And read this, that tells you all about the US supposedly getting its independence from Britain. But it's a long article - http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm
Official languages of the US
1-6 are some proofs that Britain still controls the US, and uses the uses to colonise the world FOR BRITAIN.
-------
As further proof, are not all States divided into military Districts? At first glance you may not think so. However, look at your District Courts, in your State. They are the enforcement arm of the admiralty law/kings law and legislation passed on a daily basis. As I said before the voting Districts are also left over from the Reconstruction Acts. In every court room a military flag is flown, a war flag not the Title 4, flag of peace. Are you not required to obtain a license from the de facto government for every aspect of commerce, and the use of their military script/fiat money? Americans are taxed and controlled in the following ways, to name a few:
1. Social Security number - license to work.
2. Drivers license - permission to conduct commerce and travel on the military roads.
3. Occupational license - permission to perform a God given right.
4. State and local privilege license - license to work in the State, county or city.
5. Marriage license - permission for a right granted by God Almighty.
6. Hunting and Fishing license - government taxing property of God Almighty, etc.etc.etc.
Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery, you are controlled in every aspect of your life. All licenses came about after the Fourteenth Amendment and the military occupation, which we are now under. The reason all this has taken place in America is, to colonize the world for Britain. The United States has been the enforcement arm/cannon fodder for Britain since the Civil War.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/united_states_british_colony3.htm
So America is dominating the world - but it actually isn't. It is dominating the world FOR BRITAIN. It is Britain that is the world's dominant power, but everything is done secretly. Britain is using America to colonise the world for us, and to give us another Empire.
I reckon America was Britain's poodle in the Iraq war, not the other way around.
-------
As further proof, are not all States divided into military Districts? At first glance you may not think so. However, look at your District Courts, in your State. They are the enforcement arm of the admiralty law/kings law and legislation passed on a daily basis. As I said before the voting Districts are also left over from the Reconstruction Acts. In every court room a military flag is flown, a war flag not the Title 4, flag of peace. Are you not required to obtain a license from the de facto government for every aspect of commerce, and the use of their military script/fiat money? Americans are taxed and controlled in the following ways, to name a few:
1. Social Security number - license to work.
2. Drivers license - permission to conduct commerce and travel on the military roads.
3. Occupational license - permission to perform a God given right.
4. State and local privilege license - license to work in the State, county or city.
5. Marriage license - permission for a right granted by God Almighty.
6. Hunting and Fishing license - government taxing property of God Almighty, etc.etc.etc.
Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery, you are controlled in every aspect of your life. All licenses came about after the Fourteenth Amendment and the military occupation, which we are now under. The reason all this has taken place in America is, to colonize the world for Britain. The United States has been the enforcement arm/cannon fodder for Britain since the Civil War.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/united_states_british_colony3.htm
So America is dominating the world - but it actually isn't. It is dominating the world FOR BRITAIN. It is Britain that is the world's dominant power, but everything is done secretly. Britain is using America to colonise the world for us, and to give us another Empire.
I reckon America was Britain's poodle in the Iraq war, not the other way around.
America's Social Security. Controlled by America's master- Britain.
The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
Well folks, I don't have to look any further for proof positive, concerning our subjection to England and what ever monarch is sitting. Of course I will continue looking, but will you believe the following document obtained from the Queen's own web site. I was told about the possible existence of this by the Informer, he was told by someone else. Yep, it's there in black and white, read "Schedule 1, Article 14, sections 15, 16 and 17. There are other revealing parts, but in the above sections the United States is declared to be a territory of Great Britain and that we are subject to the Queen. As always I do not take things out of context, but read the whole thing so you will have no doubt.
James
Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1778
The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
---------------------------------------
Crown Copyright 1997
All Crown Copyrights are reserved. The following are concessions. Individuals are authorised to download this text to file or printer for their own individual use. Reproduction of the text for the purpose of developing and publishing value-added products is also allowed, without prior permission or charge, provided reproduction is accurate, not malicious and is accompanied by an acknowledgment of Crown copyright.
Any other proposed reproduction requires the consent of the Copyright Unit at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. For more details on the reproduction of Crown and Parliamentary copyright material, see the latest Her Majesty's Stationery Office Dear Publisher letter.
The text of this Internet version of the Statutory Instrument has been prepared to reflect the text as it was Made. The authoritative version is in printed form and is published by The Stationery Office Limited as the The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997, ISBN 0 11 0646983, ú2.40 sterling. For details of how to obtain a printed copy see How to obtain The Stationery Office Limited titles.
-------------------------------------------------
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
-------------------------------------------------
1997 No. 1778
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
Made 22nd July 1997
Coming into 1st September force 1997
At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 22nd day of July 1997
Present,
The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council
Whereas at London on the 13th February 1984 an Agreement on social security between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") and an Administrative Agreement for the implementation of the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Agreement")[1] were signed on behalf of those Governments and effect was given to the Agreement by the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Order")[2]:
And Whereas at London on 6th June 1996 a Supplementary Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (which Supplementary Agreement is set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Agreement") amending the Agreement and a Supplementary Administrative Agreement amending the Administrative Agreement (which Supplementary Administrative Agreement is set out in Schedule 2 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Administrative Agreement")[3] were signed on behalf of those Governments:
And Whereas by Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the month in which each Government has received from the other Government written notification that all statutory and constitutional requirements have been complied with for entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:
And Whereas by Article 2 of the Supplementary Administrative Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Administrative Agreement shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:
And Whereas written notification in accordance with Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement was received by each Government on 20th June 1997 and accordingly the Supplementary Agreement and the Supplementary Administrative Agreement enter into force on the 1st September 1997:
And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992[4] it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992[5] in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section:
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and of all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: -
Citation and commencement
1. This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997.
Modification of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and amendment of the Principal Order
2. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be modified and the Principal Order shall be amended so as to give effect to the Agreement as modified by the Supplementary Agreement set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and to the Administrative Agreement as modified by the Supplementary Administrative Agreement set out in Schedule 2 to this Order, so far as the same relate to England, Wales and Scotland.
Amendment of Order
3. The reference to the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 shall be omitted in the Schedule to the Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements) Order 1988[6] and in Schedules 2 and 3 to the Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements) Order 1995[7].
N.H. Nicholls
Clerk of the Privy Council
SCHEDULE 1
Article 2
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT AMENDING THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America;
Having considered the Agreement on Social Security which was signed on their behalf at London on 13th February 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement");
Having recognised the need to revise certain provisions of the Agreement;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1
1. Article 1 of the Agreement shall be revised as follows:
(a) Paragraph 1 shall be revised to read as follows:
" 1. "Territory" means,
as regards the United States, the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and as regards the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and also the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou; and references to the "United Kingdom" or to "territory" in relation to the United Kingdom shall include the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou where appropriate;".
(b) Paragraph 3 shall be revised to read as follows:
and it continues just like that. read the rest here - http://www.freedomcommittee.com/5522/5522/freedom/books/usbrit/listmenu.html
The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
Well folks, I don't have to look any further for proof positive, concerning our subjection to England and what ever monarch is sitting. Of course I will continue looking, but will you believe the following document obtained from the Queen's own web site. I was told about the possible existence of this by the Informer, he was told by someone else. Yep, it's there in black and white, read "Schedule 1, Article 14, sections 15, 16 and 17. There are other revealing parts, but in the above sections the United States is declared to be a territory of Great Britain and that we are subject to the Queen. As always I do not take things out of context, but read the whole thing so you will have no doubt.
James
Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1778
The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
---------------------------------------
Crown Copyright 1997
All Crown Copyrights are reserved. The following are concessions. Individuals are authorised to download this text to file or printer for their own individual use. Reproduction of the text for the purpose of developing and publishing value-added products is also allowed, without prior permission or charge, provided reproduction is accurate, not malicious and is accompanied by an acknowledgment of Crown copyright.
Any other proposed reproduction requires the consent of the Copyright Unit at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. For more details on the reproduction of Crown and Parliamentary copyright material, see the latest Her Majesty's Stationery Office Dear Publisher letter.
The text of this Internet version of the Statutory Instrument has been prepared to reflect the text as it was Made. The authoritative version is in printed form and is published by The Stationery Office Limited as the The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997, ISBN 0 11 0646983, ú2.40 sterling. For details of how to obtain a printed copy see How to obtain The Stationery Office Limited titles.
-------------------------------------------------
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
-------------------------------------------------
1997 No. 1778
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
Made 22nd July 1997
Coming into 1st September force 1997
At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 22nd day of July 1997
Present,
The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council
Whereas at London on the 13th February 1984 an Agreement on social security between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") and an Administrative Agreement for the implementation of the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Agreement")[1] were signed on behalf of those Governments and effect was given to the Agreement by the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Order")[2]:
And Whereas at London on 6th June 1996 a Supplementary Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (which Supplementary Agreement is set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Agreement") amending the Agreement and a Supplementary Administrative Agreement amending the Administrative Agreement (which Supplementary Administrative Agreement is set out in Schedule 2 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Administrative Agreement")[3] were signed on behalf of those Governments:
And Whereas by Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the month in which each Government has received from the other Government written notification that all statutory and constitutional requirements have been complied with for entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:
And Whereas by Article 2 of the Supplementary Administrative Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Administrative Agreement shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:
And Whereas written notification in accordance with Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement was received by each Government on 20th June 1997 and accordingly the Supplementary Agreement and the Supplementary Administrative Agreement enter into force on the 1st September 1997:
And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992[4] it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992[5] in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section:
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and of all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: -
Citation and commencement
1. This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997.
Modification of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and amendment of the Principal Order
2. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be modified and the Principal Order shall be amended so as to give effect to the Agreement as modified by the Supplementary Agreement set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and to the Administrative Agreement as modified by the Supplementary Administrative Agreement set out in Schedule 2 to this Order, so far as the same relate to England, Wales and Scotland.
Amendment of Order
3. The reference to the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 shall be omitted in the Schedule to the Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements) Order 1988[6] and in Schedules 2 and 3 to the Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements) Order 1995[7].
N.H. Nicholls
Clerk of the Privy Council
SCHEDULE 1
Article 2
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT AMENDING THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America;
Having considered the Agreement on Social Security which was signed on their behalf at London on 13th February 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement");
Having recognised the need to revise certain provisions of the Agreement;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1
1. Article 1 of the Agreement shall be revised as follows:
(a) Paragraph 1 shall be revised to read as follows:
" 1. "Territory" means,
as regards the United States, the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and as regards the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and also the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou; and references to the "United Kingdom" or to "territory" in relation to the United Kingdom shall include the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou where appropriate;".
(b) Paragraph 3 shall be revised to read as follows:
and it continues just like that. read the rest here - http://www.freedomcommittee.com/5522/5522/freedom/books/usbrit/listmenu.html
<<I think the biggest difference between the German-speaking immigrants of yore and the Spanish-speaking immigrants today is one of proximity. The US doesn't border any German-speaking countries, nor does it have any Germanic territories.
