WHO SAYS CHRISTIANS AREN'T ALLOWED TO JUDGE?

http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/12/jesus-wants-you-to-judge/

Jesus wants you to judge

I’ve always been a pretty big fan of the Ten Commandments. My favorites is the one that says “Thou shalt not judge.”

Oh, that one isn’t in there, you say?

Sorry, it’s easy to forget nowadays, especially in this country where many Christians carry on as though the entire Bible could be summed up by the phrase, “it’s all good, bro.”

In actual fact, there are a lot of urgent truths and important moral lessons in the Bible. Interestingly, almost all of them have fallen out of favor in modern American society. Here are just a few verses that aren’t particularly trendy or popular nowadays:

(WARNING: Politically incorrect truths ahead)

“Whoever harms one of these little ones that believes in me, it would be better for him if a millstone where tied around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the ocean.”

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

“But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.”

Strange as it may seem, enlightened, progressive Christians rarely attempt to wrestle Ephesians 5 or 2 Thessalonians 3 into a conversation. Yet, while the bulk of the Bible has ended up on our civilization’s cutting room floor, the warnings about “judging” are quoted and repeated incessantly, by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Apparently, the rest of the Book is outdated, outmoded, antiquated and fabricated, but the verses about judging — that stuff is gold, man.

Here’s a fun experiment: post something on your Facebook condemning any sin — not sinner, but sin. Maybe write a few paragraphs about why we shouldn’t kill babies, or why marriage is sacred. Write something defending truth. Write something combating popular cultural lies about morality. Write something where you call out an act — not a person — an act, and then sit back and wait for the responses. Statistically speaking, it will take only 4.7 seconds before a self identified Christian rushes in to insist that you must never speak out against any evil, ever, for any reason, lest you be guilty of “judging.”

And then the “no judging” chorus will begin:

“We’re not allowed to judge.”

“Christians shouldn’t judge.”

“Jesus said to never judge.”

“You’re not a real Christian because you are judging.”

“You’re judging so I’m going to judge you and tell you that you’re a piece of garbage because you judge so much!”

“Judger! You’re a big fat judge-face, all you do is judge all day like a judging judge McJudgePants!”

And so on.

Now, here’s the thing: they’re right — well, almost. Unfortunately, they left out an important word. It’s not that we shouldn’t judge at all — it’s that we shouldn’t judge WRONGLY. The idea that we shouldn’t judge at all is 1) absurd, 2) impossible, 3) very much at odds with every moral edict in all of Scripture. It’s also hypocritical, because telling someone not to judge is, in and of itself, a judgement. Any time you start a sentence with “you shouldn’t,” whatever comes next will constitute a judgement of some kind. Saying, “you shouldn’t judge,” is like saying, “there are no absolutes.”

Translation: you shouldn’t judge… except when judging people for judging. There are no absolutes… except the absolute that there aren’t any absolutes.

Yet, have you ever noticed that these “Don’t Judge” folks are nowhere to be found when the conversation turns to the Westboro Baptists, or domestic abusers, or the Nazis, or Republicans? I guarantee I could write a post condemning gay marriage opponents as bigots and homophobes and not a one of these pragmatists would swoop in to tell me not to “judge.”

Behind the Bible, my second favorite book is the dictionary. Let’s consult it, shall we?

Judge: To form an opinion of; decide upon; settle; to infer, think, hold as an opinion.

When you tell someone not to judge, you’re telling them to stop deciding things, to stop forming opinions, to stop thinking, and to stop inferring. Brilliant bit of philosophy, Plato. “Stop thinking and deciding!” Do you really think Jesus meant THAT when he told us not to judge? Well, I guess you can’t think about it one way or another if you’re adhering to this whole “never judge” schtick.

I know we live in a sound bite culture. Everything has to be condensed down to 14 syllables or less, and every concept must be communicated in under 12 seconds. Entire elections are decided this way. And while this strategy doesn’t work well in the democratic system, it’s an absolute catastrophic heretical disaster if you try to utilize it in the realm of theology. Yes, Jesus said “Judge not,” but you have to read the rest of that passage, and then the rest of the Book to put those two words into context. Once you’ve done that, you’ll understand that what He meant is precisely the opposite of how it is translated by modern cowards who are looking for any excuse to shrink away from the task of standing up against our culture and its many lies.

