A parent contacted me recently, asking about what to tell her sons who are being bullied at school, should she tell them to defend themselves, or to follow Jesus saying, “turn the other cheek”?

Have you ever confronted that question? This is what I shared with her: 

One of the reasons God instituted authority is to protect people from evildoers (see Romans 13), so as a parent you are justified in intervening and/or demanding that the school intervene if this happens when your sons are within their oversight.

But what about turning the other cheek? It seems to me that what Jesus is addressing is the accepted practice of taking revenge: “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” and declaring that the Kingdom way is different.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

I don't see that Jesus is herein issuing tactical instructions on what to do while someone is beating me to a pulp. If I have to offer my other cheek to the one who smote me, this is not an ongoing beating. Reading Jesus words, the picture I see is someone slapping my face. So, Jesus is telling me to forget about getting back at the person who insulted/degraded me, and prescribing that I follow his own footsteps, “when he was reviled, he reviled not again…but trusted in the One who judgeth justly.”

One reason God made men strong is to defend the defenseless (see Proverbs 30). When our boys were young we faced this situation too, and I taught our young sons

a) the righteous purpose of a man’s strength: to help women, the weak, and the oppressed.

b) HOW TO use their strength to fight.

c) that it’s no shame to try your best and lose a fight.

d) the sinfulness of using their strength to pick on someone else.

e) to defend themselves and their brothers and sisters if attacked.

In consequence, after just a few conflicts, the bullies went looking for greener pastures. Experience teaches that, in general, standing up forcefully to a bully -- win or lose -- persuades the bully to find someone easier to bully. Jesus teaches, that his followers are to eschew revenge: "avenge not yourselves of evil, as it is written, 'vengance is mine,' saith the Lord, 'I will repay.'" But, the Bible does NOT teach that we may not defend ourselves, our dominion, or others, so there is no Biblical imperative for your son to be a punching bag for a bully.

Posted by larry_naselli at 3:59 PM CDT

Updated: Monday, October 12, 2015 4:22 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Taxes have been increased on Americans earning $400,000+ of income, now all our troubles are over. The fulfillment of Obama's sole re-election promise: higher taxes on "The Rich," is supposed to improve the lot of middle-class people, but I am still waiting for anyone to explain how somebody else paying more taxes will make my life better. Any takers?

Posted by larry_naselli at 11:45 AM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Throughout the Republican presidential nomination campaign I’ve remained arms-length toward Mitt Romney because I am uncertain of the depth of his Conservatism. On balance, Romney’s campaign issue stances are as Conservative as any other candidate (i.e. imperfect, but pretty good), but that is not all that matters.

Events often present a President with important decisions that were not part of the election campaign – recent examples include “the Arab Spring,” 9/11, the housing bubble, the S&L collapse, the PATCO strike, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian Revolution – when the unanticipated happens there are no campaign promises to reference, and a President draws upon his deeply held beliefs to make leadership decisions about those issues. This is why I look for tell-tales, such as accepting man-made global warming as science, or defending the MA individual mandate. Those things make my Conservative antennae tingle, and shake my confidence in the depth of Romney’s Conservative instincts. So, my misgivings about Romney are not about his electability, but about how he will govern.

The question is, WHO IS BETTER?

• Rick Perry: declining to give in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants equals “no heart.”
• Newt Gingrich: Romney made his money by bankrupting companies and destroying jobs
• Rick Santorum: Romney isn’t qualified because he only has private sector management experience
• Ron Blame-America-First Paul: this crack-pot sounds like he just showed up twenty-eight years late for the San Francisco Democrat Convention

If the not-Romneys cannot deliver a more satisfying Conservative purity than Romney, then why shouldn’t I just go for Romney himself? His scripted message is acceptable, even inspirting, he has no scandals, he is a disciplined campaigner, he is as likely as any of them to beat Obama, and more likely than most.

The very reason I’ve been looking for a viable not-Romney is that I want to see more Conservative government. If the available not-Romneys show the same kind of apostasy from Conservative thinking that Romney has sometimes exhibited – and all have done so -- then they no longer fulfill my reason for seeking a not-Romney candidate, and Romney's “most-electable” argument becomes compelling.

Posted by larry_naselli at 9:39 AM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Michele Bachmann poked fun at the humorless Washington Ruling Class by suggesting that God, like the American People, was trying to call their attention to out-of-control government spending, in this case by sending a hurricane toward Washington DC.

Predictably, the remark was reported as if it were Bachmann's theological treatise on natural disasters ("Aha! We knew it when we saw those crazy eyes on the cover of Newsweek."); notwithstanding, I think Bachmann is onto something.

To wit, consider the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency -- the most unaccomplished, unknown candidate to ever win a major party's nomination. Could the ascension to power of the neophyte Obama, with all its deliterious consequences for the American People, be God's punishment for our national neglect of the minimal requirements of responsible self-government? Free men are responsible to discover the policies a candidate favors and his philosophy of government, before casting their vote for him, and knowing that the candidate is for "hope and change" doesn't meet that standard.

Posted by larry_naselli at 1:05 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Barack Obama once said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Because of Obama’s reckless spending the US Bond rating has just been downgraded by S&P, which makes America a little more like bad risk Greece.

Because of Obama’s wind-down of NASA, America is a little more like the scores of also-ran countries that couldn’t shoot off a bottle-rocket.

Because of Obama’s burdens on business expansion (i.e. taxes, regulation, litigation and official hostility), America is a little more like the Western European welfare states, with their stagnant economic growth and high-unemployment.

Because of Obama’s serial apologizing, rollback of missile defense, and utter lack of strategic military vision, America is a little more like the impotent once-great states of Western Europe.

Obama has never liked the idea that America is the greatest nation on God's green earth. It's so unfair (and besides, we used to have slavery) and not very multi-cultural. So, Obama's policies uniformly have the effect of downgrading America to make it more like the rest of the pack.

“Malaise” was the by-word for the Carter Presidency, Obama should be known as “President Downgrade.”

Posted by larry_naselli at 9:08 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

S&P Downgraded US Bonds because government spending is on an unsustaianable path, and because the US took until the last-minute to increase the debt ceiling. In the recent debt-ceiling debate Republicans, driven by the Tea Party, insisted on putting government spending on a SUSTAINABLE path in exchange for additional borrowing. Democrats wanted the additional borrowing, but insisted on maintaining the current UNSUSTAINABLE path.

Now, it's true that both sides insisted on what they wanted, but these competing positions are NOT morally equivalent. Yet, that is exactly what the media narrative has been, as if the two sides were bickering over what color carpeting to put in the Capitol Hill office complex.

The fact is that one side is arguing for continuing the spending binge and the other side is arguing for living within our means. This is not a side issue, it is an essential debate over what kind of nation the United States will be today and in the future. Therefore, it is not an "adult" perspective to be exasperated with the inability to reach a "deal." In fact, impatience with seeing the debate through is a consummately childish behavior.

Posted by larry_naselli at 8:45 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The Democrats greatest fear is that August 3rd comes without a debt ceiling deal, and the sky doesn't fall.

Ruling class Republicans now echo the canard that if we run out of borrowing capacity we will be "in uncharted territory." Nonsense! Out here in Realityville tens of millions of us have explored that territory, and we know that what you do in that territory is cut your spending until it is less than your income.

Only for the Washingtonian Ruling Class is that uncharted territory.

Posted by larry_naselli at 3:38 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

ABC News reported today that president Obama vows to veto a balanced budget amendment, if passed by Congress.

Brilliant! The President has NO Constitutional role in the Amendment process. If Congress passes an amendment (2/3’s vote of both houses required) it goes to the State Legislatures for ratification by 3/4th's of the States, not to the President for a signature or a veto...and more bad news for Obama, only 38 States must ratify, not 43.

Posted by larry_naselli at 2:46 PM CDT

Updated: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:48 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Barack Obama put his ignorance on display again yesterday -- or was it merely his contempt for your intelligence? The Professor waxed eloquent on the subject of commodities speculation.

Obama explained that gasoline prices are high, not because of scarce supply, but because speculators, anticipating that unrest in the Middle East will engender supply shortages, are bidding up oil prices. So far, Obama's point is arguable, but then he goes on to explain that because speculation is the driver of price volatility, there is no short-term solution to high oil prices.

If speculators bid the worldwide price of oil based on their expectation of future supply, how would their expectation change if Obama were to reverse himself on US domestic oil and gas exploration and drilling, and nuclear energy development? Of course, speculators would rationally expect a future increase in supply and would accordingly bid prices down in anticipation, ergo gasoline prices would be affected in the short-term by policy.

Is Obama too stupid to understand that, or does he just think you are too stupid to understand it?

Posted by larry_naselli at 2:52 PM CDT

Updated: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:56 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink

Obama added another entry to the "how stupid do they think we are?" category with his State of the Union speech call for a Federal Spending Freeze. If you are age 40+ you should recall a very similar Freeze proposal, namely the Nuclear Freeze movement of the 1980's.

What does Federal Spending have to do with Nuclear Weapons? Well, besides their common potential to destroy the prosperity of the United States, just this: the Nuclear Freeze movement was initiated by Soviet dictator, Leonid Bresznev, and picked up by both anti-American and merely gullible Westerners. Why did Bresznev propose a nuclear freeze? Because the USSR had deployed intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe, aimed at America's NATO allies, and President Reagan was moving forward with plans to respond by deploying American intermediate range nukes in Western Europe, aimed at the Soviet Block.

Once the Evil Empire had it's nukes in place, but before the U.S. had deployed its missiles, the Soviets called for a "Freeze."  Likewise, Obama has run-up Federal Government spending dramatically in the last two years, and now as the new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to roll-back spending to pre-Obama levels, the President proposes a spending "Freeze" at the current inflated levels.

Hopefully, Republicans have the sense to follow the Gipper's lead and brush off the Freeze ruse. Better yet, they should remember how Reagan called and raised Bresznev by offering a "Zero Option," in which the Soviets would remove their nukes from Europe in exchange for the U.S. not deploying ours. Republicans could offer a Zero Option budget, in which the federal government budget starts at $0 and every expenditure must be justified from scratch. That might sound too much like real life for the sensibilities of the Washington DC political class, but despite all the "smart" people saying it couldn't happen, Reagan eventually got the Zero Option from the Evil Empire.

Posted by larry_naselli at 12:21 PM CST

Updated: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:39 PM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Last week at the University of Arizona Memorial Pep-Rally, Barack Obama ostensibly pitched his tent among the mentally stable -- thereby distancing himself from his fellow Liberals -- by declaring that the shooting of Rep. Giffords et al was not precipitated by political rhetoric.

Tonight, Obama is expected to lecture Americans on the virtues of civility in public discourse, and he will undoubtedly employ the old "both sides are guilty" routine. The effect is to make the tone of political discourse the topic du jour, but WHY, when Obama concedes that nothing bad happened as a result of the tone of political discourse?

The answer is simple, Obama wants to spotlight the tone of political discourse in order to mute Conservative arguments, and he is exploiting the shootings in Tucson -- which he has publicly stated were not precipitated by political discourse --  for political advantage.

Beware though, saying so constitutes the kind of vitriolic rhetoric that didn't cause the shootings in Tucson. So, we should all be sure to not discuss public policy in a way that might not cause further violence. Huh?

Posted by larry_naselli at 11:48 AM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

What has Obama been up to since he got the memo from America that we don't want his policies?

TSA Groping of airline passengers

Gays in the Military

13-month extension of Unemployment Compensation

START Treaty

Dream Act

Omnibus Spending Bill

FCC regulation of internet free speech

Death Panels

One thing you can say about Barack Obama is that he's no Bill Clinton. After forcing his way on an unwilling victim, Bubba would at least say, "you'd better put some ice on that."

Posted by larry_naselli at 8:05 AM CST

Updated: Monday, December 27, 2010 11:48 AM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

President Obama, urging Democrats to get in line to vote for his tax and spending compromise, warned that failure to pass the bill would hit low and middle income Americans with "massive tax increases."

True enough, but that means President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" were also "massive" tax cuts for low and middle income Americans. Moreover, Obama knew it all along. No surprise there, but the fact that Obama is willing to say it aloud demonstrates the contempt in which he holds the intelligence of the American People. He assumes we are too dim witted to notice.

Posted by larry_naselli at 12:50 PM CST

Updated: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:54 PM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

On the eve of the election, in which Obama’s big-government-to-the-rescue agenda is on the ballot, the Commerce Department reports 3^rd Quarter GDP growth of 2%, which the media is dutifully reporting as good news, with the storyline that “the car is out of the ditch, and Obama and Company are pushing it slowly up the hill.”

A little perspective is in order: For Quarter 2 of 2010 the Commerce Department’s initial GDP growth report was 2.4%, which was subsequently revised to 1.7% (over estimated by 40%? “missed it by that much”). Believing that the Quarter 3 2010 GDP growth is not similarly over estimated would require (what was that phrase?) a willing suspension of disbelief.

Am I implying that the Obama Commerce Department did whatever was necessary in the complex calculations of GDP to make sure that the pre-election reported estimate of GDP growth was NOT one point something (in the same way that the unemployment rate conveniently never reaches the toxic 10% mark)? NO, I’m not implying anything, I’m coming right out and saying that the Obama administration manipulated the numbers for political purposes. Will it help them? Not this time.

Posted by larry_naselli at 10:14 AM CDT

Updated: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:50 PM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Karl Rove went out of his way to trash the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Deleware, Christine O'Donnell, after her victory in the GOP Primary, because of what Rove considers her lack of qualifications and inability to win the general election.

This is the same man -- "The Architect" of two Bush election victories -- who threw the support of the sitting U.S. President behind the treacherous Senator Specter, when Snarlin' Arlen was challenged in the Pennsylvania GOP Primary by Club For Growth Conservative, Rep. Pat Toomey. Why? Because nothing was more important to Rove than a Republican majority in the Senate.

When Bush's endorsement put Specter over the top in the Republican Primary, by the slimmest of margins, disappointed Conservatives were expected by Rove to get behind the Republican nominee, and do what was necessary to secure a GOP Senate majority. For the most part, they did.

When did Karl Rove change his priorities? Christine O'Donnell is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Deleware. Her interests in the general election coincide with Rove's interest in a Republican Senate majority; so why does Rove get an exemption from his own demands that Republicans supress their pique, and get behind the Party's nominee to secure a Republican majority in the Senate?

Posted by larry_naselli at 3:23 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Q. What is the dividing line between Conservatives and everyone else in America today?

A. Limited –vs- Unlimited Government.

In a society where government is the first resort for every problem and psuedo-problem, what role does a Constitution play? Usually, in the hands of judicial activists, it becomes a cordon to prevent popular and representative majorities from executing guardianship of the foundations and traditions of the social and political fabric. Example: Californians pass a Proposition defining marriage as it has traditionally been defined for millennia, and the Courts say, “you can’t do that, it violates the Constitution.” Under this practice, we have the Constitution limiting the consent of the governed, rather than the Constitution limiting the scope of the government. This turns the framers’ intent on its head.

Posted by larry_naselli at 4:42 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

When we heard last week that the recession had ended in June 2009, many Americans laughed aloud – I guess we didn’t get the memo. But, the sad truth is that the recession is over, and what we are experiencing right now is what economic growth looks like under the burdens of Obama-Pelosi-Reid big government.

While recessions are typical, so is robust economic growth following; but Obama’s “Summer of Recovery” has produced pathetic GDP growth of less than 2% with the Unemployment rate still tickling the 10% mark.

The risk-takers who drive economic growth may have been in hiding in 2008 and 2009 due to uncertainty about the future, but with the passage of Obamacare and the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, capital is now in hiding (or flight to foreign markets) because of certainty, certainty that the burdens imposed by government have dramatically altered the risk-reward proposition against investing in business expansion in the USA.

Here’s a memo to Obama-Pelosi-Reid: It’s the big government, stupid!

Posted by larry_naselli at 10:56 AM CDT

Updated: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:53 PM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink