Letter of appeal written to Towson. Court date 12-15-2011 "Towson State University vs. Jane Hargadon"
I received a parking citation at Towson University on October 19, 2011 for being parked in a handicapped access route. I had parked there after dropping my physically handicapped mother at Stephens Hall for a hearing test.
It was raining, and I made sure I had my disabled parking pass displayed as well as my receipt, obtained from the kiosk, as I was directed to do. When I parked the car I noticed the sign instructing not to block “access” (see photo 1). The parking on the opposite side of the street is parallel with traffic, and I parked head-in. I assumed that, “access” was referring to pulling in tight to keep from blocking traffic. I was shocked to find a ticket on my windshield when I returned to my car after my mom was done. A citation for $250.00 for something that I do not think is very clear!
If the parking space is to leave room for wheelchairs why not place concrete curbs or beams to indicate to the extent that cars are to pull in? (see photo 2). I have never appealed a ticket. I also have never experienced a parking area with this extensive pavement painting. I feel that the sign was vague and would suggest either placing physical restraints, or specify on the sign, that “access” refers to “handicapped access” where the hash marks are at the front of the parking spaces.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
A Non-establishment Delegate
One of the less noticed elections during the presidential primary, is the election of delegate to the convention. Each Congressional district will elect three delegates and three alternate delegates for the Republican National Convention. I am a candidate for Delegate to the Republican Convention, even though I have only been registered as a Republican for six months. Less than a year ago, I was the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Party of Maryland, so if I can make the switch, you could also.
This election may be our last possibility of salvaging some remnant of our great constitutional republic. The Democrat establishment, with their Obamacare and socialist agenda, do not suit my liberty loving conservative frame. The Republicans however, with all of their establishment warmongering, are also unacceptable, but with one exception: Congressman Ron Paul.
Once registered as a Republican, even if only for six months, you will be eligible to vote in the Republican primary for a presidential candidate, three delegates and three alternate delegates. The delegate candidates appear on the ballot as undesignated, or for a particular presidential candidate. A delegate candidate, who wishes to be listed on the ballot for a particular presidential candidate, must have that presidential candidate’s campaign certify them. The delegates, listed with the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote, have historically won the delegate slots as well. Once elected, the delegate travels to the party’s national convention to officially nominate the Party’s presidential candidate and establish the platform. I have requested to be certified by Dr. Paul’s campaign.
This year’s Convention delegate rules have changed, in that the delegate is bound to vote for the candidate who won the district on the first vote, but if the candidate fails to secure 35% of the vote, or the candidate releases his delegates, or the Convention goes to a third ballot, the delegate is free to vote for whomever he or she considers the best candidate. This could be historic.
Our government has lost its constraints of the constitution. The establishment in both parties has worked the welfare/warfare paradigm to strip us of our liberties, bankrupt us, and retire our constitution to the status of relic to be used for pseudo patriotic outings. We hear talk about the 10th amendment and state’s rights, but there is no state’s rights concept within the power structure of the Republican Party establishment. State parties toe the party establishment line with every directive from the national party. One needs to look no farther than the last Presidential election in Maryland to see what is acceptable in the GOP, and what is not.
In 2008, I also ran for delegate to the Republican Convention, as well as Congress in Maryland’s 7th District. The Republican primaries in five of Maryland’s congressional races were won by non- establishment candidates, myself included. The five of us, along with Roscoe Bartlett’s campaign, were honored by Dr. Paul coming to College Park to publicly endorse our efforts. Three fourths of the party’s general election congressional candidates were endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul. Wouldn’t you think that the party leadership would turn out, if not for Ron Paul, than at least for the individuals who sacrificed to keep the GOP on the Maryland ballot? This was arguably the biggest event for five of these campaigns, yet the state’s GOP establishment essentially boycotted the event, with only one Republican committee person, from the state and 23 county central committees, in attendance.
I once believed that principles would win out, regardless of party. This lesson was shattered after I ran as candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 2010, under the Constitution Party. Principles, such as strict 2nd amendment adherence, or being a foe of state funded abortions, were treated as meaningless, by our not being in the two-party duopoly. The local gun groups, the Baltimore Archdiocese, and several other “conservative” advocacy groups would not recognize us with an acknowledgment, an endorsement, or a simple declarative sentence in their election supplement, even though, we agreed with the principles of these groups more than any of the other candidates on the ballot.
