About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The left coast disaster of "bi-culturalism"

 

"Press one for English; press two for Spanish”…it’s all so very depressing.

 

It all started in California; and now there's no denying it; we are rushing headlong into parallel societies. 

 

E. Pluribus Unum is now Americus Hispanicus defunctus: we're now a bi-lateral nation, speaking two distinct languages, bearing two distinct cultures-- all backed by the democrats who covertly are enabling it.

 

Uncontrolled immigration has disfigured the state of California to a chaotic state of "bi-culturalism" -- the main reason why the place is 25 billion in debt.
 
So what's the answer? Calmexica! 
 
And why not? Why not solve the illegal immigration problem once and for all? Calmexica would certainly trump the alternative, the democrat's scheme for "amnesty" (i.e., the vote) to 20 million aliens -- a Trojan horse for citizenship-- all but guaranteeing the tyranny of one-party rule in America for perhaps the rest of this century.

 

And don't forget about “the chain.”

 

Once these illegals become "citizens," the dems will no doubt pass "chain-immigration" laws, enabling all their family members to come across and join the happy clan-- making the problem all the worse. 

 

If one were to project this all to the next generation (given their high birthrate) there will be upwards of 45 to 50 million “Mexi-Americans” -- a permanent democratic voting bloc -- an unmitigated electoral disaster, transforming the character of our nation permanently.

 

Ever since they came into California, Mexicans are the only ethnic group who've refused to adopt English, in defiance of our "melting pot." And they are NOT a mosaic; they've become a separate, parallel society.

 

The omens are everywhere:

 

-Nancy Pelosi recently made an impassioned speech (in a Catholic church) condemning the arresting of illegal aliens in the workplace--calling it "UN-American." Remember that?

 

-Janet Napolitano continues to attack Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio over his strict border enforcement against illegals crossing over. 

 

-New York Senator Chuck Schumer is busily crafting away at his phony bill for "amnesty reform"

 

-New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez is covertly working behind the scenes to get ALL illegal aliens free health care

 

-Monatana Senator Max Baucus has sabotaged e-Verify; removing the illegal immigrant enforcement provision from the stimulus bill

 

-Barack Obama has stated he wants to pass an immigration reform law by this September

 

If Congress really wanted to solve the problem (especially in California), they only need use e- Verify to "absolve" the country from these immigrant spongers. But it's never gonna happen as long as the democrats keep control; and amnesty, of course, is the key to it.

 

Which bring us to the prospect of Calmexica.

 

Instead of the above alternative, why not just surrender part of the state? It's already hopelessly bankrupt. We could simply say..."OK, you illegals have won. Take it away! See ya.”

 

Rather than let the "cancer" spread, we'll just ward it off-- ergo…Calmexica!

 

But what would California care? Would anything really change? Would the "non-Hispanic" population even mind? Would L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa protest? He'd be delirious with joy!

 

And how about San Francisco, the most liberal area in the county; they're supposedly in strong support of immigration- so why would they protest? Wouldn't that be going back on their beliefs that immigrants have "full rights under protection of the law?”

 

So, let's call ‘em on their bluff. Calmexica forever!

 

For the people in Big Sur, it's where they could draw the border: Calmexica to the south, and "regular California" starting just north of the Bay Area-- let the surveyors worry about it. 

 

California has approx. 2.4 million Spanish-speaking public school students. Only 39 percent speak "something other" than their "native" language; and what happens when they grow up? It will only worsen the parallel society problem, and further divide the nation.

From 1982 to 2007, the number of "non English" students in California's public schools has increased by 220 percent-- so why even continue to call California part of the United States if they can’t (won't) speak English?

Current demographic surveys reveal over 150 languages and dialects spoken by California public school students-- Spanish being the first language for over 81 percent. Two-thirds of non-English speaking students are in grades 1 to 6, including one out of every three kindergartners.

 

Limited and non-English speaking students enter the system at every grade level --all implying the rampant pace of illegal immigration that goes unreported.

 

And what happens once all these nice, "non-English speaking" children become adults? They will comprise a huge voting bloc-- hotly pursued by ALL politicians-- resulting in laws written to cater to THEM, further depriving the rest of the nation with the tail wagging the dog: a bilingual society encumbered by class warfare, class envy; and working people everywhere heavily taxed to pay for it all.

 

Imagine California-- say by 2030-- to a visiting foreigner; they would think, “hmmm...what country IS this? 

 

So consider the idea very carefully. Calmexica is sounding better all the time. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hello America... Are you still there?


Question: What's the best job in government, where by following the rules, you are virtually guaranteed a lifetime of service, and then retire on a permanent pension with cost-of-living adjustments, and no co-pay health care to boot!

Answer: It's the con job, stupid!  Just be a con-man,  and be rewarded for life.

Nowadays, voters are in a better position than ever to make informed political decisions. They can access the internet, the blogs, and the portals to get election information. Plus there are now many more cable and national news networks like CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX, Bloomberg, etc. all of which carry political programming. And we haven’t even mentioned the traditional news sources, such as the three major TV networks, or the great newspapers like the New York times, Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune.
 
Yes, nowadays voters have access to more information than at any previous time, to make informed choices before they enter the voting booth-- yet they keep getting fooled over & over again. But why?

Today, Americans are not only more ignorant about their government than ever before, THEY DO NOT CARE! Ask the average American a simple question like, "what are the 3 branches of the federal government?" And 60% cannot answer correctly! And that's just for starters. Over 25% of Americans foolishly believe that the UN, along with the president, determines our foreign policy! This is beyond stupid...it is downright idiopathic, which is stupidity to the point where it becomes dangerous.
 
How dangerous is it to be stupid when it comes to one's knowledge of their government? Duh... just look at the way the average American votes nowadays. But first, a little historical perspective on voting stupidly.
 
In the election of 1976, it was Jimmie Carter, a dangerously inexperienced, peanut-farming, 1-term Georgia governor, who was running against Gerald Ford, who'd served well as an interim president after Nixon resigned. Ford was a long time Michigan congressman, and was an all-American football player at his Michigan University alma mater. But during the campaign, Ford was depicted as a clumsy, bumbling, oafish Republican, while Carter was portrayed as a sincere and confidant liberal reformer, who championed human rights and "would always tell the truth".
 
Of course Carter won because he was the adopted candidate of the liberal media. But in the final long term analysis, what was the REAL reason Carter defeated Ford? Was it because of Ford's blunder in the 2nd presidential debate, as history would tell us? Or was it because the country was ready for a president who would be the antithesis of the lying Richard Nixon, and would always be straight forward with the American people? NOPE! The real reason Carter won was because he had better hair than the shiny-pated Gerald Ford.
 
The one MAIN credential nowadays in major elections is: you cannot be bald. When's the last time America voted in a presidential candidate who was bald? DUH... give up? It was Dwight Eisenhower, who won less because of his popularity, and more because of Truman's unpopularity and rating of 35%. And despite the disastrous 1-term presidency of Jimmie Carter, would Ronald Reagan have succeeded him if he'd been bald? And to further the point, Reagan (fortunately) for his age had the thick hair of a 30 yr old.
 
Today, American political hairmania is pervasive in almost any electoral contest. Thinking about running for governor? Well friend, if you ain't got good hair, then try the school board.  How about senator? i.e. Look at the average serving senator's age, and then look at all the "older" men who serve there with great hair! Are either of the senators from your home state bald? Probably not. Or they had real good hair back when they were elected.
 
It's probably incalculable all the damage these great-haired conmen of our government have done to this country, in lieu of the competent bald men who might have served instead, would it not be the fact that they were scalp-challenged with little or no hair. Americans detest a bald political pate; and comb-overs are verboten in national politics. Maybe we should resurrect the Whig party, and highly-qualified honest candidates who lack hair, could now get elected wearing some well-fashioned toupe'.

