Category: Christianity

Of Blasphemies and Apologies

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics2 Comments

I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the Bible. It is in substance, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my politics – the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced upon by our people.

-Frederick Douglass

I wish we had leaders like Frederick Douglass around today in America. Then, perhaps, we wouldn’t have a vulgar public blasphemy, like the following.

Todd Starnes of FoxNews.com reports the story:

“Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan on Thursday. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”

The artwork debuted in 1989 and was funded through prize money provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. The art gallery hosting the retrospective salute to Andres Serrano is privately owned.

Religious groups and some lawmakers have already started sounding off – and making comparisons to the controversy over a recent anti-Muslim film. The low budget movie “Innocence of Muslims” sparked violent and deadly clashes across the globe.

It also brought strong rebukes, condemnations and apologies from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a host of administration officials.

The administration tried to have the film removed from YouTube – but Google rebuffed their request. The State Dept. spent $70,000 on a Pakistani television advertisement rebuking the film. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff personally telephoned a Christian minister in Florida to ask him to withdraw his support of the film.

Rep. Michael Grimm (R, C-NY) wants to know why President Obama hasn’t denounced the exhibit and said he’s fed up with what he called the administration’s “religious hypocrisy.”

“The Obama administration’s hypocrisy and utter lack of respect for the religious beliefs of Americans has reached an all-time high,” Grimm told Fox News. “I call on President Obama to stand up for America’s values and beliefs and denounce the ‘Piss Christ’ that has offended Christians at home and abroad.”

So will the Obama Administration condemn the anti-Christian art display? Will they air a television ad denouncing the exhibit? Will the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask the gallery to cancel the exhibit?

The White House did not return calls seeking comment. Neither did the Pentagon.

The State Dept. referred to a previous statement Clinton made in reference to the anti-Islamic film.

“America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation,” Clinton said. “And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”

Grimm said the lack of response from the White House is unacceptable.

“Perhaps they’ve forgotten the controversy that surrounds this deplorable piece depicting a crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine,” Grimm said. “It outraged Christians in American and throughout the world.”

Grimm, who is Catholic, said he found the artwork to be vulgar and offensive, “just as many in the Islamic world found ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be highly offensive.”

“Like most Americans, I condemn both yet remain tolerant as the First Amendment demands,” he said. “Unfortunately, this administration has yet to echo these views in regards to the religiously offensive ‘art’ here at home.”

Mr. Douglass would be embarrassed by the actions of the so-called “Leader of the Free World”:

John Nolte of Breitbart.com reports:

…Not only are we seeing the White House and State Department call more attention to the Mohammed-mocking “Innocence of Muslims” than any terrorist network ever could’ve hoped for, but the President’s indefensible scapegoating of the film and filmmaker to draw attention and blame away from U.S. security failures apparently knows no bounds.

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president’s speech to the UN General Assembly next week:

“UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World.”

“As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable[.]

My God, between the media and the Obama White House, we are finally witnessing Orwell’s “1984” blossom to life.

As our economy slows, incomes shrink, unemployment creeps up, and poverty explodes — the media assures us we’re in “recovery” and that our frustrations should be taken out on “Emmanuel Goldstein,” also known as “America’s Successful.”

As Obama’s appalling policy of disengaging in the Middle East comes to fruition in the form of the region exploding and al-Qaeda’s targeted assassination of an American ambassador — the media spends two weeks savaging Mitt Romney and directing our sorrow, rage, and helplessness on “Emmanuel Goldstein,” also known as “A Stupid Filmmaker.”

For weeks this administration, aided and abetted by The State Media, has shamelessly lied to us about what happened in Libya. Moreover, in order to cover up and distract for unforgivable security lapses, this hapless filmmaker has been targeted for all of the blame — certainly more blame than the Administration’s failure to secure a consulate on 9/11 (of all days), but even more blame than the actual murderers.

And now, even though we know the truth about what really happened in Libya, it won’t stop. It will never stop. Because Obama knows his media will never make him pay a political price for lying and scapegoating.

At all costs, the media quietly whispers amongst themselves, Obama must be reelected.

The most troubling and Orwellian element in of all this is that the Administration’s lies are now becoming truths. As we saw in Pakistan and elsewhere yesterday, Obama’s scapegoating and calling unnecessary attention to this film appears to be turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. How many millions of Muslims are hearing about the film that might not have if Obama didn’t need his Emmanuel Goldstein? Now that our government has ensured every Islamist radical on the planet knows about this film, how much easier is it for extremists to use it to foment chaos?

Donchaknow, it’s the “in-thing,” what all radicals are doing this season! Don’t you watch the American media?

And so, next week, as Obama condemns this film, and therefore the American ideal of freedom of speech, before the entire world — all in an effort to quadruple-down on a brazen lie that’s already been exposed as such — it will truly be the ultimate Big Brother moment of this presidency.

So…Freedom of Speech only applies to the blasphemers and those who agree with your political philosophy, Mr. President?

And, on top of that, you’re kissing the…err…feet of those who want to kill each and every one of us, and apologizing on our behalf for a movie, which no one has seen, and which did not cause the Muslim Violence to begin with?

You are quite aware that al Qaeda is behind the violence, Mr. President. And, yet, you still plan on hosting the Muslim Brotherhood member Egyptian President this week in the White House. Heck, Huma Abedin (Mrs. Anthony Weiner), your Secretary of State’s assistant and close friend, has close family members in the Terrorist Organization.

Are you purposefully selling out our ally, Israel, and our very nation, Mr. President?

Or, are you really that big of a Lightweight?

Both possibilities scare me tremendously.

Democrats Deny God 3 Times…and Do their Own Crowing

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Luke 22: 54-62 

54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance. 55 And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. 56 Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” 58 And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” 59 And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” 62 And he went out and wept bitterly.

Last Wednesday, in an emergency Floor Vote, the Democrat Bosses “rectified” a  “mistake of omission” (or so they claimed).

Businessinsider.com reported the the story:

Democrats added mentions of the word “God” and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital today in a testy vote that left angry delegates booing on the floor.

It took three votes to pass the resolution in what was an extremely tense and divided vote. The first two votes failed, but DNC chairman Antonio Villaraigosa declared that the resolution had passed by a two-thirds majority on the third vote.

[The teleprompter showed the results before the measure was declared “passed”!]

“I heard a lot from the other side,” said Kenneth McClintock, a superdelegate and Secretary of State of Puerto Rico. McClintock said Puerto Rico supported the resolution.

“I was surprised” that the vote was so testy, he added.

Republicans had blasted the Democrats’ original platform, which had taken out mentions of “God” and did not affirm Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

And many delegates thought that the platform change was a direct response to some of the backlash, prompting some to worry that it will be more fodder for Republicans in the final months of the campaign.

“Conservatives are always going to criticize Democrats for not supporting Israel or not being religious enough, or whatever it is that day,” said Brandon Cooper, a delegate from Texas.

On cue, the Romney campaign released a statement from spokeswoman Andrea Saul:

“Mitt Romney has consistently stated his belief that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Although today’s voice vote at the Democratic National Convention was unclear, the Democratic Party has acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. President Obama has repeatedly refused to say the same himself. Now is the time for President Obama to state in unequivocal terms whether or not he believes Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.”

nationalreview.com has reactions to that vote:

The video of a large number of Democrat delegates voting no — three times in a row — on identifying Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and adding God to the platform has already gone viral. But on the ground here in Charlotte, the platform vote seems not to have been to the delegates.

Kathy Sullivan, a New Hampshire delegate, wasn’t present for the vote. (Many of the delegates I spoke to weren’t, suggesting that there was little messaging done to the delegates on the issue beforehand.) But Sullivan, who says she supported changes, remarks that it’s the media, not the delegates, who are obsessing over the vote.

“I haven’t heard anybody talking about it other than the press,” she says, commenting that the delegates are instead speaking about “how great” Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton were. “No one at all has been talking about the platform. No one.”

Jared Barrett, a Tennessee delegate who was present for the vote, feels it may have been a mistake for Democrats to have made delegates vote at the same time on the two different changes.

“I started to think, maybe they should have separated the two, and voted on each one separately, rather than both together,” Barrett says. “I think people were in favor of putting God back in the platform,” he continues, saying that he felt “the opposition was coming from” those who didn’t agree with the Jerusalem decision.

At the time, he didn’t expect a lot of people would vote “no.” “I was surprised,” Barrett remarks. “I looked around, and I said wow, there’s a lot of no’s.”

Pennsylvania delegate Brian Sims, who wasn’t present for the vote, says he only knows what his decision was on one of the changes. “I don’t know how I would have voted on Jerusalem,” Sim says. “I know that I would have voted to put God back in the platform.”

Rhode Island delegate June Speakman arrived at the floor just as the vote was ending. She said she ultimately favored the changes because she felt it was appropriate to heed Obama’s wishes on the Democratic platform. Still, Speakman, who is agnostic, would have personally preferred God remain absent from the platform.

“In my opinion, my political party should not determine my position on God. That’s a private decision that I make and I don’t want anyone dictating it to me, my party, my government, anyone,” Speakman says.

“I would prefer that the official platform of my political party not contain references to God,” she adds, “because I consider those to be private decisions.”

As far as the controversy over whether there was in fact, enough voting yes — two-thirds are required — for the changes to the platform to be made, Barrett says from the floor, he had trouble hearing, but the vote “seemed like it was split, honestly.” But Barrett is fine with the outcome. “He heard what he heard,” Barrett says of Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is chairman of the convention and declared that the “yes” votes had it. “So I agree with it.”

Danny Anchondo, a delegate from Texas, would have voted for the changes if he had been presebt, but said he wasn’t bothered by the fact that so many Democrat delegates had voted against it.

“That’s one of the things that the Democratic party stands for,” he says, “the freedom to choose how you’re going to vote one way or another, and that’s a good part about it.

Only when the Democratic Hierarchy received a thunderous blowback from Jew and Gentile alike, did they call for the rigged Floor Vote, in an effort to protect the financial support for and electoral viability of President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

The Democratic Party should be ashamed and embarrassed by the Way that they have allowed the  small, out-of-touch heathens known as the Far Left to gain total control of what once was a proud American Political Party, is now, seemingly, just a bunch of opportunistic un-American blasphemers.

However…it doesn’t seem to bother them at all…and, that’s pathetic.

Obama Asks for 4 More Years (Are You Kiddin’ Me?)

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Last night, the rapidly-fading messiah himself, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) accepted his party’s nomination as its Presidential Candidate.

So, after the lost masses had spent the week worshiping the Golden Calf, he finally came down from the mountain top…speaking a lot of bull.

The London Daily Mail got hold of some excerpts in advance:

‘On every issue, the choice you face won’t be just between two candidates or two parties,’ he was due to say. ‘It will be a choice between two different paths for America. A choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future.’

This November’s election, he argued, will represent ‘the clearest choice of any time in a generation’ between two different visions.

‘Over the next few years, big decisions will be made in Washington, on jobs and the economy; taxes and deficits; energy and education; war and peace – decisions that will have a huge impact on our lives and our children’s lives for decades to come.

‘I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. I never have. You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth.

‘And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.

‘And by the way – those of us who carry on his party’s legacy should remember that not every problem can be remedied with another government program or diktat from Washington.

In a plea for four more years, he will say: ‘But know this, America: Our problems can be solved. Our challenges can be met. The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place.

‘And I’m asking you to choose that future. I’m asking you to rally around a set of goals for your country – goals in manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and the deficit; a real, achievable plan that will lead to new jobs, more opportunity, and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation.

‘That’s what we can do in the next four years, and that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States.’

Songstress Mary J. Blige told politico.com that she wished Americans would “chill out”:

“With the mess he was tossed, I think he did a great job. Seriously, I mean, he’s only one man,” the singer told CNN after performing onstage at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday.

Blige also said she wishes people would just “chill out and let the man do his job … let him finish his work.”

Obama recently said he deserved an “incomplete” grade for presidency.

Ms. Blige…we would…if he did.

It’s just not in his nature, as Clint Eastwood showed us in his improvisation at the Republican National Convention last week.

An anonymous veteran advertising executive, who goes by the pen name of Jack Nostromo, summarized the lessons we learned about Obama, contained in Eastwood’s improv, for nationalreview.com:

Here are Clint’s key messages about Obama, the man:

1) Obama is a luxury-loving hypocrite who consumes vast amounts of government resources to enjoy his lavish lifestyle.

Clint expressed that as follows: “You can maybe still use a plane. Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas-guzzler you are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and stuff like that. You are an – ecological man. Why would you want to drive that around?”

2) Obama is a cold, ruthless power-seeker who will tell vicious lies to get elected.

In Clintspeak: “we do not have to be mental masochists and vote for somebody that we don’t really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys or maybe not so nice guys, if you look at some of the recent ads going out there.”

3) Obama is a power mad egoist who with a sense of entitlement that has empowered him to circumvent the constitutional system of checks and balances with executive orders that threaten our liberty.

Clint said it better with his impassioned (for Clint) punch line: “I would just like to say something ladies and gentlemen. Something that is very important. It is that, you, we – we own this country. We – we own it…Politicians are employees of ours.”

With all due and newfound respect, I think Clint, with a little more time, might have made a few more points such as:

4) Obama is a man of the extreme anti-American left whose rise was promoted by communists, terrorists and criminals.

Clint might have said, ” You know, you’re known by the company you keep and some of his friends are kind of scary… like the Pentagon bomber who started Obama’s career off in his living room, or the mobster who financed his first house and that PLO guy he used to hang out with, a lot, to name a few…”

5) Obama is, at the very least, involved in document forgery and fraud with the release of a demonstrably doctored birth certificate.

Clint, if he really had guts, could have said, “I don’t want to bag on the President too much. He does have an artistic side what with that new and improved birth certificate he whipped up on the computer.”

6) Obama is a man who we really don’t know since he has spent millions to keep his past records sealed including his academic, travel, and health records.

Clint could have finished by observing that, ” It’s nice to swap stories about what you’ve done and it’s kind of a shame that the Prez has dropped a cool four million to keep us in the dark about what he’s been doing in between high school and the Senate.”

So thanks Clint. I hope the Romney Ad Guys were taking notes.

Me, too.

With the hanging curve they were thrown through this Roman spectacle of a DNC, and by this miserable failure of a president, I expect to see them hit it out of the park.

Now is not the time to be Casey at the Bat.

From “Hope and Change” to “Chance of Rain”

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Yesterday was not a good day for the aspiring Godless Communists known as the Democratic Party.

First, they could not bus in enough people to hide The Manchurian President’s rapidly fading popularity, so they changed venues for his acceptance speech…and blamed it on non-existent thunderstorms.

The London Daily Mail has the story:

Democrats today announced that President Barack Obama’s big speech on Thursday night will move from the vast Bank of America stadium to the much-smaller Time Warner indoor arena.

While organisers blamed weather forecasts of lightning, the switch means that Obama has avoided the possibility of having to accept his party’s nomination before a partially-empty stadium. Just hours earlier, officials had been insisting the speech would go ahead in the stadium ‘rain or shine’.

‘We have been monitoring weather forecasts closely and several reports predict thunderstorms in the area, therefore we have decided to move Thursday’s proceedings to Time Warner Cable Arena to ensure the safety and security of our delegates and convention guests,’ said convention chief Steve Kerrigan.

But convention sources exclusively told the MailOnline on Tuesday that the real reason behind the switch was fears within the Obama campaign that there would be large numbers of empty seats in the 74,000-seater stadium. The Time Warner arena has a capacity of just over 20,000.

The latest Weather Underground forecast for Charlotte on Thursday states that there is a 40 per cent chance of rain tomorrow and only the possibility of thurnderstorms: ‘Overcast with a chance of a thunderstorm and a chance of rain..Chance of rain 40% with rainfall amounts near 4.8 mm possible.’ The chances of rain in the evening drop to 30 per cent.

A convention worker told MailOnline on Tuesday: ‘It looks like a done deal to me. The decision’s apparently been taken and it’s just a matter of spinning it as being forced on us by the weather.’ As the source was speaking, Democrats were saying publicly the event would go ahead as planned.

The Obama campaign had been working desperately to ensure that the stadium in Charlotte would be filled. Buses for students from across North Carolina and even members of black churches in neighboring South Carolina and Georgia had been arranged. One source told MailOnline that 1,000 people were being bused in from Atlanta – 244 miles from Charlotte.

Now, the campaign will be left with the headache of telling the tens of thousands of people they had arranged to travel to Charlotte for the speech that they will be turned away.

Since it has been widely reported that Obama Campaign Workers have been scouring Charlotte, pleading with people to accept tickets to the Lightbringer’s speech, I doubt that there will be too many disappointed sycophants left standing at the arena door. 

The second “little problem” the Dems had yesterday, was another byproduct of their own pomposity.

Breitbart.com has the story…

…the Democratic National Committee suspended the rules of the convention and inserted language regarding God and the State of Israel back to its platform. They had to vote three times to do it – and they had to lie to deem it passed, even though it was clear that the measure did not pass a voice vote in the chamber. The original 2012 Democratic Party platform had excised all mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.

Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio made the motion to change the platform:

This summer, I was proud to serve this party as the platform drafting committee chair. I came before you today to discuss the two important matters related to our party’s national platform. As an ordained United Methodist Minister, I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the value we have expressed in our party’s platform. In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and our party’s platform should as well. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my amendment in writing and I believe it is being projected on the screen for the delegates to see. I move adoption of the amendment as submitted and shown to the delegates.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, the head of the Democratic National Convention, got up and asked for a two-thirds vote on the amendments to the platform. He took a voice vote, with people stating aloud “aye” and “nay.”

The first time, he couldn’t determine if two-thirds of the voters had said “aye”; a loud “no” vote was heard. He asked for a second vote.

The second time, he couldn’t determine whether the voice vote had passed. Again. Villaraigosa looked around in confusion.

Finally, on the third attempt, Villaraigosa took a voice vote and simply declared, in the “opinion of the chair,” that it had been passed. There were widespread boos in the convention hall to the renewed inclusion of God and language about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And Villaraigosa was lying, in any case – there is no way that the voice vote had passed. Opponents stood up and protested, waving and shouting. The fix was in. The Democratic leadership had to ram a mention of God and a mention of Jerusalem through, violating their own rules, to avoid the fallout within their own ranks.

Genesis 12: 1-3

12 Now the Lord had said to Abram:

“Get out of your country,

From your family

And from your father’s house,

To a land that I will show you.

2 I will make you a great nation;

I will bless you

And make your name great;

And you shall be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,

And I will curse him who curses you;

And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

God always has the last word.

DNC 2012: Is this Babylon…or Moscow?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics8 Comments

I can tell you with certainty, that my parents are rolling over in their graves. Their once-beloved Democratic Party, which they left in 1980 to vote for Ronald Wilson Reagan, has turned into a bunch of Godless Communists.

Think ol’ KJ’s finally gone off the deep end? Read this:

CBN New’s Chief Political Correspondent David Brody reports that:

Guess what? God’s name has been removed from the Democratic National Committee platform.

This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:

“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this:

“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

The Brody File has calls into DNC to explain why God’s name has been dropped from the platform. Some critics will suggest that when you have planks in your platform that support abortion rights and gay marriage then it’s no wonder that God’s name would be dropped as well.

Delegates will vote on the platform on Tuesday.

There is one section on “faith” and here is what it says:

“Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”

Additionally, pro-Israel language has been removed, as well, per wsj.com:

The Democratic Party platform doesn’t state that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, a change from prior years that could provide fuel to critics who say President Barack Obama’s commitment to Israel is weak.

“President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security,” begins the 70-page platform in a section titled “The Middle East.” The three-paragraph section details the Obama administration’s support for Israel—including boosting security assistance—but says nothing about Jerusalem.

Such an omission provide an opening to Mr. Obama’s rival for the presidency, Mitt Romney, as Jewish voters—particularly in the battleground state of Florida—are key to the election.

“It is unfortunate that the entire Democratic Party has embraced President Obama’s shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital,” Mr. Romney said in a statement. He added, “Four years of President Obama’s repeated attempts to create distance between the United States and our cherished ally have led the Democratic Party to remove from their platform an unequivocal acknowledgment of a simple reality. As president, I will restore our relationship with Israel and stand shoulder to shoulder with our close ally.”

A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Melanie Roussell, said the Obama administration’s policy toward Jerusalem mirrors that of previous administrations. “As the White House said several months ago, the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians – which we also said in the 2008 platform. We will continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue as part of a two state solution that secures the future of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.”

So, the Democrats are not only attacking God, they’re attacking His chosen people.

But hey…don’t worry, y’all.  Per the DNC, God’s been replaced…by the Government.

Nationalreview.com reports:

The Democrats clearly intended to have a focused message for tonight’s coverage of their convention: Democrats won’t bend an inch in their support of universal access to abortions, Republican obstructionism is responsible for all the country’s ills, Mitt Romney was callous towards the military by not mentioning Afghanistan in his acceptance speech, and the GOP war on women is unending.

But some flies landed in the ointment. A curious party video intoned, “Government’s the only thing we all belong to.” Talk about worshiping the omnipotence of the state. Tammy Duckworth, a disabled military veteran running for Congress in Illinois, praised food stamps in her showcased speech just as voters learned that an unprecedented 46.7 million Americans are enrolled in the program.

Marx would be sooo proud.

Reagan Conservatism Still Rules

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Are Americans more Socially Conservative or Fiscally Conservative?

Gallup reported on an interesting poll, back on May 25th.

Americans are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal on economic issues, 46% to 20%. The gap is narrower on social issues, but conservatives still outnumber liberals, 38% to 28%.

These results are based on Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll, conducted May 3-6. Since 2001, the poll has asked Americans to say whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative on “economic” and, separately, “social” issues. The interpretation of what qualifies as social or economic issues is left to the respondent, given that the question does not define or provide examples of these types of issues.

In the same poll, on Gallup’s standard measure of ideology — not asked in reference to any set of issues — 41% identified themselves as conservatives, 33% as moderates, and 23% as liberals. Those figures are similar to what Gallup typically finds when it asks people to identify their ideology.

Thus, compared with the standard measure of ideology, slightly more Americans say they are economically conservative and slightly fewer say they are socially conservative. Also, significantly more Americans say they are socially liberal than identify their basic ideology as liberal.

Over the last four years, an average of 48% of Americans have said they are conservative on economic issues, including a high of 51% in May 2010. From 2001-2008, an average of 42% said they were economically conservative. This increase in economic conservatism has been coupled with a decline in the percentage who say they are moderate on economic issues. There has also been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans identifying as economic liberals, to a high of 20% this year.

The changes in self-identified economic conservatism coincide with the economic downturn and President Barack Obama’s time in office. But because the jump occurred between 2008 and 2009, and Americans were already concerned about the economy in 2008, the change in presidential administrations from Bush to Obama may be the bigger factor.

The major shift in Americans’ identification on social issues in recent years has been a decline in the percentage who say they are moderate, from 39% as recently as 2005 to 31% today. There have been roughly equal increases in the percentage of self-identified social liberals (four percentage points) and social conservatives (three points) today compared with 2005.

For the most part, Americans fall on the same ideological side on economic and social issues. Sixty-one percent are conservative, moderate, or liberal on both dimensions, with the largest percentage, 31%, conservative on both. Fifteen percent are liberal on both social and economic issues, and 15% are moderate on both.

The bulk of those who are not consistent say they are economically conservative and socially moderate (11%), or economically moderate and socially liberal (10%). Only 4% are liberal on one dimension and conservative on the other, with most of those being economically conservative and socially liberal.

More Americans identify as economic conservatives than as social conservatives or conservatives in general. And that tendency has increased in the last four years, perhaps due to President Obama’s economic agenda. This suggests that a conservative economic message from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney may resonate with voters this year.

Americans are also more likely to say they are conservative than liberal or moderate on social issues, underscoring the conclusion that the conservative label has more appeal in the United States today than either the moderate or the liberal label.

Also, the moderate label seems to be losing some of its appeal in recent years, as Americans have become less likely to say they are moderate on both social and economic issues. The movement away from the moderate label may be another example of the increasing polarization of U.S. politics.

Throughout the Republican Primary and now on the eve on the Convention, there has been a concerted effort by Romney “supporters” on the internet to try to discourage, insult, and downright mock the beliefs of Reagan (Social) Conservatives.

As a matter of fact, if you read what they are still writing on Conservative websites, one would think that we Reagan Conservatives are outnumbered by “Fiscal” Conservatives and Moderates, when, at least according to this survey, that ain’t necessarily so.

The fact that people are becoming more polarized is interesting.  People are taking a stand, one way or another.

Where do you stand?

Do you stand with those who feel no compunction at all about ending an innocent life in its Mother’s womb. while babbling some nonsense about the baby not being human or being some sort of “punishment”?

Do you stand with those who believe that a nanny-state Federal Government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself and your family?

Do you stand with those who would take away law-abiding citizens’ firearms in the naive belief that somehow an unarmed populace is safer from outlaws and psychos than a populace who is trained in the use of firearms and carrying?

Finally, do you stand with those who believe that the schemes and plans thought up by limited men overrule those created by a limitless God?

You see, what 92% of Americans have already figured out for themselves, is no matter where you go, you can’t run away from the reach of God.

Just ask the RNC what happened to the first day of their Convention.

Will Obama Take a Stand For or Against Israel?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Our ally, Israel, is surrounded on all sides by her enemies and all eyes are turning toward Washington, D.C.

The Jerusalem Post has the story:

Former Military Intelligence head Amos Yadlin on Saturday urged President Barack Obama to visit Israel to allay fears that the US is not fully committed to stopping the Iranian nuclear program.

“The US president should visit Israel and tell its leadership – and, more important, its people – that preventing a nuclear Iran is a US interest, and if we have to resort to military action, we will,” Yadlin said in an opinion piece published in The Washington Post.

Yadlin also asked the US to provide Israel with advanced military technology and intelligence, contingent on Israeli pledges to delay a strike.

Yadlin presented a five-point plan to the Obama administration designed to convince “allies and adversaries alike that military action is real, imminent and doable.”

He called on Obama to notify Congress in writing that he reserves the right to use military force on Iran. He added that the US should increase its military presence in the Persian Gulf, and should also publicly commit to the security of its allies in the region.

Yadlin, who left his IDF post in 2010 and is currently the head of the Institute for National Security Studies, has been a vocal supporter of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who have both hinted that Israel would not leave the fate of Israel in the hands of the US.

“Israel cannot afford to outsource its security to another country,” Yadlin wrote in the Washington Post. “But if the United States wants Israel to give sanctions and diplomacy more time, Israelis must know that they will not be left high and dry if these options fail.”

Yadlin, one of the pilots who took part in the 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, hinted that Israel was capable of hitting the heart of the Iranian nuclear program, but said Israel would need US support “both the day after and the decade after a strike.”

President Ronald Wilson Reagan said the following in a speech he made in 1982:

America has long been committed to bringing peace to this troubled region. For more than a generation, successive United States administrations have endeavored to develop a fair and workable process that could lead to a true and lasting Arab-Israeli peace.

Our involvement in the search for Mideast peace is not a matter of preference; it’s a moral imperative. The strategic importance of the region to the United States is well known, but our policy is motivated by more than strategic interests. We also have an irreversible commitment to the survival and territorial integrity of friendly states. Nor can we ignore the fact that the well-being of much of the world’s economy is tied to stability in the strife-torn Middle East. Finally, our traditional humanitarian concerns dictated a continuing effort to peacefully resolve conflicts.

When our administration assumed office in January of 1981, I decided that the general framework for our Middle East policy should follow the broad guidelines laid down by my predecessors. There were two basic issues we had to address. First, there was the strategic threat to the region posed by the Soviet Union and its surrogates, best demonstrated by the brutal war in Afghanistan, and, second, the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

With regard to the Soviet threat, we have strengthened our efforts to develop with our friends and allies a joint policy to deter the Soviets and their surrogates from further expansion in the region and, if necessary, to defend against it.

With respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we’ve embraced the Camp David framework as the only way to proceed. We have also recognized, however, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict in and of itself cannot assure peace throughout a region as vast and troubled as the Middle East.

…Tragic turmoil in the Middle East runs back to the dawn of history. In our modern day, conflict after conflict has taken its brutal toll there. In an age of nuclear challenge and economic interdependence, such conflicts are a threat to all the people of the world, not just the Middle East itself. It’s time for us all — in the Middle East and around the world — to call a halt to conflict, hatred, and prejudice. It’s time for us all to launch a common effort for reconstruction, peace, and progress.

It has often been said — and, regrettably, too often been true — that the story of the search for peace and justice in the Middle East is a tragedy of opportunities missed. In the aftermath of the settlement in Lebanon, we now face an opportuntiy for a broader peace. This time we must not let it slip from our grasp. We must look beyond the difficulties and obstacles of the present and move with a fairness and resolve toward a brighter future. We owe it to ourselves — and to posterity — to do no less. For if we miss this chance to make a fresh start, we may look back on this moment from some later vantage point and realize how much that failure cost us all.

Back in March of 2011, the Palestinians wanted Israel to return to the little narrow strip of a country that it was before the 1967 war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat across from President Barack Hussein Obama and told him:

What we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluation of any prospective deal.

The ball is firmly in Obama’s court. Let’s see if he sinks a game-winner or throws up an air ball.

I’m not holding my breath.

Genesis 12: 1 – 3: 

1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Iran, Egypt, and Israel: Guess Who Obama Funded?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

Friends, I hoped y’all are all prayed up. We’re going to need it.

Yahoo.com has the story:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told an annual anti-Israel protest in Tehran on Friday that the Jewish state was a “cancerous tumour” that will soon be excised, drawing Western rebukes.

Washington said Ahmadinejad’s statements were “reprehensible”, while Paris viewed them as “outrageous.”

Ahmadinejad’s diatribe against Israel in his Quds (Jerusalem) Day address was the latest in a long line to have drawn criticism from Western governments.

“The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumour,” he said.

“The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land…. A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists,” he said.

The diatribe took place amid heightened tensions between Israel and Iran over Tehran’s controversial nuclear programme.

The Jewish state has in recent weeks intensified its threats to possibly bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent it having the capability to produce atomic weapons.

Iran, which is suffering under severe Western sanctions, denies its nuclear programme is anything but peaceful. Its military has warned it will destroy Israel if it attacks.

“They (the Israelis) know very well they don’t have the ability” to successfully attack Iran, foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

“If they make a mistake, our nation’s reaction will lead to the end of the Zionist regime,” he said.

Meanwhile, Obama’s favorite “civic (religious) organization” in the region is showing everyone how cultured they are:

The Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has run amok, with reports from several different media agencies that the radical Muslims have begun crucifying opponents of newly installed President Mohammed Morsi.

Middle East media confirm that during a recent rampage, Muslim Brotherhood operatives, “crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others.”

Raymond Ibrahim, a fellow with the Middle East Forum and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said the crucifixions are the product of who the Middle Eastern media call “partisans.”

“Arabic media call them ‘supporters,’ ‘followers,’ and ‘partisans’ of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Ibraham said.

Ibrahim also says the victims can be anyone, including Egyptians and Christians.

“It’s anyone who is resisting the new government,” Ibrahim said. “In this particular case, the people attacked and crucified were secular protesters upset because of Morsi’s hostile campaign against the media, especially of Tawfik Okasha, who was constantly exposing him on his station, until Morsi shut him down.”

Ibrahim said extra brutality is reserved for Christians, but the crucifixions are because of Islamic doctrine, and are required by the Quran. The time and other details about the crucifixions were not readily available.

“Mideast Beast: The Scriptural Case for an Islamic Antichrist” sorts out what this clash of civilizations is all about

Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Clare Lopez cited chapter and verse from the Quran to explain that crucifixions are not simply normal for Islam; they’re demanded.

“Crucifixion is a hadd punishment, stipulated in the Quran, Sura 5:33, and therefore an obligatory part of Shariah,” Lopez said. “It’s been a traditional punishment within Islam since the beginning, even though it’s not exclusively Islamic. The Romans used it too.

“So, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood haven’t the option to not include crucifixion within their legal code. It’s obligatory to comply with Shariah. And yes, it’s for shock value also to be sure,” Lopez said.

And, just think, Americans, the Muslim Brotherhood is killing Christians, USING OUR MONEY!

Back on April 7th, Andrew McCarthy reported the following in a article on nationalreview.com:

This week, the Obama administration quietly released $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian government, now dominated by a Brotherhood-led coalition in parliament — soon to be joined by an Ikhwan (i.e., Brotherhood) luminary as president.

It is not easy to find the announcement. With the legacy media having joined the Obama reelection campaign, we must turn for such news to outlets like the Kuwait News Agency. There, we learn that, having dug our nation into a $16 trillion debt hole, President Obama has nevertheless decided to borrow more money from unfriendly powers like China so he can give it to an outfit that views the United States as an enemy to be destroyed.

This pot of gold for Islamic supremacists is the spoils of a Brotherhood charm offensive. Given the organization’s unabashed goals and hostility towards the West, it was U.S. policy, until recently, to avoid formal contacts with the Brotherhood — although agents of the intelligence community and the State Department have long engaged in off-line communications with individual MB members. By contrast, the Obama administration from its first days has embraced the Ikhwan — both the mothership, whose leaders were invited to attend Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo despite its then-status as a banned organization under Egyptian law, and the Brotherhood’s American satellites, which have been invited to advise administration policymakers despite their notorious record of championing violent jihadists and repressive sharia.

Obama has overlooked the MB’s intimate ties to Hamas, which self-identifies as the Ikhwan’s Palestinian branch and is formally designated a terrorist organization under American law. Administration officials have absurdly portrayed the Brothers as “secular” and “moderate,” although the organization, from its founding in the 1920s, has never retreated an inch from its professed mission to establish Islam’s global hegemony.

Funding our enemies against our allies and the faith of 78% of our population.

Hopefully, the next Administration will have more sense.

Why I am So Hard on Romney

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics6 Comments

I was 17 years old in 1976. So, I mercifully missed having to vote in the election of Jimmy Carter. But, the Lord blessed me. With my first vote in a national election, I was able to vote for the greatest American President in our lifetimes, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

With that vote, the standard was set in my mind and heart, as to what an American President should be.

Watching Ronaldus Magnus as a young, impressionable 20-something, making his way in the world, I marveled at his grace, humor, and unflinching, steely reserve in the face of America’s enemies, foreign and domestic, whether princes and principalities, or those unseen forces that dwell in the dark recesses of our society.

I have been looking to elect an American President like that, ever since.

Needless to say, I have been sorely disappointed.

That’s not to say that I was and am, not supportive of George W. Bush.  He was the right man to be in that chair in the Oval Office on September 11, 2001.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Carter, Clinton, or, God forbid, Obama, was president during the worst Terrorist Attack on our soil in American History?

I refuse to even consider the possibilities.

That being said, Dubya remains a good Christian man, who loves his country. Although, his record of spending as president leaves something to be desired.

However, his record of spending OUR money pales in comparison to Barack Hussein Obama’s.

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn’t even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn’t the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.

In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve.

If Obama’s failure as president was simply judged by his horrible economic policy, which has trashed our country like the aftermath of the Frat Party in National Lampoon’s Animal House (without the fun), that would be bad enough.

However, culturally speaking, he has taken our country in a Liberal, Marxist, and Godless direction.

From his declaration during his campaign,in a private meeting with donors, that we Americans living in the Heartland were bitterly clinging to our guns and Bibles, to his bowing to our enemies and embracing of the granddaddy of Islamic Terrorist Organizations,  the Muslim Brotherhood, to his  repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and his crowning achievement: his destruction of the greatest Healthcare System in the World, Obama has consistently governed against the wishes of the majority of the American citizens he is supposed to be serving.

His darling wife hasn’t exactly been a peach, either.

While other First Ladies have embraced causes such as poverty, child hunger, and illiteracy, Michelle Obama decided that American parents were not caring for their children properly, and decided to be their surrogate parent, under the guise of fighting chldhood obesity. And, if that wasn’t enough, last year, she and her Food Police decided that the fittest among us, our Armed Forces, weren’t eating properly and, is now going to make them eat arugula, or something. Heck, even the Subway Sandwich Shops are putting avocado and raw spinach on their sandwiches, now.

Then, there’s her remark during the 2008 campaign that “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country”. And, as an Honor Guard passed by her and the president, during the solemn 10th anniversary remembrance of 9/11, she leaned over to him, and said, “All this for a flag.”…and, the President of the United States nodded in agreement.

So, why am I so hard on the presumptive Republican nominee for President?

America is in desperate need of a leader…a man in the mold of Ronald Wilson Reagan, possessing not only traditional American beliefs and values, but, also possessing the courage and conviction necessary to stick his neck out for those beliefs and values, and not put them on the back burner for the sake of poltical expediency.

In 1984, President Reagan said:

Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Yesterday, The Examiner reported the following:

Speaking with reporters in Nevada, Mitt Romney refused to enter the Chick-fil-A controversy that has occupied most of the nation’s attention this week.

During the press conference, Romney was asked whether the Chick-fil-A controversy – or the controversy about Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – should be part of the national conversation.

“Those are not things that’s not part of my campaign.” he answered shortly, after explaining that he wasn’t in the business of telling people what to talk about.

Lacking the courage of his convictions?

And, that’s why I’m so hard on Romney.

American Conservatives/Chick-Fil-A…GOP Elite/Bread and Circuses

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

While Conservatives and “Independents” have been out fighting the good fight against Fascist Liberals by standing or sitting in their car, in massive lines at their local Chick-Fil-A, they have all been wondering:

Where’s the Republican Establishment?

Like the Main Stream Media, they’ve been ignoring the situation.

There is some good news ,though:

It appears that the apparent Republican Nominee for President has taken a stand after all.

On the Chick-Fil-A situation, KJ? Nope.

In his own defense.

FoxNews.com has the story:

Mitt Romney lashed back at Harry Reid on Thursday in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, saying the Senate majority leader needs to “put up or shut up” after airing allegations about Romney’s taxes.

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, first raised eyebrows Tuesday by saying in a news interview that someone had told him Romney went 10 years without paying taxes. He would only identify his source as an investor in Romney’s former venture capital firm, Bain Capital, and he acknowledged, “I’m not certain” it’s true.

That didn’t stop Reid from taking to the Senate floor Thursday to accuse the Republican presidential candidate again of paying no taxes, part of a broader Democratic attack on Romney for declining to release more than two years of tax documents.

“The word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years,” Reid said. “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.”

But Romney forcefully denied Reid’s allegations on Hannity’s radio show Thursday.

“Harry’s going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because, of course, that is totally and completely wrong,” Romney said. “It’s untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It’s wrong.

“So, I’m looking forward to have Harry reveal his sources, and we will probably find out it’s the White House.”

Romney’s campaign earlier rejected the majority leader’s statement as “shameful.”

Reid also raised eyebrows for invoking Romney’s late father, himself a one-time presidential candidate.

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid told the Huffington Post.

George Romney, a Michigan governor, released 12 years of tax returns during his unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968. His son has released only his 2010 tax return and an estimate for 2011, years when he was preparing for his own presidential bid or already running.

Reid doubled down on the claim late Thursday, firing back at Romney in a written statement.

“People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes,” Reid said in a written statement. “When it comes to answering the legitimate questions the American people have about whether he avoided paying his fair share in taxes or why he opened a Swiss bank account, Romney has shut up. But as a presidential candidate, it’s his obligation to put up, and release several years’ worth of tax returns just like nominees of both parties have done for decades.

“It’s clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is.”

Reid’s comments come in the middle of a scathing critique of the former Massachusetts governor’s tax plan. The Tax Policy Center, which Romney has called “an objective third party” in the past, noted that his proposal would give benefits to high-income earners while giving a tax increase to middle-class Americans. Romney’s camp has disputed that analysis.

Meanwhile, another well-known Moderate seems to have found his…err…backbone also. 

Thehill.com reports:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) lashed out at President Obama during an interview Tuesday, saying the president has “never even had a real job, for God’s sake.”

Boehner was discussing the presidential election, and accusing President Obama’s campaign team of using “over-the-top” rhetoric to distract from his economic record.

“Sometimes I have to catch my breath and slow down because the rhetoric in this campaign is just so over-the-top,” Bohener said during an appearance on “Kilmeade and Friends.” “And that’s because the president’s policies have failed. Listen — 93 percent of Americans believe they’re a part of the middle class. That’s why you hear the president talk about the middle class every day, because he’s talking to 93 percent of the American people.”

Then the Ohio lawmaker lit into the president’s qualifications to discuss job creation.

“But the president has never created a job. He’s never even had a real job, for God’s sake,” Boehner said. “And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works.”

In the same interview, Boehner blasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for his suggestion on the Senate floor Thursday that Mitt Romney paid no federal income taxes for a decade.

“I don’t know how you go out there and make a statement like that without any facts,” Boehner said. “It’s one of the problems that occurs here in Washington, people run out there without any facts and just make noise. The American people are too smart for this, they’ll get to the bottom of this, it clearly is not a fact, and I would think that the Senate majority leader would be smart enough to know that.”

While Americans have been taking a stand this week against the tyranny of the Minority, what have the leaders of the Republican Party (which we will be dragging across the goal line) been giving us?

Bread and circuses.