Am I My Brother's Keeper?

Stereotypes are a real time saver, aren't they?  For a good chuckle, check out the article on The Onion, entitled "Stereotypes Are a Real Time-Saver."  But aren't they?  I mean, they jump us right ahead to whatever we WANT to believe about categorized groups of individuals.  So convenient.  So nice.

Stereotypes like, "Only Democrats care about poor people and doing whatever we can to raise them up.  And Republicans care only about money, and stepping on the heads of the poor to get ahead."  It feels really good to demonize others.  Really builds up the self-esteem.

"No thanks - don't need to hear any evidence to the contrary.  I'm good with my misguided assumptions."

So let me set something straight:  Democrats do not care one iota more about the poor than Republicans do.  They DO - though - have very different ideas of HOW to help the poor.  One says "Our government should use our taxes to help the poor" and the other says, "We are all personally responsible to help the poor."

That said, both sides have good intentions, just very different perspectives:

• Good Democrat argument:  If the government is not providing programs, how can you be assured that people will help as much as they should?  Many of the rich are greedy and will not help those less fortunate.
• Good Republican argument:  Why should we trust the government to do what we should do?  Who says the government can handle this efficiently?  History and many current government programs have proven that they simply can't.

Both are correct, to an extent.  So, we have a conundrum, don't we?

And to exacerbate the situation, just providing entitlements has created dependency in many cases, and an ultimate lack of motivation to get up and out.  Not in all cases, but in too many.  However, this is normal human behavior - the long-term recipients of free help can't be blamed for a desire to be paid for doing nothing anymore than a child can be blamed for being a spoiled brat when the parents have been giving them everything they ask for and expecting nothing in return.  I'm not comparing the less fortunate with spoiled brats - not my point.  But certainly the same concept.  It's learned behavior.  If you take away motivation to improve oneself and ones situation, why do you expect a light at the end of the tunnel?

So, let's drop this "Democrats are the party of the poor" nonsense.  "Democrats are the party of the 'free stuff' given out by a government that is so far in debt, no one can wrap their head around it"?  Absolutely.  Republicans, on the whole, care just as much.  There is greed, yes.  But don't fool yourself - that exists on both sides.  It's a human flaw, not a political thing.

Call to action:  Give whenever you can.  If you have extra - give.  Get out of your bubble.  Step out of your comfort zone.  Do something.  But DON'T ask our highly inefficient federal government to do what WE - as fellow humans - are called to do.

We ARE our brother's keeper.  Time to step up and stop expecting the next guy (or President) to swoop in and save the day.

It's Got to Stop

I posted the following on Facebook earlier today.  I read one too many articles about our National Debt combined with one more "It's their fault" statement from a politician and I was convicted.

"Reduction of the national debt will take sacrifice from ALL of us. Across the board cuts in ALL government programs, a likely raising of taxes, and doing it with a humble and giving spirit. ALL THREE, NO LESS. We can't keep GIVING money that we are BORROWING. That's what we're doing. Every dollar we spend on any program while we still owe almost $18 trillion and counting rapidly is irresponsible and cruel to our children's children. We MUST step up in a bi-partisan way. No more finger-pointing, just problem solving."

This country has gotten to a point where, if it's not a crisis ... if people's heads aren't falling off ... then we don't dedicate ourselves to solving a given problem.  Or maybe it's the "old football injury" scenario, where it's been an issue so long and we've heard it too many times that we now think it's normal.  Maybe it's because the majority of American's just aren't educated in economics and financial matters and have no idea the deep hole in which we now find ourselves.

We are in a crisis situation.  We now have more debt than we produce as a country.  This term is GDP (Gross Domestic Product).  And it's what a nation produces in a given year.  We owe MORE than that.  

Yet we give like we're made of money.  Aww, isn't that nice of us.  To give other people's money away as though it were ours.  Such a nice country we are.  This must stop.  This must be reversed.  

No more blaming the other guys.  No more stalling.  No more raising the debt ceiling - I think most people don't even know what that means.  Raising the debt ceiling?  That's like taking a spoiled rotten teenager who's been spending uncontrollably on shoes and cars, and partying, and jewelry ... never paying the credit card companies for the purchases year after year after year, then saying, "You don't have any money left?  No problem, here are three more credit cards.  Go crazy."  It's insanity, but days, months and years pass and we haven't done anything about it.

And if I hear, "Well, we reduced the budget deficit" one more time, I'll flip out.  Translation:  We are still spending way more money than we are bringing in, but we're spending less than we were before this month.  Woopety-doo.  So, the spoiled teenager only bought 5 new pairs of shoes this month instead of 6, when there was no money for shoes at all.  And we should celebrate that?  What have we become?

Some think everything is fine because it FEELS fine.  But that is an artificial euphoria they feel.  The truth:  We are floating around on the comfort of someone else's money.  And just like it will be for the spoiled teenager, the party will come to an end for us, too.  In fact it should have ended a few times, but we keep adding to it, driving faster and faster PAST the point of no return.  

So why should we care if we're ALREADY past the point of no return?  Answer:  Responsibility, integrity, and reality.  Equally important - other countries will NOT forgive our debt.  And if we can't pay with money, we will pay with property, land, our freedoms, etc.

We must stop, take a look at where we are fiscally, then create a plan, KNOWING it will be hard - VERY hard.  KNOWING that we will all have to sacrifice - more sacrifice than we've ever seen.  KNOWING it will take 10-20 years, and persevering to the end no matter how much it hurts.  But KNOWING we will be doing it for our children and children's children.  And THAT is what matters.  Time to get off our comfy American futon and face the real world.  We are spoiled.  Spoiled rotten.

Easy to point out the problem.  Harder to solve the problem.  So, here is a "straw man" proposal for eliminating the debt in 20 years and getting us on a balanced budget.  It will be modeled after the Dave Ramsey approach to PERSONAL budgeting (i.e. Financial Peace University), combined with simple biblical principles of tithing, as Dr. Ben Carson has suggested in his book, One Nation:  What We Can All Do to Save America's Future.  These ideas are not hard and fast - they are a first pass set of suggestions to start the conversation.  But we've got to get to a set plan fast, then begin executing on it a.s.a.p.  Before the end of 2015, so we are out of debt with a balanced budget by 2035.  As Dave Ramsey says, "We must begin living like no one else, so that one day we can live and give like no one else."

We must begin living like no one else, so that one day our progeny can live and give like no one else.

Here's how it would work:

1. The Debt Snowball.  Pay off the highest interest debts (or the most threatening debt, for whatever reason) first.  Pay the most we can per month for all debts.  Let's say, $1 billion per month per debt.  Once one is paid off, put that payment toward the next smallest, but also continue to pay the current $1 billion per month (so $2 billion/month).  Then the next at $3 billion per month.  And so on.  I was too lazy to work out the math here, but that monthly amount to start with likely needs to be substantially more.  But keep doing this until all debt is paid off.  If we accomplish this before 2035, let's have a nice party.  I'll bring the Funyuns.
2. The Incredibly Shrinking Programs.  Starting in 2016, 10% reduction of ALL government programs - no exceptions (this is another Ben Carson special).  Then an incremental 10% the following year.  Then a third incremental 10% reduction in 2018.  Maybe we space it out a bit more, but you get the idea.  At the end of this 1-2-3 punch, we have reduced overall spending by 27.1%.  Then we sustain that through 2035.  No increases to budgets except maybe for normal inflation (3-4%).  
3. Tax Adjustment (medium term).  25% flat tax starting in 2016.  We've got to cut deep, but it needs to be fair and balanced.  No more taking advantage of the financially challenged in our country.  What I mean is, everyone pays their fair share and no more "they make more, so they should pay a bigger percentage" nonsense.  As Dr. Carson states in his book, if someone makes $100 billion per year, they will pay $25 billion.  No more complex tax systems where loopholes exist.  Just pay your share.  Tax form has two simple questions:  "How much did you make?", then "What is 25% of that?"  Insert check.  Mail.  For someone who makes $10,000 per year, you pay $1,000.  Same tax form.
4. Tax Adjustment (long term).  10% starting in 2035.  Once we're to the goal line (a.k.a. zero debt), we can let up ... but maintain 10%.  Why 10%?  Why not?  God thought it made sense for tithing.  Why not for us?

We've got to bite the bullet.  We're like the chronic smoker or drinker or eater that feels the pains, knows the facts, but keeps on smoking, drinking and eating.  That person will die - horribly.  

For my kids, your kids, and their kids, let's jump on this NOW.  Each day that passes is another 100 feet deeper we're digging into the hole.  Let's stop digging and start climbing out.

God bless America.  Land that I love.

Our Childlike View of the Universe

Agreed.  However, ignorance plays a major role, too.

Often, I tell those who purport to be Atheist (they're more likely Agnostic, though) not to neglect studying ALL the data before coming to a conclusion.  If I study half of the data, I can come to some pretty crazy conclusions.  By the way, I tell Christians the same - study all the data.  To that point ...

I just finished watching Did God Create the Universe? a film by Steven Hawking.  First off - very cool.  I learned a few things.  I also heard a few of the same things I learned when the Big Bang Theory first emerged.  I like the theory - it is a very strong guess at what exactly happened based on the natural observations we can make today via physics, astronomy, and quantum theory.  I recall giving a talk on the Big Bang when I was in 5th grade.  See - I was a skeptic even at that age, seeking the truth.  Through my efforts to take in ALL data points, I eventually found that truth at age 38, about 5 years ago.  For more on that, feel free to read "A Skeptic's Epiphany".  Back to Mr. Hawking's film ...

While I did not come to the same conclusions as to what Mr. Hawking was proposing at the conclusion of the film, I did learn a lot about how the Atheist argument is contrived (and I learned more about this incredible universe God created - amazing stuff).  The film makes a salient argument from our limited human grasp of reality, but disregards certain data points (I think both intentionally and unintentionally) to strengthen its argument.  I agree on a number of points.   

• A "Big Bang" of sorts seems pretty logical - at least as far as my brain can fathom.  How that bang happened is up for discussion, but I can't think of anything better using only natural causes.
• The concept of time slowing to a stop within a black hole seems logical, as well, and echos likely how it was prior to the Big Bang, in theory.  No time, no space ... nothing material.

A few observations, however:

1. It says, in conclusion, that the Universe could not have been created by a God because time did not exist before the Big Bang.  There was no “time” to create it, and nothing existed before time.  This assumes God is within the constraints of time and space, which He is not.  This is an assumption based on a desire to remove God from the equation, not a logical conclusion.
2. The film rightfully notes many historical fallacies created by humans in order to  highlight how many supernatural beliefs of the past were explained away through the continued pursuit of science.  Thank goodness for this pursuit, as we would likely still have people who believe that Thor (the god of lightning) struck down some guy's house because he displeased him.  The conclusion, however, was intended to lead the viewer to an impression that “this too” (belief in God) is just another fallacy that science can explain away.  But it doesn’t - not even close.  Because one is untrue does not mean the other is untrue, especially considering actual evidence that God exists and is involved in our lives minute by minute.  That said, here are a few points the film doesn't even mention:
• The Universe creating the Universe assumes that there was an infinitesimally dense, infinitesimally small dot where all the ingredients existed.  It was in a primordial black hole where time had not started.  Interesting theory, but this creates other questions:  “Where did this stuff come from?  And where did the black hole come from?”
• This film in no way touches on life.  Even simple single-cell life, not to mention complex, sentient life.  Did life create life?  Matter into life?  Alchemists have tried making gold from lead and failed.  How can life come from matter?  A "chemical reaction" is a stretch and is equivalent to saying a software application came from two microchips in a saucer of milk.  This is grasping-at-straws logic
• Where did DNA come from?  The complex code that is DNA in one molecule is enough to fill a stack of books that would extend to the moon multiple times over.  Where did this intelligent, non-radom data come from?
• And consciousness?  How can we even think about this?  How is Steven’s brain even working in this way?  What would be the natural purpose?
3. If you were hiking in the most remote areas of one of the great forests, and came across a device that was assembled in such a way that it accurately told time, fit on your wrist and had writing on it that spelled out Rolex, would you even consider a theory that nature created it?  Or would the simple explanation be that a watch designer create it?

He states that the easiest explanation is that this all just "happened" - negative energy (like a hole being dug) creating positive energy (like a mound of dirt), balancing things out perfectly.  He states that God does not need to exist for this and that, likely, heaven and hell or any afterlife does not exist.  "This is the easiest explanation", he says.  Not so.  The easier, more elegant explanation comes with God at the center.  

There is a dog on this earth that is the smartest dog in history.  I believe that.  That dog is probably capable of thinking beyond the capabilities of other dogs … but he is still a dog.  His mental capability can only expand so far, then it stops.  Therefore, there are MANY things outside of his grasp (literally and figuratively since he has no opposable thumbs).  He doesn’t think so, but we know so.  If he could speak our language, he would likely argue that point with you, though.  Steven Hawking is no different.  Everything he’s discovered (along with history’s other great scientists) is incredible.  An achievement worthy of appreciation, admiration and study.  But it is not AGAINST God.  Quite to the contrary - it is a deeper glimpse into God’s creation.  That is the beauty of real science - we can figure out how things work - things God created and put in motion.  But we're in a 5 million foot deep pool, swimming around in the wading area, coming to lackluster conclusions because we don't want to believe God exists and might care what we do with our lives.

Sometimes we are just silly ... arrogant and self-aggrandizing.  We believe that the very intelligence given to us by God is somehow a way to prove He doesn’t exist, instead of His gift to allow us to understand Him better.  Steven - you are far more intelligent than I am in many ways, but common sense is not one of your greatest traits.  At least this film makes it seem like that's the case.  I love what you do - keep doing it.  But also, consider (do not preclude) the supernatural as well as the natural.  

Most concepts discovered by science were already in the Bible.  PEOPLE got this wrong in history, yes, but the Bible always had it right.  People - not the Bibles they read - are flawed.  Steven, you are climbing a mountain to Truth, but when you reach the top, you will find Theologians sitting there holding a Bible.  Please don't stop climbing though.  What you are learning about God’s creation is fascinating and important and I want to know it.  I thank you for this.  But to use it as a way to disprove the very Creator that gave you the ability to climb?  Childlike in its innocence, but beautiful and worthwhile nonetheless.

Many parents - including Steven Hawking's, I imagine - have used the phrase, "Because I said so."  This phrase is either a lazy response or, more often, it's an acknowledgement by the parent that the concept the toddler is asking "but why?" about is simply beyond the toddler's mental capability.  For now, it's best to just tell the toddler, "I'll explain when you get older."  In case my analogy wasn't clear, God is the parent ... we are the toddler.  

And the toddler should most definitely keep asking, "but why?".

For more on this topic, see No Steven Hawking, God Did Create the Universe >>

P.S. The archaic definition of "science" is, simply, "knowledge".  As long as science is the pursuit of knowledge, without precluding data we'd prefer not to consider from the beginning, ending at the most logical conclusions ... I am a huge fan of science.  It is our limited ability to understand that which God - our Creator - has made so.  It's a beautiful pursuit and I am open to any logical conclusions.

The Real Obama - Some things you need to know whether you're Right-wing or Left-wing or Independent

First and foremost:  Obama means well.  But that - I believe - is precisely the problem.

Before I begin, let me make a few things clear:

• He is not inept.  He is very bright and highly strategic.
• He is not likely a Muslim - this perception comes from the seemingly odd way he sometimes deals with Muslim-based nations.  I don't believe he is in any way a Christian, either.  Either way - does not matter for the purposes of this blog.
• He is not a "standard" liberal as both Democrats and Republicans seem to think he is.
• He WAS born in Hawaii, making him a US citizen.  Let's get past that.
• He is in no way what you think he is, whether you're on the right or left.  No, I'm not going to tell you I think he's an alien from some distant planet. 

The way-right seems to think he is a way-left liberal, a tree-hugger ;), a potential Muslim or at least a terrorist supporter, an immigrant who says he was born here, etc.  This is not correct.

The Left seems to think he is a speaker for the less-fortunate American, a great environmentalist, a supporter of women's "rights", and a model Democrat.  This is not correct either, although that is what he's lead you to fully believe.

Allow me to explain ...

No one seems to ever discuss his past, the distinct influences from his formative years, and the seemingly random things he does that sometimes make no sense.  But they DO make sense - to him.  He came on the scene from - it seems - nowhere.  Sharp dressed, big smile, handsome, calm demeanor, great with a speech ... saying some "pretty" things that, at a high level, people could get behind.  Albeit there were never absolute specifics - more nice-sounding platitudes.  But no one REALLY knew him.

I learned before the 2008 election, then again in 2012 that people get swept up in ideas - the ideas that sound great.  Hope.  Progress.  Who can argue?  Even I got swept up a bit.  And that is exactly how Obama ran his campaign - with these vague and idealistic messages ... the ideas that people wanted to hear, in general.  And he knew that's what they wanted to hear.  However, it has been said - by the Rev Jeremiah Wright, amongst many others - that Obama tells the public what he wants them to believe, to distract them from what he's actually doing.  It's genius and maniacal all at once.

At this point, you're thinking I'm some kind of conspiracy theorist.  You're partially right.  I haven't said anything until now because I hadn't seen the theory fully play out until more recently.  And it has played out, but the most recent verdict is - Obama is inept.  But this is not true.  He is brilliant.   But I do not mean this to be a complement, but an observation.

The theory I'm communicating below was first posited by Dinesh D'Souza who has written a few books on the subject.  Problem is, the people that need to read the books - those who think they know Obama, and voted for him - aren't reading the books or seeing the movies.  Also, the media is not talking about it.  Odd.  Or is it odd?  Does the media know?  Or are they just as fooled?

The first book I read from Dinesh D'Souza was called "Obama's America:  Unmaking the American Dream" and was followed up by a movie that was in all the theatres called "2016:  Obama's America".  Unfortunately, only those who don't support Obama saw it.  The folks who think they know Obama and support who they believe he is did not see the movie or read the books.  The book and the movie were very fair, and posited a very educated and well-researched theory about what Obama's actual goals are.  I'll repeat - I believe Obama means well.  He believes what he is doing is what's best for America.  And he comes from a perspective where the ends justify the means - whatever means necessary.  And that includes telling the public (including his supporters) one thing, then doing something else entirely, confusing everyone.  

From the books, you'll learn his influences.  I didn't know most of these people before reading about them, so I don't expect you to (although you can learn about them in the books, just as I did).  He was a student of many extreme radicals (e.g. Saul Olinsky, et al) who learned that you can't be an effective radical if you look like a radical.  You must always look respectable, speak with a calm and soothing voice, and "tell them what they want to hear" while you're accomplishing your goals.  So, to be more specific, here is what he is actually up to:

