Carson King Quotes

The less you say, the more your words will matter.

that the book is really good. and theres a prince in it to.

It's not quite as valuable as if it had been written in 1929, when Martin Luther King was born.

How do women all know what to do with babies? It's like they have their own special kind of sorcery.

For love is more beautiful than rubies, sweeter than honey, finer than the king’s wine. And no one has greater love than he who gives his own life for a friend. My love is like perfume poured out—

It's possible I've been through too much, lost too much. War damages different people in different ways; Hector taught me that. King Alejandro became spineless and incapable. His father before him was rash and unpredictable, if I'm to believe court gossip. Perhaps this is my damage. Maybe I am numb to fear because I am broken.

Harsh winds, rough seas, still hearts.

My brother Felix used to say that my knives would never be as sharp as my tongue, which was a shame.

We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity.

Did you bring three personal items, recruit?” he asks. “Yes, my lord!” I say. “What are they?” “Love for my kingdom, love for my king, and love for my queen, my lord!” He pauses for a long time before he nods. “I can work with that,” he says finally. It’s all a Royal Guard, a true Royal Guard, will ever need.

Make no mistake," Enrico says finally. "I never would have accepted your application were it not for the King's order. I expect you will be expelled within the month." His forthrightness makes me bold. "I expect you will be surprised, my lord.

Whenever the church, consciously or unconsciously, caters to one class it loses the spiritual force of the “whoso-ever will, let him come” doctrine, and is in danger of becoming little more than a social club with a thin veneer of religiosity.

The ultimate tragedy of Birmingham was not the brutality of the bad people, but the silence of the good people.

Right now I am thinking of writing another cookbook. All cookbooks have a gimmick, and mine will be that it contains recipes that I have invented and named after famous people. Some of them are: Brisket of Brynner (very lean meat) Carson Casserole (it's got everything on it) Barbecued Walters Marinated Maude Roasted Rhoda King King Curry (it will feed about eight thousand people) Fricassee of Fonzi Pickled Rickles Raquel Relish Leftovers à la Gabors

That is a lovely quilt, recruit," he says. "Thank you, sir." "It's the envy of every little girl in Brisadulce. I saw them sitting on the wall today, staring at that blanket and asking their mothers if they could join the Guard so they could have one just like it. Is that what you want, recruit? You want a Guard full of girls?" "If they can fight well enough to defend the King, sir.

Fernando de Ismelda," Enrico says. "You won the kingdom's archery competition. I gather it was quite a surprise to everyone." "Not to me," the boy says. I decide that I like Fernando de Ismelda.

But America, as I look at you from afar, I wonder whether your moral and spiritual progress has been commensurate with your scientific progress. It seems to me that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress. Your poet Thoreau used to talk about “improved means to an unimproved end.” How often this is true. You have allowed the material means by which you live to outdistance the spiritual ends for which you live. You have allowed your mentality to outrun your morality. You have allowed your civilization to outdistance your culture. Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but through your moral and spiritual genius you have failed to make of it a brotherhood. So America, I would urge you to keep your moral advances abreast with your scientific advances.

It has been my conviction ever since reading Rauschenbusch that any religion that professes concern for the souls of men and is not equally concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion only waiting for the day to be buried. It well has been said: “A religion that ends with the individual, ends.

I often say that if we , as a people, had as much religion in our hearts and souls as we have in our legs and feet, we could change the world. (p.15) It is my opinion that sincerity is not enough for preaching ministry. The minister must be both sincere and intelligent. (p.18)

For Martin, social justice would not “roll in on the wings of inevitability” but would come through struggle and sacrifice. *

if Richard Nixon is not sincere, he is the most dangerous man in America.

And I am not doing any thing that I would not do in front of you.

it gave me a new appreciation for objective appraisal

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.

noncooperation with evil is just as much a moral duty as is cooperation with good. So

Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means,

But I had to look at something else beyond the man—the people who surrounded him—and I felt that Kennedy was surrounded by better people. It was on that basis that I felt that Kennedy would make the best president.

Blended Text You have captured: pinned upon my heart: the wall of my heart is your love with one glance: as one with one bead: as an exile of the kings of royalty of your eyes: my heart you have something of mine: a torn thing again the moon: now the rule: (who knows)

capitalism is always in danger of inspiring men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity.

Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself.

We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice;

When the wind subsided slightly, Shacket brought his radiant gaze back to his visitor. “I am becoming the king of beasts.” Here was the more obvious evidence of insanity that Carson had expected when he’d first entered the room. “King of what beasts?” “This is a world of beasts, Doctor. Human beings are just one of the many in the zoo. I’m becoming king of them all.

Those seven words were spoken with quiet confidence that either confirmed Shacket’s insanity or belied it. Carson was disturbed to find that he could not be sure which. “Whatever happened to you,” Carson said, “whatever you’ve been coronated with—are you communicable?” “So this is why you’re here. Ready to inflame the population with fear of a plague.” Shacket shook his head and looked again at the window. “You’re getting tiresome, Doctor.” “No bacteria, no viruses?” “When a king coughs, does he then infect those around him with royalty?

Finally, we the people exercise power by speaking our minds. Many of the early patriots in our nation had experienced tyranny that prevented them from expressing their opinions. They could not speak against the king or against the established church. They knew that America’s citizens would need to be free to express themselves if they were to rule. Thus they set in place the Constitution’s First Amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression. We’ve preserved this freedom so that our government doesn’t usually try to prevent the people from speaking. Recognizing this achievement, many assert that there is no restriction of speech in the United States and that everyone is completely free to express themselves. Unfortunately, this is a naive claim. Today the political correctness (PC) police are the biggest threat to America’s freedom of speech, and they are doing their best to squelch the opinions of “we the People.” There is not an officially established PC police force, but its members exist in government, throughout the media, in educational institutions, etc. Members of the PC police are those who carefully monitor the speech and behavior of anyone they consider to be a threat to their leftist ideological domination. The PC police do not care that people disagree with them, as long as those people remain silent. But if someone openly disagrees with them, they demonize that person with ridicule and infantile name-calling. This kind of speech policing has created fear in a large portion of our populace, causing them to remain silent rather than face the repercussions of expressing themselves honestly.

The hero's light sprang from his forehead, long and thick as a warrior's whetstone, long as a prow, and he clattered with rage as he wielded the shields, urging his charioteer on and raining stones on the massed army. Then thick, steady, strong, high as the mast of a tall ship was the straight spout of dark blood that rose up from the fount of his skull to dissolve in an otherworldly mist like the smoke that hangs above a royal hunting-lodge when a king comes to be looked after at the close of a winter's day.

People had false expectations of their messianic king, and they did not anticipate the coronation of their king coming through a cross. Whenever we think about this upside-down, paradoxical kingliness of Jesus, who is majestic and meek, holy and humble, we desire the same royalty that creates our hearts to be both lamb-like and lionhearted, and courageous and compassionate at the same time.

What we will have to show before the great King on the last day will be infinitely more important to us than what we leave behind here.

Before you died you were soldiers of the King, now you are predators of the Devil.” ~ Lorelei from the book Das Herz: Buch Eins

At one level, this is a simple story of God's faithfulness in the little things of life, at a time of social malaise, religious declension, political confusion, and frequent anarchy. God still has his people-working hard, acting honorably, marrying, bearing children, looking after the elderly They could not know that Obed's was the line that would sire King David-and, according to the flesh, King Jesus.