We must judge. We must exercise judgement. We must be discerning and decisive. We must expose evil and identify sin. Only we must do it righteously and truly. Judge, but judge rightly. That’s the point. We are to judge the sin, not the sinner. People seem to love the latter part of that phrase, and then selectively forget the first portion.

We can not condemn a man to hell. We can not see inside his soul. This is an important point, but it doesn’t mean we can’t speak harshly about the atrocities of a particular individual. If a guy commits adultery, I’ll call him an adulterer. That’s not an insult or an evaluation of his soul; it’s a true and accurate judgement based on the fruits he has produced. If a guy steals, he is a thief. If he murders, he is a murderer. If he commits tyrannies, he is a tyrant.

Jesus stopped a bloodthirsty mob from stoning a woman to death for adultery. Famously, he said “let he without sin cast the first stone.” This profound Biblical event has since been contorted to mean that nobody can condemn any (popular) sin, or speak out against any (popular) evil, because nobody is perfect.

Nonsense.

Jesus wasn’t telling the crowd to chill out and be cool with infidelity; he was telling them that they don’t have the authority to pass final judgement on another human being for their moral shortcomings. In the immediate sense, he was also stopping them from brutally killing a woman. This can not be construed into him strolling in with a shrug and saying, “Hey, live and let live, dudes.” In fact, after he forgave the woman’s sin, he commanded her to “sin no more.”

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That doesn’t mean that we must be without sin before we can call a sin a sin. Just because we make a judgment does not mean we are throwing rocks at a helpless woman. Sometimes, it means we are shedding light into a terrifying darkness.

Remember, this is the same Jesus who told us to separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the wolves; the Jesus who called his opponents “snakes” and “vipers”; the Jesus who made a whip and violently drove the money changers out of the temple; the Jesus who said he came to bring a sword and drive a wedge between families.

He was loving and peaceful, but He was also manly, strong, courageous, outspoken, decisive, and commanding. He wasn’t a hippy. He was, and is, a King and a Warrior. Our culture has an agenda, and the agenda has nothing to do with following Christ or His precepts. Flimsy modern weaklings have taken the “don’t judge” concept out of context — twisted it, perverted it, and used it as an excuse to sit silently while all manner of unspeakable evils happen in their midst.

They’ve tried to turn Christianity into a religion of apathy and permissiveness. I certainly make judgments about their slander of my faith. I judge it to be sacrilegious, evil, and despicable.

And I judge it rightly.

So, don’t judge? Wrong. Judge. We must judge. The Bible exists, in large part, to shape our judgement and to tell us how to judge. We must teach our kids to have good and moral judgement. We must equip them with the spiritual tools to exercise it publicly, without fear. We must show them how to be discerning, critical thinkers.

You can not raise your children without judgement; you can’t function as a civilized human being without judgement; and you certainly can’t be an obedient Christian without judgment.

I am a sinful person. If you would ever consider accepting and celebrating my sins for the sake of being “non-judgmental,” please do me a favor and stop doing me that favor. I don’t want to be made comfortable and confident in my wrongdoing.

I’d rather have you hurt my feelings as you help me get to Heaven, than protect my feelings as you usher me right along to Hell.

************

Find me on Facebook.

Like this:

Like Loading...

Obama has nominated former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be our new Secretary of Defense. Yeah. I know what you’re thinking: YAWN. I’m right there with you. After all, our foreign policy has been an unmitigated catastrophe for many years and I doubt that it will change as long as these bumbling Botoxed Dr. Evils are running the show. Still, I’m contractually obligated to care about this stuff so bear with me as I give it a shot.