1. He is an anti-colonialist, just like his birth Dad, Barack Obama, Sr.  What is an anti-colonialist?  I didn't know either, because we don't really use that term over here.  You see, to 3rd world countries, WE are the colonialists.  In their minds, we were built 100% by stealing from them.  We came in and took their stuff.  The only fair thing - in the mind of an anti-colonialist is to make things right by re-dispensing the wealth created back to the 3rd world countries.  The "1%" he's always talking about "paying their fair share"?  He's talking on a global level - so not just Americans.  While we think he means those who make $150-200K or more, HE means anyone earning $30K per year or more.  THAT'S the 1% - that's YOU.  
2. Based on the above worldview (anti-colonialism), his father wrote papers about instituting a 100% income tax (not a joke - and he was quite serious) and providing all services through the Federal government.  You may say, "Barack Jr is not Barack Sr."  True, but HE is the one who wrote, "Dreams From My Father:  A Story of Race and Inheritance".  Have you read it?  Much of Dinesh D'Souza's book focuses on what Obama clearly says in his own book.  He's hiding in plain site.  And notice, the title is not "Dreams OF My Father".  The key word - from. Again - it is explained quite a bit in his own words, by our President.  In fact, Obama does the reading of his own book, so the movie has many lengthy narratives, unedited (so his words are not twisted), in Barack Obama's words - his own voice.  The dreams are FROM his father, and he is living them out since his father could not.  
3. You may have heard of the term, "White Guilt".  Coming from a white guy, I know this is chancy, but I learned this term from Dinesh D'Souza who is Indian, so I guess since his skin tone is darker, it's okay for him to say (sarcasm).  I love the PC world we live in.  Anyway, White Guilt is what white people feel for the absolutely atrocious way our ancestors treated Black people's anestors in the early days of our country.  To be clear, it's not bad for us to feel some guilt there - even some Christians used the Bible to justify slavery (which is not in the Bible - although it discusses slavery and gives advice to those enslaved).  Shameful.  I - for one - have felt the white guilt, so it's real.  I've seen it.  That said, my point is that Obama has masterfully capitalized on this.  He was taught by people like Saul Olinsky that being an "Angry Black Man" may be effective in the short term to get what you want, but not being angry - being calm and collected and seemingly forgiving in nature - is far more effective.  Those with White Guilt feel relieved to meet a sharp, intelligent man of color ... someone who is not angry at them, who does not make them feel like a racist.  And they are thankful.  They are relieved.  Voting for Obama, in many cases was a statement:  "See?  I'm not a racist.  I voted for our first Black President!"  
4. He believes in a specific America and - as mentioned - he believes that vision of America is what's best for both America and the world.  That America is a significantly lesser America.  Dinesh uses an analogy to explain:  It's like he became the coach of the Lakers, who keep winning and have become pompous.  That's not fair to the other teams.  He believes what would be best for the Lakers would be to ensure they lose.  That would give others a chance to win, even the playing field, and it would humble the Lakers, making them better people.  So, to do so, he coaches in a way that they lose every game and come in last, or at least at a much lower standing in the league.  The key is, he'd never last as a coach if anyone figured out this was his goal.  So he conveys a different goal:  "We are going to Rebuild the Lakers!  Yes we can!  Si se puede!"
5. Based on the previous point, how can he make this happen?
• Drive us over the fiscal cliff.  We are now $17.5 trillion in debt, growing (not paying off, but continuing to spend MORE) so rapidly it's mind boggling.  That is more than $150,000.00 per tax payer to pay that off.  Bush made it jump with the initial bail outs, but Obama took the reigns and hit the gas pedal ... up $6.666 trillion more since 2008 after he took office.  That is almost 40% (38%+) of the total national debt, all created by one President - Barack Obama.  
• Federal government take-over of key industries.  Automotive, financial ... healthcare.  And so on.  This has already happened.  To control the people, you must control what the people need.
• Quieting the public from speaking out.  Our 1st Amendment provides us with Freedom of Speech - to criticize our government, for instance.  There is legislation being pushed through right now that would limit our ability to voice disapproval of our government.  Check it out for yourself.
• Take the guns.  To government to fully control, we can't be able to fight back.  That would ruin everything.  So, the guns must be taken.  This is exactly why that specific component was included in the U.S. Constitution - for personal protection, but also for use in a militia, in case the government attempts to overs-step its power.  I heard something funny the other day:  "Make gun ownership illegal to stop gun violence.  It works for drugs, right?"
• And so on.
6. Hold back advances here while funding those same things in 3rd world countries.  The oil industry is a great example - we all know he's taken significant action to slow or stop growth in this industry, especially exploration.  And while that is noble to care about the environment, etc., that is not his purpose.  While he's holding American companies back, he is significantly funding other countries - billions and billions of American tax payer dollars for other countries to explore, drill, refine, etc.  
7. Lessening our military power while supporting the strengthening of military powers elsewhere, specifically those who are not America-friendly.  Lots of discrepancies in our dealings with countries in the middle east - taking action with some, standing back with others.  Seemingly random, until you apply this theory.  Then they all make perfect sense.  And, nuclear disarmament for America, but no demand for other countries to lessen theirs.  Hmm.
8. I would like to go on, but you've read enough.  

Now that we're halfway through Obama's second term, Dinesh D'Souza has followed up with another book and movie showing how his educated and well-researched theory has come to pass.  The book is called, "America:  Imagine a World Without Her".  I suggest picking up a copy (I have already ordered it from Amazon) and/or see the movie by the same name (here is the trailer).  

So, I'm not passing judgement in this blog.  He's already in and can not run for another term - so this is not political.  I am simply informing you of who Barack Obama really is.  If the above is what YOU think is what's best for America, then good for you - we should be "lessened" very soon, especially once the economy crashes.  But don't be fooled that he is the man you THINK he was when you voted for him or against him, whether you're a lefty or a righty.  

Please study up on this.  If you vote and you have no idea about the candidates for whom you vote, you're hurting yourself, your family, and your neighbors.  At least see the movies and discern for yourself.  This is all stated by Obama himself (in his voice, in his own words - that's the majority of the last film).  The balance is filled in by his family in Africa and from understanding his influences - the people he studied under (not just met or vaguely knew, but STUDIED under).

Hope this was helpful.  It certainly helped me.

Judgement Defined

Terms like "judgement", "intolerance", "bigotry", "hateful", and so forth get tossed around these days like beads at Mardi Gras.  I think it's time to discuss just one of those terms to "stop the insanity" shown by the uber-PC crowd who inappropriately throw the Judgement Card.  

So, from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Judgement (noun) - a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion; a formal decision given by a court; an obligation (as a debt) created by the decree of a court; a certificate evidencing such a decree; the final judging of humankind by God.

Now, a word from my sponsor:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.  So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?  Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?     Romans 2:1-4

In summary:  Don't judge.  Before pointing out the splinter in your brother's eye, remove the plank from yours.  He who is without sin, feel free to cast the first stone.  And so on.  100% truth.

But let's handle this like a Q&A.  Here we go ...

Who gets to judge?

The Creator of our universe, the Creator of this world, the Creator of us.  a.k.a. God.  The Creator gave us laws just like we as parents (assuming you, the reader, are a parent) provide boundaries and instructions that we expect our children to follow.  If they do not, there are repercussions.  This is out of love, to protect, to sculpt them into the men or women they're intended to be.  In this light, judgement IS love, when it comes from a good parent.  

Is telling someone the truth really judgement?

Depends on how you convey it.   Depends on your intentions, too.  But providing someone information that is intended to help them - that they clearly don't know - is kindness, not judgement.  However, this information ... this truth ... MUST be delivered in love.  Softly.  Sometimes truth is very hard to hear, so we must be gentle and caring.  But NOT providing this information is not a good option.  It is simply irresponsible and uncaring.  To avoid delivery of that critical information out of awkwardness, fear of someone calling you names (e.g. "intolerant", "bigot") or otherwise ridiculing you, or fear of "hurting someone's feelings" is not loving.  In fact, it's cowardice and it's laziness.  It's the equivalent of watching someone walk toward a cliff, knowing they will fall over it, and saying, "Oh well - don't want to offend them.  They probably know there is a cliff there."    

If it feels like judgement (hate, bigotry, etc.) but intentions aren't to judge but to inform or help, is it still judgement?

I once had a good friend state, "If something feels hateful, it is hateful."  But, I think we can all agree that our emotions can not be trusted to guide our lives or to make decisions.  Not emotions alone, at least.  Using the parent-child analogy again, how do you think a child feels when her parent says "No!" to something the child REALLY wants to do?  Have you been to a grocery store, especially on the cereal aisle?  This is where beatings begin ;)  Should a parent back down when the child erupts in a full-out tantrum?  

Please say 'no'.  We're in reality, not in Dr. Spok land. 

Bottom line, we know better than our children.  What is good for them and what is horrible for them.  And God knows infinitely more than our tiny brains can fathom.  Sometimes we DO feel like God is picking on us.  I know I have at times.  But that is because - at moments like that - we think we know better than God.  Let's say that again and let it sink in ...

We think we know better than God.  

Pure silliness.  Just like the kid who packs up his legos, some candy, and a picture of Mom, and runs away, only to learn that he can't make it without his parents.  That they have not thought it all through.  That there are simply some things they don't understand, that we - the parents - do.  

The definition of 'judgement' has been altered over time and is sometimes seen as hateful when it's not.  Of course, sometimes it is hateful and a demonstration of full on bigotry.  If so, cut it out.  You're not the judge.  God is.

Why are we all here?  Really?  I believe what Jesus tells me:  Love God.  Love People.  (I'm paraphrasing of course from 1 John 4:9-11.)  Sometimes that love comes with salt, not sugar.  But that love must be given, despite the potential short-term repercussions.  The long term repercussions are EXPONENTIALLY worse.

Love to you all.