The Maryland Republican Party may be showing some backbone in the straw poll taken at the state Fall Convention. Ron Paul finished in practically a dead heat tie for 2nd place. Could the state party be preparing to interpose the constitution over national directives? Don’t count on it. Neoconservative Congressman Harris just announced he will be Co-Chairing the Maryland effort for former congressman, Newt Gingrich. Newt is the epitome of establishment, with his concern about climate change, his fortune he has slurped from the government trough as lobbyist, and his public advocacy of violating international law with plausible deniable lethal attacks against sovereign nations.
Our only hope is to run over the establishment Republican Party. There are almost as many unaffiliated voters in this state as there are registered Republican Party members. Add to that, the disgruntled Democrats, the Libertarians, and those Republicans who insist on a party of true constitutional principles. We can take back our nation, through the Republican Party:
• A party that promotes the value of honest money: End the Fed.
• A party that yearns for personal liberty: End the Patriot Act.
• A party that pursues a non-interventionist foreign policy: End Undeclared Wars.
• And a party that depends on the restraints of our constitution: End Judicial and Executive legislation.
Let’s salvage our constitutional republic? Register, and vote, Republican.
This election may be our last possibility of salvaging some remnant of our great constitutional republic. The Democrat establishment, with their Obamacare and socialist agenda, do not suit my liberty loving conservative frame. The Republicans however, with all of their establishment warmongering, are also unacceptable, but with one exception: Congressman Ron Paul.
Once registered as a Republican, even if only for six months, you will be eligible to vote in the Republican primary for a presidential candidate, three delegates and three alternate delegates. The delegate candidates appear on the ballot as undesignated, or for a particular presidential candidate. A delegate candidate, who wishes to be listed on the ballot for a particular presidential candidate, must have that presidential candidate’s campaign certify them. The delegates, listed with the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote, have historically won the delegate slots as well. Once elected, the delegate travels to the party’s national convention to officially nominate the Party’s presidential candidate and establish the platform. I have requested to be certified by Dr. Paul’s campaign.
This year’s Convention delegate rules have changed, in that the delegate is bound to vote for the candidate who won the district on the first vote, but if the candidate fails to secure 35% of the vote, or the candidate releases his delegates, or the Convention goes to a third ballot, the delegate is free to vote for whomever he or she considers the best candidate. This could be historic.
Our government has lost its constraints of the constitution. The establishment in both parties has worked the welfare/warfare paradigm to strip us of our liberties, bankrupt us, and retire our constitution to the status of relic to be used for pseudo patriotic outings. We hear talk about the 10th amendment and state’s rights, but there is no state’s rights concept within the power structure of the Republican Party establishment. State parties toe the party establishment line with every directive from the national party. One needs to look no farther than the last Presidential election in Maryland to see what is acceptable in the GOP, and what is not.
In 2008, I also ran for delegate to the Republican Convention, as well as Congress in Maryland’s 7th District. The Republican primaries in five of Maryland’s congressional races were won by non- establishment candidates, myself included. The five of us, along with Roscoe Bartlett’s campaign, were honored by Dr. Paul coming to College Park to publicly endorse our efforts. Three fourths of the party’s general election congressional candidates were endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul. Wouldn’t you think that the party leadership would turn out, if not for Ron Paul, than at least for the individuals who sacrificed to keep the GOP on the Maryland ballot? This was arguably the biggest event for five of these campaigns, yet the state’s GOP establishment essentially boycotted the event, with only one Republican committee person, from the state and 23 county central committees, in attendance.
I once believed that principles would win out, regardless of party. This lesson was shattered after I ran as candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 2010, under the Constitution Party. Principles, such as strict 2nd amendment adherence, or being a foe of state funded abortions, were treated as meaningless, by our not being in the two-party duopoly. The local gun groups, the Baltimore Archdiocese, and several other “conservative” advocacy groups would not recognize us with an acknowledgment, an endorsement, or a simple declarative sentence in their election supplement, even though, we agreed with the principles of these groups more than any of the other candidates on the ballot.
The Maryland Republican Party may be showing some backbone in the straw poll taken at the state Fall Convention. Ron Paul finished in practically a dead heat tie for 2nd place. Could the state party be preparing to interpose the constitution over national directives? Don’t count on it. Neoconservative Congressman Harris just announced he will be Co-Chairing the Maryland effort for former congressman, Newt Gingrich. Newt is the epitome of establishment, with his concern about climate change, his fortune he has slurped from the government trough as lobbyist, and his public advocacy of violating international law with plausible deniable lethal attacks against sovereign nations.
