“In every major city in America and in cities all over the world the same thing could happen,” says (Titus) Murphy (one of 4 heroes who helped Reginald Denny), “until we decide as a people that we work together and stop looking at things as race but realize we’re all one.”
In one of the most disturbing images from the Los Angeles riots, six black assailants dragged Reginald Denny, a 33-year-old truck driver, out of his truck in South Los Angeles and bashed his head in with a brick. A television chopper broadcast the violence live. The attack happened shortly after not-guilty verdicts were handed down in the racially charged trial of the police beating of Rodney King, which kicked off six days of rioting that left dozens dead and thousands injured. Source
Warning: foul language and explicit footage in video~
If you wish to understand the present, study the past …
Many years ago when I planned on becoming a nurse, I worked at a nursing home. So I speak from experience.
The residents there are often so lonely and long for their families. I can’t begin to tell you of the many times they would ask to get dressed because someone was coming to take them home for a visit. Some residents said they were waiting for a visitor. I repeatedly heard people calling out for their loved ones and…
So many of our elderly are forgotten. Remember, they took care of us when we were sick, walked the floor with us and prayed to God to keep us safe. Many risked their lives to keep us free.
Many elderly people have to chose between eating or taking meds to stay alive.
After all of their contributions and sacrifices, please, let’s not forget them.
Let’s go visit, let’s cherish, let’s help these sometimes forgotten treasures. They need our help. ~N. Schmitt
I saved this old newspaper clipping, a letter to the editor, because I saw what this dearheart saw when my father, at a young age (51 yo) was in a nursing home dying of a rapidly growing brain tumor. He was so young…I’m 51 yo now…its young, trust me, you who are half my age reading this. Anyhoo, besides the old buzzard who loved to try to run me over with his wheelchair at the nursing home my dad was in, I saw many (too many) oldsters who had nobody to help them through the scariest time of their life-not old age- but lonely age. The ones with no children understood their lonliness even if it did hurt them not to have been blessed with any children to cheer them through old age. Those with children were very hurt. If you can imagine why, it will draw a tear or two.
I don’t mean the guilt trip unless you are a child of an elderly parent, aunt or uncle whom you were close to and you think you don’t matter to them. Perhaps your parents have passed on, you could adopt a “childless” senior in a nursing home. I’m sure they would smile brightly as you enter their room for a visit. Just give no nevermind if they call you by their own son or daughter’s name…
God bless you, if this post has sweetly compelled your heart to make an elderly person’s day…or life, however long God determines that to be. You will come away with the memory of that eye sparkle they had when they saw you coming to visit them for a spell. I promise you, that is a blessing you will behold for a long time.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a propaganda campaign attacking a state legislative initiative that is designed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, including Muslims.
That initiative is known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).
Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:
1. Why is CAIR opposing legislation designed to protect the rights and privileges granted under our U.S. and state constitutions? What is CAIR’s motivation? Do they think Muslims either don’t deserve or do not want to enjoy the same constitutional rights to which all citizens of this country are entitled? Or is CAIR trying to establish that Muslims are entitled to such rights (notably, freedom of religion and freedom of speech) but other people deemed inferior, for whatever reason (for example, for being “infidels”) may not be allowed the same rights as Muslims?
2. Exactly which constitutional rights protected by ALAC does CAIR find offensive or “Islamophobic”? (This made-up term is used by Shariah’s adherents to brand anything or anyone who “gives offense” to their doctrine or its enforcers.) The most important non-Brotherhood Muslim organization in this country, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, has already endorsed American Laws for American Courts when it was introduced in Michigan. (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?p=632) Does CAIR consider them “Islamophobic,” as well?
“The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”
Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:
3. Does CAIR dispute that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes it “the supreme law of the land” and, therefore, that all other laws, including Shariah, must be subordinated to it where there is a conflict? There are, of course, myriad areas in which Shariah is at odds with constitutional rights (e.g., women’s ability to divorce, inherit property, enjoy custody of their children and engage or refuse to engage in sexual relations, homosexuality, freedom of expression, etc.) In such instances, would CAIR have the Constitution defer to Shariah?