 

The Hagel pick is being called “controversial”. Shocking, I realize. Our lives are apparently so empty and miserable that we have to make everything into a controversy just to give us something to talk about. In fact I think our obsession with controversy is, itself, becoming rather controversial. Let’s argue about that for a few days. So why has Chuck Hagel become the latest Outrage Du Jour? Well evidently he has been pretty harsh towards Israel. And by “harsh towards Israel” I mean he was once walking across the street with Prime Minister Netanyahu after a rain storm and he didn’t lay down prostrate in a puddle so that Netanyahu could walk on top of him so as to avoid getting his sainted feet wet. That’s all it takes to be labeled “Anti-Israel” nowadays. 

 

Here are Hagel’s actual “controversial” remarks that have been enough to make him a 21st century Hitler: “I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator.” GASP! SHOCK! OUTRAGE! ANTI-SEMITE! On another occasion he hatefully growled, “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” SCANDAL! HATE CRIME! ARREST THIS MAN! Ironically, the reaction to his “Jewish lobby” comment actually proves his point rather effectively. And what exactly is the problem with what he said? Are we now denying that a Jewish lobby exists? There’s a lobby for everyone and everything. There’s a Christian lobby, a Muslim lobby, a gay lobby, an old people lobby, even all the buildings have lobbies. Lobbies, aside from the architectural structures, are in the business of intimidating. And bribing. And buying. It’s what they all do. But any time a politician has the gumption to point it out the peanut gallery has him tossed out the swinging doors like a drunk guy in an old western movie. We’re ridiculous. All of us. What the hell is wrong with us? We punish people for making truthful statements and then turn around and whine, “Why won’t anyone tell the truth!” Because they don’t want to be tarred and feathered by a violent mob of self-contradicting nitwits, that’s why. Only people who have never told the truth into a microphone don’t understand why people are hesitant to tell the truth into a microphone.

 

It’s astoundingly stupid that anyone would attack Hagel for simply stating that he’s not an Israeli senator and his primary loyalty is to the United States. Shouldn’t they all say that? Is there a man or woman in the Senate who actually disagrees with his sentiment? If so, kindly point them out so they can be arrested for treason. Because that’s what it is, isn’t it, when you put the interests of a foreign government over that of your constituents? Senator Lindsey Graham, a profoundly idiotic man who looks like Matt Stone turned my grandmother into a South Park cartoon, called the Hagel selection an “in-your-face nomination”. Lindsey, I could see you running the morning shift at Joann Fabrics, but every time I’m reminded that people have actually voted you into the United States Senate, I weep inside. Please shut up. And I only ask you to shut up because you are a blabbering dolt and a dangerous Neocon degenerate, bless your heart.

 

It makes zero sense for United States citizens to be ideologues when it comes to Israel. I’m not “for” or “against” them. I don’t get into this mindless game of developing a “position” on an entire country. What’s next? Are we going to kill each other to defend the honor of our favorite color? It’s hard enough dealing with our own corrupt government, it’s almost impossible to do it on an international scale. Because that’s what we’re talking about, by the way. When you say “I support Israel” you are saying “I support the Israeli government”. You might claim you support their people and not their government, but the 3 billion dollars a year, the diplomatic favors, the military assistance, all of that goes to the government. How could so many conservatives who are so rightly skeptical of OUR government have such a childish love for a FOREIGN government? I don’t support the Israeli government. I don’t support our government. And that’s not because I’m anti-this or pro-that, it’s simply because I’m paying attention. Beyond that, I “support” all people all over the world. I wish them all nothing but the best. If it were possible I’d join hands with everyone and sing songs about sharing and love and happiness. But it’s not so instead I’ll just send out my good vibrations, as Shakespeare (or maybe it was the Beach Boys?) said, and carry about my business as a citizen of one country and only one country. 

 

I’m not a Chuck Hagel expert. Surprisingly, I’ve never had much of a need in my life to know or care about some guy named Chuck from Nebraska. Maybe there’s a good reason to oppose him. Maybe he skins puppies like Cruella Deville. Maybe he drinks from public water fountains with his mouth directly on the nozzle. Maybe he’s the worst person in the history of this week. But if his only crime is refusing to buy Netanyahu a friendship bracelet and invite him for a sleepover, I’ve got no problem with the guy. 

 

But I do have a problem with the fools who would call you a Neo-Nazi because you’d rather that three billion a year stay in American households rather than Israeli politicians’ wallets.

