I just had to share what this wonderful picture of the faith is with our military people. This first example is a picture of an old freezer used for a baptismal on Easter morning in Iraq many years ago, the second example is a video of a front-loader used as a baptismal. God bless His Church and especially the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer explains the connections between the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the jihad terror group Hamas. (H/T – Creeping Sharia)
Most delegates will typically support who their person they supported endorses. So if Rubio endorses Cruz… he would be much closer, much… and this amount of a split in delegates would force — per GOP primary rules — a 2nd ballot at the party convention.
So, right this is the count:
➤ TRUMP: 646
➤ CRUZ: 397
➤ KASICH: 142
RUBIO left the race with 163 delegates. If he endorsed Cruz [like he should… unless he is a weenie and endorses Kasich], That would leave…
➤ CRUZ 560 delegates.
Mind you, these delegates would have a choice to remain uncommitted now and choose who to support at the convention ~ which is July 18–21, 2016.
In-other-words, this will most likely end in a brokered convention, per the already agreed upon rules set for the primaries.
AGAIN, for a “civics 101” lesson on the GOP Primary rules, see the below audio:
Here is part of the UC Davis study per the LA Times:
There’s a new report out on longtime marijuana use. And it’s bad news for habitual stoners.
In summary: The more pot you smoke, the more apt you are to be a loser.
And it’s not so much that losers toke weed. It’s that toking a lot of weed over several years turns someone into a loser. It’s not really a chicken or egg thing.
The UC Davis-led research, published last week, is especially relevant now. Voter signatures are being collected to place a marijuana legalization measure on the November ballot.
Social use of marijuana — I hate the misleading adjective “recreational” — already is legal in four states: Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. The verdict’s still out.
Medical use is allowed in 19 other states, including California. In this state, the well-intentioned system has been a sham for years — fake an ache and toke up — but Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature recently enacted some reforms.
[….]
…a UC Davis news release quoted study leader Magdalena Cerda, an associate professor of emergency medicine who helps head a violence prevention program.
“But,” she added, “it does show that cannabis was not safe for long-term users….
“Our study found that regular cannabis users experienced downward social mobility and more financial problems — such as troubles with debt and cash flow — than those who did not” puff persistently.
“Regular long-term users,” Cerda continued, “also had more antisocial behaviors at work, such as stealing money or lying to get a job, and experienced more relationship problems, such as intimate partner violence and controlling abuse.”
Why wouldn’t those red flags be an argument against legalizing the drug and making it easier and more tempting — because of advertising — to consume? “There may be other reasons to legalize,” she told me in an interview. “Think about criminal convictions and lack of regulation.”
OK, about the myth of criminal convictions: Marijuana was basically decriminalized in California 40 years ago when Brown was governor the first time.
[….]
Summed up: The finger points at pot.
The report is loaded with statistics. Here’s one set: 52% of middle-class frequent marijuana users “experienced downward mobility” compared to only 14% of non-users. Conversely: 33% of non-users moved up the socioeconomic ladder, but just 7% of habitual users did.
What’s frequent? At least four times a week….
This is actually an older story by a couple of months… however, this is the first time I have heard of it and was more-than-happy to share with people Michael Moroz’s story and his intelligence and clarity on issues. I have to agree with Prager, young men like Michael do give me hope for our country. The abatement of free speech or counter-points is something akin to totalitarian governments AND I guess, schools. I just posted before this post on similar issues, see “…But Then I Started College.”
This comes via the Harvard Crimson… which will surely be shut down do to it violating the feelings of a minority of students (h/t to Twitchy & Truth Revolt):
I used to believe that open discourse was a value all Americans hold dear. I presumed that when asked about what makes America so unique, many Americans would respond that our pluralistic society is the foundation of so much of our success. That it was understood that without a marketplace of ideas, our society simply could not flourish.
But then I started college.
Since the beginning of my freshman year, I have come to believe that a more fitting way to describe the current culture on college campuses is a culture defined not by open expression—but by sensitivity. This undue focus on feelings has caused the college campus to often feel like a place where one has to monitor every syllable that is uttered to ensure that it could not under any circumstance offend anyone to the slightest degree. It sometimes feels as though pluralism has become an antiquated concept. Facts and history have been discarded, and instead feelings have been deemed to be the criteria that determine whether words and actions are acceptable.
It is important to have organizations and movements on college campuses that work toward protecting individuals’ identities. The past few decades have witnessed an explosion of new identities, and students should become aware of and respect the plethora of new identities that have recently emerged. But many of these movements have gone too far.
Take the University of New Hampshire’s “Bias-Free Language Guide.” The list was compiled to inform students of words that are considered offensive in conversation. According to the guide, which was removed from the school’s website a few months ago after it incited controversy, the word “American” is unacceptable, for it fails to recognize people of South American origin. “American,” it argues, should be replaced with “resident of the U.S.” The words “senior citizens,” “older people,” and “elders” should also be eliminated, and instead replaced with “people of advanced age” and “old people.” If we’re at a point where it is offensive to say that your 90-year-old grandparent is a senior citizen, it seems that pretty soon, there may not be any neutral words left.
[….]