4. Which rights does CAIR wish to have violated by or subordinated to foreign law? Does it favor unequal treatment for and/or brutalizing of women, homosexuals, apostates, Jews and others in accordance with Shariah?
“As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.”
Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:
5. How can this definition be construed as applying uniquely to Shariah? In fact, it applies equally to all foreign laws. Period. What is more, it does not preclude the application of any foreign law, including Shariah — except insofar as it violates constitutional rights or state public policy.
6. In view of ALAC’s key definition, isn’t it disingenuous and misleading to depict American Laws for American Courts as an “anti-Shariah” bill? CAIR is certainly mischaracterizing ALAC in the campaign that it and other Muslim Brotherhood fronts have been mounting against such legislation. Given the clarity of the language in question, one can only conclude that these Brotherhood groups are doing so knowingly for the purpose of deceiving the American people.
7. Which “foreign law, legal code, or system” does CAIR wish to see incorporated into American constitutional law? Is CAIR seeking the imposition of all foreign laws, even where they violate the U.S. Constitution, or just Shariah?
ALAC: Operative Provision
“Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”
Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:
8. What legal authority is the Council on American Islamic Relations defending by its attack on American Laws for American Courts? Specifically, we need to know: What does CAIR prefer by way of a court, arbitration panel, tribunal or administrative agency that bases its decisions on a code that would not grant our fundamental liberties, rights and privileges?
Clearly, as we have seen, ALAC has been drafted in order to provide guidance so that legal disputes in our courts do not result in the violation of the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges enshrined in the U.S. and our state Constitutions.
Thanks to the guarantees incorporated into the Constitution, no U.S. citizen or legal resident should be denied such liberties. Ensuring that is the case, however, is why ALAC is needed, particularly with respect to women and children. These communities have been identified by international human rights organizations as the principal victims of discriminatory foreign laws.
9. Why does CAIR oppose an inclusive bill extending civil liberties and due process to all citizens and legal residents, given the proven cases of discrimination, especially against Muslim women resulting from too much deference to foreign laws?
There is a certain irony at work here, as shown in an analysis of a sample of legal cases in the United States where Shariah has been successfully introduced to resolve the matter (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/): The most frequent victims of the trampling of constitutional rights by foreign legal codes in actual cases in the United States, are Muslim women and their families.
That’s bad enough. But CAIR’s stance suggests that it seeks to relegate all women — not just Muslim ones — to an inferior status incompatible with the equal rights they are entitled to enjoy under the U.S. Constitution.
ALAC: Explicit Exclusions
“This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State.”
Question for the Council on American Islamic Relations:
10. Why is CAIR opposed to preserving and protecting religious freedom for all Americans, as spelled out explicitly in the American Laws for American Courts act?
CAIR falsely maintains that American Laws for American Courts trespasses against religious freedom. That assertion is laid bare as patently dishonest by reading this important passage from the model American Laws for American Courts legislation: Far from denying religious freedom, American Laws for American Courts expressly champions and protects that liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by state constitutions adopted pursuant to it.
It amazes me that Muslims have lived in our country since its beginnings and they are just recently crying about having sharia in our courts.
The truth offends the mind to reveal the heart. ~Unknown
“Have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow can fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.’ I firmly believe this.” ~Benjamin Franklin
“Let us unite, therefore, in imploring the Supreme Ruler of nations, to spread his holy protection over these United States; to turn the machinations of the wicked to the confirming of our constitution; to enable us at all times to root out internal sedition, and put invasion to flight; to perpetuate to our country that prosperity, which his goodness has already conferred, and to verify the anticipation of this government being a safeguard to human rights.” ~George Washinton
“Whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.” ~Abraham Lincoln
The Mount Vernon, N.Y., native, who was born Richard Wagstaff Clark, became a breakout star after being tapped to host “American Bandstand,” an afternoon dance show for teenagers, which debuted nationally in 1957. Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin and the Jackson 5 were just some of the big acts featured on the hit show, though he reportedly regretted not booking The Beatles. Clark, went on to form his own production company and put out many popular shows, from the hidden camera series “TV’s Bloopers and Practical Jokes” to game show “$25,000 Pyramid.” He also produced many TV award shows, including the Golden Globes.
by Ken Connor
Last week, Democratic strategist Hillary Rosen provoked outrage from the Right when she suggested that Ann Romney is not qualified to speak about women’s economic concerns because “she’s never worked a day in her life.” Many Democrats, the President, First Lady, and Vice President among them, moved quickly to distance themselves from these sentiments, declaring Rosen’s comments out of line. While Rosen dismissed the kerfuffle surrounding her comments as an overreaction and politics as usual, her offhanded, mean spirited remarks about Ann Romney reveal a troubling problem at the heart of mainstream feminist ideology.
While most feminists would insist that they support any and all life choices for women, Hillary Rosen’s comments reveal a certain hypocrisy when it comes to a woman’s “right to choose.” Her dismissive comments about Mrs. Romney indicate that the only value she assigns to women’s work is the dollar value determined by the marketplace. No credit or value is awarded for the care and nurture of children or the support of a husband who is laboring away in the workforce. It’s almost as if women who embrace these traditional domestic vocations are viewed as second class citizens by their “enlightened” feminist counterparts. Rosen’s comments also ignore the enormous difficulty of the homemaker’s work. Unlike the average professional environment, which is fairly predictable, orderly, and easily navigable, the typical American home today is a case study in barely controlled chaos. Cooking meals, cleaning house, changing diapers, giving baths, ironing clothes, gardening, helping with homework, and maintaining the family’s schedule is exhausting work. So exhausting in fact, that many women prefer the professional working world, where they receive financial compensation and formal recognition over and above the merely psychological and emotional rewards of homemaking. It is precisely because housework and raising children is so hard that many prefer to work outside the home and subcontract their domestic responsibilities, including the raising of their children, to others. Of course, many women (both married and single) are forced to juggle both domestic and professional responsibilities with little to no outside help or assistance, a Herculean feat to say the least.
Another element at play is the popular feminist assumption that homemaking can never truly fulfill a woman at the deepest level. Sure, motherhood is a wonderful thing, and there can be enjoyable aspects to presiding over the home (especially if you happen to occupy a high rung on the socioeconomic ladder). At the end of the day, however, the truly empowered woman – the feminist who recognizes the overwhelming challenges that women have overcome in pursuit of equality – recognizes that a life devoted to serving others can never achieve the kind of personal actualization so critical in today’s self-centered culture. Today’s feminist rejects the notion that the preservation and advancement of society depends largely on the contributions that women make to their families. She ignores the overwhelming evidence that women’s mass exodus from the home and the denial of their unique gender differences have helped contribute to the disintegration of the family and the breakdown of our culture.
The Biblical view of the woman who devotes herself to the welfare of her husband and children is very different from Rosen’s and the feminists’ view. Proverbs 31:10-31 reflects a profoundly high view of a woman’s care for her household and family. Where Rosen and her feminist cohorts might see a naïve, subjugated Stepford Wife or the kind of spoiled, self-indulgent diva popularized by the “Real Housewives” reality series, the Proverbs woman’s children and her husband rise up and call her blessed. Thank God for women who are willing to bear the burdens of the household and who recognize the inestimable value of the contributions they are making, even if the marketplace and dozens of mainstream feminism don’t.
CJS Forum: Robert C. Wilson discusses the feasibility of the emergence of a new political party: What Does the Future Hold for Our Two Party System?
CJS Blog: Zachary Gappa writes about the parallels between Obamacare and federal tort reform, an alternative to Paul Ryan’s tax reform plan, the inverse relationship between income and charitable giving and more: Check out the CJS Blog.
I have never heard this said as simply or as well. Class warfare at its best.
The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.
Graph Source More to come in the comment line!
In this article, I read this:
Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor, said at a panel following Holder’s speech that Trayvon Martin is “a symbol of what’s wrong” with the criminal justice system.
“I want to see the first black man who uses the ‘stand your ground’ defense and see if it works. Or the first white victim of the ‘stand your ground’ by a black defendant and see if it works,” Ogletree said.
So, I decided to see if there are any instances of blacks using the SYG as defense for shooting dead a white man…uh, in this case that I found its another one of those “white” Hispanics.
