Was anyone watching the DNC and this Duckworth character as she pownced out on her mechanical legs to skewer for the guilt complex to any insight into why it might not be a good idea to have females in combat units. Surely a veteran who lost her legs no one would question… except me. It was an obvious emotional ploy. Just because we have victims does not justify changing the military to make more victims. We men just think women are better with legs because men are better at fighting… and guess what. Not only is this argument reasonable… it is also right. Women in combat units do not help our situation in Iraq. I could tell by the hidden pauses for a smirk on Duckworth’s face that she wasn’t done. She was going to use her token injury as a reason to hurt politically those who are conservative enough to of kept her out of the battle, hence would of denied her martyrdom. Now she’s on to shill for Islam. How predictable
Illinois Congressional Candidate Tammy Duckworth, Sporting Hijab, Denounced "Racism" at Chicago Jihad Bomb Plotter’s School the Day After His ArrestSeptember 18, 2012
Two days into the Democratic National Convention, uproar has emerged as the Democratic Party platform was released. Among the controversial platform positions was the removal from previous years’ platforms of “God,” the removal of support for Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the refusal to meet with Hamas, refusal of the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel.
When controversy ensued, the DNC was forced to backtrack — at least on the topic of “God” and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In an embarrassing display, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was forced to hold three voice votes before finally deeming the two amendments regarding God and Jerusalem to be reinserted into the platform. See the video here.
CNN reported that the nays seemed to exceed the ayes regarding the amendments. Then Villaraigosa just declared the amendments passed – to boos and rancor. Shades of Mayor Daley and the 1968 Convention.
Pro-Obama “journalists” spun the story as if Barack Obama suddenly intervened and rode to the rescue and personally intervened to get the two amendments passed.
That part may be true.
But the bigger story is that he knew of the language in the platform before it was released and passed.
Reid Epstein reports in Politico:
Two platform planks sparked division at the Democratic National Convention here Wednesday.
Things got so bad that President Barack Obama was forced to personally intervene, ordering language mentioning God and naming Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel be added.
Obama had seen the language prior to the convention, a campaign source said, but did not seek to change it until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem late Wednesday. And even then, it had to be forced through a convention hall full of delegates who nearly shouted down the change.
It was only when blowback occurred that could hurt his political prospects that he stepped forward and inserted the language to assuage critics.
There is additional support for Epstein’s reporting. Not only had previous reports indicated that the platform’s original language was meant to conform to Obama’s positions but the people on the drafting committee, and one in particular, have close ties to Barack Obama.
Eliot Abrams writes in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (What is Israel’s Capital? Democrats Have Trouble Saying):
Among the Democratic committee members this year were Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, former Florida Rep. Robert Wexler, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, and former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.
None of these people are strangers to Barack Obama and no doubt were quite aware of his priorities and policies – and agenda going forward.
But did one person in particular play a key role in the sections regarding Israel?
All signs point to Robert Wexler as being that person.
Since 2008 he has been a defender of Barack Obama when it comes to his treatment of Israel. He has served as Obama’s emissary (or at least one of them) to the Jewish community. When he served in Congress he was involved in Israel-related legislation. After he left Congress (he chose not to run for reelection because he was caught having lied about his residency) he went to work for a “think tank” that focused on the Middle East: the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation . This is an appeasement-oriented think tank funded by a billionaire donor to Democrats. I wrote about Wexler in 2009 that this sinecure could be perceived as a thank you for promoting Obama’s campaign in 2008. His role in defending Obama even extended to the convention itself when he delivered a speech on this topic. He is not just promoting Obama for partisan reasons – his paycheck may depend on it.
So it can be presumed that Robert Wexler has been very much in contact with Barack Obama and his campaign and was very aware of how Obama wanted the platform drafted. Wexler helped draft that platform, was very aware of what Obama’s agenda is and Obama was more than in the loop.
Wexler is one of the more disgraceful former members of Congress – and, when controversy erupted, he pointed the blame at a prominent pro-Israel group. He lost this blame game (see Jennifer Rubin’s blog) when his story was found to have many holes in it.
Of course, this is just one of many examples of Barack Obama pushing a policy regarding Israel and then being forced to back track when his political fortunes compelled him to trim his sails.
In a second term, Obama will need to do no more trimming. He will have a great deal more flexibility.
UPDATE: The Washington Post published this column on the controversy that confirmed Wexler helped write the controversial section on Israel:
“The language in the platform is 100 percent pro-Israel language,” said Robert Wexler, a former Democratic House member from Florida who now runs the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington.
Wexler, who acted as a liaison for Obama to a sometimes-suspicious Jewish community during the 2008 campaign, served on the platform-drafting committee and helped write the section on Israel.
So this is how Obama’s emissary and spinner to the Jewish community defines 100 percent pro-Israel language? That says a lot about what Anderson Cooper might describe as the alternate universe people like Robert Wexler and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz live in – as does their President.
(Israel National News) After facing sharp criticism from Mitt Romney and Republicans, the Democrats reinstated on Wednesday the language that recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel into their party platform.According to a report in CBS News, the party has also brought back the words “G-d-given” that were removed in this year’s platform.
The party reinstated the 2008 language into this year’s platform to “reflect the President’s personal view,” CBS News learned.