 

IN A NUTSHELL VIA DUCK COMMANDER, PHIL ROBERTSON

Time to Duck Dynasty Barack Obama out of the White House

http://m.teaparty.org/corsi-time-duck-dynasty-barack-obama-white-house-32330/

(By Dr. Jerome R. Corsi) – Amazing. Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty took on the politically correct LGBT movement and for the first time the LGBT movement blinked.

“In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments,” the media watchdog organization’s vice president of communications Rich Ferraro told the Wrap.com, a Hollywood-oriented blog.

Tea Party loyalists might be willing to emulate Pope Francis and love those involved in the LGBT lifestyle even if cannot love the LGBT lifestyle.

What Tea Party loyalists cannot accept is the loss of our religious freedom or the silencing of our ability to express our political and religious views honestly.

Finally, the Duck Dynasty has exposed the LGBT bullies for their fascist intolerance.

Clearly, the Robertson and the Duck Dynasty have struck a nerve in America.

We are fed up with being told by the politically correct elite what we are supposed to think.

Tea Party loyalists, unlike much of the politically correct elite that control government in Washington, the mainstream media in New York, and the entertainment industry in California continue to value the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers granted us.

Let’s face it: All the politically correct elites serve us are lies. “If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance. Period.” Obama told this lie knowing it was a lie, just so he could sell his plan to socialize medicine in America to an unsuspecting public.

The truth is that the Tea Party stands for the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental freedoms defined in the Bill of Rights, belief in God and the Bible, and traditional family values.

• We are tired of losing First Amendment freedom of speech and religion to an aggressively radical leftist LGBT lobby that offends our sensibilities and flaunts the Biblical teaching marriage is a sacred institution that natural right establishes as a union between one man and one woman.
• We are tired of losing Second Amendment gun rights by an elite president and his leftist cronies in Congress who exploit school shooting to take our guns away, when the truth is that establishing “gun-free zones” in schools only works in the advantage of troubled children, while most school shooters turn out to be high on pharmaceutical drugs prescribed by some school quack psychologist or psychologist on the pretext the child has a mental or behavior problem.
• We are tired of losing our Fourth Amendment rights to an Obama “Big Brother” surveillance state running a NSA that asserts the right to listen in, record, and archive every telephone conversation in the United States, while a parade of national security agents appears before Congress to peddle the lie the NSA is only monitoring only “metadata.”

In short, we are tired of being told we are stupid for reading and believing the Bible, naïve for revering the structure of government and the freedoms we were granted in our founding documents, and unsophisticated because we cannot get our minds around that LGBT sexual behaviors should be given Constitutional protection

Finally, Christian America is beginning to wake up, realizing the extent to which the goal of the politically correct elites in America is to fabricate a character like Barrack Hussein Obama, with a fictitious past that cannot be documented but is worthy of the smoke-and-mirror artists in the CIA, political persuasions that emulate Marx and Mao, and questionable preferences that want to equate LGBT sexual behaviors with marriage, procreation, and raising children as taught by the Bible.

Obama violates the Constitution repeatedly, but if we object or call for his impeachment, we are the ones vilified by the politically correct jackals in New York, Washington, and California.

We need to demand the immediate impeachment of Barack Obama. We can follow up by demanding the repeal of Obamacare, a law passed without a single GOP vote in Congress.

This week is Christmas and it is time not only to put Christ back in Christmas but also Duck Dynasty Barack Obama out of the White House.

Please join me in making our voices heard loud and clear in the White House and the halls of Congress:

• Defund Obamacare Now!

• Say No to Amnesty!

• Start Obama Impeachment Proceedings in the House!

The tide has turned now that the American people realize Barack Obama callously lies to the American people because he has to hide the selective enforcement of laws as passed by Congress.  Now it is the time to begin impeachment proceedings in the House with the goal of removing Barack Obama from the presidency before even more damage is done to the Constitution!

Washington needs to know that Tea Party Loyalists intend to win – either now by impeaching Barack Obama, or at the ballot box in November 2014, and again in November 2016. 