In a case that is being compared to the Trayvon Martin shooting, a black man who shot and killed an unarmed man outside an Arizona restaurant is claiming self-defense. On Tuesday, April 3, 2012, around 7:30 p.m., 29-year-old Daniel Adkins, who appears to be a white male Hispanic, was killed outside a Laveen, Arizona, Taco Bell at 7233 South 51st Avenue, near Baseline Road, said Phoenix police.
Authorities said the shooter, a 22-year-old black man, was pulling out of the Taco Bell drive thru when he crossed paths with Adkins, who was walking his dog on the sidewalk.
Photo of Daniel Adkins/Fox News
One report indicates Adkins struck the driver’s vehicle with a bat or a metal pole after he and the driver exchanged words.
It’s unclear if investigators found a weapon at the scene.
However, an independent eyewitness said Adkins swung his fist in the direction of the driver several times, according to various local news sources.
Like Florida, Arizona has a “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows a “victim” to use deadly force when faced with a life or death confrontation. Source (video at source of the News report)
My 2-cent observation: The driver could have just driven off instead of shooting him dead. Sure, he most likely would have run the man over but the chances he would still be alive are far greater than shooting him. Was this really a life threatening situation…throwing punches? Why not just show the gun to the threatener and tell him to back off?
Hmmm…..I wonder if this will get national attention? I wonder if La Raza will put a $12,000 bounty on the shooter’s head? I wonder if DOJ AG Holder will investigate this case for civil rights violations? It is no secret that Hispanics and Blacks have had tensions and gang fightings with each other for years. Will the Latino Community rally for Adkins’ justice? I can bet this case will fade into obscurity…and with no charges against the shooter, either.
UPDATE: The latest word on the arrest of the shooter
Here is Justice for Daniel Adkins’ Facebook page:
After calling Mitt Romney to concede the race for the Republican nomination, Rick Santorum suspended his campaign Tuesday during a press conference in Pennsylvania, his home state.
“We will suspend our campaign effective today,” Santorum said surrounded by members of his family in Gettysburg.
…”I walked out after the Iowa caucus victory and said ‘game on,’” Santorum said in Gettysburg. “I know a lot of folks are going to write—maybe even those at the White House —’game over.’ But this game is a long, long, long way from over. We are going to continue to go out there and fight to make sure that we defeat President Barack Obama.”
In the Garden - Eden
Created Man placed
In the Garden
Man sins against God
In the Garden – Gethsamane
Jesus in agony
In the Garden
The Lamb of God crucified
In the Garden
Our Christ is buried
In the Garden
Our Saviour arises!
In the Garden – the Kingdom of God
For the Lord’s Redeemed!
© 2012 SLC
He is Risen…
“The place which is called Calvary.”-Luke 23:33
The hill of comfort is the hill of Calvary; the house of consolation is built with the wood of the cross; the temple of heavenly blessing is founded upon the riven rock-riven by the spear which pierced His side. No scene in sacred history ever gladdens the soul like Calvary’s tragedy.
“Is it not strange, the darkest hour
That ever dawned on sinful earth,
Should touch the heart with softer power,
For comfort, than an angel’s mirth?
That to the Cross the mourner’s eye should turn,
Sooner than where the stars of Bethlehem burn?”
Light springs from the midday-midnight of Golgotha, and every herb of the field blooms sweetly beneath the shadow of the once accursed tree. In that place of thirst, grace hath dug a fountain which ever gusheth with waters pure as crystal, each drop capable of alleviating the woes of mankind. You who have had your seasons of conflict, will confess that it was not at Olivet that you ever found comfort, not on the hill of Sinai, nor on Tabor; but Gethsemane, Gabbatha, and Golgotha have been a means of comfort to you. The bitter herbs of Gethsemane have often taken away the bitters of your life; the scourge of Gabbatha has often scourged away your cares, and the groans of Calvary yields us comfort rare and rich. We never should have known Christ’s love in all its heights and depths if He had not died; nor could we guess the Father’s deep affection if He had not given His Son to die. The common mercies we enjoy all sing of love, just as the sea-shell, when we put it to our ears, whispers of the deep sea whence it came; but if we desire to hear the ocean itself, we must not look at every-day blessings, but at the transactions of the crucifixion. He who would know love, let him retire to Calvary and see the Man of sorrows die. ~ C.H. Spurgeon