a Presidential run. Indications however, suggest that he is strongly considering it. Which generates the next question: "With a crowded field that is likely to include Jeb Bush and Rick Perry, wouldn't it be better for Paul to delay Presidential aspirations and settle for an almost certain re-election?"
Mitch McConnell doesn't support term limits. He answered the question in proclaiming that "we already have term limits." According to the new Senate Majority leader, "every six years consituents are given the opportunity to make a change."
"Besides," as McConnell concluded, "it takes every bit of two Senate terms to master navigation of the federal bureaucracy."
Support for term limits notwithstanding, expect McConnell to urge Paul to seek re-election. While there are some promising Republican Congressmen available, Rand Paul would be difficult, if not impossible to dislodge in a re-election bid. 2016 will be a "hold" year for Republicans. The party leadership is reluctant to take chances with a secure seat.
Actually, Paul might help his future presidential chances if he did stay out. A return to the Senate that featured his sponsorship of a term limits amendment would grant him national exposure! True, such action would anger Senate and Congressional long termers. If passed at least 75% of the seats would turnover in both House and Senate.
Let's examine McConnell's assertion. "Two, six-year terms to master bureaucracy navigation?" Are we kidding? Maybe not!
A term limits amendment would need to be accompanied by an all out effort to decentralize. As McConnell accurately surmised, the "Executive branch" has "grown to the point that it has unsurprassed power." Weakening the legislative branch, in theory could actually be dangerous. Or, are these the mere rantings of a six-term career politician, not wanting to resign from the best job in America?
Pretend, for the sake of the argument, that McConnell is correct. Would not it be wise to divert power away from Washington, in favor of the individual states? Texas Governor, Rick Perry thinks so! If Perry has his way, the Education, Energy and Commerce Departments will be eliminated.
Former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush sees it on slightly different terms. While the federal bureaucracy may need to be "tweaked and re-focused," it is an intregal part of American government. Probably the greatest example of the differences between these two successful Governors are their views on Common Core.
Paul is certainly more in step with Perry on this issue. But, where Perry is a pragmatist, Paul is an ideologue. He sees Washington as something that is essentially a failure. Bush sees it sorely in need of better and more efficient management. Perry advises everyone to "read the 10th amendment."
Rand Paul is more than a decade younger than Bush or Perry. Time is on his side. A return to the Senate will do nothing but allow him to grow stronger. He could complete a second Senate term and return to Kentucky for an almost certain Gubernatorial triumph. Whether it passed or didn't pass, sponsorship of a term limits amendment would position him as "anti-establishment, anti-career politician."
There continue to be Tea Partiers who stubbornly insist that Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or Allen West should be the Republican nominee! Realistically, anyone lacking Executive experience will be at a disadvantage, considering the field. Rand Paul could expertly position himself for a 2024 run, if he opted for this more secure path. He would still be only 61 years of age at that juncture.
Enter Rand Paul, the Tea Party poster boy. The Junior Senator from Kentucky has advocated term limits. In fact, he has listed term limits as a key to reforming Washington.
A super majority of Americans agree with him, per Gallup and Quinnipiac. The question becomes, would sponsorship of such an amendment merit delaying his other ambition: to be President of the United States?
Paul hasn't decided on a Presidential run. Indications however, suggest that he is strongly considering it. Which generates the next question: "With a crowded field that is likely to include Jeb Bush and Rick Perry, wouldn't it be better for Paul to delay Presidential aspirations and settle for an almost certain re-election?"
Mitch McConnell doesn't support term limits. He answered the question in proclaiming that "we already have term limits." According to the new Senate Majority leader, "every six years consituents are given the opportunity to make a change."
"Besides," as McConnell concluded, "it takes every bit of two Senate terms to master navigation of the federal bureaucracy."
Support for term limits notwithstanding, expect McConnell to urge Paul to seek re-election. While there are some promising Republican Congressmen available, Rand Paul would be difficult, if not impossible to dislodge in a re-election bid. 2016 will be a "hold" year for Republicans. The party leadership is reluctant to take chances with a secure seat.
Actually, Paul might help his future presidential chances if he did stay out. A return to the Senate that featured his sponsorship of a term limits amendment would grant him national exposure! True, such action would anger Senate and Congressional long termers. If passed at least 75% of the seats would turnover in both House and Senate.
Let's examine McConnell's assertion. "Two, six-year terms to master bureaucracy navigation?" Are we kidding? Maybe not!
A term limits amendment would need to be accompanied by an all out effort to decentralize. As McConnell accurately surmised, the "Executive branch" has "grown to the point that it has unsurprassed power." Weakening the legislative branch, in theory could actually be dangerous. Or, are these the mere rantings of a six-term career politician, not wanting to resign from the best job in America?
Pretend, for the sake of the argument, that McConnell is correct. Would not it be wise to divert power away from Washington, in favor of the individual states? Texas Governor, Rick Perry thinks so! If Perry has his way, the Education, Energy and Commerce Departments will be eliminated.
Former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush sees it on slightly different terms. While the federal bureaucracy may need to be "tweaked and re-focused," it is an intregal part of American government. Probably the greatest example of the differences between these two successful Governors are their views on Common Core.
Paul is certainly more in step with Perry on this issue. But, where Perry is a pragmatist, Paul is an ideologue. He sees Washington as something that is essentially a failure. Bush sees it sorely in need of better and more efficient management. Perry advises everyone to "read the 10th amendment."
Rand Paul is more than a decade younger than Bush or Perry. Time is on his side. A return to the Senate will do nothing but allow him to grow stronger. He could complete a second Senate term and return to Kentucky for an almost certain Gubernatorial triumph. Whether it passed or didn't pass, sponsorship of a term limits amendment would position him as "anti-establishment, anti-career politician."
There continue to be Tea Partiers who stubbornly insist that Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or Allen West should be the Republican nominee! Realistically, anyone lacking Executive experience will be at a disadvantage, considering the field. Rand Paul could expertly position himself for a 2024 run, if he opted for this more secure path. He would still be only 61 years of age at that juncture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)