Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Unbelievable: DNC Overrules Delegates, Rams God and Jerusalem Back into Platform

You have to see this one with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears to believe it.

Apparently the fallout over the Democrats following President Obama's lead and excising all of the pro-Israel language and any mention of G-d from this year's 2012 Democrat Party Platform was just too much of a political land mine.

So the Democrat's leadership cynically overruled their own delegates' obvious wishes and flip flopped to shove an amendment recognizing G-d and naming Jerusalem as Israel's capitol back into the platform.

According to the rules, this requires a two thirds majority from the floor, and after Democrat Convention Chair Anthony Villaraigosa tried three times to get that and failed miserably, the party leaders 'deemed ' it passed and pushed it through anyway, to widespread boos and uproar that are clearly audible and visible.

The spin the Democrats are putting out now is that this was done at the express wishes of President Obama.

Funny thing...that's the exact opposite of what the party leadership was telling the media about why the changes occurred in the first place:

I'm sure at this moment President Obama has a message out to Hamas and Fatah that he'll have more flexibility after the election.

I can't imagine whom the Democrats think they're going to fool with this ridiculous display.

Not only anti-Israel and G-dless, but gutless as well.


B.Poster said...

I watched the clip on this. It was most interesting. Clearly the speaker thought it a mere formality that the party leadership would get the 2/3 marjority needed to alter the platform. When he does not, he is clealry uncomfortable. From the video clip, it appears a majority supported the change but there seems no way that 2/3 supported the change. Also, when analyzing this, it should be noticed that the "no" vote while less in number than the "yes" vote seems more enthusiastic.

There clearly was not a 2/3 majority tha the speaker says is needed. The media would be up in arms if the Republicans tried to run roughshod over their delegates or the party rules in this manner as the Democrats seem to have done here.

With all of this said I'm a bit perplexed why the change to the platform. While I support Israel, this is not an important issue to most Americans. In fact, among "independents" and "moderates" the view is that Israel is a net liabilty to us and that the AIPAC rules American politics and the country is far to "religous." As such, they would suppor the platform as it was. While Mr. Obama may gain some Jewish votes by acting in this manner, all else being equal he loses more "independents" with this stance. This makes no sense why he would do this.

There has been the media narrative out for quite some time about the all powerful Jewish lobby who can and will destroy any American official who does not tow the line on Israel. Astute observers who do not let ideology get in the way of their conclusions know that this is a myth and a destructive one at that. Perhaps Mr. Obama believes the progaganda about the all powerful Jewish lobby!!

Michal said...

I don't recall reading in my bible that God demands for Jerusalem to be made capital of Israel after it's been disbanded. Nor did I notice delegate for Heaven present at the conference.

But whatever, I'm atheist so I can possibly never get this. Why I bet if Israel claimed Tehran as its capital, some people out there would be first ones to support the motion. Because obviously, deus vult and whoever says otherwise is godless and anti-Israel.

Rob said...

Hello Michal,
Leaving aside any scriptural arguments since you're an atheist, I think an Israeli claim to Tehran as its capitol( one a , not two my friend)would have as much validity as the Arab/Muslim claim to Jerusalem based on a 19 year occupation from 1948-1967 and the accompanying ethnic cleansing of every Jew who lived in the Old City.

That is to say, none.

Another reason the Jews will never agree to divide Jerusalem again (aside from its major religious and cultural significance to Jews) is something you're probably not aware of.

In 1948, after the Jews were driven out,the Arabs burned 28 historic synagogues in the Old City, desecrated the Jewish cemeteries and used tombstones for street paving. Other Jewish Holy sites were converted into public latrines and The Kotel, the Western Wall was turned into a garbage dump. All Jewish property in the Old city was expropriated, with a lot of the houses given to Jordanian Arab colonists or army officers.

This situation continued until 1967, when King Hussein decided to join the war and started shelling civilians in West Jerusalem.

In other words, the Israelis have seen that Islam doesn't play well with others and that sharing Jerusalem doesn't work particularly well for them.

After all that, the Arabs currently living in the Old City are lucky to be allowed to remain there. I assure you that it would not be like that if the situation was reversed and the Arabs were in charge.

I might also point out that according to U.S. law, Jerusalem has officially been recognized as Israel's capitol.

Some U.S.presidents have ignored this in order to suck up to people like the Saudis, but since the Jews aren't going to give it up unless it is physically taken away from them, common sense might dictate recognizing their claim, which has been validated both by the only continuing presence as a majority in the city except for the 19 years I mentioned and by events on the ground.


Anonymous said...

Pedantic point ( former academic writing ) but apropos of & re Michal's use of the capital ( ie, with 2 a's, ) orthography : technically, Michal is correct. CapitOl with an O is derived from Latin Capitolium, Jupiter's temple. The founding fathers, being thorough-going classicists, named their new building & the modern ' hill ' ( complete with a Senate : in Latin, Senatus ) after it. CapitAl with an A is derived from Latin capital & means chief, preeminent, capital. It is derived in turn from caput, head, which was the word they normally employed for the capital or capital city. Thus, the representatives & senators meet at the Capitol ( building ) on Capitol Hill, but it is in Washington, DC, the capital or capital city. In the 1960s, an English girl helping me with my English pronunciation ( nb, English is technically a 3d language for me, ) said she learnt this by inventing a story about tourists on a tour coach bus being regaled with info by the cicerone, or tour guide, about the monuments & buildings of DC. ' There, ' said the loquacious tour guide, ' that's the CapitOl building ! ' ' The tourists gaped saying , ' OOOOOOhhhhh ! ' An useful mnemonic.

But, otherwise, I agree with JP, for all experience hath shewn ( nerdette alert ! ) that capitals which are divided ( eg, Berlin, Jerusalem, ) experience undue misery. QED ( quod erat demonstrandum ) . As jp likes to say, res ipsa loquitur. ( Sorry, couldn't resist : 40 years ago, I could have held a conversation in Latin, but that has gone kaput or caput ! ) Let Israel determine her own borders. Ciao !


Anonymous said...

CapitAl with an A is derived from Latin capitalis ... : that's how that 4th sentence should commence. --d/d

Rob said...

Hello DD,

Common English usage:

capital always refers to money and/or wealth...unless it refers to capital punishment, in which case the Latin root, caput, takes on an appropriate meaning ;)

capitol always refers to the chief city in a region.

Elle est ce qu'elle est, N'est pa?

You may consider that a non-academic's response, my friend...