The Democratic Party platform that was released on Monday simply stated that “President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security.”
The three-paragraph section entitled “The Middle East” detailed the Obama administration’s support for Israel, including boosting security assistance, but said nothing about Jerusalem.
In contrast, in 2008 the Democratic Party’s platform said, “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
Romney criticized the Democrats over the platform, saying, “It is unfortunate that the entire Democratic Party has embraced President Obama’s shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.”
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.”
During a visit to Israel in July, Romney stated that it was “a moving experience to be in Jerusalem — the capital of Israel,” eliciting extended and excited applause from the audience.
During his election campaign in 2008, Obama reassured Jewish constituents that Jerusalem will remain the “undivided” capital of Israel. His stance since then has significantly changed.
“Let me be clear, Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable,” Obama said at the time. “The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Obama soon retracted his remarks, saying that the word undivided “was poorly chosen.”
Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin on Wednesday criticized the removal of the section regarding Jerusalem, saying, “I’m less worried about the U.S.-Israel relations regarding Iran, and more concerned about President Obama’s withdrawal from the principle that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.”
The omission “has far-reaching significance, which reflect a complete lack of understanding by the Obama administration about the roots of the conflict and the events in the Middle East,” said Rivlin, in an unusually blunt statement for a senior Israeli political figure during a U.S. election season.
three card monty
|“Peace and Good Will” at Democratic National Convention 1872
Credit: Wiki Commons
Now DNC lies about AIPAC?(Daled Amos): More Controversy At Democratic National Convention On Support For Israel
In addition to the controversy surrounding Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that Israeli Ambassador Oren thinks Republicans are dangerous, the Democratic Platform is another issue raising doubts about the Democratic Party’s support for Israel.
I blogged yesterday asking Can You Guess What Israel Points Are Missing From The 2012 Democratic Platform?, noting omissions from the Democratic Platform first pointed out by the Republican Jewish Coalition both on Twitter and on their website (Democrats Strip Critical Pro-Israel Language from Platform)
In an effort to blunt criticism of their plaform, Democrats have attempted to give it the seal of approval of a major Jewish group: DNC Israel Platform Reviewed, ‘Loved’ By AIPAC, Sources Say. The result has been another debate on what was actually said.
According to the post, it is true that the 2004 and 2008 platforms had stronger pro-Israel platforms:
But the aide and a second source affiliated with the party — both of whom were not authorized to speak on the drafting process — added that officials with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the hardline pro-Israel interest group, had reviewed and approved the language prior to its finalization.
“They loved it,” said the aide who worked on the platform.
But the question is whether in fact AIPAC actually reviewed and approved — let alone loved — the 2012 Democratic Platform.
AIPAC says they didn’t.
Instead, their version of the story is very different, namely that AIPAC Not Consulted on Final DNC Platform:
Officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were not consulted on the final version of the Democratic National Committee’s controversial language regarding Israel and the peace process, a revelation that calls into question numerous reports that the pro-Israel juggernaut was pleased with the party’s platform, according to a source close the group.
“AIPAC officials were not in the room when the platform was drafted,” the source told the Free Beacon Tuesday evening. “AIPAC was never provided with a full draft of the Middle East section of the platform.”
…“Jerusalem as the capital is Israel was part of the AIPAC submission to the platform committee,” the AIPAC source said.
The source claiming AIPAC approved and “loved” the platform is — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz — sticking by their story.
The DNC admits that they deleted the 2008 and prior Jerusalem language in the Democratic Party platform to follow Obama and his policy that refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.Hmmmm…….Obama: “But I’m also mindful of the proverb, “A man is judged by his deeds, not his words.” So if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what I have done — to stand up for Israel.”HT: TheRightScoop.
explains why it was so important for Obama to have DWS and the smokescreen.
DENVER, CO – AUGUST 8: (Daily Caller)U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a grassroots campaign stop at the Auraria Events Center August 8, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. (Photo by Marc Piscotty/Getty Images)
In an academic article published last year, contraception advocate Sandra Fluke made the case that private health insurers should be required to pay for sex change operations.
Fluke has become a vocal surrogate of the Democratic Party and is scheduled to address the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., Wednesday night. On Tuesday afternoon she appeared at a Planned Parenthood “Yes We Plan” rally outside the convention venue, where condoms in anti-Republican packaging were distributed. [RELATED: Planned Parenthood distributes condoms with message: “Protect yourself from Romney & Ryan”]
She thrust herself into the media spotlight in February when she told the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee that many of her Georgetown Law School classmates were without birth control pills because the university’s insurance plan was not forced to cover it.
Fluke and co-editor Karen Hu advocated remaking U.S. law to remove what they called a “gender bias” at the root of denying coverage for “transgender medical needs,” describing it as “a prime example of direct discrimination.” [RELATED: Sandra Fluke chickening out on women’s issues debate with Breitbart’s Dana Loesch?]
“Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label [gender-reassignment] surgery as cosmetic, or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered,” Fluke and Hu wrote for the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The review article was titled “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and appeared in print in 2011.
By some estimates, sex change operations can cost between $15,000 and $20,000; the cost for some procedures can be as high as $50,000. Fluke and other advocates want insurers to cover all such operations. In general, assuming the costs of new coverage mandates tends to raise rates for all enrollees in a given health-care plan.(MORE)