But although he does not tell his readers that they do not have the Spirit, what he does say is shocking: “Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual [i.e., as those with the Spirit]” (3:1, emphasis added). Instead, Paul had to address them “as worldly.” The Greek word behind “worldly” is sarkinos, literally “fleshly.” (The word Paul regularly uses for “flesh” is sarx.) The Latin equivalent of “fleshly,” rendered into English, is “carnal,” the word used in the King James Version. And that is how we have come to speak of the “carnal Christian.” There is no doubt there is such a thing. But what is a “carnal Christian,” a “worldly Christian”? It will help us to see what Paul means if we take four steps.

I don’t care about any of this, just that King Alejandro is ugly.

Thank you,” she says. “But you are a terrible liar, and I think you always will be.

that he himself is the messianic bridegroom, and that in his immediate presence the proper response is joy. The kingdom was dawning; the king was already present; the day of promised blessings was breaking out. This was not a time for mourning, signaled by fasting.

Those who know their Bibles well know that Jesus is more than king of the Jews: he is king over all, he is Lord over all. Matthew himself makes this clear in his closing verses. This side of the resurrection, Jesus declares that all authority in heaven and on earth is his (28:18); his authority is none less than the authority of God. He is king of the universe. He is king over the soldiers who mock him. He is king over you and me. And one day, Paul assures us, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. The man who is mocked as king—is the king.

The kings and rulers and presidents of this fallen world order exercise their authority out of a deep sense of self-promotion, out of a deep sense of wanting to be number one, out of a deep sense of self-preservation, even out of a deep sense of entitlement. By contrast, Jesus exercises his authority in such a way as to seek the good of his subjects, and that takes him, finally, to the cross.

Living as we do on this side of the cross, it is easy for us to be a bit condescending about Peter's reaction and rebuke of the Master (8:32). From Peter's perspective, Jesus simply had to be wrong on this subject. After all, messiahs don't get killed: they win. And how could a God-anointed, miracle-working Messiah like Jesus lose? Peter was wrong, of course, profoundly wrong. For even the disciples had not yet grasped that Jesus the Messiah was simultaneously conquering King and Suffering Servant.

He saw himself not only as the rightful messianic king in the line of David, but also as the suffering servant who would be wounded for our transgressions. He knew he was not only the atoning sacrifice but also the priest who offered the sacrifice. He was not only the obedient Son who discharged the mission his Father assigned him, but also the eternal Word made flesh who disclosed the Father perfectly to a generation of rebellious image-bearers.

How wonderful! The King of the universe, the Sovereign who has endured our endless rebellion and sought us out at the cost of his Son’s death, climaxes our redemption by praising us!

Isaiah 41, then, makes two important points. First, God alone is the One who summons nations before him, controlling their destinies, calling on them to accomplish his will—and this includes Cyrus, whom God has “stirred up” for the tasks allotted him. Where is the evidence of this bold claim? It is found in the fact that God predicts the entire sequence of developments a century and a half in advance (41:21-29). This is something the pagan idols could not possibly do. “See, they are all false! Their deeds amount to nothing; their images are but wind and confusion” (41:29). Such predictions are the exclusive domain of “Jacob’s King

Nevertheless Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes 45:6-7 to prove Jesus’ essential superiority over mere angels. Only the Son is directly addressed as “God.” Why does the writer of Hebrews feel he can use Psalm 45 in this way? The surrounding verses show he has reflected long and hard on several passages and themes: 2 Samuel 7 (see vol. 1, meditation for September 12), which promises an eternal Davidic dynasty; several passages that link the Davidic king to God as his “son” (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 2—on which see meditation for August 4); an entire pattern or “typology” in which David is understood to be a shadow, a type, an adumbration of a still greater “David” to come. If Scripture (and thus God) addresses an early Davidic monarch as “God,” how much more deserving of this title is the ultimate David?

This exactly mirrors God’s situation. In theory he could righteously dismiss his “bride” and forget about her. Instead, he is committed to getting her back, to paying whatever is necessary to do so—but he also expects his bride, newly returned, to be faithful to him. God still loves his elect. He will pursue them, even after the most horrible rebellion and chastening, and he will buy them back. Indeed, the last verses of chapter 3 envisage an exile which on the long haul will do good: it will establish a time when the remnant will truly “seek the LORD their God and David their king” (3:5).

