suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

BAD TRANSLATION OR TRANSLATION OF THE BAD?

Dot-Red.gif The tipping point with me as to Ron Paul’s viability for the Presidency is this: his incessant “blame America” side jostling. We’ve got a lot of problems, as does the rest of the world, but Ron Paul’s ideas, when examined beyond the surface emotional appeal of some (“I support the Constitution” sounds great but it’s more important to know what he actually means as to how that support would be applied and similar exercises about other statements he’s made and performance record in Congress — so far, the state of Texas isn’t looking too exemplary as to that Constitution thing), are found to be, just under the surface, dubious, suggestive of a self-perishing sink while abandoning reason like someone standing in a rowboat on a big lake filled with hideous water and pushing from side to side with each leg, one at a time: do you really want to go there or are you just testing the waters and the boat to see how soon you’ll sink and what your situation will be after immersion in that bleak pool? And is it necessary to blame the boat manufacturer for the state of the water? Or your actions in the boat?

Paul offers a lot of emotional appeal to those who are predisposed or easily encouraged to blame the ‘manufacturer of the boat’ for the state of the infectious characteristics of the water, but, is it really the answer to all areas of the survival and safe passage of our nation to hold us responsible for all that crud that is both in the water and attempts to flood the boat? And to help it do so?

Worse, the Paul Boaters yell at anyone who attempts to offer them safer waters, suggestions as to possibly doing something else than standing up and doing that side-to-side jeopardy dance. At least Paul received a realistic response (“booh, booooh, booh,” etc.) from the crowd at his latest Sink-the-Boat comments, and I refer to the Miami so-called “Spanish” “language” GOP Presidential Candidates’ so-called “debate” from this past Sunday evening.

Dot-Red.gif I thought this latest so-called “debate” could be reduced to one word: “pandering.”

And about that, I agree with Tom Tancredo (that it was “pandering“) for the very same reasons Tancredo described it as such:

“It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language,” Tancredo said in a release Friday. “So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate?”

…”Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual, but it has perilous consequences for a nation,” Tancredo said. “As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign.”

Where’s the Russian debate? Where’s the Swedish debate, the Icelandic debate, the German debate and Nairobi debate? Where’s the Australian Aborigine debate, the Japanese and Korean debate?

The point is, this is the United States, English is our language required for to become a naturalized citizen (and which is otherwise natively spoken, read and used in general by those of us born here, as it is pervasive throughout our government and society, and, nation’s history and legacy of history and documentation). The office of the President requires citizens to vote for any candidate inorder to win that office (and to continue to function in it).

Thus, what we witnessed was not a “debate” but a theatrical performance for people (and, therefore, governments) of other nations — so call it what it is (was) and not what it is (was): foreign interests in the future of the United States applying ethnic testing and pressure to U.S. Presidential politics.

Just because a community has a large population of one ethnicity or race or another isn’t any reason to alter the terms of our nation’s government (specifically, as to voting, as to citizenship and legal residency, as to civic responsibilities, in other words, of those entrusted with the care and management of the nation). And if a person in the U.S. isn’t fluent in English, sufficient enough to understand public statements, announcements, read what’s written about them, then, they are more than likely either not able to vote (legitimately) nor does it matter whether they are “Hispanic” or from Latvia or some as-yet undiscovered island near Antartica (or anywhere else non-specific to the U.S. as to their citizenship).

I felt the very same way about the Democrats’ so-called “Spanish” so-called “debate” from a while ago, but at least the GOP candidates behaved themselves moreso than did the Democrats in their earlier theatrical production. But both are pandering and Tancredo is quite right about that.

And the full array of candidates with the exception of Tancredo — who was not there — Hunter and Thompson — who are not likely to win the nomination — and Romney — whose course if yet to be determined — the full array of candidates pander to the fiction that is performance: they aren’t being straight with voters (already understood to be McCain’s situation but now also perhaps that of Huckabee‘s, while Giuliani’s long been questionable as to immigration enforcement and border security and by that, also, then, national security; despite the bluster from most of them otherwise, their records on illegal immigration prove them to be manipulators of the voters’ trust on this key issue and so they continue to engage in the campaign blustery and pandering, saying — now, during campaigning — that they’ll secure our borders and seek enforcement of our laws as to those who enter and/or remain in our country illegally, but it continues to emerge that mere ethnicity and economics are incentives to certain candidates such as Giuliani, Huckabee and McCain and they pursue this way of denial inorder to gain illicit votes and ethnic support — otherwise, what’s with the “Spanish” language thing and the rickety performance from Sunday).

On this issue, the GOP is dancing with the Democrats and some of them are not dancing with the voter majority in the U.S. If they were (dancing with us), neither party would be engaging in these alleged “debates” in Spanish and parsing their words on every single statement about illegal aliens to avoid the word, “deportation” while coming up with every possible rubric for the word, “amnesty” so they can literally say they don’t support it because they don’t use that word while actually seeking to establish that very thing. I guess the plan is, “only for Hispanics” or, if you’re Spanish-speaking and illegal, certain candidates will find a way to write a new dictionary to omit certain words that “offend” your next deli order of citizenship with or without pickels. Sorry, people of Madagascar or wherever else, you aren’t “Hispanic,” you have to apply for citizenship right where you are and not loiter illegally in the U.S. awaiting special tweaks of the laws and political speech otherwise that twists conditions to suit Hispanic ethnicity.

More frightening, in my view, is that Paul sounds all too similar to Fidel Castro (“bad America!” to sum them both up) and Hugo Chavez (“America’s imperialistic and it’s bad, send more gifts from Bolivia, Venezuela will help!”).