Dr. Jerome Corsi

Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Political Science in 1972. He is the author of two No. 1 New York Times nonfiction bestsellers, “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry” (with co-author John O’Neill) and “The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.” In the past 5 years, Dr. Corsi has written 5 New York Times Bestselling non-fiction books. Dr. Corsi is the Senior Commentator for TeaParty.org.

DEFENSE BILL RAMMED THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE MAINSTREAM

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/193717-senate-passes-defense-bill

Senate passes $607B Defense bill

By Jeremy Herb and Ramsey Cox    

THE HILL

The Senate on Thursday evening passed the $607 billion Defense authorization bill that will reform the way the military handles sexual assault cases and loosen the restriction on transferring Guantánamo Bay detainees to foreign countries.

The Senate sent the bill to the president’s desk for the 52nd straight year in a 84-15 vote, after some legislative maneuvering was needed to extend the streak and quickly get a compromise bill through both chambers this month.

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans joined most Democrats in voting for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes $527 billion in base defense spending and $80 billion for the war in Afghanistan.

Twelve Republicans and three Democrats voted against the legislation, including Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and potential 2016 hopefuls Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

On Wednesday, the Senate voted 71-29 to end debate on the bill, showing there was bipartisan support for the last-minute defense deal negotiated by House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders. But Some Republicans still insisted on dragging out the clock for debate as a protest for rushing the process and changing filibuster rules.

Armed Services leaders said the Defense bill had to be completed before the end of the year because it has a number of expiring provisions, such as special pay bonuses for troops. They argued the bill would not get a vote in a crowded calendar next year.

They argued the bill could not be altered because the House adjourned last week. The lower chamber passed the compromise Defense bill 350-69 in the final House vote of the year.

“Because the House has already left for the year, the only way we’re going to get a Defense bill enacted is passing the bill in front of us,” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said Thursday. “The bill before us is right for our troops and their families.

“This is not the ideal way to pass a defense bill … [but] this is the best we can do,” he added.

Lawmakers had wanted amendments to the Defense bill on issues including Iran sanctions, military sexual assault, the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs and now the provision in the budget deal cutting military retiree benefits.

Republicans blamed Reid for jamming the bill through the Senate.

“Why is it that [the Majority Leader is] blocking a vote on a relative amendment?” said Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas.). He tried to table Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) amendments, but his motion failed in a 45-55 party-line vote.

The Senate took up the Defense bill before Thanksgiving, and had two amendment votes dealing with Guantánamo Bay detainees. After those votes, a dispute over amendments halted any more action in the Senate, and Republicans filibustered a vote to end debate.

Over the recess, the “big four” leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee hashed out a final Defense bill, merging the bill that passed the House with the measure that cleared the Senate Armed Services panel.

Republicans in the Senate were angry with Reid for preventing them from offering amendments, but 16 still went along with Democrats Wednesday to move forward on the bill without any changes.

“We’re getting sick and tired of the dictatorial way that the United States Senate is being run,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the most vocal backers of passing the Defense bill this year.

"By not even fully debating and amending this bill, you are doing a disservice to the men and women serving this nation,” McCain said.

Armed Services leaders acknowledged that the December time-crunch in the Senate over the Defense bill could have been avoided had Reid put the measure on the floor earlier in the year. Levin said he would lobby the majority leader to bring the bill to the floor earlier in 2014.

“That’s always true,” Levin said of seeking earlier votes on the Defense bill. “He knows I want to try to get the bill up earlier, he knew that obviously [this year], but he’s got a lot of things on his schedule.”

The final bill included many new reforms to how the military prosecutes sexual assault and treats victims. The bill strips commanders’ ability to overturn guilty verdicts, changes the military’s pre-trial rules for interviewing victims, expands a special victims counsel for sexual assault survivors and makes retaliating against victims a crime.

The bill does not, however, include a controversial proposal from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to take sexual assault cases from the chain of command. Before Thanksgiving, Republicans blocked Reid’s attempt to hold votes on Gillibrand’s amendment and a competing measure from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

The Gillibrand and McCaskill proposals are expected to get votes as standalone legislation early next year.