Even the Founding Fathers had it figured out back then; they all wore powdered wigs, and all the best men were able to serve. And fortunately, they showed what honest, well-intentioned people of government can actually accomplish when they are free of artificial restrictions such as hair, or how they look on television.
 
Yup-- that's the bottom line and basic reason for America's obsession with voting stupidly-- it's how you look on television. In the recent election, what might have been the outcome if John McCain had been a member of the 'wig' party? Interesting question indeed. And to play devil's advocate here, could Obama have won his 'mandate' if he had hair like Micheal Jordan (shiny bald), or had gap-teeth like Micheal Strahan? If you don’t have great hair, or are 'challenged' facially, you cannot be serious about running for president. Just ask Rudy Julianni, Fred Thompson, or geeky Dennis Kucinich.
 
Would (could) homely Abe Lincoln have defeated Obama if he had been born 130 years later and was alive today? NO WAY! Lincoln wouldn't have been even able to make it into congress. Honesty and politics are like oil and water together.

Example: in the warped politics of today, a gaffe is when a candidate unintentionally "lets down his guard" and reveals his (her) true position. Yes, it's a fact...besides one's physical appearance, a political candidate cannot reveal the truth, lest it may damage their chances to win.
 
How did America get to this point? It's the con job stupid, and the 'rewards' of being dishonest. Today Americans are so lacking in ethics in their daily lives, that they seem to be "more connected to" the candidate who can promise them..."I'll create thousands of new jobs....I'll fight for working families everywhere"...etc.
 
Yes; they'll fight for working families everywhere. But the laws the con men sponsor are those of the special interests, who transform working families everywhere into unemployed families everyplace. And these con-men congress-people collect a HUGE payoff in the form of campaign contributions, so they'll have a "warchest" for their re-election, so they can perpetuate their misery.
 
It's a fine way to elect a government isn't it? And the con-men usually serve for life using this "fail safe" formula: Promise everything ...deliver nothing...and blame the failed policies of your political opponent as the cause. (quote) "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it...the truth is the greatest enemy of the State"... Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister).  “A lie told often enough becomes truth”...Vladimir Lenin. Who he? He founded the communist party during the Russian Revolution in 1917.
 
Can anyone deny that this is exactly the current state of politics in America today? You must be a con man or you cannot win. If you make too many gaffes, and let the truth 'slip out', then that's the kiss of death. During the presidential debates, people look for gaffes, rather than the candidate's true position. Policy matters not. The drama of the "gotcha moment" is what the public lives for in a campaign. And the candidate who provides enough "gotchas" is the inevitable victor; as the media will relive the gotcha moments over and over, and the gotcha candidate's ratings soar higher and higher in the polls.

And where does this all lead to? Well, it's become an American tradition: voting like an idiopathic moron; voting against your own best economic and social interests. Keep perpetuating the misery! Keep returning the conmen back to office! Never mind seeking the truth, it matters little. What's important is going with whatever candidate the media selects, that's how you're virtually guaranteed to elect the least worthy, and most specious person to office.

And what's even more idiopathic is to vote the choice of the comedians. Of course! let the comedy channel choose the "best " candidate. Take the advice of Stephen Colbert, and John Stewart Liebowitz, because they're the ones who're looking out for you. Do your part to make our democracy a joke. Let clowns like Bill Maher, and Lettermen and the the other clowns of comedy to make sure we keep re-electing congressional clowns like Barney Frank, and honest Chris Dodd, the odious Chuck Schumer, and the con man of ways and means, Charlie Rangel, because they always get the last laugh on you once they're done taking away what's left of our fast-disappearing, constitutionally guaranteed right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

And take special note of how our Founding Fathers used the word "pursuit" in the Preamble. Why? The longer we continue to re-elect these malevolent, fat-cat incumbents, we'll never catch up to being happy or feeling free from the ever-encroaching tentacles of our rapidly-expanding federal government; and the onerous regulations that destroy the freedom we have left in our lives to keep our money for ourselves, and to speak and act without the fear of political incorrectness, which will soon become another way for these liberals to control our lives, thus making us more miserable than ever.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »