John Martignoni: Mary and the Bible - Part 3, The Assumption

All my protestant brothers and sisters who have open minds and open hearts need to subscribe to John's newsletter. You will be amazed by how much more he knows about your faith than you do.

 If this newsletter  was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page

General Comments

Hey folks,
Two things:

1) For those of you in the Detroit area, I will be speaking on Friday, September 15th, at the St. Paul Street Evangelization annual banquet.  The event will be taking place at the Shelby Gardens Banquet Center.  Cost is $50/person, which includes dinner and open bar.  You can register by calling: 657-777-2963, or online: www.stpaulse.com/gala.

2) Just had something happen to me today that absolutely blew my mind.  It involves the evangelization campaign that I mentioned in last week's newsletter.  I'll fill you in on it next week, so stay tuned...

Introduction

Okay, this week I'm continuing the series on Mary and the Bible.  This segment is on the Assumption. 
Hopefully you'll enjoy it...

And, please remember to make use of the social media tabs at the top and bottom of this newsletter to share this on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc., and forward to friends and family as well, to hopefully plant some seeds...

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Mary and the Bible - The Assumption
    “Nowhere does the Bible say anything about Mary being assumed body and soul into Heaven.  The teaching of the Catholic Church on that is contrary to Scripture!”  I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone say that, or something very similar.  So, what do you do.  Well, I generally handle this objection to the Church’s teaching on the Assumption by asking one question: “Does the Bible somewhere say that Mary was not assumed into Heaven?”  The answer, of course, is no - the Bible nowhere says that Mary was not assumed into Heaven.  

    So then I ask, “Well, if the Bible doesn’t say she wasn’t assumed into Heaven, then why can’t I believe she was?”  That will often stop someone in their tracks.  But, don't think the issue has been settled.  One argument I’ve received in response uses 1 Corinthians 15:22-23.  In 1 Cor 15:22-23 it says, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.  But, each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at His coming those who belong to Christ.”  “See,” I’ve been told, “no one is made alive - rises from the dead - until the Second Coming of Christ, which means Mary could not have been assumed into Heaven.”  

    Oh, really?  Well, let’s look and see what the Bible has to say about that.  (And, let me just say, folks who cite 1 Cor 15 in regard to the Assumption of Mary, seem to forget all about that same verse when it comes to their beliefs about the Rapture, which involves a resurrection of the dead - 1 Thess 4:16.)  

    In Genesis 5:21-24, and Hebrews 11:5, we read about Enoch being taken by God and that he “walked with” God.  And, in 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah is taken up to Heaven in a fiery chariot.  So it seems they were both assumed, in some manner or the other, body and soul, into Heaven.  Which mean the Assumption of Mary, as a possibility, is not counter to Scripture.  But, someone might argue that neither Enoch nor Elijah died and, therefore, the passage from 1 Corinthians about being made alive, or rising from the dead, doesn’t apply to them.  Well, that’s fine.  But, I just want to first establish the principle that someone being assumed into Heaven, body and soul, is not contrary to Scripture.  And I think the examples of Enoch and Elijah provide evidence for that.

    Next, let’s look at Mt 27:52, this was after the death of Jesus on the Cross, “…the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep [they were dead!] were raised, and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”  Many of the bodies of saints who had “fallen asleep” were “raised.”  Doesn’t look like they waited for Jesus to return.  

    And, look at Rev 11:7-12 - this is the clincher -  “And when they [two witnesses from God, sometime in the future] have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city…But, after three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.  Then they heard a loud voice from Heaven saying to them, ‘Come up hither!’  And, in the sight of their foes, they went up to Heaven in a cloud.”  These two witnesses sent by God, were assumed – body and soul – into Heaven before the return of Christ.  The principle of the Assumption is not contrary to Scripture.  If it can be done for them, why not for Mary?

    But, I’ve been told, the Bible is silent on the matter so we can’t believe it if it’s not in the Bible. To which I will ask, “Do you have altar calls in your church?”  Usually, the answer is yes.  If it is, I point out that the Bible says nothing at all about altar calls, yet they believe that.  I will also ask if they believe that contraception is okay.  Again, the answer is usually yes.  To which I will point out that nowhere is contraception approved of in the Bible and, in fact, there is direct evidence to make the argument that the Word of God condemns contraception.  
    What I’m doing is pointing out the double standard they’re using.  They believe and practice a number of things that are not found in the Bible, so it is a bit hypocritical to say that Catholics are wrong to believe in something that the Bible is silent on.  But, here’s the thing - is the Bible really silent on the Assumption of Mary?  I don’t think so.

    In the Book of Revelation, chapter 12, we see a woman who has a head and feet, and she is said to be “clothed with the sun,” (verse 1) - all of which means she has a body.  And who is this woman?  Well, the Word of God tells us that this woman is the one who gives birth to the male child who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron (verse 5).  That male child is, of course, Jesus Christ (see Rev 19:15-16).  So, according to the Bible, there is a woman, in Heaven, with a body as well as a soul, and this woman is the one who gave birth to Jesus Christ.  Hmmm...

     So, to wrap it up: If the Bible nowhere says that Mary was not assumed into Heaven, and if the assumption of a person body and soul into Heaven is in no way contrary to the  Scriptures (which is shown by the examples mentioned above), and if there is some very strong, albeit not quite direct, evidence from Scripture that Mary is indeed in Heaven (Rev 12), and there is an ancient Christian tradition that says she was assumed into Heaven, then why can't Catholics believe it?  And, by what authority does someone say that Catholics are wrong to believe it?

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week.  Please share this with friends and on social media...thanks!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year.  If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL  35127 .  Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

 If this newsletter  was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page.

 TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

John Martignoni: Mary and the Bible - Part 2, Immaculate Conception

Now it's time for some rock solid Catholic apologetics from deep in the heart of Dixie.

 If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page.  

General Comments

Hey folks,
A few things:

1) Season 2 of my Blue Collar Apologetics series is now available at the Bible Christian Society website: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/products/dvds. I have to charge for it because I have to purchase the DVD set from EWTN, but I buy it at a discount and pass that on to you.  The 7 episodes cover the following topics:

     a) Mary and the Bible
     b) The Eucharist
     c) Authority and the Pope
     d) The Rapture
     e) Once Saved, Always Saved?
     f) Sola Scriptura: The Bible Alone?
     g) Sola Fide: Saved By Faith Alone?

2) For those of you in the Diocese of Birmingham, just wanted to let you know that I'm working on an advertising/evangelization campaign for internet, newspaper, radio, and television.  The e-campaign has already started.  The newspaper ads will feature a full page color ad in the Huntsville Times and Birmingham News the last Sunday of each month, beginning this month, so keep an eye out for them.  Meeting soon with someone to talk about developing some 30 and 60-second ads for television which will hopefully air towards the end of the year or the beginning of the new year.  Something along the lines of the Catholics Come Home ads, but maybe one or two or so with a little more oomph...something that challenges folks to think a bit about their beliefs.  I'll be working on radio ads in the not-too-distant future as well.

   If you would like to support this effort, you can make a donation to the Bible Christian Society here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

3) For those of you in the Detroit area, I will be speaking at the annual fundraising dinner for St. Paul Street Evangelization on Friday, September 15th.  More details coming soon.

4) Early heads up - I will be speaking at Our Lady of Angels parish in Woodbridge, Virginia, on Saturday, November 4th.  I'll give you more information on it as the date draws near.

Introduction

This continues the series on Mary and the Bible that I started in the last newsletter.  This segment is on the Immaculate Conception.  I hope you will forward this to friends and family to hopefully plant some seeds...

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Mary and the Bible (cont'd)
     This week I'm going to be looking at the biblical support for the Immaculate Conception.  The Immaculate Conception is the dogmatic teaching of the Church that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin, and the Church also teaches that Mary remained without any personal sin throughout her entire life.

     Whenever objections are brought up about the Immaculate Conception, they usually begin with something along the lines of: “I’m sorry, but nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about Mary being conceived without sin. Nowhere can you find the words ‘Immaculate Conception’ in the Bible.”  

     Okay, first point: We need to remember that not every Christian belief or practice has to be found directly in Scripture.  For example, the word “Trinity” is not in Scripture.  Yet all Christians believe in the Trinity.  The words “altar call” are not in Scripture.  The words, “Wednesday night church meeting,” are not in Scripture.  Yet, many non-Catholic Christians have altar calls and go to church every Wednesday night - even though neither of those things is found in the Bible.  

     Just because something is not directly mentioned in the Bible, doesn’t mean it’s not a valid Christian belief or practice.  Besides, the belief that every Christian belief has to be found in the Bible, is not in the Bible.

     So, regarding the Immaculate Conception, here’s the thing - if God created Eve without sin, couldn’t He have done the same for Mary?  And, who is greater, the woman who was the instrument through which salvation came into the world, or the woman who was the instrument through which sin came into the world?  So, the first question you always need to ask someone who objects to the Immaculate Conception is this: “Could God have created Mary without sin if He wanted to?”  

     Is Mary not greater than Eve?  Does not the angel Gabriel proclaim Mary to be “full of grace” (Luke 1:28)?  Is not Mary referred to by Elizabeth as “Blessed among women?”  And was not Elizabeth “filled with the Holy Spirit” when she spoke these words (Lk 1:41-42)?  And did Mary not say, in Lk 1:48 that “all generations will call me blessed?”  Do all generations call Eve blessed?  Is Mary not greater than Eve?  Isn’t Mary, by the mere fact that she bore God in her womb, the greatest of all women?  Then, isn’t it at least possible, if not probable, that God would have saved Mary from sin from the very moment of her creation?  

     And there is indeed scriptural support for this belief.  In Genesis 3:14-15 it says, “The Lord said to the serpent…I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”  This is a clear reference here in Genesis to Jesus Christ conquering Satan, crushing Satan’s head.  This verse is known as the protoevangelium - the first gospel.  

     And Jesus is the seed of what woman?  This is the only place in Scripture that I know of where it mentions the woman’s seed, and not the man’s seed.  We normally associate the seed with the man, not the woman.  And, of course we know why it says the seed of the woman here in Genesis, because Mary conceived Jesus of the Holy Spirit – not of man.  

     So, the woman spoken of in Gen 3:15 is, in a very fundamental sense, Mary.  Now, what do we have going on here?  God Himself tells Satan that He, God, will put enmity between the woman, Mary, and Satan.  Enmity, in my dictionary, is defined as “hostility between enemies”.  If you sin, can you say that there is enmity between you and Satan?  By sinning, aren’t you actually taking Satan’s side?  So, if God Himself put enmity between Mary and Satan, how can you say that she ever sinned?  That would put her on Satan’s side, at least some of the time.

     Also, we have more evidence of the sinlessness of Mary from Revelation, chapter 12.  In Revelation 12 we have the woman who brought forth the male child Who is to rule all nations with a rod of iron.  This child is Jesus Christ (see Revelation 19:15-16).  Who is the mother of Jesus Christ?  Mary.  So, just as in Genesis 3:15 we see Mary being referred to at a fundamental level, so also the same can be said for Revelation 12:1-6.  

     And what does it say about this “woman” in Revelation 12?  It says the dragon - Satan - pursued her (verse 13), but that the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness (verse 14).  In other words, Satan pursued Mary, but he never caught her because of some special grace that God provided for her (see also verses 15 and 16).  Hmmm.  What could that be referring to?  If Mary had ever sinned, then Satan would have indeed caught her.  

     Okay, all of this is not “proof” from the Bible that Mary was immaculately conceived or that she was without sin her entire life, but it is indeed evidence that points in that direction.  So, let's now address another one of the objections to the sinlessness of Mary.  That objection is this: “For there is no distinction since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Rom 3:22-23).  This passage is taken as an absolute.  I have been told many times that, “The Bible says all have sinned and all means all, period!  And that includes Mary!”  

     Whenever I hear someone make that objection, the first question I will ask is this: “So, what you’re telling me is that ‘all’ means every single person who has ever lived, without exception, correct?”  “Yes, except for Jesus.”  “Oh, so there is an exception.”  “Yes, but only for Jesus - everyone knows Jesus didn’t sin so that is simply assumed in what Paul wrote.”  “Okay, I’ll grant you that.”

     “But,” I will ask, “what about babies, have they committed any sins?”  “Well, no.”  “Oh, so there are more exceptions than just Jesus, right?”  “Everyone knows a baby can’t commit a sin.”  “Well, what about young children under the age of reason - say, 4 or 5 years old and younger - have they committed any sins?”  “Well, no, not until they’re old enough to understand what a sin is.  But, once they are old enough, everyone commits sin.”  “Okay, so there are even more exceptions to ‘all’ beyond just Jesus and newborn babies, right?”  

     The point I am making with them is that the word “all” in Rom 3:23 is not an absolute.  I am trying to plant that seed in their minds that there are, even according to those who at first glance treat this verse as an absolute, exceptions to the rule.  After making that point, I ask the following question: “Are you seeking God in your life?”  I have yet to have a single person in these situations tell me that they are not seeking God.  After all, Jesus says, “Seek, and ye shall find.”  Seeking God is the business of every Christian.  

     So, after they tell me they are indeed seeking God in their life, I turn to verse 11 of Romans, chapter 3, and point out to them that the Bible says “No one seeks for God.”  And I tell them that, “No one means no one, period!  And that includes you!”  At which point I inform them that either they are not searching for God in their life, or the Word of God is wrong.  “Which is it?” I ask.  This is the point where folks start to say things such as, “Well, what that really means is...”  Or, “Well, you’ve got to understand the context of what Paul is saying...”  Or a number of other things along those lines to try and explain away the words of verse 11.

     What has happened here is that I used the absolutist method of interpretation that they used for verse 23 - “All means absolutely all!” - and applied it to verse 11 - “No one means absolutely no one!”  So, if absolutely all have sinned in verse 23, then absolutely no one is seeking for God in verse 11.  But, they are seeking God, they tell me.  I am seeking God.  You are seeking God.  Lots of people are seeking God, so it is obvious that there is some sort of problem with the way they are interpreting this entire passage.  

     Folks who use this absolutist interpretative methodology have a pretty much universal inability to reconcile verse 23 with verse 11.  Which gives you the opportunity to say something along the lines of, “Look, I brought this up simply to show you that you cannot interpret verse 23 in an absolute manner.  If you do that, you get yourself in trouble when it comes to other parts of this passage.  All of which is to say that you cannot use verse 23 to ‘prove’ that Mary committed sin just like everyone else.”

     Now, I can almost guarantee that no one is going to say, “Oh, that makes sense...you’ve convinced me.”  But, the point of this is not to change someone’s mind on the spot, but to plant a seed or two...make them think...and give the Holy Spirit a chance to bring about a change of heart and mind on the matter.  

     When taken in context, Romans 3:22-23 is not - in any way, shape, or form - a proof for Mary having committed any personal sins.  It is not addressing itself in regard to individuals, rather it is speaking of Jews and Greeks (essentially, all non-Jews), in a general manner (verse 9), and speaking to the fact that even though the Jews have the works of the law (verse 20) and Israel is a privileged nation (verses 1-2), they, just like the Greeks, still have need of being redeemed and saved through faith in Jesus Christ (verse 22).  The works of the law will not save them.

     Another objection that I’ve heard about the sinlessness of Mary is that Mary herself tells us that she is a sinner when she says, in Luke 1:47, “And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior...”  If she never sinned, then she didn’t need a savior, right?  Well, let me ask you this, if you’re walking down a path, and you step into a big hole in the path that had been hidden by branches and leaves...if someone pulls you out after you’ve fallen in, then they’ve “saved” you from that hole, haven’t they?  

     But, if right before you step into the hole someone comes along and says, don’t step there you’ll fall into a hole and get hurt...well, that person saved you from that hole before you ever fell in, didn’t they?  Just so with Mary.  Jesus saved her from sin before she was ever tainted with sin.  So Mary did indeed need a savior, but she was saved before she was ever tainted with sin. 

     To conclude, the Bible nowhere teaches, or even implies, that Mary committed sin during her lifetime.  However, there is indeed biblical evidence that supports what the Church teaches on Mary’s Immaculate Conception and lifelong sinlessness.  

Next week: More on Mary...

Closing Comments

Please help get the word out by using the social media links at the top and bottom of the newsletter to share this on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere...thanks!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year.  If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL  35127 .  Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. 

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Left-fascist assholes know their real foe, and it isn't the fascist right.

Hey, Australia! How about you have your government tell people that fucking isn't a recreational activity? They can start in the schools.

It's just like the lady said in the fluoride story from earlier today: Prevention is easier and cheaper. AND IT DOESN'T FUCK WITH THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION! ( I might have paraphrased a bit there.)


From The Old Gray Whore:

Australia Archbishop Rejects Sex-Abuse Exception to the Secrecy of Confession...

It’s confidential and considered sacred — a conversation strictly between a confessor and priest, never to be divulged. The secrecy of the confessional, a centuries-old sacrament, is taken so seriously that some priests would die before disclosing what has been shared.

Archbishop Denis Hart of Melbourne, who as president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference represents all Roman Catholic clergy in the country, said Tuesday that he would rather go to jail than breach the seal of confession.

“The laws in our country and in many other countries recognize the special nature of confession as part of the freedom of religion, which has to be respected,” Archbishop Hart told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

His comments came a day after religious institutions across the country were forced to defend the secrecy of confession after Australia’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended a sweep of legislative and policy changes, one of which would require priests who hear about sexual abuse in the confessional to report it to the authorities. The 85 recommendations were aimed at reforming Australia’s criminal justice system to provide a fairer response to sex-abuse victims, the commission said.

“There should be no excuse, protection nor privilege in relation to religious confessions,” the report said. “We heard evidence that perpetrators who confessed to sexually abusing children went on to reoffend and seek forgiveness again.”

Archbishop Hart responded on Tuesday, saying: “I think priests are men who are very carefully trained. Priests in my diocese in Melbourne are very conscious of the difficulties of the present situation.”

He continued, “We want to be faithful to God and faithful to our vows, but we do want to be responsible citizens, and we’re totally committed to that.”

Though the recommendation, made as part of the commission’s investigation into the church’s handling of sexual abuse allegations in recent decades, has drawn fierce opposition from the church authorities, it’s not the first time the issue has come up. In 2012, when the federal government announced the Royal Commission, the question of priests’ obligation to report any knowledge of child sex abuse to the police was already being discussed.

“Such an obligation would undoubtedly enhance protection of the rights of children,” Prof. Sarah Joseph, director at the Castan Center for Human Rights Law at Monash University in Melbourne, wrote in 2012. “It would also interfere with the freedom of religion of priests if they are compelled to reveal information conveyed during formal ‘confessions.’”

She continued, “In this clash of rights, which should prevail?”

It is not known what will become of the recommendation in the report on criminal justice, which was released just months before the commission is expected to publish its final report on its yearslong inquiry. But on Tuesday, Professor Joseph said legislative change was not out of the question.

“There’s a lot of sentiment on the side of the Royal Commission and a lot of disgust at a lot of the things that are being uncovered,” she said.

The Royal Commission examined abuse accusations in many of Australia’s religious institutions, including those associated with the Anglican Church, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Orthodox Judaism. It concluded that 7 percent of Catholic priests in Australia had been accused of sexually abusing children between 1950 and 2010.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

What happens when you give a commie douchebag $582 million of your money to fix your schools?

Just ask the suckers that pay taxes in New York City.


WTF? The Old Gray Whore damns their commie wet dream of a mayor, Spill de Blah-zio, with faint praise:

For $582 Million Spent on Troubled Schools, Some Gains, More Disappointments ...

When it comes to New York’s schools, Mayor Bill de Blasio has placed his biggest bet on the Renewal program, which has pumped extra money and other resources into a group of the city’s most troubled schools, at a cost of $582 million.

On Tuesday, when Mr. de Blasio held a news conference to announce how the city’s third through eighth graders had done on the annual state math and reading tests, he singled out the Renewal schools for praise, saying that they had “outpaced the citywide average” on those exams. At those schools, the percentage of children who passed the reading tests increased by 3.2 points from last year; the percentage passing the math tests increased by 1.5 points. Citywide, reading proficiency increased by 2.6 percentage points and math proficiency grew by 1.4 points.

But a closer look at the performance of the elementary and middle schools in the program last school year — there were 57, five of which have closed or been merged with other schools — shows that those numbers mask a yawning divide among the schools, with some making impressive gains, while others languish. And almost all of them lag behind the city over all: On average, in reading, just 15.9 percent of Renewal students scored as proficient, compared to 40.6 percent citywide; in math, only 9.4 percent of Renewal students passed, compared to the citywide average of 37.8 percent.

To track the effects of the program, which gives schools a longer day and access to special services like vision care for students or mental heath supports, The New York Times analyzed Renewal school performance on the 2016 and 2017 tests, as compared with the 2015 scores.

Over that period, citywide, the percentage of students who passed the reading tests increased by nearly 10.7 points; the percentage who passed the math tests grew by 2.9 points.

Of the 57 schools in the Renewal program, only 16 narrowed the gap between their performance and the city average in English since 2015. The rest fell further behind. In math, 27 schools narrowed the gap, while 30 fell further behind.

The best performer among the Renewal schools was Public School 15, the Roberto Clemente school, an elementary school in the East Village, which has a challenging population. Last year, 45 percent of the students were homeless, according to city records. On the 2015 tests, just 5.4 percent of the school’s children passed the English test. On the most recent round of tests, 35.8 percent did — a huge improvement. On math, Roberto Clemente was the only Renewal school where a higher percentage of children passed the test, 45 percent, than did so citywide.

While Roberto Clemente’s growth is impressive, the school has just 180 students, and only about 70 of them took the tests this year, so the test scores of a small number of children can have a big impact on its passing rates.

Speaking of the greatest ballplayer ever, when is MLB going to get its head out of its ass and retire his number league wide?

Other high-growth schools included J.H.S. 123 James M. Kieran, in the Soundview section of the Bronx, and P.S. 328 Phyllis Wheatley in East New York, in Brooklyn, which made less dramatic gains than Roberto Clemente. Students at James M. Kieran outperformed the city’s growth rate by 6 percentage points in math, but only 13.3 percent of its students passed the test this year.

Under Mr. de Blasio’s predecessor, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, many struggling schools were closed. Alison Coviello, the principal of the Jonathan D. Hyatt school in the Mott Haven section of the South Bronx, said that when she took over five years ago, her school was set to be closed. The Education Department later reversed that decision and this year nearly 31.8 percent of the students passed the reading tests, compared with 17.6 percent in 2015. Last year, she said, there was a big drop in the number of students who scored a Level 1 on the English exam, which is the lowest possible score.

At the bottom of the performance list were schools that, despite the extra resources, have made almost no progress, or even fallen behind where they started.

The Hunts Point School in the Bronx, for example, has improved only marginally in English, and the percentage of its students who pass the math tests fell to just 1.8 percent this year. Other schools at the bottom of the list were J.H.S. 291 Roland Hayes in Brooklyn and Urban Science Academy in the Bronx. The only school that performed worse than those three on the two tests was M.S. 584 in Brooklyn, which closed at the end of the school year.

The Department of Education said that the Hunts Point School has a new principal, assistant principal and guidance counselors, and that Urban Science Academy is revamping its curriculum. Roland Hayes offered Regents algebra, which gives high school credit, to its eighth graders for the first time this past year, the city said, so many of its high-achieving students took that test instead of the state math test their peers sat for. Seventeen of the 18 students who took the algebra test passed, the city said.

At least on paper, it is difficult to tell what separates the schools at the bottom of the list from those at the top, which cuts to the core of what makes school turnaround so difficult: nobody knows precisely what works.

“The problem is that there is no silver bullet to turnaround interventions,” said Priscilla Wohlstetter, a distinguished research professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College. “It’s a really tough thing to figure out what makes the difference in schools.”

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

George Will discusses the Rule of Law. How quaint.

I doubt George Will would agree with my definition of fascism as the rule of men rather than the rule of law, (It's very handy because it encompasses both left and right fascists easily.) but I'd be willing to bet good money that John Adams would. And I know if his brother Sam was still alive, he would kept shooting people who screwed with the country he loved the whole time.


Obamacare subsidies vs. the rule of law - Philly.com

By George Will

When John Adams wrote into the Massachusetts Constitution a commitment to a “government of laws and not of men,” he probably assumed that the rule of law meant the rule of laws, no matter how many laws there might be. He could not have imagined the modern proliferation and complexity of laws, or how subversive this is of the rule of law.

Such a subversion will confront Congress when it reconvenes. Congress is nimble at evading responsibilities but cannot avoid deciding either to repudiate or to tolerate a residue of President Barack Obama’s lawlessness, one that most, perhaps all, congressional Democrats and many, perhaps most, Republicans want Obama’s successor to continue.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) requires insurance companies to insure people with “preexisting conditions,” a locution minted to avoid the awkward candor of saying, in most cases, “people who are already sick.” The individual mandate, requiring people to purchase insurance, is one way the ACA subsidizes insurance companies that are mandated to engage in money-losing undertakings.

The subsidy that Congress must confront in September is the ACA requirement that the secretary of health and human services devise a program to compensate insurers for the cost of selling discounted plans to some low-income purchasers. Obama’s HHS secretary created a program to give billions of dollars to insurers to defray the costs of the low-income purchasers who are more than half the ACA enrollees.

But — speaking of awkwardness — although the ACA authorizes a permanent expenditure for this, an authorization is not an appropriation, and Congress has never provided an appropriation.
Come September, these payments may dramatize the increasing difficulty of discerning Republican and Democratic differences commensurate with their heated rhetoric.

Democrats are untroubled by the payments because progressives believe that unfettered presidents are necessary to surmount the inefficiencies, as progressives see them, inherent in the Framers’ great mistake, as progressives see it — the separation of powers. Republicans, however, have a dilemma: Halting the payments might unleash chaos; continuing them seals Republican complicity in perpetuating the ACA.

Exactly!

We all know what will happen because we know there are no longer ANY men of principle in government.

The Constitution says: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Nevertheless, the Obama administration spent the money for the insurance subsidies, breezily arguing that it was being faithful to something higher than the Constitution — the ACA’s text. Or its logic. Or something.

Republican members of the House (including Georgia’s Tom Price, who now is secretary of HHS) sued to stop the payments. In May 2016, a federal judge said they were right on the merits but stayed the decision to allow the Obama administration to appeal.

Donald Trump has exceeded Obama’s executive willfulness, which at least strove for a patina of implausible legality. Last month, Trump said that, absent Republican success in replacing the ACA, he might end the payments “very soon.” Clearly, he thinks either spending or not spending unappropriated billions is a presidential prerogative.

The Constitution — yes, that again — says that presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The Framers, who were parsimonious with words, perhaps included the adverb for the reason Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School suggests: “The Constitution recognizes that the president can’t necessarily enforce every law. But it requires a good faith effort.” So, the intent of any nonenforcement matters: Is it to husband scarce enforcement resources? Or is it to vitiate a law?

Trump’s unparsimonious dispensing of words has included threats to intentionally cause the ACA to “implode” by halting the unconstitutional disbursement of unappropriated money. Feldman evidently thinks this would be “nonenforcement” in bad faith because the law could no longer function. It is, however, strange to say that dispensing unappropriated funds is faithful “enforcement” of a law just because without the funds the law would collapse.

Were Trump constitutionally punctilious — entertain the thought — he would embrace the judge’s ruling on behalf of the House members, and, obedient to his oath of office, stop the unconstitutional payments. But chaos might envelop the ACA exchanges and then the wider individual insurance market, causing many millions of Americans severe mental and financial stress. Republicans can say “let the rule of law prevail though the heavens fall,” or they can say …

Enter Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who chairs the pertinent committee. He wants Trump to “temporarily” continue the payments “through September,” pending “a short-term solution” for stabilizing insurance markets “in 2018.” Watch carefully as Alexander copes with a pathology of modern — meaning, presidential — government unanticipated by John Adams: laws that subvert the rule of law.

Sorry, George. I'm sure the Founders knew quite well what power does to men. All of them could, and did, read.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

The '50s are back and the commies are poisoning our water!

Seriously, kiddies, most everything on God's blue earth will kill you DEAD if you ingest enough of it. That's why they don't put lethal amounts of fluoride in the water!

Oxygen's a poison, too. Can't wait for the bastards to try and mandate breathing.



The Fight Over Fluoridation In PA | WPMT FOX43

Dr. Joyce Kasunich is a dentist, so she sees first hand the benefit that fluoride can provide, especially for children.

"I think fluoride is a great protection for our teeth, to help strengthen our enamel," she said.

Community water fluoridation is supported by major health and science organizations across the country, including the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC states that drinking fluoridated water keeps teeth strong and reduces cavities by about 25 percent in children and adults. Despite that, only 17 states have laws in place regarding fluoridation and Pennsylvania is not one of them. In fact, lawmakers in PA have introduced more than a dozen bills over the last 30 years, with none of them passing.

"The state is reluctant to pass a mandate, passing it off to the parameters of the local water authority and the local communities are saying we aren't doing it unless the state passes a state-wide mandate," said Camille Kostelac-Cherry from the PA Dental Association. She said there are several reasons for what she calls a never ending game of hot potato, and one of them is politics.

"We've actually had legislators in our state legislature in the past that owned water companies and who were very opposed to it, and convinced colleagues to vote against a state-wide mandate," she said. She also believes that many lawmakers feel pressure from a vocal minority of constiuents against fluoride.

One of those critics is holistic health coach, Amanda Goodwin.

"It's a poison that's destroying our endocrine system and messing up our thyroid," she said.

Amanda believes fluoride is a toxin. She said if you really wanted it, you could find it other ways. Forcing it on people though, in their water supply, is not okay.

Camille, however, disagrees and said that there is science and evidence to prove the benefit of water fluoridation.

She also said that if fluoride is added now, it will show a huge benefit and long term financial savings to the state.

"Dental disease particularly in children is one of the top health concerns in pennsylvania," Kostelac-Cherry said.

Dr. Kasunich said she would much rather prevent a disease than try to treat a disease.

If you are interested in learning more about the fluoride debate, here are links to find more information about both sides of the argument.

http://www.cdc.gov
http://www.ada.org
http://www.actionpa.org

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Fyodor Presents Good News And Bad News.

From CNN via FOX 43:


Handcuffs couldn’t stop this man from proposing to his girlfriend

Please pray for this couple. Despite a rather rough start, their love can save them.

(CNN) — An Oklahoma couple is showing the world that “through thick and thin” starts before marriage.

Police officers were arresting Brandon Thompson, 35, at his Muskogee home on July 4 when he made an odd request. He wanted to propose to his girlfriend, Leandria Keith. A police body camera caught the moment Thompson got down on one knee.

“I didn’t want to part ways with her not showing exactly how I feel for her,” Thompson told CNN by phone. “I want her to be my wife for the rest of my life.”

‘You want to do what?’

The family was celebrating Thompson’s birthday and Independence Day — which fall on the same day — in their front yard when police officers showed up. Officer Bob Lynch had seen Thompson earlier in the day and recognized him from the several felony warrants out for his arrest, so he followed him to the home.

The officers were in the process of detaining Thompson in the front yard when the suspect made his request.

“I asked the officer if I could propose,” said Thompson. “The officer said, ‘You want to do what?’ and I said, ‘I want to propose to her.'”

Lynch and his partner, Officer Lincoln Anderson, agreed to let him do it.

“It took us by surprise that he asked if he could do it,” Anderson, who is also the Muskogee police spokesman, told CNN via Facebook.

The bodycam video shows Thompson asking his mother if he should “do it now” and told her to get the ring. That is when he got down on one knee.

“I love you,” Thompson is heard saying. “Will you be my wife, please?”

Keith said yes. The officer wearing the bodycam is then seen switching Thompson’s handcuffed hands from his back to his front so he could place the engagement ring on Keith’s finger.

“I was shocked,” Keith told CNN.

The couple has been together since May 2016. They told CNN they will set a date for their wedding once Thompson’s legal troubles are resolved.

“When you’re in love with somebody and you know that you want to spend the rest of your life with them, you just want them to know how you feel,” said Thompson. “I wanted a new start for me and with the police taking me to jail I didn’t have to worry about my warrants anymore.”

‘I’m tired of running’

Thompson said he has been “doing a lot to turn his life around.” He has been coaching a peewee football team, which gives him an opportunity to give back to the community, he said.

“So many young kids grow up without fathers and don’t have the correct type of guidance,” said Thompson. “I’ve been down that road before. I don’t want them to make the same mistakes I’ve made.”

Muskogee County District Court documents show Thompson had six felony warrants out for his arrest. Anderson told CNN that the bench warrants were for failure to appear in court or failure to pay.

“He told me two weeks before, ‘Mama, can I come home because I’m tired of running,'” Thompson’s mother, Judy Peal, told CNN. “When the police arrived I told him, ‘Place your hand in your mother’s hand and we’ll walk out.'”

The bodycam video shows Thompson promising his mother and new fiancée that he will turn his life around and “get a job.”

Keith pulled the couple’s savings together to bail Thompson out of jail. He was released the day after his arrest.

Thompson’s next court appearance will be July 17.

‘Police officers are human’

Anderson says he hopes that allowing Thompson to propose will show people the human side of policing.

“We all want to see someone get their life on track,” said Anderson. “Hopefully it will help him make the choices it will take to support his future wife and his kids. And if by letting him take a moment before going to jail to do what he did, then we did our jobs.”

Peal told CNN the police officers were “wonderful” for letting her son propose to Keith while under arrest.

“Police officers are human. We care about the city we serve and the people in it,” said Anderson. “Sometimes the smallest gesture of kindness is the biggest influence in someone’s life.”

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Finally, they produce something other than heresy.

Ok, I'll cut them some slack and give them credit for a blind squirrel moment.

Still too harsh?

May God bless and protect them, for they are obviously trying.


People with warrants get a fresh start with Operation Safe Surrender... - Fox43


YORK, Pa. -- Hundreds of people with outstanding warrants in York County turned themselves in Thursday. However, they didn't do it at a county courthouse, but a local church.

There are nearly 40,000 outstanding warrants in York County needing to be resolved.

Stillmeadow Church of the Nazarene stands in the shadow of the old York County Prison in York City.

Thursday, the focus at Stillmeadow Church was on helping people avoid a prison stay in their future by taking care of warrants from their past.

People from all walks of life showed up at the church, with hopes of wiping out their warrants, and starting over with a clean slate.

Sean Harrison said "it's good to know that you're not alone, and it's great to see everybody out here, trying to get their lives back on track and do the right thing, and take care of their warrants, and their mishaps."

LifePath Christian Ministries CEO Matthew Carey said "if you take an individual into a courthouse, their demeanor is one of being tight and worried. Here, it's a lot less threatening. It's a church building, the environment is a lot more casual."

It's a joint effort between the York County Sheriff's Office and LifePath Christian Ministries called 'Operation Safe Surrender.'

York County Sheriff Richard Keuerleber said "33,000 magisterial warrants ,and we got about 6,000 common pleas warrants, so this will help get warrants cleared up, but more importantly, we want to get people's lives cleared up."

"When they come in here, they're afraid. They're worried about getting incarcerated, but more importantly, the thing is they might be missing pieces in their life like mental health, assistance, job training, life skill development," Carey said.

"We had as far as from Boston and Florida. A guy actually came in on a bus, a greyhound bus last night to turn himself in to do the right thing," Keuerleber said.

It's also why Carey helps people like Harrison, who came to clear his warrants, deal with the past and face a brighter future.

"He came and dealt with his situations. He came and gave me a hug, and he said 'thank you so much.' He's back out doing what he needs to do," Carey said.

"It's a constant headache, looking over your shoulder, not knowing if today's the day you're going to leave your family. So, coming here today and taking care of this is a blessing," Harrison said.

From the looks on people's faces, Operation Safe Surrender appears to be a success.

"They came in debt with their judicial issues, now we're saying to them, what do you need to continue to better your life, 'is it job, is it training,'"Carey said.

"It feels great to be able to go out and be a citizen the right way, and a second chance," Harrison said.
Operation Safe Surrender will take off place again at Stillmeadow Church, 8am until 3pm on Friday.
Sheriff Keuerleber said anyone who has outstanding warrants and misses the event, can still turn themselves in to the Sheriff's Office.

"It's never too late to start over," Keuerleber said.
TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

RISE MY BLACK BROTHERS AND SISTERS! THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN! THE EVIL WHITE DEVILS HAVE GONE TOO DAMN FAR! (And so has the horse they rode in on.)

Not only was Robert E. Lee NOT REPEAT NOT Chinese, he was a poor speller as well!

From unz.com:

Traveler, USC's mascot, comes under scrutiny...


From the Los Angeles Times this afternoon:

Traveler, USC’s mascot, comes under scrutiny for having a name similar to Robert E. Lee’s horse

Nathan Fenno

When Richard Saukko galloped his chalk-white Arabian horse named Traveler around the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum almost 56 years ago, it was supposed to be a one-time stunt.

Instead, the brief performance before USC kicked off its season against Georgia Tech turned into one of college football’s iconic traditions. A succession of white horses named Traveler have followed — Traveler IX debuts this fall — trotting out of the tunnel as “Conquest” plays and the costumed Trojan warrior atop the horse waves a sword. But during a rally earlier this week to show solidarity in the aftermath of the violence in Charlottesville, Va., a USC campus group linked the name to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, whose favorite horse was Traveller.

At the rally, according to the student newspaper the Daily Trojan, Saphia Jackson, co-director of the USC Black Student Assembly, asked students not to be quiet, and reminded that “white supremacy hits close to home” and referenced the name of the Trojans mascot. …

“The problem is this: maybe three weeks ago it was fine,” Pat Saukko DeBernardi said. “So now the flavor of the day is . . . we all have to be in hysteria. . . . It’s more of a political issue. The horse isn’t political and neither am I.”

She noted that the name of Lee’s well-known horse included an extra “l” and, besides, Traveler was already named when her late husband purchased him for $5,000 in 1958, half the asking price. The horse was a fixture in movies like “Snowfire” and “The Ballad of a Gunfighter.”

“He was a movie horse and he turned mean,” Richard Saukko once told The Times. “That’s how I got him so cheap. A few months later, he’d become so gentle again, people wouldn’t believe it was the same horse.”

… He used Charlton Heston’s leftover costumes from “Ben Hur” to assemble a Trojan warrior outfit — though the armor bruised his arms.

Okay, but Traveler is a white horse.

Case closed!

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

I really need to cheer myself up...

I'd like to post hundreds of comics here, but one never knows when somebody is going to resent the free publicity and call Toolgle's copyright cops.

I could revive The King Abdullah Gazette and post Japanese idol photos. Those ladies love free publicity...

But why should I bother? That would probably be racist ("Where are the idols of other colors, you hater?") and the world really doesn't appreciate beauty any longer. I doubt it deserves beauty either.

I wonder how Jennifer Love Hewitt is doing these days...

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

What's Heap Big Lying Squaw been up to?

From the rag produced by Fake Conservative and kinda-iffy Catholic Sauron Ingraham comes word that the fascist left's new favorite cow is more than a teensy bit hypocritical.


Elizabeth Warren Uses Legal Loophole to Raise Big Cash | LifeZette


Here's the gist of it, kiddies:

...Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform at the Campaign Legal Center, said 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took advantage of the same perfectly legal mechanism to merge her campaign committee with the Democratic National Committee and several state party committees to form a fundraising juggernaut. A single donor could dump $350,000 into the Hillary Victory Fund.

In theory, Fischer said, such an arrangement allows a better-known candidate to help party organizations and less-known candidates raise money from a marquee name headlining joint fundraising events.

"What happened in most cases is, the money was transferred back to the DNC, and the money was used to help Clinton," he said.

In the case of the Elizabeth Warren Action Fund, campaign finance records show that almost all of the money raised in the first half the year — more than $1 million — went back into Warren's campaign...


The game is rigged by the One Party. No matter who you vote for, the fascists get in.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

For some strange reason, Katy Perry just got really, really attractive...

'American Idol' Producer Defends Katy Perry's $25 Million Salary - Us

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

The racist, whorish, moronic sodomites at Disney strike again!

The Old Gray Whore witnesses the madness it helped create:

ESPN Pulls Announcer Robert Lee From Virginia Game Because of His Name...

The network said that for safety reasons, Lee, right, would not be in the broadcast booth as planned for the University of Virginia’s Sept. 2 game at Charlottesville. Credit ESPN, via YouTube 

        ESPN has removed an announcer from its broadcast of the University of Virginia’s first football game next month because he has the same name as a Confederate general memorialized in statues that are being taken down across the country...

Mr. Lee, who is obviously of Asian descent, ("Why 'obviously' you evil racist?") should sue the Disney pervs for as big an amount as his lawyer can imagine. This is as extreme an example of left-fascist racial discrimination as the eight years of Okhrana were.

Unless a jury believes Mr. Lee's ancestors anglicized their surname in order to insult and terrorize every black person in their adopted country, he will win in a walk-over.

BTW, if you believe that, you suffer a particular kind of stupid and evil known as left-fascism.

Memo to everybody named Lee: You better go ethnic ASAP and change to Li before you get fired or beaten up by the always fascist "anti-fascists" of the left.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.