For King, the essence of democracy is the belief that each person is created in the image of God. “We will know one day that God made us to live together as brothers and to respect the dignity and worth of every man,” he affirms.

Certain it is that the boys disappeared. Whatever happened to them, Richard’s fatal mistake lay in failing to realize that their disappearance would be used by the Morton-Beaufort-Tudor axis as an opportunity to manoeuvre the unlikely Henry Tudor to centre stage as a challenger for the throne. Regrettably, Richard appears not to have taken sufficient regard of this threat. Thus he would not have foreseen that removing them from view, even if done for the most benign of reasons, would play right into the hands of his opponents.

The purpose and indeed the strength of the Richard III Society derives from the belief that the truth is more powerful than lies – a faith that even after all these centuries the truth is important. It is proof of our sense of civilised values that something as esoteric and as fragile as a reputation is worth campaigning for.’ HRH The Duke of Gloucester, KG, GCVO, Patron

Richard’s Parliament, which concluded on 20 February, is remembered for introducing a catalogue of citizens’ rights and protections which was unparalleled in living memory. Jeremy Potter summarizes thus: There was a programme of law reform which included measures to correct injustice in the ownership and transfer of land, measures to safeguard the individual against abuses of the law in matters affecting juries and bail, measures to prevent the seizure of goods of those arrested but not yet found guilty, and the abolition of a much resented form of taxation known euphemistically as benevolences.

And the night that Chris Rock said, “Any time you find yourself on Martin Luther King Boulevard, get off.

Indeed, these rebels knew exactly what they were doing by timing their uprising so as to prevent the upcoming sitting of Parliament scheduled for November 1483. They knew the grounds for Edward V’s disinheritance had been examined and accepted by an overwhelming majority of parliamentary representatives the previous June, and they could expect a formal Parliament to endorse that decision: their overriding concern was to set aside not just Richard III, but the constitutional framework that had set him on the throne.

The story of Henry Tudor’s invasion, his landing in Wales, his march to Bosworth Field, and the betrayal of Richard III by a small group of faithless nobles, is recorded to England’s shame in the annals of history. Doubtless Richard contributed to his own defeat by engaging the enemy before his army was at full strength. Even so, his attempt to settle the matter in ancient chivalric style, hand to hand with the pretender, was close to success until forces at his flank cut him down within sight of his objective – and within sight of winning the day, for there is no question as to who would have emerged the victor had it come to mortal combat.

What stirred the southern gentry in October 1483 was not an outburst of moral outrage but the justified belief that they were losing power and influence to intruding northerners.

ONE OF THE FEATURES OF THE PSALMS that describe the enthronement of a Davidic king, or the reign of a Davidic king, is how often the language goes "over the top." This feature combines with the built-in Davidic typology to give these psalms a twin focus. On the one hand, they can be read as somewhat extravagant descriptions of one of the Davidic kings (in this case Solomon, according to the superscription); on the other, they invite the reader to anticipate something more than a David or a Solomon or a Josiah.