Our only hope is to run over the establishment Republican Party. There are almost as many unaffiliated voters in this state as there are registered Republican Party members. Add to that, the disgruntled Democrats, the Libertarians, and those Republicans who insist on a party of true constitutional principles. We can take back our nation, through the Republican Party:
• A party that promotes the value of honest money: End the Fed.
• A party that yearns for personal liberty: End the Patriot Act.
• A party that pursues a non-interventionist foreign policy: End Undeclared Wars.
• And a party that depends on the restraints of our constitution: End Judicial and Executive legislation.
Let’s salvage our constitutional republic? Register, and vote, Republican.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Speak Now, While We Still Can!
media@nationaljournal.com
To Whom it May Concern:
I watched the debate on CBS on Saturday night with an open mind, but after 90 minutes of an almost total black out of Ron Paul, I was angry and upset. It is obvious what your media outlet is doing to Dr Paul, as well as most other so-called unbiased media outlets.
Call it what it is- a blatant avoidance of a man who only speaks truth and follows our nation's Constitution to the letter. He is avoided because he does not buy into unconstitutional wars, and he wants to bring all of the troops home. Why else would he receive more donations from active military than all of the other candidates combined?
You should be ashamed of yourselves. You are not journalists- you are slaves to lobbyists and foreign powers. Thank you for your time.
Jane Hargadon
Concerned Citizen
To Whom it May Concern:
I watched the debate on CBS on Saturday night with an open mind, but after 90 minutes of an almost total black out of Ron Paul, I was angry and upset. It is obvious what your media outlet is doing to Dr Paul, as well as most other so-called unbiased media outlets.
Call it what it is- a blatant avoidance of a man who only speaks truth and follows our nation's Constitution to the letter. He is avoided because he does not buy into unconstitutional wars, and he wants to bring all of the troops home. Why else would he receive more donations from active military than all of the other candidates combined?
You should be ashamed of yourselves. You are not journalists- you are slaves to lobbyists and foreign powers. Thank you for your time.
Jane Hargadon
Concerned Citizen
Thursday, November 10, 2011
"The Establisment's U.S. Catholic Church"
Raymond Arroyo:
How can you go on discussing the presidential race and not mention Congressman Ron Paul. I find it troubling if not sinful, to not honestly cover the full story. What gives you the authority to pick who you will ignore. Are you the Catholic political guru?
We first noticed your unbalanced coverage about a month ago. We complained when you gave Rick "Gardasil" Perry about a two minute spot on your "The World Over", by airing a video of Perry's stump speech on faith.
Then two weeks ago, you continued shilling for the establishment. Dr. Paul had just won the Ohio straw poll, the California straw poll and the Value Voters straw poll! But in your Buchanan interview, you backed Pat into a corner, only bringing up certain candidates. You neither asked him about Dr. Paul, nor asked Buchanan who he liked.
We asked Chris Manion what he thought could be your motivation? Here is his read:
"The bishops receive approximately three billion a year from the government.
Ron Paul would end that.
Raymond likes bishops.
Conclusion?"
This week, you did it again. You allowed an establishment talking head to canonize Newt without even mentioning Ron Paul. Congressman Paul easily polls at his 5% minimum cut-off, but you said nothing. Maybe you should have Chris Manion on for a political segment. He isn't afraid to mention Dr. Paul's name.
How can you go on discussing the presidential race and not mention Congressman Ron Paul. I find it troubling if not sinful, to not honestly cover the full story. What gives you the authority to pick who you will ignore. Are you the Catholic political guru?
We first noticed your unbalanced coverage about a month ago. We complained when you gave Rick "Gardasil" Perry about a two minute spot on your "The World Over", by airing a video of Perry's stump speech on faith.
Then two weeks ago, you continued shilling for the establishment. Dr. Paul had just won the Ohio straw poll, the California straw poll and the Value Voters straw poll! But in your Buchanan interview, you backed Pat into a corner, only bringing up certain candidates. You neither asked him about Dr. Paul, nor asked Buchanan who he liked.
We asked Chris Manion what he thought could be your motivation? Here is his read:
"The bishops receive approximately three billion a year from the government.
Ron Paul would end that.
Raymond likes bishops.
Conclusion?"
This week, you did it again. You allowed an establishment talking head to canonize Newt without even mentioning Ron Paul. Congressman Paul easily polls at his 5% minimum cut-off, but you said nothing. Maybe you should have Chris Manion on for a political segment. He isn't afraid to mention Dr. Paul's name.
Friday, October 28, 2011
This Lady Has Character
My girl friend of almost forty years has more conviction and character than most men I know. Here is an example of how she told-off Raymond Arroyo, a popular host on the Catholic Channel (EWTN), for being an establishment shill.