While the budget deal that passed the Senate Wednesday will ease the sequester burden on the Pentagon in 2014, the Defense bill spending is still $32 billion above the defense spending caps in the budget agreement.

The sweeping Pentagon policy bill will somewhat ease the restrictions on transferring Guantánamo Bay detainees to foreign countries, a compromise reached between the two chambers during the informal conference committee.

The bill also allows the annual raise for service members to be lowered to one percent in 2014, by not taking a position on it. The House-passed bill had included a 1.8 percent raise.

Congress blocked a number of cost-cutting proposals the Pentagon had requested, including a new round of base closures or increases to TRICARE, the military’s health program.

The Defense bill also prevents the Air Force from retiring its Global Hawk Block 30 drones and the A-10 “Warthog” fleet.

BILL OF RIGHTS, REVISITED

The Bill of No Rights

http://www.political-humor.org/no-rights.shtml

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some commonsense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other bed-wetters.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dumb that they require a Bill of No Rights.

 

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don’t have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don’t have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness — which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.”

 

If you agree, we strongly urge you to forward this to as many people as you can. No, you don’t have to, and nothing tragic will befall you should you not forward it. We just think it is about time common sense is allowed to flourish — call it the age of reason revisited.

The Bill of No Rights

Rating: 8.7/10 (3 votes cast)

The Bill of No Rights, 8.7 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Florida Judge Orders Homeschool Children to Attend Public School

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/florida-judge-orders-homeschool-children-to-attend-public-school/

Health Impact News Editor

The right for parents to educate their children as they desire is under attack. As we have reported previously, homeschooling is growing seven times faster than public schooling, and the U.S. government is progressively taking actions to restrict it. Parents are increasingly keeping their children at home to educate them, avoiding government intrusion into their family lives, which includes mandatory vaccinations, toxic school meals, and questionable educational materials among other things.

Having access to the nation’s children is an economic necessity for the distribution of vaccines and government subsidized food provided to the schools. As public school enrollments decrease, it causes economic hardship on pharmaceutical companies and large commodity processed food corporations.

Prejudice against homeschooled children is still prevalent, as can be seen in this recent case in Florida, where a judge ordered homeschooled children to attend public school. The children had been appointed a guardian by the court in a visitation dispute between their divorced parents. While neither parent had any issues with the children being educated at home, the guardian and judge acted independently and decided for themselves what they deemed best for the children, and ordered them to start attending a public school, even though both parents were committed to raising them Catholic.

Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the children. Here is HSLDA’s report from their website:

The mother and father have been fighting over visitation for years, and a scheduled hearing last summer seemed to be just the latest skirmish in the war. A court-appointed psychologist testified that the children were all doing well academically. But at the hearing, the guardian ad litem—appointed by the court to represent the children’s best interest—testified that her “gut reaction” was that the children should be in public school for socialization. The guardian also used the mother’s “ultra Catholic” beliefs as evidence against homeschooling, even though the divorce agreement had mandated that the children be raised Catholic.

Without warning, the judge used the hearing not just to rule on the visitation schedule, but also to order the kids into public school, even though the father had not made education an issue before the hearing. The judge lectured the mother, “When are they going to socialize? Is homeschool going to continue through college and/or professional schooling? At which point are these children going to interact with other children, and isn’t that in their best interest?” With that, the judge changed a long-standing court order permitting homeschooling and ordered the children into the local school.

HSLDA filed a brief arguing that the family should be allowed to continue homeschooling. In our amicus brief, we contended that if the mother had received warning that homeschooling would be at issue, she could have presented a substantial body of evidence that homeschoolers are well-socialized. We pointed to a number of academic studies that show homeschool graduates to be successful college students and adults.

“It is truly unfortunate that after decades of homeschooling, parents are still fighting a battle against ignorance and ‘What about socialization?’” said Jim Mason, HSLDA’s litigation counsel. (Full article here.)

Will We See More Forced Education to Support “Common Core”?

HSLDA is also producing a documentary on the federal Common Core program. Here is the trailer:

From HSLDA:

What is Common Core?

