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.

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."

Really?

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.

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."

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.








     

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.  

Social Conservatives- Neo-Cons or Constitutionalists?

The New York Legislature had narrowly passed a bill that sanctioned same sex marriage. The Republican candidates were quickly taking issue. One argument took center stage.  Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum and Texas Governor Rick Perry disagreed on an important aspect of the debate.

Santorum, a point rider for "rights of the unborn," readily asserted, "the measure passed by New York was indeed wrong, misguided and should be disallowed." It wasn't that Senator Santorum abhorred gay people. He actually showed a compassionate face in the debates some months later. However, in the case of legalizing same sex marriage, it was his unyielding position that the federal government needed to step in and kill the notion in post haste!

Rick Perry made it clear that he favored a "sanctity of marriage amendment" to the constitution. But, he ruefully acknowledged New York's right to pass such legislation. Perry  "opposed" same sex marriage on "moral grounds." But, constitutionally, it would be inconsistent to implement prohibitive action from Washington D.C.

This is pure 10th amendment. And, amazingly, the 10th amendment interpretation has stymied a large number of social conservatives from full participation in regaining their country. How could this be? Is not social conservatism synonymous with strict constructionism?

I recall having a "break room" discussion with a devout social conservative in Lexington, Kentucky. This gentleman was a family man, pillar of his church, epitomizing clean living, God fearing, flag waiving America. Yet, when I suggested that decisions such as abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and education be deferred to the states, he lambasted the position as "relativism."

Relativism? What is the actual definition of Relativism? Perhaps in this man's estimation, it was as follows:

"The philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and all truths are relative to the individual."

In other words, "points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration."

In essence, "any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments."

The position held by this good man was notable. The question became, "how and why" had he taken such a stance? And where, did that point of view originate?

When we thoroughly dissect the 10th amendment, it becomes clear that the founders never intended for the federal government to get involved with abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization and education. So, assume for a moment that it's authors concluded that these concerns were to be handled at the state level.

This gentleman would evidently not have agreed with Jefferson, Franklin, Adams or any of the founding fathers. Based on his assertion, these issues would need to be administered from one central point. To allow states to hold different standards would be "relativism."

 In reality, this well intentioned man held nothing short of a "Neo-Con" position! As referenced in a previous post, there is growing evidence that "Neo-Cons" are actually "evolved Trotskyites."

Are we suggesting that Social Conservatives are more in step with Trotsky than Jefferson? There are a lot of exceptions and variations. But, unfortunately, yes! But that could quickly change! It comes down to their "identifying the wolves in sheeps clothing!"

When taking these responsibilities away from the states, placing it with the federal government, you are conceding that "Washington knows best." The "Neo-Con(New Conservative) approach calls for a "large Washington, D.C. based government to advance, implement and facilitate conservative practices and principles." The question becomes, "does Washington also define conservatism?"

In past times, churches were more pro-active. Issues such as pro-life, prayer in the public schools, and creationism were not discussed. Any position other than uncompromising support was inconsistent with Judeo-Christian principles. Alternative positions were rarely tolerated. The Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 tested evolution and the question of whether it was sacrilege to teach it in the public schools. How things have changed!

During the 20th century it became politically incorrect to discuss religious beliefs publicly, certainly in the public schools! The term "separation of church and state"  was inverted. As history confirms, the original idea was to keep government from establishing a state religion.

The founders remembered the "Church of England." They wanted no counterpart in America! The Marxists were quick to conclude that "separation of church and state" translated to "keeping religion out of any and all activities done under the auspices of government." Including the public schools. The got away with it only because Neo-Cons had infiltrated the churches to a large degree and largely seconded their motion.

Marxism never embraced religion of any kind. True, there were varying extremes of the how to deal with it. For Trotsky, it amounted to a security blanket for the masses in route to their ultimately accepting Communism as the better alternative.

History notes that Leon Trotsky was not Joseph Stalin. Nor was he Vladimir Lenin. Lenin, as we recall described religion as the "opiate of the people." He had not always held this position. Stalin was engaged in studies to become a priest in the Eastern Orthodox church before turning to atheism. Trotsky, of Jewish heritage held a softer position on religion. He saw it more as an "appeaser" or "conciliator" of the masses.

Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were in agreement that everything, including religion was best handled from a central point. American lawmakers on both sides of the aisle supported this position. With the help of the court system,  prayer was banned from the public schools.  Abortion was legalized. In the 1970's a Department of Education that welded enormous power was implemented.

It is not to say that Neo-Cons didn't support school prayer, the rights of the unborn and a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Most do, up to a point. But the thought of allowing states to decide for themselves opens a can of worms! It is a certainty that many, if not most social conservatives have bought in to their argument that "it's a national argument and should be handled at the national level."

The end result: "Neo-Cons" have been able to placate and ultimately win over the social conservatives by taking strong positions on abortion, marriage, and drug control enforcement. In exchange for these concessions, Social Conservatives have basically "okayed" big government and greater control from Washington, D.C.  In doing so, they have unknowingly accepted the belief that the positions of our founding fathers were nothing short of relativism.

Nothing could be further from the truth! We are "the United States of America." We are not, "the United American States." Our motto tells it all: E Pluribus Unum: "From the many, one."

When our founders wrote our Constitution they were determined to get it right! Week after week, in stifling July heat and humidity they made correction after correction, abridgment after abridgement in hammering out a workable agreement. In doing so they covered every conceivable angle. They knew that each state was different in it's own sense. All would require a certain degree of flexibility and autonomy. On the big things, they would come together.

The original inspiration exhibited by our founders was sadly polluted in the previous century. As Marxism grew, it became more accepted. Even though it has failed in every attempt, excuses for failure were always there. On going attempts to invoke this failed idea quickly sprouted in new places, including within our shores. It flourished in America because most Americans didn't recognize it. This too, was by design!

When the average 1960's American family thought Communism, they thought the U.S.S.R., Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev and a totalitarian state that terrorized it's population. There are countless Russians who will tell you today that it wasn't like that. But, what was it like? Three words provide the answer: "Big Central Government."

Did the Soviet Union collapse due to the population throwing off the yoke of totalitarianism? Actually not. The system failed because the country was an economic basket case! It rewarded idleness and mediocrity. It penalized productivity. Today Russian President, Vladimir Putin has gone on record to warn President Barack Obama to not fall for the same failed reasoning!

Those evolved Trotskyites made certain that their product was presented in a benign manner, appearing to be the polar opposite of it's Soviet cousin of the sixties. The people, expected to be the most ideologically opposed to a Marxist system were the Social Conservatives. Winning them amounted to winning the entire game.

There may be some good news for Constitutionalists. A lot of independents and even some Democrats may be more inclined to favor Federalism. The 10th amendment offers insight into fixing much of what ails America. If Social Conservatives can accept the 10th amendment as the "true brother of Liberty," they will be able to escape the bonds of Marxism, so expertly glamorized by Democrats and okayed by Neo-Cons.

Are we suggesting that Senator Santorum is a Neo-Con?

Senator Santorum's unique place is another discussion for a different post. But we might mention that many of his positions mirror those of John F. Kennedy. His reverence for home, church and job at the factory had the smell of protectionism. As a result, the Neo-Cons wanted no part of him.

Rick Perry epitomizes the traditional Southern position of "States rights." His talk of downsizing the Federal government, making Washington "inconsequential in the lives of Americans," scared Neo-Cons.

Perry is an avowed 10th amendment guy. In short, any act, action, duty or responsibility the 10th didn't designate as a federal responsibility, belongs the the states. Period!  Santorum believes in making American industry competitive here at home. If eliminating the corporate income tax isn't enough, there are always other options available.

Both positions are grave threats to Globalism, Neo-Conservatism and, of course, World Communism. Supporters will continue to fear the inevitable. If Social Conservatives such as Senator Santorum ever accept the 10th amendment as the starting point, the circle will be complete.

Who are the "Neo-Cons?"

A simplified conclusion would be Republican "R.I.N.O.S," also known as, "Republicans in Name Only," are the "Neo-Cons." Unfortunately, it is much more complicated than that!

In the March 24th post on Eagles for America, we linked "Neo-Con's"(New Conservatives) to Leon Trotsky, labeling them as "evolved Trotskyites." When we assert that certain Republican and ex-Republican "R.I.N.O.S" are actually "evolved Trotskyites," there is little argument.

All party members admit to a lingering bitterness held toward the late Arlen Specter. As we recall, the longtime Republican Senator from Pennsylvania switched parties was instrumental in getting Obamacare through the Senate. Florida Republicans remain tiffed with Charlie Crist's about face. To call either a "Neo-Con" is a mild accusation.  Suggesting that both were "evolved Trotskyites" would likely spawn an affirmative response.

The same might hold true if aimed at Delaware's Mike Castle. Or Maine's Olympia Snowe. We could add former Rhode Island Senator, Lincoln Chaffee and ex-Connecticut Senator, Lowell Weicker to the list. Even to label Weicker's replacement, Joe Lieberman a "Neo-Con" would draw little opposition from Republican camps!

But wait! Are not these figures mostly liberal Republican types from the Northeast? The "Neo-Cons" are not confined to that region. So what actually contrasts a "Neo-Con" from a "R.I.N.O.?" And, for that matter, what differentiates "Neo-Cons" from "Constitutionalists?"

The former is fairly simple. A "R.I.N.O." is a Republican party member who holds more moderate, if not liberal positions on various issues. Nelson Rockefeller would be referred to as a "R.I.N.O." if he were living today. His brother, Winthrop was considered more liberal than Democrat, Dale Bumpers when the two squared off in the Arkansas Governor's race in the early seventies. In retrospect, that proved to be a misnomer.

Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul insightfully drew the distinction of "Constitionalist" and "Neo-Con" in his book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington. According to Paul, a "Neo Con" believes in a large,Washington, D.C. based govenment with the role of fostering and facilitating conservative principles.  A "Constititionalist," advocates a "strict construtionist" interpretation of the Constitution.

Were the Rockefellers "Neo-Cons?" Actually yes. And that is where the confusion sets in.
Trotsky was a Communist. Why would an "evolved Trokskyite" be represented in one of the wealthiest American dynasties?

We must never forget the break in the Communist party. Joseph Stalin, ultimately won. Leon Trotsky lost. Vladimir Lenin, while considering Stalin abrasive and uncouth, was more in principle agreement with him than Trotsky. Stalin held the view that Communism's adoption could only be accomplished through force. Trotsky maintained the belief that it's eventual acceptance was only a matter of time.

The Trotskyite position became homogenized with western capitalism. A happy medium emerged. It began with Roosevelt's New Deal. The New Deal can best be summarized as "a way out(or privileged place) for the extremely wealthy and socialism for the remainder of the population."

Was that conclusion altogether unattractive? To Oligarchs, such as the Rockefellers it made perfect sense. The promise of a social safety net, including socialized medicine, subsidized housing and free education were proven "rabble rousers!" To fund it by increasing the middle class contribution was a sacrifice most of America was ready to consider. True, the positioning was critical. But slick, glib politicians could be found. 

Are these "Neo-Cons" actually on common ground with the Democrat party? Not exactly!

We must remember that Stalin hated Trotsky. And, visa versa. That animosity lingers today and is most visible in the general elections. "Neo-Cons" control most of the Republican machinery. The Democrats are more closely aligned to Saul Alinsky, the Frankfort School and Stalinism.

I recall Republican strategist, Karl Rove's acid assessment of Barack Obama. There was unquestionable contempt present when Rove described the President as the "guy at the cocktail party with a Martini in one hand, a cigarette in the other, making a snide comment toward every passer by." To suggest that Rove dislikes Obama would be an understatement.

It's also worth mentioning that the Dallas, Texas former Tea Party president's description of Karl Rove was, "A big government moderate."

Rove was definitely on the bandwagon of Kay Bailey Hutchinson's 2010 Texas Gubernatorial bid. Bailey reminded Texans "what we(as in central government) have done for you in Washington, D.C."

It may have been in that campaign that Senator Paul's distinction of "Neo-Con" versus "Constitutionalist" was most clearly manifested. Bailey's opponent, incumbent and current Texas Governor, Rick Perry emphasized the importance of reducing excess spending and returning power to Austin. He cited Bailey's support for Washington, D.C. based government and the programs that increased it's size and scope. In the end, Perry trounced Hutchinson, administering a black eye to all Texas Republicans who supported her. Including Karl Rove.

Are we suggesting that Rove and Hutchinson are "Neo-Cons?"

This is where things become delicate. Perry, we must remember was a Democrat until 1989. In fact it was Rove who recruited him for the GOP. Perry, like many Southern Democrats(called Boll Weevils at that time) had become disillusioned with the direction of the party. He and other Southerners were echoing Ronald Reagan's proclamation, "I didn't leave the Democrat party, it left me."

Those Republicans who were Republicans in the seventies were ideologically more in tune with Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and Howard Baker. Southern Democrats never warmed to any of the four. They were more on George Wallace's page. When the former Alabama Governor talked about States rights and the 10th amendment, he immediately gained their attention.

Wily Jimmy Carter took note. His Southern drawl and avowed loathing of big government lured these "Dixiecrats" into continued allegiance with the Democrats. Four years later, having realized that they had been "conned" by the Georgia Peanut farmer,  most embraced Ronald Reagan. They were later heralded as "Reagan Democrats."

It might be noted that the Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican party did not initially support Reagan. They were decisively behind his eventual running mate, George H.W. Bush.

Bush, like Ford, Dole and Rockefeller was a long time party man. Reagan was the outsider who, like Perry was a convert. In that 2010 Texas Gubernatorial election, the distinction between the two elements again crystallized. 

Are we suggesting that Dole, Ford and George H.W. Bush were "Neo-Cons?"

To call these great Americans "evolved Trotskyites" is a stretch. They all loved their country and were patriots to the utmost extent. To suggest that they were influenced by Keynesian economic theory is a fact. To note that they supported large Washington, D.C. based government is reality, albeit not to the extent of their Democrat adversaries.

In short, there is a stark difference between Republicans! Maybe it's due to the fact that most of today's Republican party is made up of members who would not have been Republicans in 1973, or even 1983. Without question, Reagan Republicans were quite different from Nelson Rockefeller Republicans. Not to mention, Mitt Romney Republicans.

Reagan rolled into office with a promise that he would "reduce the cost of government." He strove for Federalism. Rick Perry echoed that aspiration in his short lived bid for the presidency. When he mentioned "downsizing" Washington, the "Neo-Cons" pounced! 

Southerners in comparison to Northerners may find it easier to compromise a safety net for more freedoms. It is in our psyche, perhaps. There is always a deep rooted fear in a government from afar, mandating how we are supposed to live our lives.

 Federalism amounts to less power for a central government. The two arguing Marxist factions determined this much 100 years ago.  Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin agreed that it was "better to control everything from one central point."

This amounts to an eye opening litmus test. Even honorable leaders with the best of intentions have been known to get it wrong! When we continue to witness the growth of Washington, D.C. based government and ask "why," it becomes plainly evident.

"When both sides are in agreement, the result is generally predictable."