Is this a cynical move or what? Whatever the Dems did, it was sly.

My understand is that, when the Dems were drafting their platform, they purposely excluded any mention of Jerusalem in regard to Israel and they included any mention of God.

Talk about inept. Talk about leaving a bad impression.

Unless… unless….

I now understand that Pres. Obama – get this – ordered his staff to have the platform language changed to include God and affirm Jerusalem as the proper capital of Israel. A campaign source confirmed this.

That means that Obama gets all the credit without believing any of it. His heroic intervention to drag the platform back from the fringe to the center, will help him with the Jewish vote AND the Catholic left. Impact will be felt in Ohio and Florida.

I suspect the whole thing was a setup. They did this ON PURPOSE so that Obama could intervene.

Technorati Tags: , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Dogs and Fleas, Liberals, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

133 Responses to Is this a cynical move or what? Whatever the Dems did, it was sly.

  1. dans0622 says:

    I don’t know about that, Father. There is a ready-made Romney ad in the way the delegates responded to the proposed changes–booing and howling at God and Jerusalem. I guess Obama can somehow look like the moderate but who would want to associate with such a crowd?

  2. Fuquay Steve says:

    Once again, the virtue of prudence is demonstrated for those that view this blog. It’s a shame to think this type of manipulation for the sake of human power, is so common. Oh well.

  3. Sissy says:

    I’m confused and a bit suspicious of this report that it was Obama who forced the change. It is his official foreign policy NOT to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He’s being given credit, but I wonder if it was some group of Democrat power brokers who see the party going down the tubes. This convention is a disaster.

  4. Supertradmum says:

    Politics is all about manipulation. It is advertising as well as propaganda and real issues all mixed up.

    However, I do not think this was on purpose, as the 100 or so Muslim delegates and those in the crowd with “Arab Democrats” on tee-shirts would be and some did seem, generally upset.

    I think it is just incompetence, which we have seen for four years.

  5. Supertradmum says:

    Sissy, if you read this, you will see the incompetence. The administration has one view and the president another? Good grief. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/05/dems_change_platform_to_include_jerusalem_language_after_obama_intervened

  6. roydosan says:

    Maybe the status of Jerusalem should be decided by its indigenous inhabitants (whilst there are still any left who haven’t been expelled or had their homes demolished) rather than by people who are 4,000 miles or so away?

  7. Sissy says:

    Supertradmum: Well, that just fits in with this whole train wreck, doesn’t it? That statement confirms for me that Obama had nothing to do with this. This was forced on him; he has always sided with the so-called “palestinians” on this issue. I bet he’ll be getting some angry phone calls. Either that, or his internal polling shows his Jewish support cratering.

  8. Supertradmum says:

    roydosan, we have had years of treaties with Israel and have since 1948 upheld the right for Israel to exist with its traditional capital. I hope you have had some world history in high school or college. The Middle East was divided up quite fairly with a majority of Islamic nations and one Christian nation, Lebanon, and finally, after WWII and the Holocaust, one Jewish nation. Palestine is an area, not a state, not a country. It has never been so. Those in charge are all named terrorist groups, such as Hamas.

    It is only because Europe and the United States have upheld Israel against growing Islamic ascendency to take over the entire world and to obliterate Israel from the face of the earth that this has not happened already.

    Once our government turns against Israel, we shall see the destruction of that state. As a Catholic and as a westerner, each citizen of the United States can stand with Israel today, as we have historically. We cannot pretend or be naive.

    I taught history and I taught Islam and I can tell you that the goal of the Muslim faithful is to take over the entire world. They are still fighting Catholics, Christians, Jews and even each other, as the Sunnis fight the Shiites. You need to study and not make adolescent comments.

    Are you one who just watches the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt and the exodus as well as murder of Coptic Christians, who were there centuries before Islam existed?

  9. Sissy says:

    roydosan, I can’t add much to Supertradmum’s excellent post, except to say that the historical people of that land ARE living there; their country is called Israel, their capital is Jerusalem. The people you are erroneously and absurdly referring to as “indigenous” people have a country of their own. It is called Jordan.

  10. jflare says:

    I’ve been listening to the radio quite a little today and I can’t say that the appraisal I’ve read in this entry or in the comments thus far precisely reflects what I’ve been hearing.
    I heard a rather interesting bit on Glenn Beck’s show, but more importantly, I heard a fairly lengthy clip on Al Kresta’s show. I don’t know the names or network involved, but I heard the exchange between a reporter and a Senator. Essentially, the Senator danced around the key issues regarding whether the Democrats meant anything by omitting the name “God” from the platform, or whether failing to acknowledge Jerusalem had significance. Essentially, the Senator didn’t wish to give a straight answer at all.
    I got the distinct impression that the Senator neither knew for sure, nor cared about, what the Democratic platform says.

    I also heard a longish bit on Mark Levin’s show, during which the convention held a voice vote on the matter. Of note, the President wasn’t involved; LA mayor Villaraigosa (spelling?) made the motion.
    The voice vote sounded to me as though either the majority voted no, or else an extremely thin majority voted yes. Even if I’m registered as a Republican, I was rather stunned: With a vote that close, I would’ve thought they’d want to conduct a vote in which they either vote secretly or electronically, but they’re careful to count each vote.
    They did not.
    THEY say they passed a majority vote to include the name “God” and naming the capitol as Jerusalem.

    I’m not at all sure that this happened.
    I heard a very large amount of booing immediately afterward.

    I think it VERY questionable whether the delegates REALLY voted to approve.

  11. roydosan says:

    Supertradmum, you’ve a very skewed view of reality I’m afraid. Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East and can take care of itself so there is no need to engage in hyperbole about supposed existential threats to Israel’s existence posed by Islam.

    You claim to be a Catholic then why not ask your Palestinian co-religionists in Israel and the Occupied Territories what their experience is? Most will tell you that the biggest threat to the Christian communities comes from Israel’s illegal occupation of the territory (including Jerusalem) seized in 1967 and the discrimination the Christians in Israel and the O.T.s face because Israel is not the State of its citizens but discriminates on the basis of religion. When Israel starts treating my fellow Catholics with the courtesies and freedom that I am lucky enough to take for granted then I might be inclined to give them the time of day. Till that day I don’t really care about the Islamic threat because in Israel/Palestine at least very little discrimination against the Christians is coming from the Muslims (Hamas even have Christian members!) – no it is coming from the Israelis. That’s not my opinion that’s the opinion of the Palestinian Christians.

  12. Dismas says:

    The delegate vote took place on national TV. In viewing the video, is anyone here convinced the delegate Yea vote won with 2/3 victory? It’s not clear to me there was a 2/3 victory changing the platform language. I can’t help but think, regardless of how or who caused this, it’s a huge damaging blunder. I’m not convinced the Yea vote is decided and the argument over. I perceived a Nay majority vote or a 50/50 split at best. My hope is that the nationally televised vote will be contested and that God will continue to split them by disagreements.

  13. roydosan says:

    Sorry Sissy the Palestinians have more right to Jerusalem than a bunch of Poles, Americans and Russians.

  14. Random Friar says:

    Both CNN and Fox seem to be responding to the floor situation as “chaotic” as the mayor of Los Angeles tried to call for a voice vote, three times, the measure obviously not passing by the necessary 2/3, then declares it passed.

    Ah, democracy in action!

  15. Sissy says:

    roydosan: who are these “palestinians” of whom you speak? I was a professor of ancient history for many years, and I can assure you, there never was, nor shall there ever be such a country as “Palestine”. If the current Israelis ancestors spent some time sojourning in other countries during the diaspora, that is hardly their fault. There were also Jewish people living in the region all along, but you know that.

  16. mike cliffson says:

    some of the people, all of the time..
    all of the people, some of the time….
    Communists usually just sieze power, period. Chavistas manipulate. Hitler won overall, but did not win elections in catholic parts of germany (nor , curiously, Berlin.) despite the alternative being as uninspiring as washing up water.
    I despair of many good practicng, not inthe least trendy nor cafeteria Spanish and British Catholics ever doing other than voting the party of their parents, grandparents, and forebears from the dawn of time, without thinking of looking for lesser weevils.
    Stateside?

  17. Papabile says:

    For people who think this is anything else other than old style Clinton triangulation, they are sorely mistaken.

    The One gets to separate himself from the “liberal activists” and put himself in the center.

    It’s literally genius.

    It was planned from the beginning. Axelrod and Cutter are smart, very smart.

    The additional benefit is that it’s a distraction from the Romney statement that is actually impacting on polls “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

    Dick Morris may hate Obama now, but this is a lesson right out of his 1996 playbook while he was getting his toes sucked.

  18. roydosan says:

    Sissy, the Palestinians are the indigenous inhabitants (Christians and Muslims) of the territory of Palestine (present day Israel plus the land seized in 1967). There never was a Palestine? Then what was the name of the territory administered by Britain between 1918 and 1948? It was… Palestine! I’m not sure how you can state that there never will be a country called Palestine – even Likud acknowledge that the end result of the peace negotiations is a Palestinian state i.e. a country that will be called Palestine. Personally, I’d be happy if Israel did take over all the pre-48 territory provided that all its citizens Jew, Muslim and Christian were equal.

  19. Sissy says:

    Dismas said: “I’m not convinced the Yea vote is decided and the argument over.”

    I was watching as it happened, and I agree with you that the vote was equally split. The chairman thought so, too, and took the vote again. A woman in a blue suit came up and whispered to him something like “the change is already made, just do what you have to do” or words to that effect. He was looking around wildly, as if he didn’t know what to do next. So, he took one more vote, which was once again evenly split, and the said the chair “deemed” it to have passed. And then the boos and howls broke out.

  20. Facta Non Verba says:

    I doubt that the “undecideds”, who will ultimately decide this election, will take note of what happened to the DNC platform.

  21. Supertradmum says:

    Sissy, I taught history as well and the commentator is confused as to a nation and an area with a geographical name. We can talk about nationhood only when there is a national organization, as you well know. Thanks for your support on this matter.

    As to the vote, it was obviously not two-thirds. Whether planned or incompetence, I do not think it helps either Obama or the Dems, but just makes them all look unprofessional.

  22. Dave N. says:

    Sissy,
    You might want to review your ancient history–the designation “Palestine” was already known by Herodotus and Aristotle. After the Bar Kokbah rebellion in 135, Palestine became the official Roman name for the province.

  23. Supertradmum says:

    DaveN, it was never a nation-state. And, that is Sissy and my point. A province of a nation is not a nation.

  24. Iowander says:

    Here’s the video of them “passing” it. I think the nays may have actually had the majority – it certainly didn’t pass by two-thirds.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg&feature=player_embedded

    When democracy doesn’t get you your intended end, then just do whatever you want anyway I guess.

  25. Sissy says:

    roydosan, I appreciate the fact that you are debating in a civil manner. But your talking points seem to come straight out of Jimmy Carter’s anti-semitic screeds. The entire region was referred to as Palestine; it was never a country. The folks you are inaccurately calling “indigenous” were given all of the TransJordan as a homeland, and a fine and prosperous homeland it is. The vast majority of these “indigenous” folks live there happily today. The terror groups who decided to stay behind in violation of the treaty are not the lovely people you have been led to believe. Your concern for their bogus claims is misplaced. You seem like a very sincere person, so I gently urge you to investigate this matter further. But for now, we are deeply down a rabbit hole, which our kind host does not appreciate.

  26. Dismas says:

    (((Please God, deliver Fr. Z and all of us from Sister Simone induced aneurysm)))

  27. Papabile says:

    @Facta Non Verba This election will not be decided by undecideds. Its a turnout election. There are too few undecideds right now among highly likely voters to tilt it.

  28. wmeyer says:

    roydosan, you are badly over-matched, but Sissy and Supertradmum will enlighten you, I am sure. A more courteous tone, however, would be nice in your posts.

  29. Papabile says:

    To those who are debating how many people said yea or nay during that vote, it means little. The decision of the chair stands unless they demanded a record vote or vote by division, which no one did.

    “The power of the Speaker [chair] is the power to recognize” Woordrow Wilson, Legislative Governance, 1919.

  30. Jerry says:

    No comments on the scripted result of the rules change voice vote by the Republicans?

  31. mike cliffson says:

    oh @rosydan:
    You’re being a touch partial.
    “Palestinians have more right to Jerusalem than a bunch of Poles, Americans and Russians.”
    You’re forgetting the Egyptians, Iraquis , syrians, Persians etc , Ladinospeakers cum Sephardies for the most part,in 48 , not askenazis as far as I know.Not many THEN from Morocco, but the wretched surviors from Taza in o6, whose descendants are now about 1/3 in Spain, 1/3 in Israel, 1/3 in Venezuela.
    A number of things happened before 48, In 48, and since 48 a number more of things have happened.
    You can indeed meet Catholics, and other christians, from the holy land driven out by eg mossad harrassment 40 years ago, arresting every young male who came out of mass, that sort of thing.
    But for quite a few years now it’s been the everstronger nether millstone, no holds barred.
    Check your facts and get updated.

  32. frjim4321 says:

    It was planned from the beginning. Axelrod and Cutter are smart, very smart.

    It’s possible, not necessarily likely, but possible. And there is no way any of us could ever know for sure. Yes, Axelrod is indeed very, very, smart as well as being a dedicated husband and father. He says this will be his last campaign.

    If this episode was indeed contrived it doesn’t trouble me because it is mild compared to the evil dirty tricks of Rove and Blackwell.

  33. EXCHIEF says:

    There is no democracy in the Democrat Party. None of us should be surprised at the hijinks over the God and Jerusalem issues—it is, after all, the Chicago way. How any rational, intellectually honest person can watch/listen/observe the deviousness of that party and vote for them is beyond my capacity to understand.

  34. Papabile says:

    @frjim4321 Please. Axelrod is actually a very nice man. I’ve met him more than once and dealt with fallout from him many times. [I saw a piece on him... on Fox News Sunday?... about him and his ... sick child? My memory is vague, but I was deeply impressed by what he was doing for his family.]

    You’re right, there’s no way to prove it, but I have faith in that campaign that they are a hell of a lot smarter than people give them credit for.

    On the other hand, to complain about Rove and Morton is ridiculous. Look, the Romney campaign is being driven by Eddie Gillespie, not Rove or Blackwell. Blackwell was reduced to creating a floor fight on the rules at this years Republican Convention — which he lost. Rove is sitting this out with Crossroads, not too much influence with the campaign — yeah, lots of money, but spereate.

    As one who deals with PACS on a daily basis, and knows the FEC non-coordination rules as part of my job, I can say without a doubt that Rove is far removed from daily decision making.

  35. Sissy says:

    Did I miss Sr. Simone? Has she spoken yet? I have to admit, the football game is a bit more interesting than the convention.

  36. majuscule says:

    Thanks for the YouTube link Iowander! I was just going to look for it.

    I don’t have TV and so I only go after items of interest. It sure helps to associate with people with similar views (and the people who rebut those views). Saves a lot of time.

    Did the woman who came up to talk to the chairman remind anyone else of a nun-on-a-bus?

  37. frjim4321 says:

    Did I miss Sr. Simone? Has she spoken yet? I have to admit, the football game is a bit more interesting than the convention.

    Yes, she spoke a little while ago.

  38. Sissy says:

    Thanks, Fr. Jim. The published schedule had her on late in the 9 pm ET bracket. Oh well.

  39. frjim4321 says:

    Seems like the moved things around a bit, and Barack is in the hall – don’t know if he was expected tonight?

  40. Peggy R says:

    As we see the crowd, it is clear that no God and no Jerusalem was what the delegates wanted. And it goes with O’s agenda perfectly. I think it is more likely that people like Durbin who don’t wish to be seen as that “extreme” would not put up with it, after his interview with Bret Baier.

  41. Sissy says:

    Politico is reporting via an Obama campaign person that he saw the wording on the platform planks before the convention but did not object. According to this report, he insisted on a change only after it became a news item yesterday.

  42. Matt R says:

    I am inclined to concur with roydosan on this one. Sorry, but the US and UK should not push for the capital of the State of Israel to be Jerusalem. In fact, it’s currently not the US policy, as the embassy is in Tel Aviv still. I am in favor of the city becoming an international city, as it was in the 1948 partition of Palestine. International cities do tend to get crushed; see Gdansk for an example. Perhaps Clancy’s solution in The Sum of All Fears might work.
    Based on my knowledge of the situation, everything has gotten worse since the Six-Day War for Christians, and the rise of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas is a result of the Israeli occupations. I don’t justify their evil, but Israel’s reaping what it’s sowing. I also think that all non-Jewish Israelis are pigeonholed for discrimination by the govt, regardless of religion and ties to terrorism.

  43. Supertradmum says:

    Oops correction. It is very late here. In addition to the above, if we take into account the Genesis passage, the claims for Palestine for the Jews are over 4,000 years old and roughly 2,700 years before Mohammed. Jeru-salem was the ancient capital of Salem, under King Melchisedek, and then the Jews. At any rate, the Dems who disagree with all of this are just plain ignorant of a very long history, which involves the countries of the West for generations.

  44. j says:

    Cynical yes, but outdone by Simone Campbell, one of the Nuns on the Bus
    Why is she on the bus? Because she AGREES with her Bishops. Not kidding.
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3872922&newclip
    from
    http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/Simone-Campbell-at-the-2012-Democratic-National-Convention/C3872415/

  45. Sissy says:

    Matt R: it isn’t for the US or the UK to “push” for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel. That is a fact.

    Earlier, it was stated upthread that Sr. Simone said she wouldn’t speak unless she could give an anti-abortion message, but I read the synopsis of her talk and there was no mention of that. Does anyone know?

  46. Matt R says:

    It is a fact that Israel regards Jerusalem as its capital, but that is not what the law says. It was NOT the capital when the State of Israel was established. Also, after a transition period as an international city, Jerusalem was to become a capital for two states, if possible, or remain an international city (Yes, I realize that the Arabs revolted in 1948, but that doesn’t change what the plan and subsequent international law.) The UN hasn’t seemed to change its position, and certainly the Gen. Assembly and Security Council have both condemned the occupation and settlements.

  47. Matt R says:

    Even the Holy See supports the international city concept for Jerusalem…

  48. frjim4321 says:

    Earlier, it was stated upthread that Sr. Simone said she wouldn’t speak unless she could give an anti-abortion message, but I read the synopsis of her talk and there was no mention of that. Does anyone know?

    I think I heard her entire speech and the topic of abortion did not come up.

    Seems like they are juggling the schedule quite a bit. Gergen suspects they are juggling the schedule on the basis of focus grouping andother metrics from last night. Eg they are bringing out Sandra Fluke at the top of prime time. Rush Limbaugh’s gift to Barack Obama.

  49. Sissy says:

    I wouldn’t be too sure that Sandra Fluke is a gift for your side, Fr. Jim. We’ll see in a couple of months.

  50. Sissy says:

    Matt R: The Holy See is entitled to it’s opinion. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and shall remain undivided (as Obama stated in 2008)

  51. PostCatholic says:

    I’m going to hold my powder until I see how all y’all react to Sr. Campbell.

    But I have to say: Politicians being manipulative? Engineering situations to their benefit? Or if not, capitalizing on mistakes in order to self-aggrandize? Just when you think nothing is new under the sun, huh?

  52. Sissy says:

    I missed Sr. Simone, PostCatholic. They changed her slot on the schedule at the last minute. I think Fr. Jim caught it, but I haven’t seen any other comments about it on this blog…saw a synopsis elsewhere. It sounded unremarkable.

  53. SKAY says:

    As we know–Obama has been known to say one thing that sounds moderate before an election and do quite the opposite after. It’s all about how many uninformed can be fooled.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/frank_marshall_davis_and_the_subversion_of_the_democratic_party.html

    Interesting article about Obama’s communist mentor in Hawaii–and his influence on today’s Democrat party. Davis was originally from Chicago and worked in some communist organizations with Robert Taylor(Valerie Jarrett’s grandfather).
    After moving from New York, David Axelrod’s mentor in Chicago was David Cantor(who’s father Harry was the secretary of Boston’s communist party.)

  54. Matt R says:

    @Sissy, it wasn’t exactly an opinion, like you and I might hold. A 1949 encyclical, Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus, issued by Ven Pope Pius XII deals with this issue, and he says: “We have already insisted in Our Encyclical letter In Multiplicibus, that the time has come when Jerusalem and its vicinity, where the previous memorials of the Life and Death of the Divine Redeemer are preserved, should be accorded and legally guaranteed an “international” status, which in the present circumstances seems to offer the best and most satisfactory protection for these sacred monuments.” Clearly, the Holy Father set the tone for the direction of the work of the Church in the Holy Land, and this position has been reaffirmed by subsequent popes.
    Back to the issue of nation-states: Palestinians are of two religions primarily, Islam and Christianity, and they speak their own form of Levantine Arabic. Jordan does not consider them to be Jordanian, as the Palestinians were expelled from Jordan, and were identifiable as a separate group-if there ever truly is such a thing-from Jordanians, culturally as well as politically. The Palestinians are concentrated in two areas under historic Israeli control, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Also the PA is a functioning (well, somewhat) government recognized as the administrative body in the region. The diaspora is distinct from other dispersed Arab populations. Therefore, what prevents Palestine from being recognized as a state independent from Israel, and being called a nation-state using standard academic terms found in political geography? I mean, Israel’s not a good example of a nation-state either.
    Also, most readers of the blog are considerably older than me, so it’s a bit perplexing to see Islam, which for all its errors, being cited as the original and only source of the attacks on Israel (unless I misunderstood some points made earlier). Palestinians simply wanted to stay where they were in 1948! Then, in the 1960s, Marxism entered the scene with the PLO as an ideological method of expressing past frustrations. Islam is only a recent part of the equation, and 12-Imam Shia Islam as practiced by Iran, and exported via groups like Hezbollah, wouldn’t mind *everybody* being blown up; it just happens that the People of the Book, whom they are instructed to respect in the Quran, are in the way of the 3rd holiest city in Islam. Now, Hamas, which is a Sunni fundamentalist group, is complicated. I blame the radicalization of Egyptian Muslims as well as tensions from the occupation for that, and radical Islam is just a way to incite rebellion to overthrow Israel.

  55. Johnno says:

    @ EXCHIEF

    Not that I’m siding with the Democrats here, but the Republicans did precisely the same thing to the Ron Paul supporters. Frankly, what the Republicans did is far scarier and dirtier. What are your comments on what happened in Tampa? Are you aware of what took place there?

    If anything all this exposes that democracy doesn’t exist in America AT ALL! Neither party deserves anyone’s votes. The entire system is corrupt. But the majority of people are comfortable accepting it and compromising to get by, so there’s nothing much one can do. Only a miracle will change anything, either that or severe divine punishment.

  56. Charivari Rob says:

    Yes, I heard most of Sister Simone’s remarks, I think.

    She tisk-tisked Paul Ryan for (something like) “not living up to the ideals of our shared faith”, saying how SHE agrees with the bishops of the Church, implying that the USCCB criticized or condemned the Ryan budget for being against Church teaching on social issues. ( You know – not implying, but phrasing it just short of that, so someone could jump to the conclusion that the Bishops were condemning the candidate or his candidacy. Didn’t say when they said this or what specifically the USCCB said, so I just wanna thank Sister for expanding my to-do list in an already hectic month – now I’ve gotta do research. I don’t doubt they found something disappointing (to say the least) in any financial plan on the federal level the last few years from either end of the partisan political spectrum, but it makes me determined to check what they really said and didn’t say, and when).

    Then she told us about some people the Nuns On The Bus Tour has met and their stories of extraordinary hardship (some involving lack of medical insurance) & perseverance, etc…

    She spoke about Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare (Spoiler Alert – she supports it!)…

    …and shortly after that and before wrapping up (as applause grew louder & louder), said “That’s MY definition of pro-life!”

  57. Charivari Rob says:

    I should that I’m not sure what “That” Sister was referring to as HER definition of pro-life – whether it was Obamacare or something else that I missed in all the applause…

    …but I’m sure I didn’t hear her say “protect human life from the moment of conception to natural death”

  58. Papabile says:

    @Johnno

    Please, “precisely the same thing”? it wasn’t the same thing at all.

    I am happy to give a link to Reason TV’s presentation which largely provides Paul supporters side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S16VBNj_qg

    With that video, you can think what you will, but it’s not the same. At issue was the a) seating of the Paul supports from Maine, and b) the Rules changes (which I didn’t support myself).

    With respect to seating, there are always fights over this, and the party rules allow for not seating delegates, just as the rules of the House of Representatives and the US Senate allow for not seating members.

    The Paul supporters claimed that offered a properly drafted amendment re rules changes, but they never properly filed it.

    Additionally, the issue as to whether an objection is heard is always entirely at the discretion of the Chair procedurally. The rule of thumb here is that the chair recognizes and has absolute power with respect to recognition. The same rule holds true in the House of Representatives. Unless the Speaker recognizes the person for the purpose of a motion, objection, etc, they are not heard. (If people want I can go pull the cites from Deschler’s Precedents on this.)

    Woodrow Wilson put it succinctly. “The power of the Speaker is the power to recognize.” (Congressional Governance, 1919).

    And like it or not, convention rules largely follow the House Rules — one reason House Rules Committee Chairman is the Parliamentary Chair for the convention. The parliamentarian staff is largely the same staff from the House Rules Committee.

  59. Southern Catholic says:

    @ Johnno, what did the Republicans do that was “dirtier and scarier” than booing the mentioning of God?

    It is also unfortunate that the bishops have done nothing to stop the scandal that Sister Simone continues to create.

  60. Absit invidia says:

    Father, the move was sly, but I think it went down a different way:

    I believe the democrats really wanted to distance themselves from Jerusalem and mention of ‘God’ because their base has genuinely turned into the party of the atheist. They overplayed it and tripped over themselves to fix it. The Obama campaign has been in damage control mode from the start. They have no positive record, only excuses for their failures . . . damage control. When Drudge Report put it out, Obama and his campaign staff undoubtedly got wind of it and knew they needed to win moderate states like Ohio and Florida. So they changed it to appear more centrist and hoped nobody noticed.

    The Obama campaign has been all about damage control from the very beginning. They are sloppy, reckless, and careless – which also describes why our economy is still floundering. They don’t care about the economy – they only care about amassing more power and polishing their shallow image, because they have absolutely no substance.

    The reinserting Jerusalem and “God” was damage control for overplaying their atheistic base.

  61. jflare says:

    Papabile,
    I’ve listened to the clip on two separate radio shows; I think you might need to reconsider what the Democrats did.
    A motion was made, the Chair asked for a voice vote. He DID recognize the issue.
    Over the next few minutes, he attempted a voice vote three separate times. On each occasion, you hear a large chorus of “Yes”, but also a large chorus of “Nos”.
    After the third effort, you hear the Chair declare that he recognizes a majority of yea’s. For the purposes of your argument, I suppose you can say the matter has been “closed”.

    Judging by the booing afterward, I suspect a significant portion of the delegates consider the matter to be anything BUT.

    Even if the Party officially recognizes the affirmative, I think Catholics and others of faith have become more unwelcome amongst Democrats.

  62. HeatherPA says:

    From what I heard watching the video of the “reinstatement”, the crowd denied God three times and booed when Pontus Pilate (aka the LA guy) passed the motion. I was waiting for a cock to crow amidst the scans of Arab Americans shaking their fists.
    No way that was 2/3rds.

    On a side note, did anyone else get the impression Bill Clinton was wishing so badly it was his own nomination?

  63. Phil_NL says:

    On a side note, did anyone else get the impression Bill Clinton was wishing so badly it was his own nomination?

    Clinton knows all too well that he would have done (and did) a better job than BHO as president – not that that is a high bar to clear. And as a politcial operator, Clinton was miles ahead too. He served the wrong cause and had plenty of personal faults, but he at least is a smarter guy.

  64. Gretchen says:

    I think it was also how Absit invidia describes the situation. When it became clear that the platform would be a problem for them the Democrats decided to “Never let a good crisis go to waste” and have Obamessiah command the situation. They no doubt thought it would be a perfect moment to advance the president as a supporter of Israel and a God fearing man, something that most Americans would like to see in our leaders. However, the signals got mixed when it was revealed that Obama had previously approved the wording of the platform! What a tangled web. The video of the vote is priceless and is vivid testimony of the subterfuge that goes on in politics. The father of lies always eats his own in the end.

  65. Sissy says:

    Matt R, your post just illustrates how successful “the great lie” can be if it’s repeated often enough. You say that the “Palestinians” were expelled from Jordan and that they were always in the region of Israel…well, which is it? Transjordan is the territory given to the Arabic speakers to be their own nation-state (which they never had before) in 1922, and the land west of the Jordan River was established as a nation-state of the Jews (who were the only people to ever create a nation-state on that territory). Period. Those are the two countries that were created. Compare maps of the 1922 division with a map of Israel today – it is Israel who has been dramatically shortchanged, not the Arabs. The population of Jordan consists overwhelmingly of so-called “Palestinian” people, including their Queen. The fact that the government of modern day Jordan tries to avoid any connection to the term”Palestinians” doesn’t change reality. They attempt to distance themselves from their own past, because that term has become a political football (and the people now associated with it belong generally to terror groups) . My original point to roydosan is that this idea of a nation of “Palestine” with an accompanying “Palestinian people” is pure fiction. The Arabs in the region of Palestine (never a nation-state) were never historically called “Palestinians”. It’s a fiction. It’s like talking about “North America” as a country and claiming that the “North Americans” take precedence over the citizens of the USA. It isn’t helpful, and it’s dishonest.

    Israel does, indeed, protect the holy sites of Jerusalem, even to their own detriment. So, they are doing exactly what the Holy See hoped would happen in 1948.

    Back to the convention: I thought Bill Clinton’s speech was mostly about re-energizing the crowd as Clinton supporters in anticipation of a Hillary run in 2016. He talked for what felt like an hour before he even mentioned Obama.

  66. JonPatrick says:

    I tuned in late and caught a rerun of the vote, it was clear to me that the votes were at best split, if anything the nays seemed stronger (maybe they were just louder).

    While waiting to hear Clinton’s speech I happened to catch Sandra Fluke and Elizabeth Warren. Ms Fluke gave the predictable speech about how women would be set back to the dark ages if Romney was elected, which is misleading at best since the president cannot single handedly repeal Roe v. Wade, and abortion law is handled at the state level not federal. About all he could really do is perhaps cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood. I thought Elizabeth Warren gave a decent speech, even invoking her Methodist upbringing which was ironic to say the least given the debate about the platform.

  67. Sissy says:

    I thought Miss Fluke was most credible when she asserted that Paul Ryan “would allow women to die in emergency rooms”. It’s that kind of measured, responsible rhetoric that proves just how “centrist” and “civil” Democrats really are. She was so compelling, I thought I might actually reconsider my vote. [do I need the /sarc tag?]

  68. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    Yes, Axelrod is indeed very, very, smart

    I see no evidence of that. In fact, I know of no criteria of intelligence that includes the ability to run a political campaign.

    Frankly, I’m offended by the networks trotting out one political hack after another. These people do little else than treat the viewers with Goebbels like propaganda. They–and the candidates they represent–are not interested in educating the electorate only in manipulating it.

    as well as being a dedicated husband and father.

    And how is that relevant?

  69. robtbrown says:

    Should be:

    frjim4321 says:

    Yes, Axelrod is indeed very, very, smart

  70. Scott W. says:

    Even if we grant that this was a cynical ploy, it’s still a desperation move because we are seeing the Left literally disintegrate before our eyes. Romney landslide in November.

  71. Sissy says:

    Scott W: I agree. The DNC is revealing who these folks really are. Even a CNN panel was marveling over Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s dissembling about the discord at the convention (Anderson Cooper called her claims “an alternate reality”). I think cooler heads forced the wording change in response to internals showing a drop in Jewish support. DWS claimed it was to correct a “technical oversight” while other DNC spokepersons said that Obama approved it ahead of time and then told them to change it back in reaction to bad publicity. I suspect the Obama campaign is in a state of panic.

  72. CatholicByChoice says:

    About the vote on the floor: Bob Beckel on Fox News “The Five” said that the way the votes are manipulated is: when you call for a vote on the floor and don’t get the response you want, you call again for another vote while simultaneously turning down microphones covering parts of the room where you are not getting the response you desire, and turning up microphones in the areas where you are getting the desired response. Then the vote can be declared to be a 2/3rds vote.

  73. wmeyer says:

    “when you call for a vote on the floor and don’t get the response you want, you call again for another vote while simultaneously turning down microphones covering parts of the room where you are not getting the response you desire, and turning up microphones in the areas where you are getting the desired response.”

    Beckel is one of the more cynical commentators around, but apart from that, while such a ploy might barely be possible, it would be difficult to manage. One would need to have both a large number of microphones on the crowd (not usually done) and an operative in the sound room directing the technician. As delegations at conventions are normally seated in groups by state, this would further complicate things, unless we assume that the state delegations are as monolithic as the red/blue maps suggest.

  74. Sissy says:

    Another issue I noticed when the floor vote was going on was that they didn’t have a quorum. The floor was nearly empty of delegates when they staged the “vote”. I’ve seen a couple places this morning that a screen shot from behind the speaker on the podium shows that his comments asserted the vote had passed had already been preloaded into the teleprompter. His statement that he thought the vote had carried appeared spontaneous from the floor, but it had been pre-scripted.

  75. wmeyer says:

    His statement that he thought the vote had carried appeared spontaneous from the floor, but it had been pre-scripted.

    Some things change but little over the decades. This is reminiscent of 1968 and Chicago. Same party, same techniques, same polish. ;)

  76. Peggy R says:

    JonPatrick,

    You are the first person on these Catholic blogs that recognizes the real ability to overturn RvW and outlaw abortion through other means is at the state level. Yes, the fed level deals with funding PP, the judiciary and foreign policies like Mexico City. And yes, a president who advocates for the cause of life is important, it isn’t really enough to change the law. He’s fairly removed from that ability. We need to focus on state legislative and gubernatorial elections to change our states’ laws on abortion. All of the strides in limiting legal abortions in the US have come from state laws: parent notification, outlawing late-term abortions, imposing standard medical sterility/cleanliness requirements on abortuaries, etc.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t care whether a president is pro-life. We’ve seen what a radical pro-abortion president can and will do. No, we do need one committed to the cause of life to prevent things from getting worse and to improve things at the margins. But to end abortion, look to your state governments.

  77. Bryan Boyle says:

    I keep thinking back to the thug who’s currently the mayor of Chicago…who succinctly stated ‘Never let a crisis go to waste…’. This was a manufactured crisis. Staged, manipulated, and pre-ordained as to the outcome behind the scenes. They can posture and pose about it being a ‘wardrobe malfunction’ of some sort (yeah, right?), but, in the end, it was meant as a potemkin village scenario, and the useful idiots in the seats (who really thinks that a delegate has any power other than to fill a seat, exhale carbon dioxide, and put their hand up at the pre-ordained time) gleefully went along with the charade to create a vision of The Wun riding in and ‘doing the right thing’ at the last moment to sae the reputation of the convention and party.

    Feh. I watched this adulation fest for about 30 seconds before the angry, screaming, lecturing harpies got to me and I turned the channel off. I was at conventions back in the 80s as part of the national press corps. They have gone way downhill since then, but, if you have no positive record to stand on, the only thing left is manufactured crises and ad hominem attacks.

  78. Facta Non Verba says:

    @Peggy R and JonPatrick,
    I agree that what is done at the state level is important to limiting abortions in the US, but don’t forget that it is the President who appoints judges to the federal bench, including the US Supreme Court. It is the federal bench that ultimately decides whether abortion laws comply with the US Constitution. Which person we vote into office this November will likely appoint very different judges to the federal bench; Romney will more likely appoint strict constructionists.

  79. Sissy says:

    “abortion law is handled at the state level not federal”

    “the real ability to overturn RvW and outlaw abortion through other means is at the state level.”

    I don’t know what the commenters quoted above intend by these statements, but taken at face value, they are both incorrect. A ruling by the Supreme Court cannot be overturned at the state level. States laws are being passed everyday to try to limit the broad, drastic ruling in Roe, and many have been successful. The Court’s current interpretation of the “right” to an abortion is quite different than the original ruling. But only a new opinion from the SC can overturn Roe. The fact that Roe claims there is a constitutional “right to privacy” that permits legal child murder is not going to be overcome with any state law. The only alternative is a Constitutional Amendment, but even that has to originate in Congress.

  80. Sissy says:

    “The only alternative is a Constitutional Amendment, but even that has to originate in Congress.”

    I want to amend my own statement above; I should have said the only “realistic alternative”. Theoretically, if all 50 states (or 57, if you live in Obama’s head) could pass state constitutional amendments declaring personhood with full civil rights to begin at conception, then the unborn child would be entitled by law to due process under the US Constitution. That might work. The odds of that are quite long. All in all, the best chance we have for a major retooling of Roe, if not an opinion overturning it, is for a President to appoint justices to the SC who understand that Roe was wrongly decided and then vote to overturn it. That’s our best chance.

  81. wmeyer says:

    The fact that Roe claims there is a constitutional “right to privacy” that permits legal child murder is not going to be overcome with any state law.

    And this is arguably the single most dangerous aspect of the decision, in my view. Consider how that “right to privacy” may work to protect child molesters. The liberals have used wedges like this for over a century, and they have been very effective, just as the freezing of water in a crack can break a granite rock, so can these wedges break our republic.

  82. Supertradmum says:

    Brian Boyle, “Never let a crisis go to waste” was first said in a different way by Saul Alinsky. He wrote in his Rules for Radicals, “in the arena of action a threat or a crisis becomes almost
    a precondition to communication” taken from Machiavelli’s The Prince “strike and beat down” fortune through skilled action ” XXV.

    Rahm cut his baby teeth on this stuff. The Alinsky, Chomsky Marxist agenda is behind all this nonsense at the DNC.

  83. Sissy says:

    wmeyer said: “And this is arguably the single most dangerous aspect of the decision, in my view”

    Your in good company. My con law professor was the late John Ely. At the time, he was considered the foremost and most-often-cited expert on US Constitutional law in the world. He was a liberal, but he told me that the Roe decision was “laughable”. He always taught his classes that Roe was “wrongly decided, although I like the result”. The reasoning in the opinion is absurd. Unfortunately, it’s the law of the land…..until it isn’t. Lord help us.

  84. Sissy says:

    sorry “your” = you’re

  85. Supertradmum says:

    sorry about all the inverted commas…they just multiplied when I wasn’t looking…

  86. Mdepie says:

    In terms of Roe v Wade, their are 3 ways to reverse it
    1) Constitutional amendment
    2) Court revisits the case and overturns it
    3) Congress passes a law limiting the Jurisdiction of the Federal courts over abortion.
    All 3 of these requiring building a broad sentiment in the country that abortion is the moral evil it is. It is in fact murder. In fact even if Roe was gone to criminalize abortion would require wide spread agreement that it is evil. Judges, and district attorney’s must be willing to prosecute, police must be willing to investigate and juries to convict. This work will take a long time. This is not a reason to say this issue does not matter, but rather the reverse. The left transformed the country by a relentless push for its issues taking small gains when possible and transformed the culture. If we are serious we need to do the same. Romney is not the perfect pro-lifer, but taking the long view, he moves the ball forward, while Obama further increases the abortion license. One must slow the train down before going in reverse.

    As for Israel. If you think that Catholics will be treated better under a middle east overrun by Islamic Jihadists then in Israel you are insane. The Jihadists are persecuting Christians, in some places crucifying them quite literally. Christians make up less than 5% of the population of the “Palestinian territories” and in fact will not be a majority in any possible political arrangement. Their fate is obviously better when not in the hands of radical Islam . ( In fact as the elections in places like Islam shows, democracy in the Arab = Jihadism) We also need to recall the West has a special obligation to the Jewish people to help guard them against extermination, since they were nearly exterminated in the West. When we say never again re the Holocaust, we must mean never again. It is obvious that their are Jihadists who claim to want to destroy Israel. If you doubt this, I would ask which side is strapping bombs to their children and blowing up Pizza parlors.

    At the end of the Day the Democrat party just booed God. This is not your fathers democrats. The current crowd is left of McGovern. They must be defeated, they are a menace.

  87. Mdepie says:

    I mean elections in places like Egypt shows democracy= Jihadism in the current climate of the middle east

  88. Sissy says:

    Mdepie: Well said; I agree with every word, on all three points.

    Watching that crowd yesterday evening, at the time of the Jerusalem vote, I kept thinking that they looked like nothing so much as a mass of demonic creatures, scurrying about, screeching, screaming, howling, and hissing. Some of the speakers were literally screaming with spittle flying. It was repulsive. The Lord is patient indeed to put up with that crowd.

  89. Peggy R says:

    On how to overcome RvW, outlaw abortion…several commenters:

    I think Mdepie offered a good comprehensive approach. I get frustrated by Catholic commenters/bloggers who put I think too much weight on presidential and Congressional candidates as the sole powers who could over come RvW and outlaw abortion. I think it is far more likely that a SCOTUS could reverse RvW than a constitutional amendment is passed. [Just listen to the DNC party membership. Go look up a John Stewart clip of interviews about DNC claims to "inclusiveness."] I envision a highly restrictive state law percolating up to SCOTUS. I suppose new arguments and new scientific evidence of the humanity of the embryo and women’s health etc, would have a part to play. Romney can appoint “constructionists” all he wants, but if no state law comes up the way, then no action can be taken to overturn RvW. I do envision 50 state battles on abortion once RvW is overturned. I think that’s constitutionally correct, but will be messy. We may win more than we realize.

    My point is I think we look too much to the national government (on a lot of issues) and should pay greater attention to in our state governments, instead or in addition.

  90. Sissy says:

    Peg R: it is the “national government”, specifically, the executive branch, upon whom we depend to put sufficiently conservative justices on the Court. These aren’t mutually exclusive concepts. There is a far better chance of making progress in that direction from a Romney administration than from an Obama administration. There are plenty of state laws that will serve as a vehicle. That isn’t the problem. Having 5 solid votes to overrule Roe is the problem, and we’ll never get those with a Democrat picking the justices.

  91. Supertradmum says:

    David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett threw Mayor Corey Booker and former Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio “under the bus on television” as the caption on this link notes, blaming them and “others” for this debacle regarding Jerusalem. Apparently, according to them, Obama had not read the platform changes. (?) Fr. Z, it is, as you say, either a “cunning plan” or complete inefficiency or both. I cannot believe Obama is our president. He does not act like a president but like a tin-pot-tyrant.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/axelrod-blames-other-democrats-for-platform-mess/article/2507167#.UEjHM7KPV5V

  92. Papabile says:

    @jflare:

    I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t claiming that the Chairman of the Dem Convention did not recognize the motion. Of course he did. Strickland offered it, and it was adopted by unanimous consent. The motion was to ‘Suspend the rules and pass an amendment to the platform’

    The issue is that the Chairman called the vote after a voice vote. Yes, he did it three times, but it was still a voice vote.

    The delegates did not exercise their right (or the chair did not recognize them if they were demanding it) to have a recorded roll call vote, a vote by tellers or a vote by division.

    That was their option after the chair called the vote by voice.

    Of course, most delegates probably have no conception about the procedural rules surrounding these votes.

  93. The Masked Chicken says:

    All in all, the best chance we have for a major retooling of Roe, if not an opinion overturning it, is for a President to appoint justices to the SC who understand that Roe was wrongly decided and then vote to overturn it.

    This is what is weird for me – the whole arbitrariness of legal interpretations that can have such wide ranging reprocussions. SCOTUS A decides that a law is constitutional and then SCOTUS B decides it isn’t. Until there is some independent basis for making a reasoned decision like, say, Natural Law, then what SCOTUS decisions often amount to is a system for bullying behavior.

    Only a crazy man who understood nothing about Nature and Nature’s God would think that abortion has something to do with a right to privacy. If I want to kill my brother, should it be legal as long as I pull down the blinds while I rip him to shreds? There is no absolute right to privacy, even in marriage, since society has a vested interest in marriage (and the need of society for accountability is one of the bricks of society bring blasted away by abortion laws). Indeed, God sees all and no law can restrain Him. What the SCOTUS Row vs. Wade ruling did was run afowl of psalm 94:

    3How long shall the wicked, O LORD,
             How long shall the wicked exult?
    4They pour forth words, they speak arrogantly;
             All who do wickedness vaunt themselves.
    5They crush Your people, O LORD,
             And afflict Your heritage.
    6They slay the widow and the stranger
             And murder the orphans.
    7They have said, “The LORD does not see,
             Nor does the God of Jacob pay heed.”
    8Pay heed, you senseless among the people;
             And when will you understand, stupid ones?
    9He who planted the ear, does He not hear?
             He who formed the eye, does He not see?
    10He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke,
             Even He who teaches man knowledge?
    11The LORD knows the thoughts of man,
             That they are a mere breath.
    12Blessed is the man whom You chasten, O LORD,
             And whom You teach out of Your law;
    13That You may grant him relief from the days of adversity,
             Until a pit is dug for the wicked.
    14For the LORD will not abandon His people,
             Nor will He forsake His inheritance.
    15For judgment will again be righteous,
             And all the upright in heart will follow it.</

    Really, if there is no wisdom from SCOTUS, what good is it? It used to be that judges were appointed by virtue of thir wisdom. Nowadays, there is no wisdom, only political expediency.

    I'm ranting. Sorry.

    The Chicken

  94. Sissy says:

    Chicken said: “Until there is some independent basis for making a reasoned decision.”

    Well, theoretically, that’s what the Constitution is for. Unfortunately, judges (and Justices) often want a particular outcome and twist the Constitution or statutes to arrive at the result they want. And then, it is left to subsequent courts to correct the mistake. Sometimes, new information or evidence comes to light as the years go by, but usually, it’s a matter of different jurists having a different interpretation. If you read a lot of cases, you start to get the feeling that judges don’t always make decisions based on the law; they are human beings and are often swayed by emotion. Roe was a fraud from the start; the original plaintiff revealed years ago that the facts of the underlying case were manufactured by the lead attorney to elicit sympathy from the SC Justices. There are plenty of strong arguments to be made for overturning Roe on sound Constitutional grounds, but we lack 5 reliable votes. That’s why electing Romney is so critical. Maybe he won’t get the job done either, but if Obama wins, the SC could easily end up swinging far-left again for the foreseeable future.

  95. StJude says:

    They denied God 3 times yesterday in that ‘vote’. Disturbing.

  96. The Masked Chicken says:

    Sissy,

    I understand that, except that who is to say that in some instance where SCOTUS re-interpretes a decision that the correcting court isn’t twisting the law and the original interpretation were correct. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    The Chicken

    The Chicken

  97. Did the Democrats just have a Matthew 26:34 moment?

  98. Peggy R says:

    Sissy,

    Did you read my post? I did not say a favorable SCOTUS was irrelevant or undesired. It’s comprehensive approach needed. I am also saying that I don’t think Catholics should place the blame for lack of progress on GOP federal office holders ALONE, which many do.

  99. Sissy says:

    Peggy R, yes I read both of your posts carefully and twice responded to your central premise that the main battleground for outlawing abortion lies with the states. I respectfully disagree. I apologize if what I wrote sounded rude or dismissive; that was not my intent. It’s just a fact that our only realistic hope is through Romney winning and appointing two good jurist who are willing to vote to overturn Roe. State action will never get us there (although I am certainly enthusiastic about all advances being made around the country).

  100. Peggy R says:

    Sissy,

    I have not made a case for voting for Obama or not voting for Romney. I was speaking generally of a comprehensive strategy. I will vote for Romney as he is better on several–nay, every–matter of public import. There is nothing about Barry Obama that I care for or could support in any way, whatsoever. I hope you understand that.

    I agree with your hopes that Romney will appoint good jurists who will be willing to overturn RvW. In my view, state action to get a law before the SCOTUS as a vehicle to overturn RvW is necessary as well. Both actions are necessary.