Common Core proponents offer upbeat descriptions of utopian educational goals along with detailed practical lists of what students should know and be able to do in grades K–12 in mathematics and English language arts. But those goals and standards are just two facets of the conglomeration of federal funding, preschool–workforce invasive student tracking, and one-size-fits-all computer-based learning that has become the Common Core.

We’ve taken a closer look at how the Common Core got started, who’s behind it, and what it will mean to homeschoolers.

Learn more.

See Also:

U.S. Supreme Court Orders Obama Administration to Explain Why They Want to Deport German Homeschool Family

 

How to Raise a Healthy Child
In Spite of Your Doctor

by Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD
Free Shipping Available!

HIGHER ED AND LOWER LIFE FORMS

BEYOND HUMAN PERSONHOOD

Peter Singer, the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and one of President Obama’s elite advisors for ObamaCare. He is someone who openly declares the Christian worldview to be “abominable.”

READ THE ARTICLE:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/my-time-with-peter-singer

COMMON CORE DOCUMENTARY REVEALS THE HIDDEN AGENDA

Watch this trailer for a new film that exposes Common Core

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/10/watch-this-trailer-for-a-new-film-that-exposes-common-core-video/
 [VIDEO]

A new documentary film about Common Core promises to expose the faulty logic and pro-government agenda underlining the controversial national education standards.

The filmmaker, Ian Reed, interviewed dozens of Common Core’s supporters and opponents, but seems to come out heavily against the standards in the trailer for his film, “Building the Machine: A Film About the Common Core.” The trailer features interviews with notable critics of the standards, including education experts Sandra Stotsky, E.D. Hirsch and Joy Pullmann.

“The biggest misconception that Common Core proponents push on people is that there is any evidence that a system like Common Core will benefit children,” said Pullman, editor of School Reform News, in the trailer.

Initially conceived by a bipartisan coalition of moderate state governors, the standards were then embraced and pushed by President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. They are currently being implemented in most states, though they continue to receive significant pushback from both grassroot conservative organization and teachers unions. Critics of the standards claim they are untested, stress high-stakes evaluations, and erode local and state control over education.

The film will likely explore the Gates Foundation’s involvement in the standards. The foundation is a major underwriter of Common Core.

A 30-minute version of the film will get a limited release in February, followed by the release of the full version in spring.

Follow Robby on Twitter

Tags: Common Core

Sent from my iPhone

In Government We Trust: The Progressive Religion

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2013/12/08/in-government-we-trust-the-progressive-religion-n1759231

Dec. 08, 2013

With a storied history of attacking people of faith as extremists, radicals and the greatest threat this nation faces, it seems odd to see progressives embrace religion in their “advance the agenda at any and all costs” march. But they are, with vigor.

The wheels are coming off the progressives’ dream of a cradle-to-grave entitlements, amnesty-ridden nanny state. Their wish list for complete government control – and their predictions the government shutdown would be the end of the GOP have been sacrificed to an Obamacare rollout that has enjoyed all the success of the Hindenburg (except on MSNBC, of course, where the Earth remains flat).

Since the government reopened on Oct. 17^th, the American people have had an unfiltered look at what progressive policy means to them, and they don’t like it. Not only have President Obama’s approval ratings tanked since Americans got a look at his “signature legislation,” the generic ballot for control of the House of Representatives has gone through a dramatic flip. The chances of Congressional Democrats retaking the House have sunk lower than that of a hooker with an open cold sore getting a date at a eunuch convention before the bars open.

As such, desperate times require desperate measures. Enter the religious appeal.

It’s not overt, for the most part, and it’s certainly not well thought out. But when the ship starts to sink you grab whatever you can to bail it out, bucket or coffee mug.

What has happened is Democrats’ previously uncheckable lies are now fully checkable. It’s real now. You can’t keep your doctor or insurance, no matter how much you like them. And this hurts in the wallet – a lot. Now that we know this does not qualify as a practical solution, certainly not to health care anyway, Democrats –with all the credibility of a used-Pinto salesman – now embrace “morality” as the reason to embrace Obamacare.

