I have previously posted on the subject of English as our national language. An article in yesterdays Los Angeles Times describes three instances in which immigrants, each from different countries were unable to communicate with medical staff at local hospitals because they did not know how to speak, write or understand English.

Federal law requires that healthcare providers who receive federal funding offer language assistance to patients if needed. Because federal law also requires that emergency services be available to patients regardless of immigration status or ability to pay, most hospitals and healthcare providers depend on the federal subsidies to offset a portion of the loss. Consequently they are forced to provide a language translator. Government mandated programs and services are passing these costs on to tax payers.

According to a recent study by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, one in three Los Angeles County residents do not speak English. The most common languages spoken are Spanish, Chinese, Tagalof, Korean, Armenian, Vietnamese, Persian, Japanese and Russian. In a recent study by the Journal of Internal Medicine, 1 in 15 or about 20 million people nationwide have no or limited English speaking and writing skills.

In order to comply with federal laws, healthcare providers and legal service agencies rely on dozens of non-profit organizations, funded by the federal government, who offer language translation services contracts. According to the National Language Services Network the number of those who speak a language other than English in their home is staggering. 46 million people or 17% of the entire US population are either non English speaking or have limited English skills.

Lian Zhen Li, one of the patients unable to communicate with doctors interviewed for the Los Angeles Times story said (presumably through an interpreter) that she never needed to learn English because she lived in an ethnic enclave in the Alhambra community. When she arrived at the hospital she was unable to communicate her problem. She was later diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

This problem is self inflicted and deeply systemic. We have laws that offer no incentive for immigrants or illegal aliens to learn English. We advertise free medical, free education, free welfare, free food stamps, free language translation services, free housing assistance, jobs and the promises of freedom and liberty.

I can’t imagine moving to a foreign country without learning to speak the native tongue well enough to live safely and comfortably. It is disappointing to me that our national immigration policy doesn’t require minimum English skills and that our laws are setup to protect and serve those who won’t take the time or make the effort to learn our national language. The promises of freedom and liberty are available to all that come here, it seems to me requiring English language skills of those that do come here, is reasonable.

Theodore Roosevelt is rolling in his grave and grinding his teeth at what we have become.

We should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.  Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Social Networking:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

These twenty seven words and 3 commas will be argued and disected among the Supreme Court Justices, with a ruling expected sometime in June 2008.

This Supreme Court case stems from a 30 year old Washington DC law that prohibits the possession of hand guns, even in an individuals home. The transcripts from the hearing earlier this week indicate a majority of the Justices are likely to strike down the Washington DC law as unconstitutional, in favor of the interpretation that it is the right of individuals to own hand guns.

 There are 3 questions in front of the Justices.

• Was it the intent of the framers for individual citizens to keep and bear arms?
• Are State regulation and permit requirements considered infringements?
• Is the current Washington DC law unconstitutional?

None of us can claim to be able to explore the mind of James Madison, the author of the second amendment, or any of the rest of the founders, but we can try to put into context the words used, within a frame of reference consistent with events of the era.

But first, a disclaimer. I own hand guns and I want to be able to own them without threat of government infringement. I believe the second amendment was intended to protect individuals from government infringement on gun ownership. With that disclosure, here is my argument.

The opening words of the second amendment ”a well regulated militia”, refers to the citizen colonists who voluntarily enlisted under George Washington by vote of the Continental Congress to battle the British during the American Revolutionary War. The reference to ‘militia’ was a term used to describe the uprising of colonists in self defense against the British military in the absence of a formally organized military. The founding fathers understood from experience that without arms to defend against the British military they would have been subjected to unjustified taxes and the oppressive rule of the British Monarchy. 

The next stanza of the second amendment “being necessary to the security of a free state” is simply the acknowledgement that a formal military is necessary to defend, protect and secure the homeland. It can be debated what was intended by ’state’. Was this literally meant as individual states or was the intention a Federal organization. In the context of answering the 3 questions before the Justices in this case, that analysis is irrelevant. What is relevant is the framers recognized in order to be a credible government, independent of British rule and the incursions of others, they must have a citizen based militia with some semblance of structure and formality, capable of defending itself against internal and external threats.

‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms”.  Without the colonists and their personal weapons (rifles and hand guns) the American Revolutionary War would not have been possible. The founding fathers were aware of this significance and chose to specifically protect the individual citizens from government infringement. “Shall not be infringed”. In other words the amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, that right is assumed. The amendment protects people from the infringement of government on gun ownership. If gun ownership is unreasonably restricted or out lawed the only people with guns will be government and criminals. Sometimes the two are indistinguishable.

 My .02

Social Networking:

Geraldine Ferraro stepped down as a member of one of Hillary Clintons finance committee’s yesterday after news media and the Obama campaign seized on her comments about Obama’s success so far in this election.

What she said was “I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign — to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against. If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

What Ferraro said was spot on if taken in the context it was intended. Obama is playing the race card because it benefits him to do so. Not because he believes her remarks were racist, but because he is a seasoned politician who won’t miss any opportunity to leverage his position by associating his opponent with the perceived offender. As I’ve said many times before, the end always justifies the means in American politics.

Obama should have leveraged Ferraro’s comments as an affirmation rather than a mean spirited discrimination. This election is historic. He should have celebrated the acknowledgement, rather than vilify and condemn her for speaking the truth. I think he missed a great opportunity to separate himself from the predictable attack dog campaign style we are weary of seeing. This should have been a moment in which Obama demonstrated his ability to unify rather than divide.

I am not a speech writer, but had I been asked what he should say in response it would have been something like:

“Thank you Geraldine for raising this prickly issue. It is important that we discuss this so that it does not become a campaign theme because there are way too many other things that the American people really care about for this to distract us from our mission of hope and change. I am proud of my African American ethnicity as all Americans should be of their families history. Isn’t it wonderful that so many new people have found their way into the election process as they exercise their right to vote. We are seeing people all across the nation realize one of the great promises of freedom and liberty by participating in this election. If the fact that I am a black man has contributed to this phenomenal surge of interest, then I am proud to be part of that success. The rest of the world is watching, so lets not disappoint them with boorish behavior by debating non issues. Instead join me in the celebration of a new day in America, where an African American man and a female of any race or color has a legitimate opportunity to be elected President of the United States”.

In my opinion comments like that would have earned him far more collateral then the dishonest objections promoted by his campaign.

My .02

Social Networking:

Pat Condell is an unapologetic atheist. He was raised Catholic in the suburbs of London England. I don’t subscribe to his anti-religious rants, but his straight talk about the cultural mutation of Europe due to the Islamic indoctrination of some countries is eye opening. For those who believe multiculturalism in America is a good thing, here is a short clip for you to review. 

Social Networking:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. President, Thomas Jefferson

Have you ever wondered how the Federal Reserve works, who runs it and what function it serves? Did you know that the Federal Reserve is not a government agency, but a privately held company? Do you know who owns the Federal Reserve?

Brief History

Prior to the creation of the current version of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, banks were largely unregulated and unchartered. Private bankers controlled the economy of local communities because there were no regulations or policy in regards to loan terms, usury laws or reserve requirements. Banks were a patch work of unaffiliated institutions scattered across the country with no central policy. The creation of a central banking system had failed twice before. In 1791 Congress established the First Bank of The United States. After the initial 20 year charter expired Congress failed to reinstate the central bank, reverting to the ‘free banking’ system that left banks unregulated and its lending provisions subject only to market forces (supply and demand).  In 1816 a second central reserve bank was mandated by Congress. When Andrew Jackson was elected President in 1828 he vowed to abolish the institution and succeeded in doing so in 1836.

Private Banking Cartel 

The creation of the ’Fed’ in 1913 during the Woodrow Wilson administration was very controversial. Wilson was under enormous political pressure. The banking monopolies publically pretended to be opposed to the act, while spending millions of dollars to promote the new system politically behind the scenes. Wilson signed the legislation on December 22nd, 1913 during the Christmas break period for Congress.

The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name purposely selected by the banking cartel and bank rolled politicians. Choosing a name that led people to believe that this was a government regulated agency misrepresented the facts to the American people and provided credibility to the new system. In reality the act created a private, for profit banking corporation that is controlled by an international banking cartel. Here is a list of the families that own the Federal Reserve System:

• Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
• Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
• Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
• Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
• Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
• Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
• JP Morgan
• Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
• Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Controlled By the Rockefeller Family) 

The stated purpose of creating the Federal Reserve was to unify and supervise the entire banking system, control the expansion or contraction of currency, and regulate the flow of money to the commercial banks through the establishment of 12 Federal Reserve Banks supervised by the Federal Reserve System.  

The Federal Reserve System (corporation) or banking cartel creates money out of nothing, lends it to the Federal Government and commercial banks, then charges interest on those ‘loans’.  The US Treasury only prints money when the ‘Fed’ (bank cartel) tells it to print. Taxpayers repay the government loans (national debt) and consumers repay lenders (loans) in the form of principal and interest payments, a large portion of which goes to the members of the banking cartel that still exists today. Money created from nothing!!!

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creati0n of inextinguishable debts”.  Henry Ford

Stay tuned for part 2.

Social Networking:

Reports that Barack Obama’s campaign had surreptitiously contacted the Canadian government to reassure them that the tough talk about renegotiating NAFTA was not to be taken seriously, surfaced immediately following last weeks Democratic Presidential debate.

Both Obama and Clinton rebuked the current version of the NAFTA agreement during the debate and committed to either forcing Canada and Mexico back to the bargaining table or threatening to completely renege on the deal. Clinton attempted to distance herself from her record of supporting the NAFTA agreement implemented under her husbands administration.

What is particularly interesting about this story is the Clinton campaign had attacked Obama for several days for saying one thing at the debate and then having “a wink and nod” meeting with Canada. Hillary has been on the attack and has used this in stump speeches in Wyoming and Pennsylvania, two states holding primaries over the next couple of weeks. Now it is being reported that her campaign had a similar meeting or discussion with the same official at the Canadian embassy in Washington.

Neither of these candidates are being honest with the American people. They both appeared on national television and told us how serious they were about fixing the mess  Hillary’s husband created during his Presidency, with her support and admiration. Now it turns out they both have a back door message to Canada that it is ‘only words’, not to worry.

I have previously posted about the Clintons arrogance and lack of honesty. Now we have another Democratic Presidential candidate who doesn’t know the difference between the truth and lies.

Both Clinton and Obama reassured Canada on trade: reports

(AFP) — US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s campaign, while rapping rival Barack Obama for telling US voters he is anti-NAFTA and saying otherwise to Canada, tried to reassure Canada too, local media said Thursday.

See full text of story here at the Democratic Underground

Social Networking:

 Bob Hope - 1940 Ghost Breakers

Social Networking:

I have previously posted about the Clinton campaign stating my opinion about their arrogance toward the American people and the transparent attitude of entitlement of the Presidency. It amazes me how gullible we (voters) are when it comes to trusting what politicians say, as opposed to examining the long and clear record of the individual.

I read an op-ed piece this morning in the LA Times by Rosa Brooks who is a professor at the Georgetown Law Center and national columnist with contributions to among other publications, the Los Angeles Times. In it she illustrates another way in which Hillary will put herself above the party and country to do what serves her selfish interests. If the DNC or party leaders don’t step in before long this will only hurt them. Don’t get me wrong, I am enjoying the entertainment.

On a slightly similar subject, won’t it be interesting to see how the Democrats solve the dilemma of Michigan and Florida delegates? Stay tuned for more on that topic.

It’s your call, Hillary

Hillary? Hillary?

What? It’s 3 a.m.? Yes, I know that. Look, I’m sorry if I woke you up. But you said you were fine with 3 a.m. calls. 

See the full text of the article here.

Social Networking:

Last nights debate was interesting for a couple of reasons. Watching the great skill and calm demeanor of Barrack Obama, even during the intense and sometimes emotional discharge of Hillary Clinton was intriguing. He seems to absorb all that is being said, but quickly is able to distill the words, separating the waste from the perfumery, preparing a response.

 I don’t like his ideology, but he is a remarkable speaker and thinker.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, I saw Hillary quit last night. I saw it in her body language and in her tone, particulalry in the late stages of the debate. Despite Clinton reaching deep into her arsenal for some of the strongest attacks in any of the previous debates, Obama simply deflected them and selectively responded without so much as furrowing a brow.

Juan McCain will have a very difficult time against someone so talented.

Tim Russert gets some of the credit for Hillary’s awkward demeanor. Thanks Tim, for not letting her lie again about her record on NAFTA. Thank you for holding her accountable.

Social Networking:

I have previously posted about the allegations that Reggie Bush accepted cash gifts and other benefits while enrolled as a student-athlete at USC. In recent developments the Bush legal team continues to play a game of cat and mouse with Lloyd Lake and the NCAA. 

In a February 13th 2008 story ESPN reported that the Reggie Bush legal team hired an armed security guard to accompany them to the scheduled February 12th, 2008 deposition of Lloyd Lake. Brian Watkins, Lake’s attorney halted the proceedings after the armed guard flashed his gun. “He made sure we saw it,” Watkins said.

This is outrageous conduct by any standards, and particularly egregious conduct by an officer of the court during a formal legal procedure.

Bush was scheduled to be deposed on February 25th 2008, but according to reports published by ESPN and other news sources, he failed to appear. Bush’s lawyers instead filed a motion for protective order that would prevent Watkins from turning over depositions to the NCAA.

Hmmmm……. Is anyone else wondering what he has to hide and who he is trying to protect?

The entire legal strategy of the Bush team is to prevent the truth from being publicly aired. They clearly are not interested in having Reggie deposed under oath, and based on the recent motion filed by David Cornwell, Bush’s lawyer, they do not want any testimony that might be compelled by a judge to be turned over to the NCAA.

Which leaves us to wonder why. Reggie has repeatedly said that he did nothing wrong. He has repeatedly stated that the truth will come out and “we will all see this was nothing”. If that’s the case Reggie, step up, put your hand on the bible and answer the questions under oath. Quit playing legal games and meet your opponent on the 5o yard line as you claim you want to do.

My suggestion for USC is to detoxify your connection with Reggie Bush by openly conducting your own investigation. If you determine that your coaching staff and compliance officers had no knowledge, nor should have known about Reggie’s obvious transgressions then make that report public and vigorously defend yourself of any accusations of impropriety. If on the other hand you discover that members of your coaching staff used poor judgement or that your compliance officers failed in their duty, then admit it now. If nothing else, we have learned from others, in particular Michigan (Charles Woodson) and Ohio St. (Maurice Clarett) that if you are accountable for your mistakes early on, most folks are willing to forgive and forget. However, if you choose to wait until the proof is provided by another source, you put at risk previous championships, victories and future scholarships. The choice is yours, roll the dice hoping that Bush’s attorneys are successful in their attempt to conceal the truth, or admit your mistakes and be accountable now.

My .02

Social Networking: