DNC 2012: Is this Babylon…or Moscow?

On September 5, 2012 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 August 26, 2012 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 August 19, 2012 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 August 18, 2012 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 August 4, 2012August 4, 2012 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 August 3, 2012 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.

The Aftermath of Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

On August 2, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

May I ask y’all a question?

While millions of Conservatives showed their appreciation for Chick-Fil-A yesterday, where was the presumed Republican Nominee for President?

For that matter, where was the GOP Leadership?

Were they still stunned from Cruz’s victory in Texas the night before?

Or, were they simply maintaining the aloof condension they’ve been practicing since they decided that Mitt was going to be their candidate for the Presidency of the United States?

Cruz’s victory was a blow to them, no doubt…especially considering the indispensable help given by Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin…which had to smart.

Check out what foxnews.com had to say yesterday about Cruz’s victory:

Google “Ted Cruz” and “grassroots” and you get 865,000 hits. That’s because the conventional wisdom posits that Tuesday night’s runoff victory for the former Texas solicitor general against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, in their battle for the Republican nomination for an open U.S. Senate seat, marked the triumph of grassroots Tea Party activism over an entrenched GOP establishment figure.

To be sure, Dewhurst, aided by the backing of Gov. Rick Perry, outspent Cruz, a newcomer to elective politics, by a ratio of three-to-one. And prior to the May 29 primary, in which Dewhurst easily prevailed but failed to attain a majority of votes cast, virtually nobody gave Cruz even the faintest odds of winning.

But a number of factors at work in the Lone Star State make Cruz’s victory more easily understood, and beg the question of whether the new Republican nominee for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison did not himself enjoy the backing of a wholly separate “establishment.”

For one thing, the gap between the Senate primary and the Cruz-Dewhurst runoff was nine weeks long. Previously, the longest such gap between a primary and runoff election in Texas had been a mere five weeks. Cruz used the 63 days effectively, drumming up money and free media. Second, victories like his are actually the norm in Texas, where, including Tuesday’s results, the second-place finisher in a state primary has gone on to win the ensuing runoff election nine out of fifteen times.

“He was the man versus Dewhurst, who’s part of the machine, the establishment there in Texas and in Washington, D.C.,” said Sarah Palin on Tuesday night’s episode of “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” “He was the outsider to come in and promise that reform.”

Yet Cruz was no ordinary Tea Party figure, and few people’s idea of a Beltway outsider. He attended Harvard University’s law school and founded a Latino law review there; clerked at the U.S. Supreme Court for Chief Justice William Rehnquist; worked at two federal agencies in Washington, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, under President George W. Bush; and is married to a woman who works for Goldman Sachs.

More important to his electoral fortunes, Cruz received critical endorsements and millions of dollars’ worth of contributions and other forms of support from the likes of Gov. Palin, who campaigned for him; Tea Party hero and fundraising powerhouse Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; the D.C.-based Tea Party group FreedomWorks, which is led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey; the anti-tax, pro-free market group Club for Growth, whose top executive is former Rep. Chris Chocola, R-Pa.; conservative columnist and ABC News commentator George F. Will; and National Review, the venerated magazine founded by the late William F. Buckley, Jr.

Ted Cruz, in short, was an establishment candidate in his own right.

“It is time to think differently about the Tea Party,” said Darrell West, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution. “In the early days, the Tea Party was basically a grassroots movement, didn’t have a lot of prominent people behind them, didn’t have a lot of money. But now they have big money. They can bring outside resources into a state election, and prove to be very decisive. So they are getting institutionalized as a movement: They have major political figures who are behind them; they have money that is behind them. So they have emerged as a different type of ‘establishment’ organization.”

Other races this year in which Tea Party-backed candidates have defeated better-known politicians include the victory of state Sen. Deb Fisher in a three-way primary in Nebraska, and the primary defeat of six-term GOP incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar at the hands of state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in Indiana.

Turnout among GOP voters in Texas dropped slightly from the 2008 primary contest in which incumbent Sen. John Cornyn prevailed over fellow Republican Larry Kilgore. In that race, more than 1.2 million votes were cast, as contrasted with Tuesday night’s results, in which just over 1.1 million votes were tallied.

Still, the popular narrative of the Cruz-Dewhurst race was reinforced by the candidates themselves. “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots,” Cruz told an ecstatic audience at his victory rally Tuesday night. “It is a testament to Republican women, to Tea Party leaders, and to grassroots conservatives. This is how elections are supposed to be decided — by we the people.”

“Thanks for standing up for Texas,” Dewhurst told his supporters in his concession speech. “We got beat up a little bit, but we never gave up, and we can stand tall knowing we never compromised any of our values.”

That’s great, sir. But…what are the Republican Establishment’s values?

Because, if they don’t align with us God and Country-loving, traditional- American-Values-embracing average Americans, your fellow Establishment Republicans are going to join the Democrats on the Unemployment Line after November 6th.

And, Mitt’s going to be awfully lonely, being the only Moderate left in Washington, DC, surrounded by Tea Party Conservatives.

Think about it.

The War Against Christianity: Battleground Chick-Fil-A…Today!

On August 1, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics11 Comments

Well, here we are… a day that “fiscal Conservatives” and Liberals alike (or do I repeat myself?) have sworn (usually under their breath) doesn’t mean a doggone thing. They claim that there are no moral absolutes and that Christianity is passe.

I haven’t heard such a exercise in underestimation and poor judgement since General George Armstrong Custer remarked to his aide,

What Indians? I don’t see any Indians.

Mike Huckabee recently announced the following:

I ask you to join me in speaking out on Wednesday, August 1 “Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day.” No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate. The goal is simple: Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1. Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same-sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we’re considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant. This effort is not being launched by the Chick Fil-A company and no one from the company or family is involved in proposing or promoting it.

There’s no need for anyone to be angry or engage in a verbal battle. Simply affirm appreciation for a company run by Christian principles by showing up on Wednesday, August 1 or by participating online – tweeting your support or sending a message on Facebook.

Chick-Fil-A has been besieged by business ever since.

The Washington Post, of course, has their own spin on things:

The restaurant chain with Christian roots — “closed Sunday,” it proudly proclaims — is run by owners with conservative values. Now company President and CEO Dan Cathy has sparked a nationwide food fight by saying he is “guilty as charged” for opposing same-sex marriage.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives,” Cathy told the Biblical Recorder newspaper. The article was reprinted by Baptist Press on July 16.

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has spearheaded “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” and, as of Tuesday (July 31), more than 500,000 people had pledged on its Facebook page to show up or give support to the restaurant via social media on Wednesday.

“People are outraged that someone who expresses a view that is shared by most of the country is being bullied by hate speech and intolerance from the militant gay groups that are trying to disenfranchise his right to a personal opinion,” Huckabee told Religion News Service in an email.

“CFA doesn’t turn away people as customers or employees on the basis of sexual orientation and that’s the only way this could be an issue,” Huckabee added.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, plans to buy more than 200 of the restaurant’s sandwiches for its students, faculty and staff on Wednesday and famed evangelist Billy Graham has promised to “Eat Mor Chikin” — Chick-fil-A’s catchphrase — at one of the restaurants that day.

Meanwhile, opponents to Cathy’s stance have spearheaded “National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A” on Friday — the anniversary of the day the Episcopal Church elected its first openly gay bishop.

Organizer Carly McGehee said it will be up to rally participants whether to buy food or not.

“Some have said they will ask for a water, some have said they won’t buy anything,” she said. As of Tuesday, more than 8,400 people had signed up for the “kiss-in.”

In several locations, people have planned to place kissing booths outside the restaurants, with proceeds going to local gay rights groups. Heterosexuals supporting the kissing event plan to appear and kiss loved ones, she said.

“People will simply walk into the restaurant, kiss someone of the same-sex and take a picture or video, then leave and post it on Facebook for all the world to see!”

Some think the food fight is misplaced.

Others are taking the fight very seriously…and taking their complaints to a higher authority.

No…not that One.

CNN.com has the story:

A group of conservative black pastors are responding to President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage with what they say will be a national campaign aimed at rallying black Americans to rethink their overwhelming support of the President, though the group’s leader is offering few specifics about the effort.

The Rev. Williams Owens, who is president and founder of the Coalition of African-Americans Pastors and the leader of the campaign, has highlighted opposition to same-sex marriage among African-Americans. He calls this campaign “an effort to save the family.”

“The time has come for a broad-based assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one of men marrying men and women marrying women,” said Owens, in an interview Tuesday after the launch event at the National Press Club. “I am ashamed that the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful road.”

At the press conference, Owens was joined by five other black regional pastors and said there were 3,742 African-American pastors on board for the anti-Obama campaign.

When asked at the press conference for specifics about the campaign – funding, planned events and goals – Owens said only that the group’s first fundraiser will be on August 16 in Memphis, Tennessee. But Owens insisted that “we are going to go nationwide with our agenda just like the president has gone to Hollywood.”

You go, Reverends. God Bless you all.

To repeat what I wrote Sunday…

Go get yourself a sammich and some waffle fries and support this Christian American Business.

Oh….and to those who would rather American Christians go away and keep our mouths shut, and forego our faith for a Godless Political Ideology?

You guys are in for a shock. I’ve read The Book. I know how this ends.

Hallelujah. Amen.

See y’all at breakfast, lunch and/or dinner!!!

This Ain’t Yo’ Folks’ Democratic Party

On July 31, 2012July 31, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics6 Comments

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m 53 years old. My Mother and Daddy were 40 years older than me. I think that they were going to name me “Oops”. But, I digress…

My folks were Southern Democrats…Conservative Southern Democrats. They passed away in ’95 and ’97, respectively.

Back in the day, the Democrat Party was a far different political party than they are today.

On July 11, 1960, the Democratic Party Platform began with the following:

In 1796, in America’s first contested national election, our Party, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, campaigned on the principles of “The Rights of Man.”

Ever since, these four words have underscored our identity with the plain people of America and the world.

In periods of national crisis, we Democrats have returned to these words for renewed strength. We return to them today.

In 1960, “The Rights of Man” are still the issue. It is our continuing responsibility to provide an effective instrument of political action for every American who seeks to strengthen these rights-everywhere here in America, and everywhere in our 20th Century world.

The common danger of mankind is war and the threat of war. Today, three billion human beings live in fear that some rash act or blunder may plunge us all into a nuclear holocaust which will leave only ruined cities, blasted homes, and a poisoned earth and sky.

Our objective, however, is not the right to coexist in armed camps on the same planet with totalitarian ideologies; it is the creation of an enduring peace in which the universal values of human dignity, truth, and justice under law are finally secured for all men everywhere on earth.

If America is to work effectively for such a peace, we must first restore our national strength-military, political, economic, and moral.

That’s a far cry from “You didn’t build that”, huh?

In fact, it sounds like the Modern Republican Party.

Well, hold on to something. You ain’t seen nothin’, yet…as The New York Times reports:

Democrats appear ready to embrace same-sex marriage as part of their party platform, a policy shift that reflects an expanded acceptance of gay rights in mainstream politics.

The move would place the party in line with the beliefs of President Obama, who in May became the first sitting president to declare that gay men and lesbians should be able to marry.

Democratic Party officials had squabbled over the issue in the past. But at a platform-drafting meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis, they approved the first step to amend their platform, placing the amendment on track for adoption. In two weeks, the entire platform committee will vote at a meeting scheduled in Detroit. Then, if approved as expected, it would go before convention delegates in Charlotte, N.C., for final passage in early September.

According to Democrats who were briefed on the vote in Minneapolis, there was no objection when the issue came up. Though the language that was voted on could still be revised, party officials do not anticipate any major obstacles going forward.

The platform language approved over the weekend also reiterated the party’s disapproval of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages. The 2008 platform had a similar section.

The Democratic Party’s move comes more than two months after President Obama personally backed the rights of same-sex couples to wed. The president’s reversal — he had said previously that while he could not support same-sex marriage, his views on the issue were “evolving” — was a significant move, though it carried no legal weight.

The Democrats would become the first major party to embrace same-sex marriage. But as historic as the platform would be, the president’s position makes it decidedly less controversial.

News of the platform amendment was first reported by The Washington Blade.

Gay rights supporters praised the Democratic Party’s vote. “Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language on this issue.”

The Democratic Party platform that was drafted four years ago, when Mr. Obama was first running for president, called for “full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits and protections.”

But the platform stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriages, in part because Mr. Obama had said he remained opposed.

Well, all bets are off now, because as we have all found out, all of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates.

Oh…and that whirring sound you hear? It’s the sound of Democrats like Scoop Jackson, Tip O’Neill, Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy…and my parents…spinning in their graves.

Christian American Conservatives and Chick-Fil-A

On July 29, 2012 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

The fight for Ideological Control of our nation hit a flashpoint this week…as a couple of Liberal Mayors of Northern cities and the Mayor of San Francisco (of course) proclaimed that they would ban the Christian-owned Fast Food Chain, Chick Fil-A, from opening new restaurants in their cities, because their owner Dan Cathey, has voiced his opposition to Gay Marriage.

Say what?

Rush Limbaugh can’t believe this garbage, either:

What do we have? We have two mayors who are essentially Stalinist, who have had no problem whatsoever — not one problem at all — with going before the microphones and telling an American business, “You are not welcome here. And if you come here, you will be penalized or whatever the h!@l will happen.”

All because the guy who owns the outfit happens to be a publicly professed Christian who believes that “marriage” has a specific definition. Now, this is a classic example of a government destroying an institution that has promoted the kind of society we have had in the past and the kind of society we’ve always wanted. This is a direct assault. That’s a direct assault on Christianity. That is a direct assault on Christians. With economic punishment thrown in including threats from government officials that are in clear violation of the Constitution.

I read about it on conservative blogs, and I can’t believe what I’m reading! I’m reading intellectual treatises on, “Well, you know, they have the right to say these things, and the solution here is let Chick-Fil-A open a store in Chicago and let’s see if the people will visit it.” That’s not the reaction to have! The reaction to have is, “Who the h!@l do you think you are, Rahm Emanuel? Who the h!@l do you think you are? What country do you think you’re in?”

Now, we want to have an intellectual debate here over the First Amendment? “Well, the solution to this is to let Chick-Fil-A open a store”? Yeah, let Chick-Fil-A open a store with the mayor of Chicago threatening anybody who walks into one? Meanwhile, this company hires gays. They serve gays. They don’t discriminate! It’s just that the owner happens to be a publicly professed, witnessing Christian. My God, you would think that he’s the worst enemy Chicago ever had and the worst enemy Boston ever had!

Thirty years ago, if this woulda happened in this country, there would have been an uprising against Menino and Rahm Emanuel — or Daley, or whoever would have done it. Today we get intellectual debates on who’s got the right to do what and say what and say this and do that and do what where. The sense of proportion is all out of whack, and there’s no outrage. So, yeah, I fully understand losing institutions. We’re sitting by, and we are watching, every day, the institutions and traditions that have made this country great come under assault.

Day in and day out.

And I’ve been making that comment for 24 years. Too much of all of this has become nothing more than an opportunity for people to show how smart they are, how open-minded they are when they debate these things. Rather than having an actual, human, real-life reaction to this, which is, “This is outrageous!” The mayor of San Francisco. What is his name? I think his last name is Lee. The mayor of San Francisco got in on this, and he warned Chick-Fil-A, “You better not come here! You had better keep out!”

I am in stunned disbelief.

As usual, Rush is absolutely right. The Republican Power Brokers are just as out-of-touch with us average Americans as the Far Left-controlled Democrat Party is.

They don’t believe, as most Americans do, (and that’s why Reagan won) in the three-legged stool that is Conservatism. They believe that Conservatism can be re-defined to mean whatever they want it to mean…i.e. “fiscal” Conservatism.

This erroneous belief in their own political punditry, masked by incessant political catch phrases and insults toward Reagan or “Social” Conservatives, is the reason why this upcoming Presidential Election has turned into a referendum against Obama, and not a groundswell in support of Romney.

Additionally, I’ve noticed on Political Websites that there are several of his “supporters” who, seemingly, have made it their mission in life to alienate Reagan Conservatives,who believe in God and country.

That’s not a way to garner support for your candidate. In fact, it’s the very opposite of what they need to be doing.

Recently, Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has been campaigning in Texas for Ted Cruz. Gov. Palin has been attempting to fire up Conservatives to get them to come out and vote in November, for Conservative candidates.

And, while he’s not a Conservative, Gov. Palin will no doubt be supportive of Mitt Romney’s Campaign for President of these United States.

That’s all any of us can do, at this point, except stand behind the Conservative principles that Reagan laid out before us, and get the Manchurian President out of our house.

Regarding the Chick-Fil-A situation, America’s Pastor, Reverend Billy Graham, had this to say:

As the son of a dairy farmer who milked many a cow, I plan to ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ and show my support by visiting Chick-fil-A next Wednesday.

Wednesday, August 1st is National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.