<$BlogRSDUrl$>

The Mulatto Advocate

Random musings on life, politics, work, love and culture

Friday, August 29, 2003

Who are they REALLY for? 

ABC reports that hispanic groups are unhappy with Arnold's support of making English our official language.

Here's a guy who came to the US with squat, and now he's rich and running for Governor. I think he understands the value of learning the language.

Considering that a large proportion of poor immigrants are also those with the poorest grasp of English, you would think that any Latino advocacy group would support an emphasis on English education as a way to open the door to higher paying jobs.

Yeah, that's it - keep 'em dumb, poor and dependent. Once again, liberals trying to keep folks on the plantation so they can protect their jobs.
posted by Robert  # 12:15 PM

Call Daisy for a good time... 

Indigo has a hilarious post about a personal ad.
posted by Robert  # 11:40 AM

Speaking of people who don't learn... 

I caught Bill Maher on Larry King Live last night. In a nutshell, Bill claims that California is in such a mess because the people have abused the initiative process.

Well Bill, I got a wake up call for ya. California is in this mess because Grey Davis has acted like an absentee husband while our state legislature was his shopaholic wife with a platinum card.

Sorry, but your card has been declined...
posted by Robert  # 10:40 AM

Some people just don't learn... 

Cruz Bustamante says he would work to regulate gasoline supply and prices on FOXNews.com.

Some people just don't learn. Remember Cruz? Grey Davis tried this with electricity, now we pay more than it's worth.
posted by Robert  # 10:35 AM

Wednesday, August 27, 2003

OK, OK, you were right... 

Took my sister out to lunch today, so I got to talk to Justene of Calblog today. (For the uninitiated, my sister works for Justene.) I told her that I was throwing my support behind McClintock since Simon dropped out of the recall race.

Justene, didn't anyone tell you it ain't nice to say "I told you so"? ;-)
posted by Robert  # 7:10 PM

The Passionate 

Elizabeth Farah of WND talks about the most offensive film ever made

Personally, I can't wait to see it.
posted by Robert  # 7:06 PM

Tuesday, August 26, 2003

Facing Hard Facts 

Jed Babbin has insightful look on why our mission in Iraq could fail.

Will diplomacy trump common sense? Only Time will tell.
posted by Robert  # 11:42 AM

Monday, August 25, 2003

Thou Shalt Not... 

It looks like one more go around in Alabama regarding the Ten Commandments display.

One Methodist churchgoer was quoted as saying, "It was forced down our throats... This has taken the focus off of God and put it on a man."

What I want to know is, if you are a churchgoing Methodist, what problem would you have with the Ten Commandments being displayed anywhere? Might it be because you don't want be reminded that you're sinning six days of the week? If that's the case, then I'd say this person needs to stop pretending to be a Christian and just quit church altogether. Secondly, it wasn't the monument that "has taken the focus off of God and put it on a man"; it is the ACLU and the other Secular organizations that oppose any public references to God that put the focus on a man.

Here's an interesting lesson in the treatment of the Constitution:

Liberal attorneys want to stamp out public displays of religion, thus they have no problem citing Jefferson's wall of separation" letter as a demonstration of the "Intent of the Founders". The "Intent of the Founders" is a buzz phrase for liberal attorneys to sum up a fallacious argument that the Constitution is a "Living Document", that somehow changes meaning depending on the current social condition of the country. Somehow in my readings of the Constitution, I must have overlooked the part where it says that the meaning of the law changes based on peoples' feelings, silly me. In any case, Jefferson's letter has no legal force, but in matters pertaining to the First Amendment, it somehow gets treated as though it were the law. The 1st Amendment is as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now, lets focus on the pertinent part of the amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So, let's examine the facts. First, Congress didn't pass a law placing the monument there. Secondly, it was paid for by Judge Moore himself. Wouldn't removing the monument actually be a violation of the First Amendment? Judge Moore chose to express his religious beliefs (and those of most Alabamans) in the rotunda of the State courthouse. Forcing him to remove the monument would violate his right to free expression. The propriety of expressing those beliefs in a public building is not expressly dealt with in the Constitution. The language of the Constitution is not vague, the meaning is clear, and the ACLU is dead wrong.

Now contrast this to their efforts to deny us our rights under the 2nd Amendment. The Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

Somehow to the liberals, the clear meaning of the 2nd becomes cloudy, despite the fact that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Constitution:

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land."

or George Mason:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

or Patrick Henry:
"They tell us...that we are weak--unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?...Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?...Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty...are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."

These statements make clear the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, thus fulfilling the liberals need to determine the "Intent of the Founders". But yet, in their zeal to deprive us of our rights, they conveniently ignore them.

In both of these cases, the rights enshrined in the Constitution are being violated. And we are letting it happen. Rights once lost, are seldom regained without armed revolution.

Just a thought.



posted by Robert  # 2:09 PM

Racial Politics 

Why doesn't it suprise me that the Dems now want to play the race card in the Recall?

Anytime racial identity trumps what's best for the state, I know we're in trouble.
posted by Robert  # 1:13 PM

Arnold Picks Up Steam 

Arnold seems to be picking up a lot of support now that Bill Simon is out of the race FOXNews.com has the story.

I for one will throw my hat in for McClintock.
posted by Robert  # 1:03 PM

Archives

08/03/2003 - 08/10/2003   08/10/2003 - 08/17/2003   08/17/2003 - 08/24/2003   08/24/2003 - 08/31/2003   08/31/2003 - 09/07/2003   09/07/2003 - 09/14/2003   09/14/2003 - 09/21/2003   09/21/2003 - 09/28/2003   09/28/2003 - 10/05/2003   10/05/2003 - 10/12/2003   10/12/2003 - 10/19/2003   10/19/2003 - 10/26/2003   10/26/2003 - 11/02/2003  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?