Thread: Hazleton's "All Legals Served" Sign

Originally Posted by Grandmom9

When I first read the sign "All Legal Served," I knew immediately that your intent was to uphold and obey the law regarding alcohol service. You were stating in the sign that you would not serve underage children or those patron already inebriated. I did not interpret your message as "we will only serve English speaking patrons." It is amazing that there are those who yell "racist" or "discriminatory" because of their perceived "slights".

Actually, I feel what has been implied by these people borders on "slander" as they are impugning your principles and ethic.

Welcome to ALIPAC and, as a mother and grandmother, applaud your efforts to curtail underage drinking,

See? You can't even post a sign, that anyone knows it's for legal age drinkers.......it's time we stand up and tell these instigators to hit the road.

Thank you all for your warm welcome...and for letting me vent! My Husband does very well with the news media, but I seem to be more of a writer.

Please say a prayer for our Mayor to stay strong and for our Illegal Immigration Act to stay inacted.

Both deserve America's support and prayers.

One more thing.... I know Loui very well. This is a man who has been faced with death threats to his family and himself over this act. He wears a bullet proof vest and no longer comes out to enjoy his life with his friends.

So for anyone who would say that he has started this fight out of political gain....understand this....Loui only wanted to do the best he could for our City. This City has been invaded and we did have muggings, murders and drugs brought here by illegal immigrants.

It's not completely gone yet.....but I'll tell you, since this act was voted on, it certainly has made the streets a little easier to walk down.

The Business' that have moved out of Wyoming Street down town where mostly owned or ran by Illegals.....so farwell....I'd much rather look at empty buildings than to have to worry about weather my 16 year old daughter or 13 year son will be shot or stabbed at school today. And that is NOT an exageration!

To my Husband and I, if the Hispanic community wants to change our sign into something else....so be it....But I think they need to learn how to read it and quote it correctly.

We will not serve anyone underage, on parol/probation or anyone without an I.D.

Thank you all....and We will continue to fight!

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Gabriel,

The Constitution says that ALL men have certain, inalienable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights affirms the rights of the CITIZENS of the United States. You should spend more time studying instead of trolling the Internet from your classroom.

*Edited to add that Gabriel is a student at San Bernardino High School and possibly participated in the melee there.

More children, what's up with THAT???

Wrong, I am 29 year-old former teacher, who will be taking the bar exam in 2007. If I am so wrong about illegal aliens not having any rights, why is it that the Supreme Court keeps proving this. It is a dead issue. You may interpret the Constitution any way you like it, but the courts have established the rights of illegal aliens over and over again. I love they way people state that the Constitution is to be followed as it is written, but then attempt to take that very document and interpret to their desire (anchor babies).

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Gabriel,

The Constitution says that ALL men have certain, inalienable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights affirms the rights of the CITIZENS of the United States. You should spend more time studying instead of trolling the Internet from your classroom.

*Edited to add that Gabriel is a student at San Bernardino High School and possibly participated in the melee there.

More children, what's up with THAT???

You should take more time researching a valid argument rather than trying to premise your argument that someone is too young to make a valid argument even if you would have been correct.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Gabriel,

The Constitution says that ALL men have certain, inalienable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights affirms the rights of the CITIZENS of the United States. You should spend more time studying instead of trolling the Internet from your classroom.

*Edited to add that Gabriel is a student at San Bernardino High School and possibly participated in the melee there.

More children, what's up with THAT???

Wrong, I am 29 year-old former teacher, who will be taking the bar exam in 2007. If I am so wrong about illegal aliens not having any rights, why is it that the Supreme Court keeps proving this. It is a dead issue. You may interpret the Constitution any way you like it, but the courts have established the rights of illegal aliens over and over again. I love they way people state that the Constitution is to be followed as it is written, but then attempt to take that very document and interpret to their desire (anchor babies).

If that is true, why are you posting from the school computer system?

As for the 14th Amendment, I'll post this AGAIN so you can see what the AUTHOR meant, which was exactly how it was interpreted until United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898

Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, stated in 1866, "Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The Fourteenth Amendment states,"(A) Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

However, a proviso limits foreigners who have babies in America. It couldn't be clearer, children of foreigners, aliens or diplomats, who are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, are ineligible for citizenship. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified we didn't have immigration laws. One hundred and thirty eight years later we are paying for the misinterpretation of it.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty41.htm

Viewing your website I was surprised to learn that the makers of Budweiser support under-age drinking!

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Gabriel,

The Constitution says that ALL men have certain, inalienable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights affirms the rights of the CITIZENS of the United States. You should spend more time studying instead of trolling the Internet from your classroom.

*Edited to add that Gabriel is a student at San Bernardino High School and possibly participated in the melee there.

More children, what's up with THAT???

Wrong, I am 29 year-old former teacher, who will be taking the bar exam in 2007. If I am so wrong about illegal aliens not having any rights, why is it that the Supreme Court keeps proving this. It is a dead issue. You may interpret the Constitution any way you like it, but the courts have established the rights of illegal aliens over and over again. I love they way people state that the Constitution is to be followed as it is written, but then attempt to take that very document and interpret to their desire (anchor babies).

If that is true, why are you posting from the school computer system?

As for the 14th Amendment, I'll post this AGAIN so you can see what the AUTHOR meant, which was exactly how it was interpreted until United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898

Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, stated in 1866, "Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The Fourteenth Amendment states,"(A) Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

However, a proviso limits foreigners who have babies in America. It couldn't be clearer, children of foreigners, aliens or diplomats, who are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, are ineligible for citizenship. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified we didn't have immigration laws. One hundred and thirty eight years later we are paying for the misinterpretation of it.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty41.htm

I still subsitute and am on the district wireless network. Since you are investigating, you'll notice my posts are usually doing school hours. I hope you are not an investigator or plan on being one.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

I still subsitute and am on the district wireless network. Since you are investigating, you'll notice my posts are usually doing school hours. I hope you are not an investigator or plan on being one.

In other words, you're engaging in non-school related activities using school equipment during school hours while you are on the school payroll, is that right?

You'll make a FABULOUS lawyer!

Yeah how do you like that!

The worst of this is, they made the Budweiser Saleman go to our Bar while he was on his vacation to remove the sign.

Budweiser has listened to what the hispanics have made our sign into and they don't want their name linked to it any longer.....even though it hung on the front of our building for 3 months prior to it showing up on national news.

Someone in St. Louis saw it on the news and started making phone calls to our distributor who in turn called their saleman off of vacation to yank it down.

Blew my mind! So yes....I take it that A.B. doesnt mind kids underage, people on paroll/probation and people with no I.D. period drinking Bud.

I don't know how else to take that!

Our local News station WYLN 35 last night did a piece on the sign. They interviewed Jimmy, my husband, and told the story about how the sign had been misused.

At the end of the news clip, the interviewer explained that Budweiser had removed the sign from the building because because of the contriversy. He had tried to contact Budweiser about the sign, but had not received a response from them as of the broadcst last night.

The interviewer ended the segment with "If we receive any comment from Budweiser, we will pass it on to our veiwers"