Why? We do not understand. However, over the past three and a half years there has been the constant drum beat to "bring Israel into line." The culmination is the Democratic Platform which were revealed yesterday. One notable missing plank in this year's edition is the endorsement of the capital of Israel being moved to Jerusalem. You say what? Yes, no longer does the Democratic Party believe that the holiest city in Judaism should be the capital of the reborn land of the Jews.
This is not a mistake, it is deliberate. It is a slap into the face of one of the most dependable voting blocks the Democrats have. Jews have voted for Democrats since Roosevelt (who was not really a great friend) and in recent contests the percentage has been around 70-80%. Obama's treatment of Netanyahu might have tempered those numbers this year, we doubt that it would have fallen much below 65%, if that far.
So why the rebuff? Obama has not been a friend of Israel. He believes that this country is one of the reasons for the unsettled relations that the US has with the region and that things will not normalize until the Jews can be corralled into a space that they cannot cause problems (like defending their borders or retaliating to rockets fired from neighboring countries.) He feels that the ghettos were a good way to take care of the problem and wishes to create a similar situation on a tiny strip of land along the Mediterranean. Thus when he says "return to pre-1967 borders" he is not kidding.
Additionally, even though he has surrounded himself with JINOS (Jews in name only), he has no love for them. He views the fight of the African American being held back by them. History would refute that assumption, however, Obama is not into history unless it his own.
Lastly, he views Jews as part of the 1%. You do know that all Jews are wealthy, right? Well, somehow in his Prep School, college and law school education, that idea stuck. Hey, all the Jews he has surrounded himself with are rich, so by extension, they all must be! Obviously, not all Jews are well heeled, however, when it comes to scapegoats, Jews have always been a handy one. This President is no different than other dictators, he needs a group to demonize and Israel and the children of Abraham are available!
On April 16, 2012, we wrote a post entitled "Democrats Join Obama Demanding Israel Concessions" in which we reported how 74 donkeys had lined up to insist that this tiny country essentially commit suicide by accepting untenable requirements of the Palestinian Authority. Where is their support for the little guy?
All Jews should awaken to the risk they face should Obama get "the flexibility he will have after his last election." What will he do? It is anyone's guess however, he has not shown himself not to be a friend of either Jews or Israel. No Jew should vote for him, he is not trustworthy. Your life or the life of Israel may be in your hands.
Conservative Tom
This is not a mistake, it is deliberate. It is a slap into the face of one of the most dependable voting blocks the Democrats have. Jews have voted for Democrats since Roosevelt (who was not really a great friend) and in recent contests the percentage has been around 70-80%. Obama's treatment of Netanyahu might have tempered those numbers this year, we doubt that it would have fallen much below 65%, if that far.
So why the rebuff? Obama has not been a friend of Israel. He believes that this country is one of the reasons for the unsettled relations that the US has with the region and that things will not normalize until the Jews can be corralled into a space that they cannot cause problems (like defending their borders or retaliating to rockets fired from neighboring countries.) He feels that the ghettos were a good way to take care of the problem and wishes to create a similar situation on a tiny strip of land along the Mediterranean. Thus when he says "return to pre-1967 borders" he is not kidding.
Additionally, even though he has surrounded himself with JINOS (Jews in name only), he has no love for them. He views the fight of the African American being held back by them. History would refute that assumption, however, Obama is not into history unless it his own.
Lastly, he views Jews as part of the 1%. You do know that all Jews are wealthy, right? Well, somehow in his Prep School, college and law school education, that idea stuck. Hey, all the Jews he has surrounded himself with are rich, so by extension, they all must be! Obviously, not all Jews are well heeled, however, when it comes to scapegoats, Jews have always been a handy one. This President is no different than other dictators, he needs a group to demonize and Israel and the children of Abraham are available!
On April 16, 2012, we wrote a post entitled "Democrats Join Obama Demanding Israel Concessions" in which we reported how 74 donkeys had lined up to insist that this tiny country essentially commit suicide by accepting untenable requirements of the Palestinian Authority. Where is their support for the little guy?
All Jews should awaken to the risk they face should Obama get "the flexibility he will have after his last election." What will he do? It is anyone's guess however, he has not shown himself not to be a friend of either Jews or Israel. No Jew should vote for him, he is not trustworthy. Your life or the life of Israel may be in your hands.
Conservative Tom
I found it curious that Obama forced his party to get the party's official "platform" changed on Israel, but Romney did not do the same regarding a raped woman's right to abortion. Any thoughts on that?
ReplyDelete--David
David, are you kidding? Over 50% of the convention voted against G-d and Israel! Only because the chairman ignored the boos and catcalls and passed the resolution, did it occur. The Dems are in for a scary proposition, once you condemn G-d, you open yourself up to massive retribution.
ReplyDeleteAs far as a raped woman's right to an abortion, I have no idea that anything like that was in the platform, where?
Let me clarify my question. Obama himself intervened and forced the change in the platform regarding Israel even though the majority of delegates (in both the platform committee and the voice vote on the floor) were opposed to the change Obama wanted.
ReplyDeleteUnder the Republican platform, a raped woman would have no right to an abortion. Romney is personally opposed to this part of the Republican platform. However, unlike Obama, he did not personally intercede and get it removed from the platform (as Obama did regarding Israel).
As I said, I find this difference between their responses to their party platforms curious, inasmuch as women are a much larger voting block than Jews, and Romney clearly has a big problem with women votes because of the abortion issue.
I was just wondering what you think explains why Obama intervened on the Israel Democratic platform issue but Romney did not on the Republican rape issue? I hope this clarifies my question.
-David
Did my last post get lost in cyberspace? My question was about why do you think Obama forced a change in the platform on Israel (over the objections of the majority of delegates on the platform committee as well as in the voice vote on the floor), whereas Romney did not change the plank in the Republican platform which would not allow an abortion for a raped woman? He has stated that he personally opposes that part of the platform. I have my own theory on this, but I was interested in what you think about it.
ReplyDelete--David
David, over half of the democrapic convention voted against the changes, that signals that they did not want it! They were overruled by the chairman who was promptly booed and catcalled! The democraps do not want anything to do with G-d or Jerusalem and that my friend sends a signal stronger than any statement about rape. This is a universal signal, an active signal, not something written by a party. We are doomed as a country when you do such things.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen it written that a woman cannot get an abortion due to a rape as current law allows it.
Tom
I seem to have a hard time communicating my question to you, but I will try again.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the delegates opposed the change. I understand that, and already said so in my last note. The chairman overruled the voice vote, because he was directed to do it by Obama. If you go back to the speech Obama did (which you and I have discussed numerous times regarding "1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps"), another element of Obama's speech was that he was neutral regarding Jerusalem. He said it was one of the items that the Israelis and Palestinians need to negotiate between themselves. If you don't recall that, I can probably dig up the transcript of the speech and give you Obama's exact quote. My point here is that Obama did not want something in the party platform that he did not personally support, and so he forced this change down the throats of the delegates and their catcalls. Not pretty.
Now, I was trying to contrast his reaction to stuff in the platform to Romney accepting the Republican platform even though he personally accepts the "rape exception" for abortion. The Republican platform does not mention rape specifically, but advocates that a fertilized egg should have all the 14th Amendment rights as a citizen. It should never be legal to kill it via abortion or hormonal birth control. That is Rick Santorum's position, not Mitt Romney's. Nevertheless, Romney (unlike Obama) did not make an issue of it and try to force a change in the Republican party platform. The polls show that he has a lot more problems with women voters than Obama has with Jews, so that raises the question as to why he made no effort to get the platform in line with his own views on abortion.
So, now that I have (hopefully) explained this, I wanted to hear your thoughts about why Obama interceded against the platform and Romney did not. I have my own theory, but I wanted to hear yours first.
--David
The clause to which you refer has been in the platform of the Republican Party for at least 8 years if not longer.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have no problem that a Party is in favor of stopping the killing of innocent lives at the convenience of the woman. BTW, it is not the woman's body that is effected by an abortion, it is a child--a human life. This "person" has no representation legal or otherwise. Once we make it so easy to kill a fetus, where does it stop? Do we allow a parent to kill at 2 year old child that comes down with a dreaded disease? We can use the same argument--the child is not able to take care of itself, right? Or what about the elder adult who due to age, sickness or infirmity cannot any longer care for himself? Do we allow someone to determine they are not viable?
The Nazis started killing those who were in the mental wards.No one complained. It can happen here and it is best to seek the higher moral ground and that is what the Republican party did.
For Romney to make a stink about something that is set in law Rowe v. Wade, would take away the focus on the real problems in this country, that being the financial morass we are in.
Additionally, today we see how our leadership in the world is being challenged by two bit thugs in Libya who kill our Ambassador and take over the Embassys there as well as Egypt. Ironically ??? it was on 9/11. That is far from a coincidence.
My larger point on the Democrats is regardless of what Obama did or did not do (we doubt that he forced the issue on Jerusalem or G-d), it was the delegates and their despicable message they sent. The Democratic Party Hates G-d and Jerusalem. That fact was made very clear.
I don't know why you think Obama did not force the issue on Jerusalem. Would you rather believe that the chairman incredibly went rogue nuts over the issue? They don't do that! The change was made because Obama ordered it changed.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that Romney has made the economy the focus of his campaign rather than abortion, gay marriage, etc. that motivate the Evangelical wing of the party. However, the idea that a fertilized egg cannot be killed in case of rape is not supported by most women voters, and considering that Romney is losing badly to Obama among women voters, it would have been in his interest (in that respect) to get the party platform aligned with his personal beliefs regarding abortion. My theory is that he did not do it because he is afraid of losing support with the social conservative base of the party.
As I see, the delegates to the Democratic convention are left of Obama on the Jerusalem question (which BTW one can be without "hating" Israel), and the Republican delegates are to the right of Romney on abortion. i believe the difference between Romney's and Obama's response to their platforms is attributable to the different perceptions of how acceptable the change would be to the delegates. I think that if Romney tried to change the abortion plank of the platform, all hell would break loose at the Republican convention, not just a few catcalls from the audience as when Obama forced the platform change.
--David