Jane Hargadon
to raymond@raymondarroyo.com
date Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM
subject Pat Buchanan
Raymond,
I can't believe you did it again! How can you continue to ignore Ron Paul? He has won the Ohio straw poll, the California straw poll and the Value Voters straw poll! The MSM did not cover that bit of news, so maybe you missed it.
I feel as if you backed Mr Buchanan into a corner. I bet if you came right out and asked him which of the GOP candidates he would support, he would have answered "Ron Paul". I feel as if you phrased your questions in such a way that he had to react to the names that you brought out.
Have you seen the FB group called Catholics for Ron Paul? Ron Paul is pro-life in every aspect of that phrase- he is against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty! He is the only one who has been consistent in his views for the past thirty years. He has upheld his oath to the Constitution for the past fifty plus years! Please stop ignoring him! Thank you.
Jane Hargadon
Jane Hargadon
to raymond@raymondarroyo.com
date Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM
subject Pat Buchanan
Raymond,
I can't believe you did it again! How can you continue to ignore Ron Paul? He has won the Ohio straw poll, the California straw poll and the Value Voters straw poll! The MSM did not cover that bit of news, so maybe you missed it.
I feel as if you backed Mr Buchanan into a corner. I bet if you came right out and asked him which of the GOP candidates he would support, he would have answered "Ron Paul". I feel as if you phrased your questions in such a way that he had to react to the names that you brought out.
Have you seen the FB group called Catholics for Ron Paul? Ron Paul is pro-life in every aspect of that phrase- he is against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty! He is the only one who has been consistent in his views for the past thirty years. He has upheld his oath to the Constitution for the past fifty plus years! Please stop ignoring him! Thank you.
Jane Hargadon
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Hiding Behind a Pro-Life Label
Too often, politicians and talking heads play-up to the pro-life constituents to gain their socially conservative credentials, only to find them cave-in on a crucial life issue. Or, they may flip, and support an agenda or candidate that is counter to the pro-life cause, as Santorum did by supporting Spector.
How can this be? How can we be on guard against opportunistic politicians who have little if any allegiance to pro-life causes?
The answer came to me as a friend and I were producing a Pro-Life Unity radio program on Blog Talk Radio. My friend is a self professed atheist. He has been a regular on our radio program, over the past three years whenever we produced shows. As an atheist, he often disagrees with other pro-lifers on ancillary issues.
To avoid possible conflicts, he is constantly in favor of keeping abortion, as a stand alone issue. He believes that the other positions "bundled" with a pro-life position, only weaken the pro-life block. That may work well, if you could believe a simple statement of being pro-life. Because we cannot trust someone to stay the course, it behooves us to look at associated issues which may add credibility to, or provide a contradiction to, the logic of the person in question.
Those who would stand for the protection of innocent human life in the womb, might also be expected to stand in defense of all innocent human life outside of the womb. Should there be an expectation of pro-life candidates, to be appalled by unconstitutional, unjust, and undeclared wars that kill innocent people? The common response is to acknowledge the legitimate place for war, and recognize that there is collateral damage in war. The problem of course, is that our recent “wars”, have not been declared, not been constitutional, and not been just. This is especially true when our CIA has been doing the killing.
Is the innocent human life in the womb more valuable than an innocent person gunned down by government sanctioned thugs? So one might find a contradiction in a reported pro-lifer, who looks dispassionately as our military or its agents, kill innocent people.
I contend, that if we require a blind eye to other issues, to be bundled with our pro-life position as we evaluate leaders, our pro-life stance is doomed. Consistent Life Ethic!
How can this be? How can we be on guard against opportunistic politicians who have little if any allegiance to pro-life causes?
The answer came to me as a friend and I were producing a Pro-Life Unity radio program on Blog Talk Radio. My friend is a self professed atheist. He has been a regular on our radio program, over the past three years whenever we produced shows. As an atheist, he often disagrees with other pro-lifers on ancillary issues.
To avoid possible conflicts, he is constantly in favor of keeping abortion, as a stand alone issue. He believes that the other positions "bundled" with a pro-life position, only weaken the pro-life block. That may work well, if you could believe a simple statement of being pro-life. Because we cannot trust someone to stay the course, it behooves us to look at associated issues which may add credibility to, or provide a contradiction to, the logic of the person in question.