Following the example set by the King of Spain, if I’d been in the audience at this latest so-called, alleged “debate,” I’d have been tempted to shout, “shut up!

Dot-Red.gifReference
Another false, stupid and misleading headline:
GOP Hopefuls Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk

And here I thought they were campaiging for the President of the United States of America, as representatives of enforcement of our laws, honoring and upholding the Oath of Office, serving the voters.

500wde_Illegal-Aliens-Vote-Tomorrow.jpg

2 C O M M E N T S

  1. Thomas says:

    It is strange that you quote “blame America” when neither Ron Paul nor supporters use that phrase.

    We can be be informed by history (and even a code of conduct) and see that there are negative consequences to foreign policy and specifically examples of both overt and covert manipulation of other countries. We can act on that insight and change directions.

    I am at lost to understand your analogy that seems to imply that saying that is dangerous. If the pilot of the boat is heading for the falls, then some clear voice is needed.

    We must get away from the blind worship of all previous pronouncements of presidents. We must be ready to learn, to grow, to repent, to accept wisdom.

  2. -S- says:

    There’s nothing wrong nor nonsensical (to state the very obvious) with changing direction, in a boat, on land, theoretically or actually or as to goals, etc.

    And, contrary to your false presumption as you’ve just commented, I never wrote or otherwise implied that (politically) “changing direction…is dangerous” nor composed an analogy to that effect (thus, then, expressing that).

    The term I used in my post here (“blame America”) is me paraphrasing the denigrations from/by Paul and/or his supporters (I assume you are one) in his/their attempts to rationalize problems at home and elsewhere: (I again paraphrase for purposes of elaborating this point): “it’s wrong/it exists because we’re there” or ‘”we started it (therefore, the U.S. deserves to be punished or harmed or aggressed upon)” or “we did (whatever, wherever, whenever)” with the “we” referencing or outright naming the U.S. (Paul expresses this when asked to comment on any issue or problem, he’ll accredit the cause of (whatever) problem to the fault of the U.S. (“we’re there,” or “we created that,” implying then that harms/damage to the U.S. is merited because it’s deserved).

    Paul supporters use this mentality as also various, alternate terms to otherwise “blame America” when issues are raised as to the ’08 election, and also to denigrate those of us who are not immersed in promoting Paul (there is a range of expressions that are used by Paul advocates to do this — they all equate with the same effort — to “blame America,” for lack of a better summary term for the politics involved).

    So, thus, I paraphrase that Paul and supporters continue to “blame America” as a strategy and excuse to explain away nearly any issue with which Paul and supporters are confronted — it becomes a deflection from solution, it’s a non-answer, so to speak, but it relies on placing “America” in a highly unfavorable and damaging light, or rather, lack of light, while appealing to those who are eager to encourage a “blame America” perspective. The many pejorative terms that Paul supporters use upon the internet as to people who refuse to support Paul are very familiar to this site and many others among those written by (other) Republicans.

    And who (here) is or has ever been engaged in “blind worship” of any President? Electing a President doesn’t indicate “worship” of one, nor does advocating for a candidate do, either, for most voters.

    After reading (many times now on the internet) from Paul advocates/supporters that they “revere Dr. Paul,” I’d say that your very statement attempting to criticise others (as if they were doing that for “Presidents” in general) reveals your own perspectives, because most other voters not in your group (I assume you are advocating for Paul) are not engaged in worshipping any human being/s, and that includes any President — to the contrary, I’m eager to elect a President, not a cult leader.

    I’m curious why you visited here. I’ve had to ban and eliminate previous Paul advocates from this site due to a lot of “Paul spam” so I’m just curious why you’d appear on this thread as you have, and write what you’ve written, in criticism of my perspectives as to Paul (who I am not supporting for the Presidency). In looking up your email address, I see you host a “Christian Libertarian” group/s and I’m curious why you distinguish a or any Christian in that context (as a Libertarian). And looking into your IPA, I see you are posting from via the domain of a litigation lawfirm in New Mexico.

    Very often, people attempt to negatively label others for their own characteristics that they are not confronting in themselves. I think your penchant for associating “Christianity” with “Libertarianism” (Christianity with a humanistic, political movement and ideology) identifies your area of confusion. And why you’d opine that unnamed persons might be involved in “worship” of a President, as you respond defensively here in criticism of my site’s opinions as to Paul, in rejection of his socio-politics.

    It’s just not true that Paul nor supporters do not engage in the methodology I describe as the “blame America” perspective, when that is the primary definition of what Paul is about as is also the Libertarian Party to a great degree (deconstruction of government when taken to a political extreme is anarchy and/or revolution and is often motivated by a dislike if not “hate” for whatever government that is being pursued for deconstruction — and that well explains Paul’s overall mentality, who he appeals to and why and why he’s then also rejectable to those of us who don’t find that appealing, or him, either for these reasons, among others).

    The deconstruction of the U.S. government essentially is what Paul’s intents and Presidential campaign messages are all about, and what Libertarianism is, too, and why Paul is so feverishly promoted by most Libertarians, as also by some who feel animosity toward the U.S. government in general. He (and the Libertarian Party) support the eradication of borders and legislation regulating border use, they advocate for the elimination of substance controls (“legalize drugs” movement), the end to most if not all our national security and military defense methods and so much more.

    I’m no fan of growing bigger government, but I find the negativity and crushing social criticism from Paul, his message/s and many among his advocates to be quite off-putting and offensive.