Skip to comments.Take America Back With English Language Bill
Posted on 07/08/2012 3:20:04 PM PDT by Kfobbs
Take America back with English Language Bill: By Kevin Fobbs - July 8, 2012
For far too long Americans have allowed themselves to be lulled into a neat little corner of dulled complacency because political correctness and intellectual piracy has subjugated citizens to become mentally enslaved by the politically correct thought police at the expense of Americans English language heritage. If this constitutional wrecking ball continues at this unrestrained pace, Obama may well decide that his socialist-minded hubris demands that by presidential executive order, English, become relegated to second, third or last place status, Because it is the right thing to do!
This must no longer be tolerated here in this nation or in any state in the nation. We can no longer afford to be asleep at the switch while, our children, our nieces and nephews and grandchildren our penalized because precious educational dollars are siphoned off to accommodate illegal alien children who continue to learn to speak in the native tongue of their foreign country....
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I note that you only rarely post a comment, and that you only
post threads about “articles” you yourself have “written”.
Isn’t that curious?
Why do you think you are doing that?
Could it be that you wish to siphon a bit of traffic away from Free Republic?
Oh, Kevin. If that is your goal here, I must rebuke you.
That would be a very scummy and dirtbaggish thing for you to do, Kevin.
I gots to gets me some hits!
This can be shortened to “Forced multilinguism is racism.”
That is, the English language is the ‘lingua franca’ of the world, of commerce, of international travel, of a lot of modern science and technology.
Literacy in the English language is so vital to prosperity in the United States that Noam Chomsky has been able to deny millions of black Americans education, success and self sufficiency, by promulgating his utterly worthless “Whole Language” English instruction on them.
At the time it was invented, black American students had English language skills almost on a par with white students. But after a single decade of being deprived of English language skills, their grades plummeted, because if you do not know English, there is little else you can learn in school.
And Chomsky’s followers, in the face of vast amounts of evidence that Whole Language is an utter failure, still push for its adoption by schools.
So Chomsky can proudly proclaim that he has done more than anyone who ever lived, to oppress and impoverish black Americans.
It can be put quite simply to immigrants: “Learn English or you family will be poor for generations.”
Arizona’s “English Only” referendum got passed without anyone being mad at Republicans:
Arizona Proposition 103:
English as Official Language
Why don't you learn to WRITE English?
Poosh dos por eeeenglish.
Yes, the multilingualism problem in public education is very important, but I'm particularly appalled at the federal mandates for multilingual election ballots, which add expense, confusion and practical difficulties (like either a very large size or very small print to accommodate all the languages) to the most vital process in the country. IF SOMEONE CAN'T VOTE IN ENGLISH IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION, HE OR SHE SHOULDN'T BE VOTING AT ALL!!!
'Rats and RINOS in Congress (and the executive branch) have been too patronizing of immigrants - legal and illegal - for far too long. Instead of encouraging assimilation, they are encouraging balkanization of American society.
Oh, I'm real sure that "English Only" will "take America back". Yup...pass that and all ills disappear.
What a doofus.
“IF SOMEONE CAN’T VOTE IN ENGLISH IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION, HE OR SHE SHOULDN’T BE VOTING AT ALL!!!”
Bring back the Poll Tax.
“’Rats and RINOS in Congress (and the executive branch) have been too patronizing of immigrants - legal and illegal - for far too long. Instead of encouraging assimilation, they are encouraging balkanization of American society.”
> Arizona’s “English Only” referendum...
‘English Only’ is a misnomer foisted by the left to depict the movement as oppressive and intolerant. It conjures up images of police breaking in doors, confiscating books in other languages, and dragging their owners off to jail (or arresting people for speaking other languages). ‘Official English’ or ‘English First’ are more accurate names. People are free to know as many languages as they please (I speak two, and read many more). The aim of the movement is to preserve English as the common language of the people of the United States, which is quite different from purging other languages from the country.
Will take a damned-site MORE than an english language bill....
Looks like some have underestimated “THEM”... big time..
Republicans love to under estimate democrats.. and do..
By giving the bastards the benefit of the doubt..
Republicans are mostly all PollyAnnas.. in a dream world..
This is my last election as a republican.. talk about begging for defeat..
Republicans win sometimes but absolutely HATE winning..
Republicans HATE winning... face it...
> IF SOMEONE CAN’T VOTE IN ENGLISH IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION, HE OR SHE SHOULDN’T BE VOTING AT ALL!!!
And it’s not just the matter of understanding the words on the ballot. People who don’t learn English are greatly limited in their access to the information about this country needed to make intelligent decisions about politics (and many other things in our society).
Oh really? And us Arizonans thought we would get to break down doors. /s
Surely by now you realize that any descriptive words will be called oppressive and intolerant by the left. Why do you let them control your very words, and in fact, do their work for them?
I’m not letting them control my words. I’m using the ones I prefer, the more accurate ones. Those who say ‘English Only’ are using the ones people on the left want them to use.
“We live in this fog of political correctness, where everything is perpetual deception.”
- John Hagee
Also get the PC Newspeak out of the English language. “If you control the language, you control the culture. For instant, there is no”banking community”. Rather, there is a “banking industry”. “Customers”, not “consumers”(the word makes me think of PAC Man)..
> “We live in this fog of political correctness, where everything is perpetual deception.” - John Hagee
I’m opposing political correctness by refusing to use the deceptive term that its supporters use (’English Only’). ‘English Only’ flatly contradicts the provisions of all the major proposals, and the traditional practice in the United States. Proposals that English be the official language of the government and of the public schools, and the common language of the American people do not imply that Americans can’t know other languages in addition to English. That’s why I prefer ‘Official English’, ‘U.S. English’, ‘ProEnglish’, or ‘English First’.
If you have the time to discuss this in greater detail, I'd like to learn more about the situation in Arizona. I'm a non-Hispanic on the opposite side of the country in South Carolina, but I've also lived in Miami, Denver, studied Spanish in Mexico and Spain, and taught Spanish for a few years, decades ago.
I found a copy of Arizona's Proposition 203, English Language Education for Children in Public Schools, which was approved in 2000. (Here's another copy without so many paragraphs in all caps, ironically a bilingual version from Canada.) It specifically states "Foreign language classes for children who already know English shall be completely unaffected..." That means it's not English Only even for the public schools.
I oppose bilingual programs for immigrants that stretch out for many years. Setting up such tracks for Spanish speakers may impede their learning of English, and in effect serve to institutionalize Spanish as an alternative in this country to English. I favor a relatively quick transition, but not an immersion in English in which all reference to Spanish is forbidden. I notice that the Arizona law provides for a one-year “sheltered immersion” in English (”Although teachers may use a minimal amount of the child’s native language when necessary...”). That sounds fine. Whatever the conditions, though, quickly teaching persons who speak one language to speak and read another won’t be easy.
I have some experience with this from the other side, teaching Spanish to English speakers. I did my practice teaching in a high school that used immersion in Spanish in its beginning Spanish classes. Even with carefully prepared materials, relying on pictures and pantomime doesn’t work very well for some ideas. Occasional words in the other language can be helpful.
For instance, how do you get across the idea of ‘idea’ itself? That’s not easy. Yet in English and Spanish the words have the same origin and are spelled exactly the same way (just pronounced differently). It can be taught in seconds to a person who already understands it in one language by a quick reference to that.
I like the basic thrust of the Arizona proposal, and the attempt to make a relatively quick transition, just so the reliance on English isn’t enforced in too doctrinaire a fashion.
Did you notice the point of my post, the numbers?
Your posts have provided a good example of:
“Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.”
I’m beginning to suspect that I’m wasting my time. I support the Arizona proposal — which does not equate to English only. I dislike deceptive quoting. Your own earlier stats said “Arizona Proposition 103: English as Official Language Yes...No...Full AZ 74%...26%” — English as Official Language! When you quoted them again, you left out “English as Official Language” — exactly what I support, and that doesn’t mean English Only. (People who understand the meaning of the English word ‘official’ know that.)
Readers who are following this discussion can see that when you use 'English Only', it's you who are using the term insisted upon by the left. I oppose it.
To accuse me of cultural Marxism, when you are the one using the term cultural Marxists prefer, is absurd. (I don't accuse you of cultural Marxism, though, just of stubbornness and refusing to admit a mistake.) I suspect that if you had more knowledge of the topic, you wouldn't have to resort to that kind of thing.
As far as I can tell, we both favor Official English and English as the common language of the people of the United States. Apparently you took offense, though, at my suggestion that 'English Only' isn't the best term for the movement (and, in fact, is the term used by the opposition -- if you have evidence to the contrary, post it), and are determined to insist upon it (by making personal attacks rather than by giving reasons). How about omitting the ad hominem arguments, and either give reasons or agree to disagree? I come to this site to have discussions, not to exchange insults.
You went off on some politically correct personal opinion that has nothing to do with anything and no one cares about.
If you still believe your PC crap after looking at the voter numbers, then something besides truth motivates you.
And, no one has time to read your many long posts. You are wasting everyone's time with your obsession with PC double talk that only tries to hide truth and confuses understanding.
> And, no one has time to read your many long posts.
My posts are for persons who have more than a superficial interest in the topic. I can read a moderately long post in less than a minute and believe many others can too. Don't assume that the people here are semi-illiterates who have to struggle to sound out each word.
Here, you’re gonna need this for future PC harassment:
A Criminal - unsavory character
A Crook - morally (ethically) challenged
Abortion - Near-Life Experience
Alcoholic - Anti-Sobriety Activist
Censorship - Selective Speech
Cheating - Academic Dishonesty
China - Porcelain
Chronically Late - Temporarily Challenged
Clumsy - uniquely coordinated
Dishonest - Ethically disoriented
Fat - People of Mass
Fat - person of substance
Fictional / Mythological - ontologically challenged
Freshman - first-year student
Frog - amphibian American
Are persons who reject the misleading name given to Obamacare — ‘the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ — being pc too? How about persons who won’t call supporters of abortion rights ‘pro choice’?
Full of Crap - fecally plenary
Spare us the vulgarity. If you’re unwilling to answer those two simple questions, just say so. Are persons who reject the misleading name given to Obamacare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act being pc too? How about persons who wont call supporters of abortion rights pro choice?
Ignorant - factually unencumbered
Ignorant - knowledge-based nonpossessor.
Incompetent - Differently Qualified
Incompetent - Specially Skilled
Incompetent - Uniquely Proficient
Insane People - Mental Explorers
Some persons, when challenged about something they can’t defend, refuse to participate in a genuine discussion (and lack the politeness to agree to disagree). They imagine they can somehow give the impression — among the unintelligent anyway — that they have won the argument if only they can make the last post in the exchange, however irrelevant and unresponsive it may be.
We can see your dedication to political correctness on this thread. In your glee to attack, you missed some basic information. I’ll stop teasing you and explain it to you.
In Post #7, my original post, “English Only” was in quotes - that means something.
My first sentence made it clear my point was that no one in Arizona is mad at Republicans because of the proposition (even though it was called “English Only” in all the ads and media), and I posted the stats to prove it.
You didn’t seem to notice that I included the proper name of Arizona Proposition 103 which is English as Official Language.
So, you missed all the conservative subtleties of my post, because of your political correctness; which, like a good fellow traveler, you rushed to inflict upon us.
This is you, intentional or not:
“Political Correctness is a principal tool of the political left. Its purpose is to intimidate and to end the debate.”
Thanks, at least part of your post was a real response.
> In Post #7, my original post, English Only was in quotes - that means something.
It can indicate irony, but quotes are also used for simple denotation of titles. The purpose of my response was to acquaint people — others, if not you — with reasons why that term can be misleading. I knew from the tone and content of your post that you yourself were on the right, and meant no harm by your use of that term. I also noticed that you used ‘English as Official Language’ in the poll part of your post. I myself explicitly pointed that out later when you omitted it the second time you quoted the stats.
If there was no real disagreement between us about the term ‘English Only’, all you had to do was point that out immediately. My initial remarks weren’t aimed at you personally (and I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear).
Instead, you responded with, “Surely by now you realize that any descriptive words will be called oppressive and intolerant by the left.” I agree. Of course the left will try to distort whatever words we use, but that’s no reason to make it easy for them by letting them establish the terms of the debate. The right doesn’t do that in other areas (that’s why I asked you about ‘the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ and ‘pro choice’).
And you added, “Why do you let them control your very words, and in fact, do their work for them?” When I don’t use their preferred term, I’m not letting them control my very words. I’m doing the opposite. Yet you went on to insult me by saying that I’m being politically correct and that I’m guilty of ‘cultural Marxism’ — unfair charges to make simply because I prefer the more accurate terms used by most of the leaders of the movement itself (and the legislators who pass the legislation).
I oppose political correctness because it uses inaccurate terms to promote the ideas of the leftist establishment, which I believe are harmful to the country. I don’t oppose correctness itself, in the sense of trying to use accurate terms.
Back to the insults again? Remember, we are both leaving a record of both our ideas and our character in what we write (which anyone in the world can read, even years later when they google the topic). I’m willing to be judged by what I’ve written in this thread. Are you?