Senator Dodd Should be Arrested for Child Abuse
Nov 24, 2007 Political
There is an article out about the Democratic Primary and how it boils down to a four letter word which happens to be Iowa. Hillary Clinton enjoys a lead in national polls due to her name recognition but in Iowa she is running neck and neck with Obama and Clinton with Obama now in the lead by a percentage points. The candidates are pouring their hearts and souls into this state and are spending time there courting people they will forget about as soon as the election (or caucus) is over.
Regardless of these power plays there is one candidate who has gone way overboard and who is abusing his child as part of this process. Senator Christopher has moved his family to Iowa and placed his relocated daughter in a kindergarten there to show how much he cares for the state:
Dodd has temporarily moved his family to Iowa to demonstrate his commitment to the state, enrolling his daughter in kindergarten at a Des Moines public school. My Way News
This jerk has temporarily uprooted his small child and placed that little girl in a school away from her friends at home just to show a state that he has little to do with just how much he cares about it. It is a pretty good bet he will not win Iowa and even if he does as soon as the contest there is over he will move his family back home and this means his child will have to go back to her old school. This is certainly not in the child’s best interest and has a huge impact on her social development. Children make friends and they do not like to be moved away from those friends. Moving during the school year means the child must go into a new environment where they are probably learning different things and then she will go through this again.
This is totally wrong and the guy should be arrested for child abuse. It is not like he has to do this, he is doing it to pander to the Iowans so he can show them how much he cares. Evidently he cares more about them than his own family. I find this disgusting and think he should be taken to task for it. Those Democrats are all for the children, especially when they can exploit them for personal gain.
This guy is 63 and he has a 6 year old and a 2 year old. I guess the only consolation is that he will likely be dead before they are grown and certainly he will not be around to abuse his grandchildren.
Tags: caucus, Hillary Clinton, kindergarten, national polls, Obama, pander, senator christopher dodd
No Hablas No Problem
Nov 19, 2007 Political
To a rational person it only makes sense to require workers to speak the native tongue of the country in which they work. This is not to say that people who do temporary work in other countries should have to learn the native language, that is what interpreters are for. However, when a person moves into a country and decides that he will live and work there then that person has an obligation to learn the language of the country in which he lives. If anyone does not want to learn the language then no employer should be required to hire that person. That is, unless you are an employer in the United States and your elected leaders pander to groups of people, many of whom are here ILLEGALLY, that vote overwhelmingly for a particular party.
Nancy Pelosi has threatened to block an amendment to a bill that would protect employers from lawsuits if they refused to hire someone who does not speak English. This all came about because some Hispanic Democrats threatened to vote against a patch that would fix the Alternative Minimum Tax for a year, a move that would prevent millions of wage earners from being taxed as if they were millionaires. In other words, the Hispanic Democrats are willing to hurt wage earners in favor of helping people who pay little in taxes, would probably never be affected by the AMT and who refuse to learn English. I thought that members of Congress represented this country and not people who, in large part, do not belong here. The main antagonist is Representative Charles Gonzalez of Texas, a man who probably swan across the Rio to get here. Gonzalez said “If it is not relevant [speaking English on the job], it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin.”
Just how is this discriminatory and who gave Congress the right to tell a private employer what qualifications he is allowed to set for employees? I understand that they may legislate against discrimination for race, creed, age and a number of other things but if an employer requires English then it is none of Congresses’ business. The fact that the Hispanics would screw the rest of the country in order to force Employers to bow down to the wishes of non English speaking people is wrong.
How did these people get the job? If the employer does not speak Spanish (or any other language) is he required to get an interpreter so he can communicate? Should we force the employer to learn a new language or should we force the person who wants the job to learn a new one? It seems like an easy choice to me but to Pelosi and her amigos in the Congress it is not as obvious. Someone should tell Gonzalez to take his sorry rear back across the Rio and run for office there since he is more concerned with that way of life than the American way.
I have lived in or visited several foreign countries and I made the effort to learn enough of the language to communicate my needs. I did not expect them to learn my language because that would not be appropriate. I would not expect them to hire me for a job there if I could not communicate with their customers. As for the issue of telling people they have to speak English to each other while on the job, the issue of free speech does not apply. An employer in private industry may tell employees what they are and are not allowed to discuss and in what language they must do it.
It is important to remember that the employer is the boss and may set job requirements including dress codes, uniforms, hair styles, body piercings, tattoos and LANGUAGE. The Congress has no business getting involved and they certainly do not belong holding up legislation in an effort to blackmail other members of Congress, especially legislation that is designed to keep people from paying taxes they were never meant to pay.
I wonder if Gonzalez would support me if I went to a Spanish speaking establishment (whose customers all spoke Spanish) and I was refused a job because I do not speak that language?
The Democrats have been an absolute failure as the majority and Nancy Pelosi is no leader at all. She cannot even whip a bunch of malcontents from the Hispanic group into shape. If she knew what she was doing this would not be an issue but then again…
If she knew what she was doing she would be a Republican.
I wonder what Ron Paul would do if he was running the place?
Source:
WSJ Opinion Journal
Tags: alternative minimum tax, antagonist, charles gonzalez, Congress, Democrats, hispanic democrats, nancy pelosi, native language, pander, private employer, ron paul, speaking english