Those who would stand for the protection of innocent human life in the womb, might also be expected to stand in defense of all innocent human life outside of the womb. Should there be an expectation of pro-life candidates, to be appalled by unconstitutional, unjust, and undeclared wars that kill innocent people? The common response is to acknowledge the legitimate place for war, and recognize that there is collateral damage in war. The problem of course, is that our recent “wars”, have not been declared, not been constitutional, and not been just. This is especially true when our CIA has been doing the killing.
Is the innocent human life in the womb more valuable than an innocent person gunned down by government sanctioned thugs? So one might find a contradiction in a reported pro-lifer, who looks dispassionately as our military or its agents, kill innocent people.
I contend, that if we require a blind eye to other issues, to be bundled with our pro-life position as we evaluate leaders, our pro-life stance is doomed. Consistent Life Ethic!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Racial Profiling For Heaven!
Having been isolated at times, by my family, due to my criticism of the deviations and creativity that is often found in our current Novus Ordo Mass, I have learned to suck it up. Realizing that some of my remarks could be overly critical, I have attempted to not comment, unless there are four infractions or obvious deviations on what I might expect as Catholic theology during a Mass. Four disputable points is kind of like a liturgical tetris: it just drops.
This Sunday, my wife, and I attended Holy Mass at the 8:00 am, at a Roman rite Catholic Church in Maryland. It was the celebration of Ascension Thursday, but they don’t do that any more in this diocese. It used to be a “Holy Day of Obligation”, but now some dioceses celebrate it on Thursday, and some on the following Sunday. My wife and I had done the readings for Ascension Thursday, on Thursday, so we were prepared. So much for the universal, "catholic", Catholic church? That’s one!
At the homily, the priest started with a joke. Don’t you love it, when the celebrant has a need to just tell a joke. It had nothing to do with his message. It was just his attempt to try out for Comedy Central. That’s two!
During his homily, he announced that anyone who came to church this morning was assured to go to Heaven. He dug up a scriptural quote to build his case based on an assurance that anyone at Mass, loved God. Not a word about our free will to sin, much less discussing that presumption, presumption that we are assured heaven, is one of the two unforgivable sins against the Holy Spirit. That’s three.
Finally, as the celebrant was preparing to conclude the Liturgy, he hesitated before giving the final blessing. The Pastor came forward to address those in attendance. He instructed the ushers to give out papers and pencils, and requested that we write down how many people in our group attended the service, and what our racial classification would be. Luckily my wife grabbed the paper, before I could get a hold of it. That’s four, and that’s Liturgical Tetris
It certainly was not the Catholic Mass I was raised on, but at least they are getting an idea on the racial make-up of heaven.
This Sunday, my wife, and I attended Holy Mass at the 8:00 am, at a Roman rite Catholic Church in Maryland. It was the celebration of Ascension Thursday, but they don’t do that any more in this diocese. It used to be a “Holy Day of Obligation”, but now some dioceses celebrate it on Thursday, and some on the following Sunday. My wife and I had done the readings for Ascension Thursday, on Thursday, so we were prepared. So much for the universal, "catholic", Catholic church? That’s one!
At the homily, the priest started with a joke. Don’t you love it, when the celebrant has a need to just tell a joke. It had nothing to do with his message. It was just his attempt to try out for Comedy Central. That’s two!
During his homily, he announced that anyone who came to church this morning was assured to go to Heaven. He dug up a scriptural quote to build his case based on an assurance that anyone at Mass, loved God. Not a word about our free will to sin, much less discussing that presumption, presumption that we are assured heaven, is one of the two unforgivable sins against the Holy Spirit. That’s three.
Finally, as the celebrant was preparing to conclude the Liturgy, he hesitated before giving the final blessing. The Pastor came forward to address those in attendance. He instructed the ushers to give out papers and pencils, and requested that we write down how many people in our group attended the service, and what our racial classification would be. Luckily my wife grabbed the paper, before I could get a hold of it. That’s four, and that’s Liturgical Tetris
It certainly was not the Catholic Mass I was raised on, but at least they are getting an idea on the racial make-up of heaven.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Have You Ever Known A Muslim?
I attended a patriot type meeting at which a lady friend, came up to discuss local politics, and what part religion might play. She was concerned about the zeal of some Christians, and how it might turn off Jews. This was her concern, but she had completely written-off Muslims. I thought she might be suffering from a bad case of Islamaphobia. I had never seen her this negative about anyone, as she regurgitated what she had been told about Muslims. So I asked her, “Have you ever known any Muslims?” Her answer was an emphatic “No!”
I explained to her that I have known about a dozen Muslims, and that I liked them all. I found them to be respectful, and easy to talk to. I realize that many people who hale from these local parts, may not know any Muslims. I also acknowledge that in any group of people, there are good and bad. The bad Muslims are being sold to the public, so I would like to introduce my Muslim friends.
The first Muslim I ever met was a dental patient who immigrated from Africa with his Peace Corps wife. He had a great sense of humor, was good natured, and deeply spiritual. He reportedly prayed five times a day, and was constantly in and out of different fasts. One day while doing his check-up, I found myself studying his living-out of his faith. I asked if he thought his God, that he called Allah, was the same as my God. His confident response sliced through our discussion, “God is unique!” “There is but one God for us to pray to. He is unique!”
My second Muslim acquaintance, was a man named Mohammad. He rented an apartment from me, for a couple of years, with his two friends, Mohammad and Mohammad. He was very soft spoken, and was never late with their rent. The Mohammads painted some of the rooms, and gave notice when they left. The apartment had never been so easy to keep.
My third association with a Muslim came in the streets of Calcutta, India. I had gone on pilgrimage with about sixteen guys to help Mother Theresa’s Missionaries of Charity. We gathered at the front of a former Jesuit school where we stayed, to make our first journey to the Mother House. A bearded man with a white head wrap approached me. He mistook me as a priest, or the person in-charge. He spoke very good English, and said he was a butcher. I informed him that we were on a spiritual pilgrimage. He smiled, and asked if I knew what was the ultimate question that every person needs to answer?
I guessed, “Do you love God?” Do you love Allah?
“No!”, he countered, and stressed his question again. “What is the question that everyone from Adam, to the two of us standing here on this street in Calcutta, need to answer?”
Absent my answer he gave it: “Who is my Master?”
Why do we do, what we do? Who do we serve? Who is my master? I was challenged in the reality of my faith in the gutter of a Calcutta street, by a Muslim. (Luke 7:9 "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.")
My fourth Muslim acquaintance came out of my favorite place for my morning coffee, 7-11. There was a short guy ,who worked the morning shift. He didn’t talk much, but was very efficient. This was about the same time when hate-Muslim e-mails began to permeate the web. These often inaccurate e-mails irritated me, and I would often voice my complaints in the office. During one of my ventings, my assistant volunteered that she recently had a flat tire in a downpour, on her way to her daughter’s school. She said that a guy stopped, and changed the tire in the pouring rain, and would not take any money. He told her that he worked at the 7-11 and was Muslim. It was my 7-11 coffee maker. (Luke 10:37 He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy". Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise.")
My wife and I attended a continuing education class for our computer system. It was an all day course and the class of about 25 decided that maybe we should send-out for pizza. I volunteered to go, and the guy who was sitting behind us bragging about his kids, offered to accompany me. We were all chipping-in, and he contributed for the lunch. When we returned, I noticed that he did not take any pizza. He told me he was Muslim, and was in the midst of a fast. I offered him his money back. He refused.
A couple years ago I gained three new patients of a husband, wife, and son who moved into the area. The son was a charming, polite kid, who loved to play soccer. In our conversation, I discovered that they were Muslim. With all the anti-Muslim hype, I cautioned the mom as she left from her last appointment, “Be careful!” Her beautiful dark eyes took-on a depth that was pure fear.
Lastly, in the most recent election that I participated in, I was invited to give a stump speech at the Baltimore Islamic Center in West Baltimore. All the politicians were well received. I was amused to see Neo-Cons, who had previously attacked me for being soft on “Islamic fascism”, because I was against Iraq and Afghan war. They were hob-nobbing with this room full of Muslims. One very distinguished doctor from the Center, spoke with clarity and directness. He said we do not want you to change your laws. He spoke with an urgency and seriousness that hinted of accusations that are unfounded. I liked him.
When I returned home from the patriot meeting I found this post on facebook. Hate Comes to Orange County.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM
If we begin attacking Muslims, who will be next?
I explained to her that I have known about a dozen Muslims, and that I liked them all. I found them to be respectful, and easy to talk to. I realize that many people who hale from these local parts, may not know any Muslims. I also acknowledge that in any group of people, there are good and bad. The bad Muslims are being sold to the public, so I would like to introduce my Muslim friends.
The first Muslim I ever met was a dental patient who immigrated from Africa with his Peace Corps wife. He had a great sense of humor, was good natured, and deeply spiritual. He reportedly prayed five times a day, and was constantly in and out of different fasts. One day while doing his check-up, I found myself studying his living-out of his faith. I asked if he thought his God, that he called Allah, was the same as my God. His confident response sliced through our discussion, “God is unique!” “There is but one God for us to pray to. He is unique!”
My second Muslim acquaintance, was a man named Mohammad. He rented an apartment from me, for a couple of years, with his two friends, Mohammad and Mohammad. He was very soft spoken, and was never late with their rent. The Mohammads painted some of the rooms, and gave notice when they left. The apartment had never been so easy to keep.
My third association with a Muslim came in the streets of Calcutta, India. I had gone on pilgrimage with about sixteen guys to help Mother Theresa’s Missionaries of Charity. We gathered at the front of a former Jesuit school where we stayed, to make our first journey to the Mother House. A bearded man with a white head wrap approached me. He mistook me as a priest, or the person in-charge. He spoke very good English, and said he was a butcher. I informed him that we were on a spiritual pilgrimage. He smiled, and asked if I knew what was the ultimate question that every person needs to answer?
I guessed, “Do you love God?” Do you love Allah?
“No!”, he countered, and stressed his question again. “What is the question that everyone from Adam, to the two of us standing here on this street in Calcutta, need to answer?”
Absent my answer he gave it: “Who is my Master?”
Why do we do, what we do? Who do we serve? Who is my master? I was challenged in the reality of my faith in the gutter of a Calcutta street, by a Muslim. (Luke 7:9 "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.")
My fourth Muslim acquaintance came out of my favorite place for my morning coffee, 7-11. There was a short guy ,who worked the morning shift. He didn’t talk much, but was very efficient. This was about the same time when hate-Muslim e-mails began to permeate the web. These often inaccurate e-mails irritated me, and I would often voice my complaints in the office. During one of my ventings, my assistant volunteered that she recently had a flat tire in a downpour, on her way to her daughter’s school. She said that a guy stopped, and changed the tire in the pouring rain, and would not take any money. He told her that he worked at the 7-11 and was Muslim. It was my 7-11 coffee maker. (Luke 10:37 He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy". Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise.")
My wife and I attended a continuing education class for our computer system. It was an all day course and the class of about 25 decided that maybe we should send-out for pizza. I volunteered to go, and the guy who was sitting behind us bragging about his kids, offered to accompany me. We were all chipping-in, and he contributed for the lunch. When we returned, I noticed that he did not take any pizza. He told me he was Muslim, and was in the midst of a fast. I offered him his money back. He refused.
A couple years ago I gained three new patients of a husband, wife, and son who moved into the area. The son was a charming, polite kid, who loved to play soccer. In our conversation, I discovered that they were Muslim. With all the anti-Muslim hype, I cautioned the mom as she left from her last appointment, “Be careful!” Her beautiful dark eyes took-on a depth that was pure fear.
Lastly, in the most recent election that I participated in, I was invited to give a stump speech at the Baltimore Islamic Center in West Baltimore. All the politicians were well received. I was amused to see Neo-Cons, who had previously attacked me for being soft on “Islamic fascism”, because I was against Iraq and Afghan war. They were hob-nobbing with this room full of Muslims. One very distinguished doctor from the Center, spoke with clarity and directness. He said we do not want you to change your laws. He spoke with an urgency and seriousness that hinted of accusations that are unfounded. I liked him.
When I returned home from the patriot meeting I found this post on facebook. Hate Comes to Orange County.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM
If we begin attacking Muslims, who will be next?
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Catholic Action Alert: You Get What You Pay For!
Being a pre-Vatican II Catholic who still treasures the teachings of the Church, I can commiserate with a sense of loss of our culture.
The Catholics in the Archdiocese of Baltimore are about to experience a new low. Senate Bill 116, which redefines marriage, has elicited an Action Alert from Maryland Catholic Conference. The Conference’s alert pleads with everyone to contact your senator, to express your concern for the principles that are the foundation of our families. They also direct people to a letter written on traditional marriage by Archbishop O’Brien, “Irresistible Promise of Happiness”. In his letter written in mid-January, the archbishop clearly articulates the benefits of traditional marriage, and goes on to state, “we can ill afford further efforts to undermine marriage”.
This failure to protect traditional marriage in SB 116 will add insult to injury to traditional Catholic culture when one considers our state’s funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
It is unfortunate that we don’t have a political party or candidates who are against state funding of abortion, and ESCR, and for protection of traditional marriage. Well, we did. The political party is the Constitution Party of Maryland, and their candidate for governor was Eric Knowles.
Maybe the Catholic Conference should have issued an action alert back in November. It could have called the attention of church members that the Constitution Party’s Eric Knowles, was the only ballot access candidate who answered the Catholic Conference’s survey in agreement with our church on all three issues. Maybe the Archbishop should have demanded that his Catholic Review (C.R.) print at least one declarative sentence in their eight page Election Supplement, to acknowledge that Knowles was the only ballot access candidate who agreed on all three: against state funding for abortion and ESCR, and for protecting traditional marriage.
I can only guess that a sentence stating this agreement in these non-negotiable issues may have been deemed to be too political. I am not sure, because the Archbishop has not responded to my written attempts to answer this. With the C.R.’s election supplement giving a full page, plus, on each of the two major candidates for governor, it calls to question the importance the hierarchy actually places on these non-negotiable principles.
Recognizing that the CR’s circulation in 2009 was noted at 120,000, some would think that a sentence stating Knowles’ agreement might go a long way to helping this third party to achieve 1% of the vote for governor, needed to maintain ballot access.
As the Constitution party scrapes to gather 10,000 signatures for ballot access, the old adage; “you get what you pay for” proves true. If you give free print and exposure to candidates who are pro-choice, pro-state funded ESCR, and, or weak on defending traditional marriage, while at the same time ignoring candidates who represent our interest, we loose.
The Catholics in the Archdiocese of Baltimore are about to experience a new low. Senate Bill 116, which redefines marriage, has elicited an Action Alert from Maryland Catholic Conference. The Conference’s alert pleads with everyone to contact your senator, to express your concern for the principles that are the foundation of our families. They also direct people to a letter written on traditional marriage by Archbishop O’Brien, “Irresistible Promise of Happiness”. In his letter written in mid-January, the archbishop clearly articulates the benefits of traditional marriage, and goes on to state, “we can ill afford further efforts to undermine marriage”.
This failure to protect traditional marriage in SB 116 will add insult to injury to traditional Catholic culture when one considers our state’s funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
It is unfortunate that we don’t have a political party or candidates who are against state funding of abortion, and ESCR, and for protection of traditional marriage. Well, we did. The political party is the Constitution Party of Maryland, and their candidate for governor was Eric Knowles.
Maybe the Catholic Conference should have issued an action alert back in November. It could have called the attention of church members that the Constitution Party’s Eric Knowles, was the only ballot access candidate who answered the Catholic Conference’s survey in agreement with our church on all three issues. Maybe the Archbishop should have demanded that his Catholic Review (C.R.) print at least one declarative sentence in their eight page Election Supplement, to acknowledge that Knowles was the only ballot access candidate who agreed on all three: against state funding for abortion and ESCR, and for protecting traditional marriage.
I can only guess that a sentence stating this agreement in these non-negotiable issues may have been deemed to be too political. I am not sure, because the Archbishop has not responded to my written attempts to answer this. With the C.R.’s election supplement giving a full page, plus, on each of the two major candidates for governor, it calls to question the importance the hierarchy actually places on these non-negotiable principles.
Recognizing that the CR’s circulation in 2009 was noted at 120,000, some would think that a sentence stating Knowles’ agreement might go a long way to helping this third party to achieve 1% of the vote for governor, needed to maintain ballot access.
As the Constitution party scrapes to gather 10,000 signatures for ballot access, the old adage; “you get what you pay for” proves true. If you give free print and exposure to candidates who are pro-choice, pro-state funded ESCR, and, or weak on defending traditional marriage, while at the same time ignoring candidates who represent our interest, we loose.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Let Jenkins Do His Job!
I love living in Frederick County! A county that has not forgotten the ultimate responsibility of the local sheriff to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Our republic is based on law that recognizes the ultimate authority vested in this elected officer. We expect him to even interpose his authority between state or federal government agencies, and Frederick County residents, if these agencies would violate the rights of our citizens in our county. I expect Sheriff Jenkins to: protect us from criminals, protect us from the problems with illegal immigration, and protect us from governments that would limit our constitutional rights!
We in Frederick County, are blessed with the best sheriff in Maryland, because he understands this responsibility. He was not appointed by some political lobby. Frederick County residents voted for him, as intended. Deciding who gets a permit to conceal carry, and in a more timely basis, is exactly what our sheriff should do. Make the gun permitting proposal a reality.
We in Frederick County, are blessed with the best sheriff in Maryland, because he understands this responsibility. He was not appointed by some political lobby. Frederick County residents voted for him, as intended. Deciding who gets a permit to conceal carry, and in a more timely basis, is exactly what our sheriff should do. Make the gun permitting proposal a reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)