In a column reeking of desperation on par with a kid hoping for a unicorn under his Christmas tree, the Washington Post’s Ryan Cooper complied a list of reasons “Why millennials will come around on Obamacare.” Aside from a desperate lack of understanding of health policy and how people work, the second reason Cooper lists stands out. He writes, “Going without health insurance is morally wrong.”

I’ll give you a minute to let that sink in.

This pathetic attempt to manipulate the unthinking into an overwhelming sense of guilt that forces them to capitulate may work on those with fewer IQ points than fingers, but it won’t work on those with a third-grade education.

Cooper explains, “The only way insurance can work for everyone is if everyone is in the system so risk can be pooled. This one doesn’t carry much weight yet, since the system isn’t even operating. But as time passes, this will become an important norm — and for young people, the norm has outsized importance (older people already have a reason to get coverage; they get sick more easily). Getting insurance will be part of living in a decent society where everyone chips in when they can afford it, and free-riding is frowned upon — and over time, young people will come to see this as part of being a responsible citizen.” 

Those 108 words are an incredibly inefficient way of rephrasing “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” 

Cooper’s appeal wouldn’t be noteworthy were it a lone cactus in the desert, but it’s not.

Also this week the buffoonish Ed Schultz, MSNBC’s angry Fred Flintstone clone, mused about how God would feel about Obamacare. “I'll tell you what I think God thinks of the Affordable Care Act. It's a big amen!”

Not to be outdone in the office pool of idiocy, Charlie Brown’s illegitimate child, Chris Matthews, had an offering on this theme. Matthews temporarily snapped out of his loving gaze while interviewing the president Thursday and put the cherry on top of one of this planet’s worst displays of sycophantism to utter what was supposed to be a question: “You know, Mr. President, your — your remarks the other day on economic justice to me, as a Roman Catholic, was so resonant with what the Holy Father, Francis, has been saying. Talk about that common Judeo-Christian or, even further, Muslim background to the belief we have a social responsibility, a moral responsibility to look out for people who haven't made it in this country.”

The one thing missing from these transparent attempts at manipulation is a basic understanding of morality. Morality is not set by government, laws are. Morality, like it or not atheists, stems from religion. It’s not exclusive to it, but religion is the soil in which the seeds of morality were planted. And nowhere in the Bible or Qur’an does it say government should confiscate the fruits of one man’s labor for the benefit of another.

True, the texts of our major religions do call for aiding our fellow man, but they do so as part of the religion, not a mandate for every human being.

Setting aside the gross bastardization of religion through the integration of communist tenets by these progressives, the most striking part of their appeal is its hypocrisy. These are the same people who spent the better part of the last half-century proclaiming “government can’t legislate morality” on any issue remotely moral. Perhaps Chris “Roman Catholic” Matthews can explain where the Vatican changed its views on, say, abortion to dovetail with the progressive agenda? Probably not.

In nearly every way government has replaced religion in the progressive sphere. It is the grantor of rights, the arbiter of morality, the moderator of justice, the compass of true north. Government is the religion, and the agenda is God.

Any act done in service to the agenda is justified; the end is what matters, the means are irrelevant. That’s how you rationalize selling big lies, known lies, to a public wanting to believe your snake oil is the cure for what ails them.

Perhaps progressives were correct in their charge that religious zealots are the greatest threat to our liberty today. And if they want to see one of those zealots, they need only look in the nearest reflective surface.

WAR ON CHRISTMAS

Christmas is under attack and there seems to be a conflict even on whether or not a war is being waged against this sacred and time honored special day. 

http://illinoisfamily.org/religious/to-those-who-say-there-is-no-war-on-christmas/

United States Secret Service Uniformed Division: USSS UD

A permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division"

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/003143-2006-01-24-american-gestapo-sec-605-of-the-new-patriot-act.htm?EdNo=238&From=
"

NO MORE AMMO EQUALS NO MORE GUNS

Former U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., is joining the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups to warn about a back-door attack on the Second Amendment by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/12/obamas-clandestine-plan-to-make-bullets-vanish/#VjOlqu0cpD64jAwW.99