In a class I attended earlier this semester, a large portion of the first meeting was devoted to compiling a list of rules for class discussion. A student contended that as a woman, she would be unable to sit across from a student who declared that he was strongly against abortion, and the other students in the seminar vigorously defended this declaration. The professor remained silent. In a recent conversation with peers, I posed a question about a verse from the Bible. A Harvard employee in the room immediately interjected, informing me that we were in a safe space and I was thus not permitted to discuss the controversial biblical passage. And these are just stories from the past three months.
The assaults on free expression have dire consequences. The rise of the microagression movement has been reported to be detrimental to mental health on campus. Students’ emotional distress is increasing as educators presume that fragile undergraduates need to be protected from any form of dissent. Administrators must recognize that the current restrictions are incompatible with the very premise and goal of an education.
It is time to stop focusing on feelings as the criteria for speech and actions on the college campus.
(More by Rachel E. Huebner)
While we are on the topic of censorship… Dennis Prager gives us an update to Marquette University’s Censorship of Professor John McAdams and other students:
This next video brings a damning aspect to university campuses in that it speaks to the worst countries for freedom of speech:
If you have wondered why there are so many millennials on campus telling people to check their privilege, demanding trigger warnings, calling people out for micro aggressions, and retreating to safe spaces, the Factual Feminist has the answer: Intersectional feminism.
Greta and her guests all agreed there is no way they can win this case in court and the only reason Corey was charged was because he is associated with Donald Trump. Greta said,
Here is the actual statement by Miss Fields:
To me, this is an example of the left eating itself. This hippie-dippie kid is probably left-wing, and this BLM styled activist is a leftist… and one is telling the other to groom themselves a certain way. I guess she is an employee of the university, but we will soon (like Iran) have a dress code police. Something Walter Williams coined as “lifestyle Nazis” (one and two). The positive thing that may come out of these types of experiences is that we will get more Republican voters as they leave the crazy left.
People were in a tizzy over Mitt Romney’s forced haircut on a fellow student. The Left said this prank was enough to disqualify him from the Presidency. Yet, here, we see the Left wanting to forcefully cut hair due to “cultural appropriation.” Breitbart notes:
…The video begins with the woman threatening the man by asking her friend whether he has a pair of scissors.
An argument ensues as the student insists on his right to have dreadlocks regardless of the style’s cultural origins.
“You’re saying I can’t have this hairstyle because of your culture? Why?” asks the student.
“Because it’s my culture,” responds the student.
The woman proceeds to grab him as he begins to walk away from the situation. When the white student pushes back, she accuses the man of putting his hands on her….
Via The College Fix
Heather Mac Donald has an excellent article in the City Journal:
The president of Emory University is the latest campus leader to grovel before narcissistic, delusional students, raising the question yet again: What do seemingly adult administrators so fear in their uneducated young charges?
Earlier this week, several dozen Emory students barged into the school’s administration building to demand protection from “Trump 2016” slogans that had been written in chalk on campus walkways. Acting out a by-now standardized psychodrama of oppression and vulnerability, the students claimed that seeing Trump’s name on the sidewalk confirmed that they were “unsafe” at Emory. College sophomore Jonathan Peraza led the allegedly traumatized students in a chant: “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” (This accusation of “not listening” was a thankfully toned-down version of the shriek “Be quiet!,” screamed by a Yale student last fall at her college master during an expletive-filled tirade.) As the Emory protesters entered the administration building, they drew on the Communist Manifesto(probably the only political theory they have even heard of) to express their pitiable plight: “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”
The order of the day was feelings. “What are we feeling?” protest leader Peraza asked his fellow sufferers, consistent with the neo-Victorian sentimentalism currently dominant on campuses. “Frustration” and “fear” were the answers. “I’m supposed to feel comfortable and safe [here],” a student told an Emory Wheel reporter. “I don’t deserve to feel afraid at my school.”
Showing the viral nature of student self-pity, the Emory protesters leveraged their Trump-induced “pain” and “unsafety” into the same demand for more diversity hires made last fall by Black Lives Matter student protesters on campuses across the country. The Emory students also picked up on an exculpatory meme most recently on display at Brown University: the claim that affirmative-action admits are not competitive scholastically because they are so burdened by the need to create safe spaces for themselves. An Emory student told President James Wagner that “people of color are struggling academically because they are so focused on trying to have a safe community.”
Put aside for a moment the students’ ignorant demand for protection from political speech. Their self-image as immiserated proletarians, huddled together for safety and support, is pure fantasy. In fact, they are the most privileged group of human beings in history, enjoying unfettered access to intellectual, scientific, and social resources that would have been the envy of every monarch in the age of absolutism. And any college adult who has any sense of his responsibility to fit his charges for an objective relationship to reality would seek to convey that truth. By contrast, rewarding students’ delusional self-pity only increases the likelihood that they will fail to take advantage of the enormous intellectual riches at their fingertips and go through life with self-defeating chips on their shoulders. But President Wagner followed slavishly in the footsteps of virtually every other college president confronted by student claims of “unsafety”—he rolled over completely.
[….]
Any college president who adopts the rhetoric of “safe spaces” is already lost….