In one of his essays William Placher comments on a time when the theological use of the Bible presupposed a deep knowledge of what the Bible says.1 The example he serves up is from the final pages of Calvin’s Institutes, where the Reformer thinks through the issue of what Christians should do if they find themselves under a wicked ruler. Placher notes that Calvin reflects on Daniel and Ezekiel regarding the need to obey even bad rulers; he weighs the command to serve the king of Babylon in Jeremiah 27. He quotes from the Psalms, and he cites Isaiah to the effect that the faithful are urged to trust in God to overcome the unrighteous. On the other hand, he evenhandedly notes episodes in Exodus and Judges “where people serve God by overthrowing the evil rulers,” and texts in 1 Kings and Hosea where God’s people are criticized for being obedient to wicked kings. He cites Peter’s conclusion before Gamaliel, according to Acts: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). From these and other biblical passages, he proceeds to weave nuanced conclusions. We should disobey what governement mandates if it violates our religious obligations. By contrast, Christians should not normally go around starting revolutions. But those who are in positions of authority should deploy that authority to deal with those who exploit others. Even violent revolutionaries may in mysterious ways perform the will of God, though of course they may be called to judgment on account of their evil. Placher then comments: My point is not to defend all of Calvin’s conclusions, or even all of his method, but simply to illustrate how immersion in biblical texts can produce a very complex way of reflecting within a framework of biblical authority, compared to which most contemporary examples look pretty simple-minded. We can’t “appeal to the Bible” in a way that’s either helpful or faithful without beginning to do theology. Theology begins to put together a way of looking as a Christian at the world in all its variety, a language that we share as Christians and that provides a context rich enough for discussing the complexities of our lives. Absent such a shared framework, we can quote passages at each other, but the only contexts in which we can operate come from the discourses of politics and popular culture.2

At time of writing, the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, set up by the Clinton Administration,61 is due to prescribe what students in grades five through twelve are supposed to know about American history. Not a single one of the thirty-one standards set up mentions the Constitution. Paul Revere is unmentioned; the Gettysburg address is briefly mentioned once. On the other hand, the early feminist Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments receives nine notices. Joseph McCarthy is mentioned nineteen times; there is no mention of the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Robert E. Lee; Harriet Tubman receives six notices. The Ku Klux Klan is mentioned seventeen times; the American Federation of Labor comes up with nine appearances. The role of religion, especially Christianity, in the founding and building of the nation is totally ignored; the grandeur of the court of Mansa Musa (King of Mali in fifteenth-century Africa) is praised, and recommended as a topic for further study.62 Such standards are linked in the minds of many with “outcome-based-education” (OBE). If the “outcomes” were well balanced and not less than thoroughly cognitive (though hopefully more than cognitive), there would be few objections. But OBE has become a lightening-rod issue precisely because in the hands of many it explicitly minimizes cognitive tests and competency skills, while focusing much more attention on attitudes, group conformity, and the like. In other words, granred the postmodernism that grips many educational theorists and the political correctness that shapes their values, this begins to look like one more experiment in social engineering.

Clearly Jesus read the Old Testament in an integrated way, with himself at the center of it. From the New Testament records written by Jesus’ immediate disciples and heirs, we can gain a pretty comprehensive glimpse of his self-understanding in this regard. He saw himself not only as the rightful messianic king in the line of David, but also as the suffering servant who would be wounded for our transgressions. He knew he was not only the atoning sacrifice but also the priest who offered the sacrifice. He was not only the obedient Son who discharged the mission his Father assigned him, but also the eternal Word made flesh who disclosed the Father perfectly to a generation of rebellious image-bearers. And so much more. And all of these things we should see, too, and bow in solemn, joyful worship.

a $55,000 check from the Johnny Carson Foundation had recently landed in their PO box, accompanied by a note from the King of Late Night himself: “It is important to help the area kids to have the same advantages and education that larger cities’ kids already have and also help the rural area.

Idolatry is the thing that will always get in the way of and ultimately destroy your relationship with God, your heavenly father.

Those whom the Lord uses will have to be willing to be misunderstood and persecuted by people who have historically meant a great deal to them.

Studies have consistently revealed that a lot of people who attend church do not really have a personal relationship with God. My friend, that is a staggering revelation, and the implications for the church are far-reaching!

in Hebrews 1:5, Jesus is superior to the angels not only because Old Testament texts and their trajectories point to him as the long-promised Davidic king whose rule extends to the whole world and brings in the consummation, but also because he is not just David’s heir and thus the Son of God by virtue of being the Davidic king, but he is also the Son of God by virtue of his preexistence and unqualified divine status. No angel can match him on either score.