So while I agree that most first generation hispanic immigrants tend to feel more comfortable with English (to such a degree that, in New York at least, a sizeable percentage doesn't even speak Spanish), the United States' close proximity to Latin America, combined with the bad economic conditions in many parts of that region, mean that Spanish will remain a strong presence in this country for at least the rest of my lifetime.>>
Good point :)
So while I agree that most first generation hispanic immigrants tend to feel more comfortable with English (to such a degree that, in New York at least, a sizeable percentage doesn't even speak Spanish), the United States' close proximity to Latin America, combined with the bad economic conditions in many parts of that region, mean that Spanish will remain a strong presence in this country for at least the rest of my lifetime.>>
Good point :)
>So, anyway, did you study Spanish lit in college? I have to confess I don't really like literature that much, but I do like reading--just nonfiction. Consequently I thought my AP Spanish Lit class was a bore except for the random words I learned. However, they were mostly literary and not useful in conversational Spanish. I would minor in Spanish or something if it weren't for the fact I'd have to take a bunch of literature classes, which is not going to happen. [Kirk]
Yes, I studied Spanish literature in college and liked it, though not all of it, of course. There's a lot of humbug in it (especially in some of the literary criticism of recent years). I don't know if I'd have the patience to study it now. One thing that I liked when I switched to a field that deals more with science and technology is that there's less BS there. (It's not entirely absent, though. I've worked in several fields over the years, and at first I thought that the BS I was encountering was peculiar to the particular field in which I was working -- I recall in particular reading an article in a national publication written by the president of an prestigious academic organization. As time went by, though, I began to realize that the BS was everywhere :-). About all I can say is that there are differences of degree. The closer you can get to propositions that can be confirmed empirically the less nonsense you have to put up with.
My interests in college were slanted in the opposite direction from yours, about 70% literature, 30% language. I had some interest in language for its own sake and in the more technical aspects of linguistics, but I was more interested in language as a medium for literature and philosophy. I did want to master Spanish, though, and I worked very hard at it. For instance, I have copies of books that analyzed Spanish sounds in great detail (Navarro, Manual de Pronunciación Española; Quilis, Curso de Fonética y Fonología Españolas), and I studied them with great diligence. Language labs didn't become common until about the time I no longer needed them for Spanish. What I did instead was listen to thousands of hours of short-wave radio broadcasts. Also I later lived and studied in two Spanish-speaking countries. Nowadays, of course, with the resources of computers and the internet it's amazing what can be done in language learning.
I no longer need to know foreign languages well, though, so I don't try to maintain my knowledge at a high level. Now they mostly just provide recreation for me.
Yes, I studied Spanish literature in college and liked it, though not all of it, of course. There's a lot of humbug in it (especially in some of the literary criticism of recent years). I don't know if I'd have the patience to study it now. One thing that I liked when I switched to a field that deals more with science and technology is that there's less BS there. (It's not entirely absent, though. I've worked in several fields over the years, and at first I thought that the BS I was encountering was peculiar to the particular field in which I was working -- I recall in particular reading an article in a national publication written by the president of an prestigious academic organization. As time went by, though, I began to realize that the BS was everywhere :-). About all I can say is that there are differences of degree. The closer you can get to propositions that can be confirmed empirically the less nonsense you have to put up with.
My interests in college were slanted in the opposite direction from yours, about 70% literature, 30% language. I had some interest in language for its own sake and in the more technical aspects of linguistics, but I was more interested in language as a medium for literature and philosophy. I did want to master Spanish, though, and I worked very hard at it. For instance, I have copies of books that analyzed Spanish sounds in great detail (Navarro, Manual de Pronunciación Española; Quilis, Curso de Fonética y Fonología Españolas), and I studied them with great diligence. Language labs didn't become common until about the time I no longer needed them for Spanish. What I did instead was listen to thousands of hours of short-wave radio broadcasts. Also I later lived and studied in two Spanish-speaking countries. Nowadays, of course, with the resources of computers and the internet it's amazing what can be done in language learning.
I no longer need to know foreign languages well, though, so I don't try to maintain my knowledge at a high level. Now they mostly just provide recreation for me.
I read your top-ten list of home buyers in California, and was disappointed to see that 'Jones' didn't appear. Apparently a lot of folks are not only keeping up with the Joneses but getting ahead of us. :-) We can hardly afford to buy houses here in South Carolina.
There were a surprisingly large number of Hispanic names on the list. I hope the people signing those contracts understand the language in them. I recently had to sign some contracts, and I wasn't at all confident about it. I hired a lawyer of my own, but when he failed to notice that a contract said that I'd supply something that I hadn't supplied (and didn't intend to supply), I began to wonder if I was getting my money's worth.
Subtle differences in language can be very important in law. I would imagine that places that produce laws in more than one language have a good bit of trouble finding translations that preserve the meaning precisely from language to language.
I assume that Canada produces national laws in both English and French, and that the European Union has to deal with more languages than that. I wonder if problems ever arise over which words are going to be used and questions about whether everybody is understanding them the same.
There were a surprisingly large number of Hispanic names on the list. I hope the people signing those contracts understand the language in them. I recently had to sign some contracts, and I wasn't at all confident about it. I hired a lawyer of my own, but when he failed to notice that a contract said that I'd supply something that I hadn't supplied (and didn't intend to supply), I began to wonder if I was getting my money's worth.
Subtle differences in language can be very important in law. I would imagine that places that produce laws in more than one language have a good bit of trouble finding translations that preserve the meaning precisely from language to language.
I assume that Canada produces national laws in both English and French, and that the European Union has to deal with more languages than that. I wonder if problems ever arise over which words are going to be used and questions about whether everybody is understanding them the same.
There should be an official language in the US. Whether it be English or both English and Spanish, there should be something on paper, something legislated, that makes it impossible to destinguish who is really 'american' and who isn't. An official language proclaims and exalts the cultural heritage of a country.
Comparing German and Spanish makes no sense. 150 years ago when German was a major language in the US, there were no electronic communications with the mother country, just a large desolate ocean that took weeks to cross. Today you can get hundreds of channels in Spanish in the US or be in a Spanish speaking country in a couple hours in an airplane. Many German speaking people who came to the US came with the knowledge that they would never return to Europe. We have a 3000 mile border with a Spanish speaking country, and parts of this country once belonged to Mexico. The southwest under the Spanish crown and later Mexico may have been sparsely populated, but Spanish was the lingua franca and Spanish customs and currency prevailed.
Spanish will die out if the government does not legislate it as official and if their are no universities that teach it. Whatever happens, happens, we will still be US citizens.
Comparing German and Spanish makes no sense. 150 years ago when German was a major language in the US, there were no electronic communications with the mother country, just a large desolate ocean that took weeks to cross. Today you can get hundreds of channels in Spanish in the US or be in a Spanish speaking country in a couple hours in an airplane. Many German speaking people who came to the US came with the knowledge that they would never return to Europe. We have a 3000 mile border with a Spanish speaking country, and parts of this country once belonged to Mexico. The southwest under the Spanish crown and later Mexico may have been sparsely populated, but Spanish was the lingua franca and Spanish customs and currency prevailed.
Spanish will die out if the government does not legislate it as official and if their are no universities that teach it. Whatever happens, happens, we will still be US citizens.
I myself don't get understand why we'd need to change away from the status quo of having no nationally official language in the US, and just having North American English as a de facto national language. Even though there are those who'd want to make English the official language, I don't see what'd be gained by such overall, and even if the goal is to make individuals whose native language is Spanish learn English, well, overall people born in the US who have Spanish-speaking parents generally *do* learn English anyways.
>>The US is still a British colony, but covertly.
>>So America is dominating the world - but it actually isn't. It is dominating the world FOR BRITAIN. It is Britain that is the world's dominant power, but everything is done secretly. Britain is using America to colonise the world for us, and to give us another Empire.
>>I reckon America was Britain's poodle in the Iraq war, not the other way around.
AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA!! Oh my God, I almost messed myself. Shit, I needed a good laugh. And the U.S. government covertly controls weather patterns for Britain, too, right?
>>So America is dominating the world - but it actually isn't. It is dominating the world FOR BRITAIN. It is Britain that is the world's dominant power, but everything is done secretly. Britain is using America to colonise the world for us, and to give us another Empire.
>>I reckon America was Britain's poodle in the Iraq war, not the other way around.
AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA!! Oh my God, I almost messed myself. Shit, I needed a good laugh. And the U.S. government covertly controls weather patterns for Britain, too, right?
>>Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery
And since British taxes are astronomical compared to those in the U.S., who are they enslaved to?
And since British taxes are astronomical compared to those in the U.S., who are they enslaved to?
<<I read your top-ten list of home buyers in California, and was disappointed to see that 'Jones' didn't appear. Apparently a lot of folks are not only keeping up with the Joneses but getting ahead of us. :-) We can hardly afford to buy houses here in South Carolina.>>
Hehe. I don't know many Joneses. In fact, I can only think of one friend of mine whose last name is Jones. I went to junior high and high school with her and, not kidding, more than one time when there was a substitute taking roll, they assumed it was a Hispanic name and pronounced it "ho-nez." That annoyed her to no end--I remember her saying "it's like one of the most common last names in America yet some people still don't know how to pronounce it!" ;) Probably because it's not terribly common here. At least where I grew up it was the same with a last name like Smith--I was always amused that for my year in the yearbook there were about 15-20 Singhs and 2 Smiths, which is the most common last name in the US on a national level.
<<Spanish will die out if the government does not legislate it as official and if their are no universities that teach it. Whatever happens, happens, we will still be US citizens.>>
It may be tempting to think so, but often the government has very little power in determining the fate of languages. You can make any language "official" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily change linguistic patterns. Also, I highly doubt universities will stop teaching Spanish anytime soon--it's the most widely studied language in the US and even US universities with no or few other foreign language programs will have a Spanish one.
Hehe. I don't know many Joneses. In fact, I can only think of one friend of mine whose last name is Jones. I went to junior high and high school with her and, not kidding, more than one time when there was a substitute taking roll, they assumed it was a Hispanic name and pronounced it "ho-nez." That annoyed her to no end--I remember her saying "it's like one of the most common last names in America yet some people still don't know how to pronounce it!" ;) Probably because it's not terribly common here. At least where I grew up it was the same with a last name like Smith--I was always amused that for my year in the yearbook there were about 15-20 Singhs and 2 Smiths, which is the most common last name in the US on a national level.
<<Spanish will die out if the government does not legislate it as official and if their are no universities that teach it. Whatever happens, happens, we will still be US citizens.>>
It may be tempting to think so, but often the government has very little power in determining the fate of languages. You can make any language "official" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily change linguistic patterns. Also, I highly doubt universities will stop teaching Spanish anytime soon--it's the most widely studied language in the US and even US universities with no or few other foreign language programs will have a Spanish one.
I should add that 'Gjones2' may represent my real name, or it may just be a net pseudonym. I write as if it were my real name, though, including when I make facetious remarks.
hey kirk
I believe that I made myself misunderstood. I meant that there are no universities in the mainland US that TEACH in Spanish, that offer undergraduate or graduate programs in Spanish, like they do in French in Canada.
Linguistic patterns? Alot of 'hispanic/latino' people that I know of whose parents or grandparents find it ideal to be bilingual, and many pursue to study Spanish and revisit their countries of origin to reorient themselves towards their multicultural identity. In the 21st century, people travel frequently to their home countries and maintain contact, unlike immigrants of many years ago. If their were public schools in California that exclusively offered their instruction in Spanish from Pre-K to the 12th grade, then many of those kids would speak Spanish amongst themselves. It makes no sense that the education system values one language, English, over all others, when we live in a world where thousands are spoken.
Why would one choose to speak one language in a country that has historically been bilingual?
I believe that I made myself misunderstood. I meant that there are no universities in the mainland US that TEACH in Spanish, that offer undergraduate or graduate programs in Spanish, like they do in French in Canada.
Linguistic patterns? Alot of 'hispanic/latino' people that I know of whose parents or grandparents find it ideal to be bilingual, and many pursue to study Spanish and revisit their countries of origin to reorient themselves towards their multicultural identity. In the 21st century, people travel frequently to their home countries and maintain contact, unlike immigrants of many years ago. If their were public schools in California that exclusively offered their instruction in Spanish from Pre-K to the 12th grade, then many of those kids would speak Spanish amongst themselves. It makes no sense that the education system values one language, English, over all others, when we live in a world where thousands are spoken.
Why would one choose to speak one language in a country that has historically been bilingual?