Posted on 11/28/2004 10:40:49 AM PST by hsmomx3
Washington, DC – The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., today welcomed President Bush’s nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as Attorney General. If confirmed, Gonzales would be the first Hispanic ever to serve as Attorney General.
“We are very encouraged by the Gonzales nomination. We previously criticized the Bush Administration for not having an Hispanic in the cabinet since the departure of former HUD Secretary, now Senator-elect, Mel Martinez. We are pleased that one of the first acts since the President’s reelection both rectifies that situation and marks an historic milestone for the Latino community. Never before has an Hispanic served as head of one of the four major cabinet posts – Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, and Attorney General,” stated Janet Murguia, NCLR Executive Director and COO.
Murguia also noted Gonzales’ ties to the Hispanic community throughout his career. “Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of one of NCLR’s oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) in Houston, Texas. Moreover, during his tenure as White House Counsel, he has been one of the most accessible members of the White House staff to NCLR and other Hispanic organizations,” added Murguia.
Murguia concluded, “We acknowledge that this is the first step of a long confirmation process that requires that his record be fully examined. That being said, Gonzales is a thoughtful, reasonable public servant, a man of his word, and we have every expectation that his nomination will be very well received in the Latino community.”
Yeah...the law, the text of the decision, and the seven hundred posts where I've wasted my time trying to explain it to you prior to today.
I'm not wasting my time any more.
You support Federal government imposing its will on a State school system, and you want to call yourself a conservative.
If the University of Michigan wants to take race into consideration in its admissions criteria, it is up to the people of Michigan, via their legislators, to change that policy. It isn't up to the Federal government to change it for them.
I can't help it is you don't understand the most basic tenets of Federalism.
What about the 3 judges who did not rule for the pro-abort side --- abortion of minors against their parents will or without their knowledge mind you --- were they not interpreting the law? Would you claim they were out of control judges or something like that? How could 3 decide another way but Gonzalez took the pro-abort side if he isn't in favor of minor children being given abortions without parental notification?
The decision was 6-3, with Gonzales on the side with six.
Well, if it is the 'wrong' HTML, I'll blame Bill Gates. It was done using MS FrontPage 2000. I've got FP 2003 but have procrastinated on installing it.
You can't use front page here.
BTW, I remember that you praised the part of the SCOTUS decision which overruled the UM's point system. For this reason, your own argument is completely contradictory. Why didn't you support the UM's right to have the point system?
It's even still the law that parents must consent to an ear-piercing --- how Gonzalez and the 5 others believed they must be given abortions without parents' knowledge is beyond me. They took a very broad interpretation of the word "abuse" to mean that even parents becoming angry or opposing the abortion would count as abuse.
Been using it for months. Create with FP, copy and paste the HTML. No one has complained about it until today.
Not exactly an answer to 'Find me an organization called "La Raza".' but close. If you were serious.
The faulty level of adequacy here is in your inability to understand plain English.
You want judges to find in accordance to ideology rather than in accordance to the law, unless of course you don't agree with their ideology, in which case you want them to find in accordance to the law.
The law in YOUR State requires parental consent for ear piercing and not for abortions, for abrotion it only requires parental notification, and allows for a judicial bypass to be granted...YOUR State legislators crafted crappy laws.
YOUR State does not require parental consent for abortion, only notification, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE LAW IN IN YOUR OWN STATE, BUT YOU WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT THE WAY THAT GONZALES JUDGED ON A LAW YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!
I recall Bush's nephew stating this too. While he was in Mexico!
Which is the same site I've been linking him to all along.
Now, according to him, they have all sorts of "stated goals" that I can't seem to find anywhere.
The most visible of these groups are MEChA, The Brown Berets de Aztlan, OLA (Organization for the Liberation of Aztlan), La Raza Unida Party, and the "Nation of Aztlan" to name a few. Although the activism of these organizations vary from somewhat radical to extremely radical, they share the same objectives, the "liberation of Aztlan." Each follows the Raza manifesto "El Plan de Aztlan (sometimes called "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan"). The Nation of Aztlan, tied to La Voz de Aztlan disseminates the exact same propaganda that MEChA spreads including antisemitic propaganda. Believers in the Aztlan legend insist upon the indivisibility of "La Raza" and their common goals, one of them being the need to abolish the border between the U.S. and Mexico. There is a myriad of Raza college newspaper. Some are El Popo, Aztlan News, Chispas, Gente de Aztlan (UCLA), Voz Fronteriza (U.C. San Diego), La Voz Mestiza (U.C. Irvine) and La Voz Berkeley. It is not uncommon for the writers of these publications to refer to the U.S., as "AmeriKKKa."
That's the same organization that wants to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
Is that what you're accusing the 3 judges who did not decide as Gonzalez of? Did they rule only by ideology? Are you really making that claim.
Do you have any evidence the Gonzalez is not pro-abortion? I'd be very happy to know that he's either changed his mind or somehow felt compelled only with the Parental Notification Act that he had to be on the side that gutted it.
I also believe if he wasn't a member of a La Raza group that their endorsement means little --- his actual rulings on Affirmative Action cases would mean a whole lot more than their endorsement.
I have read that he's for the death penalty --- so he cannot be a complete liberal at least.
Your post is fine on my end. Not sure why the other poster can't see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.