Solución: Aprenda el inglés

>> Wednesday, April 28, 2010

"La lengua es la fuente de malentendidos." ~ Antonio de Santo-Exupery

Quizá it's porque I'm viejo y determinado de mis maneras, pero I don't entiende porqué todo nosotros leyó, si sea muestras, documentos, menús, etc, tiene que tener una traducción española agregada a ellos. Bien, that' mal de s. Lo entiendo, pero creo there' manera menos costosa del S.A. de hacer que los inmigrantes entienden qué we' el re intentar decirles:

Lecciones de lengua.

Déjelas aprender inglés.

Finalmente, un candidato gubernativo que dice lo que están pensando la mayoría de los americanos:

Tim James está correcto.

La eliminación las idiomas españolas (y otras) de las traducciones en exámenes del carné de conducir (y, franco, todo) ahorraría el estado de los mil millones de Alabama de dólares. Toma mucho dinero para agregar el texto español a todos estas muestras y documentos.

Más, si los inmigrantes podrían entender señales de peligro, como James dice, allí estarían lejos menos accidentes, y una miríada de otros problemas causados por una falta de leer y de entender inglés podría ser solucionada.

Sería mucho más barata y tendría más sentido de ofrecer simplemente lecciones de lengua a las que los necesitan. Y si no creen que los necesitan, deben apenas volver a sus propios países en donde pueden comunicar con otros que hablen y entiendan su lengua.

Dios sabe que iría una manera larga hacia solucionar el problema del inmigrante ilegal.

Note: If either of my readers have difficulty reading this post because you don't read or understand Spanish, you can copy up to 150 words at a time and paste them into the box provided on this site and click on "Spanish to English" in the drop down list, then click on "translate".

And, if you translate this post, you will find it doesn't translate accurately, which is another good reason why immigrants who want to become American citizens should learn to properly speak and understand English if they truly want to assimilate into our country.


Way To Go Arizona!

>> Tuesday, April 27, 2010

I believe the current illegal immigration situation is evidence of the descent of American standards. So, I wrote a piece on the subject at Marshall Art's. Comment here or there as it suits you.


Political Bones for the Picking

>> Friday, April 23, 2010

The subject of Politics in America has lately taken on the view of an aftermath; a Monde à la vision de guerre mentality-- kill them all and let God sort them out. What we see most frequently is a field covered with bodies and vultures gleefully stripping the fallen to the bone. We'll call the bodies "Bones of Contention" and the vultures "Partisan Politics". No matter how many vultures alight from above to join the feast we never seem to run out of bodies. There are more rotting corpses than there are vultures to devour them. Sad, but true.

And that's how it is in American politics. No one is ever satisfied, and no one wants to share. We will glutton ourselves until we can take no more, disappear for a period of time to digest what would otherwise be indigestible, then return for seconds-- or thirds, or fourths, or fifths, or...

The field is never emptied, and the vultures never sated. It's as simple a picture of political hell as I can imagine.


"Laughing Stock of the Nation"?

>> Wednesday, April 21, 2010


Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship

POSTED: 7:15 pm MST April 19, 2010

PHOENIX -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stock of the nation."

Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash said he has no reason to doubt Obama's citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.

Hello! Can anyone tell why we DON'T ALREADY demand proof of eligibility? Of EVERYONE!? My opinion? Whatever state rep. Sinema's feelings about being a laughing stock. EVERY state has the right to demand proof of eligibility. But it you ask me, I think the entire country is the laughing stock for not forcing the settlement of the question of Obama's eligibility in the first place. These rules and laws are in place for a reason.

Whether or not Obama is in fact a natural born American is presently moot. But just you wait. If Arizona actually passes this into law the media and democratic pundits will be calling this an act of racism. Democrats have never seen a race card they didn't like to use.

Just watch. Demanding the law be observed will become a matter of racism.


An Entitlement Mentality

>> Tuesday, April 20, 2010

"Medicaid is essentially bankrupt, Medicare is essentially bankrupt, why the heck would we give the federal government another entitlement program to manage?" ~ Timothy Pawlenty

Offered here, an unapologetic rambling response to a partial comment made in the comments section of my previous blog entry(read it, too):

A commenter made the following (unsubstantiated) statement:

"Before the implementation of Medicare 75% of seniors died in poverty."

My response: Yeah? Who says?

Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question.

You'll just run to some Liberal web site and quote some so-called scholarly finding which doesn't prove a thing, except in your own Liberally indoctrinated mind.

Listen: I was in marketing management for the majority of my life and I've learned one can prove or disprove anything with numbers, so, before we get into a pissing contest trading statistics, know this:

I grew up in a large city with a median income level below the national poverty line. I've lived in and around ghettos all my life.

I've been poor. I've been homeless. I'm not rich by anyone's definition now. And I've never accepted hand-outs from the Government except for one time. Once (in 1979), I allowed the Government to give me $300.00 to pay my bills and feed my children when I was flat broke and unemployed and my wife had just had a baby. It was a temporary help and as soon as I got a job (within a week), I got off welfare.

And, I paid back the money.

That, Moron, is what welfare was intended to do. Be a hand up, not a hand-out.

I've also lived in public housing next door to two single women with children each who lived on either side of me. The one who lived directly to the south of me worked her butt off, and saved her pennies, and eventually bought a house and moved out of the projects. Her two children were polite and respectful.

I have respect for her.

The one who lived directly to the north of me spent her waking hours sitting in a chair in her front yard, chain smoking, and complaining constantly that the government wouldn't give her even more money than she was already receiving. Her 2 children stole and consorted with gang-bangers.

I have no respect for her.

I've also made the mistake (when I was a Liberal) of voluntarily donating money, time, and resources to some of these irresponsible, entitlement minded welfare brats, only to watch them ask for more and more, and no expressions whatsoever of gratitude.

So, don't give me statistics ad nauseum that supposedly disprove what I've witnessed with my own eyes and experienced in my own life. You won't convince me there's any validity to them.

The fact is, most poverty is caused by bad choices and a lack of personal responsibility. And the Liberal policies of Liberal government only make it worse by instilling in the irresponsible an entitlement mentality.

Do this simple experiment sometime: Go down to your local WalMart parking lot and count the number of welfare recipients who are parked illegally in the fire lane in front of the store. Why do they park there?

Because they think they're entitled to park there.

That's the mind set Liberal Governmental entitlement programs have spawned.

If 75% truly died in poverty before Medicare and not after Medicare (which is disputable), it was a result of their own bad choices and irresponsible behavior.

And, here's a news flash for you:

People in this country still die in poverty.

Every day. Do you know why? Because Liberal governmental policies have not rescued any entitlement-minded individual from poverty. They've only succeeded in creating more poverty and less personal responsibility.

And more criminals.

If you don't believe that, you are either brainwashed or willfully ignorant.

And, by the way, Obama's policies are going to create even more poverty. And more. And more. Before he's done, the number of people who will die in poverty may be as high as 90%.

Medicare is a failure, and it's nearly bankrupt.

Listen. If you want to mount a personal campaign to eliminate poverty by throwing money at the irresponsible, go for it. That's what you're allowed to do voluntarily.

No one's stopping you from throwing your money away.

But, as you've no doubt heard, it's better to teach a man to fish than to simply give him a fish dinner every day.

It isn't the Government's business or responsibility to wet nurse these babies.

Who made the U.S. government the world's babysitter?

Useful idiots like you.


Both Inflamatory & True...

>> Thursday, April 15, 2010

...depending on which side of the fence you're on.

"If blacks can't relate to the Founders, how can they relate to the Democrats-- the party of slavery, the KKK, secession, and segregation? When we say 'return to founding principles,' we're not talking about returning to slavery. We're talking about returning to 'individual liberty.'"


Returning to 'principles' not 'policies,' because it WAS the policy of the democratic south to maintain the status quo of slavery. And by all appearances, the democrat party has sought ever since to re-institute the venerable institution of slavery. But instead of physical chains of iron and steel, they've resorted to the soft chains of welfare and 'social justice.' Instead of beans and hoe-cakes, it's EBT.


Why does he need an army to help keep us healthy?

>> Tuesday, April 6, 2010

The chubby ignorant Obama kids at the end may look ridiculous-- they likely wouldn't survive any training with the military --and the initial recruitment for Obama's private army will only be 6,000, but this is just the beginning. Who can say how large this 'force' will grow in 10 years? Why does Obama feel the need for a private presidential army? Especially one that the constitution does not allow the executive branch to possess.

Was Limbaugh right in calling this president's administration a 'Regime'? Akin perhaps to that of Idi Amin Dada?

[ What follows is hyperbole but it has to be asked: What will this armed private army be authorized to do to citizens who do not want to sign up for healthcare? Will they be 'necklaced' like the ANC did against apartheid traitors? Like Winnie Mandela was proudly quoted as stating, in support of this cruel and barbaric form of killing, "with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country." ]

Creepier still is the vid at the end of Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore chanting I pledge to be a servant to our president...

It is this American's belief that fascism is a growing menace in our government, and only a strong showing on November 2nd can hope to push back the tide. The election this fall is the most important election in my lifetime.

Do we want Obama to have a private army, for whatever purpose? For that matter, do we want ANY president in possession of a private army? Watch the video and judge for yourself. You will anyway.

UPDATE: April 9, 9:15am

Questions of 'wtf?' and readings from the bill in the comment section prompts me to again ask, 'why does Obama need a private army?'

Now, let me clarify that. We've been treated to links and explanations from a few commenters with honest objections to my characterization of this 6,000 member 'Health Force' provision which was slid into the healthcare bill, which is now law.

For all that I respect Geoff and Jim's objections, I don't believe they view this the same way many in Washington are beginning to question this. Geoffrey's smart, but I think when it comes to constitutionality and understanding legalese, the Judge has a much better grasp of the intricacies of this language. If he sees it as dangerously vague, with suspect constitutionality, I'll defer to his opinion until his opinion is proven to be balderdash rolled up into folderol.

Here's another clip of Judge Napolitano with Sheppard Smith (a Liberal, I might add) discussing the problems with this provision in the new healthcare law...

If it turns out that is an innocent attempt by the Left and Obama to provide for additional healthcare "troops" in times of epidemiological crises, all well and good. But Napolitano raises some serious concerns... is it constitutional, and why train them with the military? Why this provision when the government can hire any amount of doctors it needs at any time?

Why should we think this will do any good when it took FEMA, what, 5 days to get water into New Orleans? What makes anyone think Obama's guys will perform any better than any other government agency in times of crisis? It's not about who's in charge, it's about the efficiency of government... which is a different topic altogether.


"Regime": More Leftist Media Hypocrisy

>> Monday, April 5, 2010

"The Walrus" Chris Matthews displayed some phony outrage a few nights ago, about Limbaugh's use of the word "regime" in describing the Obama Administration. What an ignorant hypocrite he and the rest of Leftist media are to decry Limbaugh when they've done the same themselves...

Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and the 'regime' question

--Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent

On Friday, I asked Rush Limbaugh for his response to President Obama's description of him as "troublesome" and of his program as "vitriol." Limbaugh told me he does not believe Obama is trying to do what is best for the country and added, "Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely."

By using the word "regime," Limbaugh was doing something he does all the time: throwing the language of the opposition back in their faces. In the Bush years, we often heard the phrase "Bush regime" from some quarters of the left. So Limbaugh applied it to Obama.

Apparently some people didn't get it. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. "I've never seen language like this in the American press," he said, "referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election -- we will have another one in November, we'll have another one for president in a couple years -- fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, 'regime.' It was used by George Bush, 'regime change.' You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They're juntas. They're military coups. The use of the word 'regime' in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it."

Matthews didn't stop there. "I never heard the word 'regime,' before, have you?" he said to NBC's Chuck Todd. "I don't even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a 'regime.'"

It appears that Matthews has suffered a major memory loss. I don't have the facilities to search for every utterance of Joe McCarthy, but a look at more recent times reveals many, many, many examples of the phrase "Bush regime." In fact, a search of the Nexis database for "Bush regime" yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present.

It was used 16 times in the New York Times, beginning with an April 4, 2001 column by Maureen Dowd -- who wrote, "Seventy-five days into the Bush regime and I'm a wreck" -- and ending with a March 6, 2009 editorial denouncing the "frightening legal claim advanced by the Bush regime to justify holding [accused terrorist Ali al-Marri]."

"Bush regime" was used 24 times in the Washington Post, beginning with a January 22, 2001 profile of Marshall Wittmann by Howard Kurtz -- who noted that Wittmann served as "a Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary in the first Bush regime" -- and ending with an October 6, 2009 column by Dana Milbank which quoted far-left antiwar protester Medea Benjamin questioning whether the Obama administration "looks very different from the Bush regime."

Perhaps Matthews missed all of those references. If he did, he still might have heard the phrase the many times it was uttered on his own network, MSNBC. For example, on January 8 of this year, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak said that, "In George Bush's regime, only one million jobs had been created…" On August 21, 2009, MSNBC's Ed Schultz referred to something that happened in 2006, when "the Bush regime was still in power." On October 8, 2007, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that "the middle class has not fared quite as well under Bush regime as…" On August 10, 2007, MSNBC played a clip of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan referring to "the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime." On September 21, 2006, a guest referred to liberals "expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime." On July 7, 2004, Ralph Nader -- appearing with Matthews on "Hardball" -- discussed how he would "take apart the Bush regime." On May 26, 2003, Joe Scarborough noted a left-wing website that "has published a deck of Bush regime playing cards." A September 26, 2002 program featured a viewer email that said, "The Bush regime rhetoric gets goofier and more desperate every day."

Finally -- you knew this was coming -- on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror. "Let's go to the Reverend Al Sharpton," Matthews said. "Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?"

Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?

Lot's of folks think the likes of Limbaugh are dangerous, but what about the so-called "responsible" media like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC? They mock Fox's claim to "fair and balanced" but these DNC tools don't even pretend to being fair, let alone balanced.


Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by 2009

Back to TOP