    My other point is that many Catholics blame only federal (GOP) office holders for not ending the holocaust of abortion. They can’t do it alone.

    I apologize for my snippy-ness. It is not clear to me that I am being understood.

  101. Sissy says:

    Peggy R: We’re on the same team! There is a need to advance the fight against abortion on every front. My own home state of Virginia has passed some really legislation this year which will help, at least in the Commonwealth. It never crossed my mind that you support Obama! I don’t always communicate just what I mean to say, so let’s call it a draw and shake hands.

    I do see room for progress on the state-level in one respect. Here’s an analogy. I come from a long line of hunters. Years ago, hunting was a very big thing in my family. But over the years, the never-ending series of onerous regulations eroded away the interest. Now, it’s just too difficult. In the same way, adding more and more regulations to clinics tends to drive them out. In the near future, we might end up with a situation where abortion is technically legal , but only available in a few states (which is pretty much how matters stood before Roe). Every little bit helps.

  102. jflare says:

    Papabile,

    “The delegates did not exercise their right (or the chair did not recognize them if they were demanding it) to have a recorded roll call vote, a vote by tellers or a vote by division.

    Of course, most delegates probably have no conception about the procedural rules surrounding these votes.”

    I was pretty surprised by that, to be honest.
    I was thinking last night that, if I had been the Chair of the meeting, I likely would’ve wanted to switch to a roll call vote, precisely to ensure that nobody could complain about having been over-ruled. I had pondered the possibility that someone might’ve circulated a petition last night to require a re-vote on the matter.
    Certainly that would be consistent with most of the statements and values I’ve come across these last many years.

    I’m inclined to wonder if they’ll remember that next time and be prepared to handle it differently.

  103. Peggy R says:

    Sissy: Yes! We are in battle together. I used to live in Arlington Diocese, where my husband and I married. I miss St Mary’s in Old Town, but am happy to be out of DC area otherwise. In the midwest near family now.

  104. jflare says:

    Sissy, Peggy R,
    I keep wondering if people truly understand the difficulty we face regarding abortion. It’s not only a matter of electing Presidents, Congressmen, and state legislators. It ‘s also a matter of encouraging people in the Judiciary who hold pro-life views AND offering them laws to interpret that CAN be used to overturn Roe and Doe.

    I think the Supreme Court decision this year on PPACA highlights the problem well: If Chief Justice Roberts overturned the law based on common sense, he would open the door to all manner of screams about “activist judges” and whatnot and charges against creatively interpreting the law. Advocates for the law could readily redo the process and force it through again.
    OR, he could sustain the law based on the arguments presented to him and provoke the populace into repealing it, which is the process that the Constitution most truthfully declares we ought to follow.

    If we want to overturn Roe or Doe, we’ll need to win several battles on several other fronts as well. Promoting a law that nearly half the country loathes won’t accomplish much; even if passed, it’ll either be overturned pretty quickly anyway, or else summarily repealed within several years.

    I suspect we may be forced to transform the culture of this nation before we see abortion end. Likely we’ll need to fight battles regarding prayer in schools, religious symbols on public lands, and similar types of arguments.

    If we don’t, the nation as a whole will not have any cause to consider a more strict moral standard.

  105. mike cliffson says:

    Matt R:
    “. I blame the radicalization of Egyptian Muslims as well as tensions from the occupation for that, and radical Islam is just a way to incite rebellion to overthrow Israel.” Check out Churchill on crocidiles.
    Yeah, and all that was needed to keep the nazis happy was a lil bit chechoslavakia n a lil bit of..
    Do us a a favour: Go learn , a few weeks could be enough ,far away from Arabs, ie Pakistan , Indonesia, Philipines, North Africa…for a little bit. Or Londonistan .Or Dearbourne ohio.
    If You want to personally turn the other cheek in imitation of Christ, that’s one thing and a very good thing.a very good thing indeed.
    If you think throwing Israel to the wolves is going to bring peace and quiet and the blessed work of a peacemaker, please wake up. Every cousin like you emboldens them at home and abroad. Have you even considered petitioning your present administration to ignore the UN, or pressure the UN into allowing the millions of Christians persecuted in selfprocvlaimed muslim countries the refugee status they are at present denied?

  106. Facta Non Verba says:

    @jflare and Papabile:

    My guess is that there were likely several delegates who called for division after the chair ruled on the voice vote; and, further, my guess is that the chair pretended to not hear or see them, which is something the chair can do.

  107. Matt R says:

    @Sissy, the Palestinians have asked for World Heritage Site protection for the Christian shrines, which was granted in June. It’s the first World Heritage Site in the Palestinian Territories. This was chosen over Abraham’s tomb, which is pretty significant because the shrine there is important to all 3 major religions in the area but was not selected for consideration by the committee. That shows to me that the Palestinians would protect the Christians. Also, Transjordan was one of two sectors in the British Mandate of *Palestine* and was fully autonomous, meaning the League of Nations and the UK decided that the Arabs in the region were distinct. Next, Israel tramples on the rights of Arabs; the wall is the prime example of this.
    Mahmoud Abbas wishes to return to the 1948 plan, which makes the most sense. Can we not give the Palestinian people that chance? Next, how has Israel been shortchanged? They have won 3 wars against the Arabs, and have only ceded part of the territory (the Sinai, returned to Egypt at Camp David-which they had no claim to anyways); remember, they still control the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
    If you are right, and Jordanians and Palestinians are one and the same, by that principle, Yugoslavia should be one country, since their languages are virtually identical-save for the differences that have developed since the split-and their only major difference is religion (Catholicism, Islam, and Orthodoxy). But it’s not; this shows nation-state status can be tricky, and I think the disagreements between Palestinians and Jordanians show that they are distinct, and shouldn’t be forced to live in the same country (Also, even if they are the same group wouldn’t they need the room that Israel controls-part of it of course-where Arabs are the majority? I mean, the Mandate did cover all of Israel, Jordan, the PT, and parts of Lebanon and Syria.) There is ample evidence (that I listed last night) for why Palestine is a nation-state, but you dismiss it as fiction.
    @Mdpie, your view of Arab democracy is very narrow. Yes, I know the Salafists/Muslim Brotherhood control Egypt, but not all MB members are radical. Also, the radicals have only been egged on by tyrannical regimes primarily propped up by the US. Think Mubarak. (Now, not all regimes were US-backed, but they were supported by Egypt, which has never quite abandoned pan-Arabism completely, and Syria got a ton of support after 9/11 after years of being a Soviet/Russian pawn.)
    To your last point: may I ask then, which side has nukes?

  108. Sissy says:

    Matt R: I will respond to you just one last time out of courtesy. It appears that you have apparently been taken in by ahistorical and anti-Semitic propaganda. Or perhaps you are a Muslim and have an ax to grind. I have no idea. Are you actually unaware that the MB is the parent organization of al quida? Some of them aren’t radical? Really? I can’t tell if you are naive or trying to spread propaganda yourself. If you are just naive, I urge you to go to the primary source material and educate yourself about the true history of this region. Either way, there really is no point in carrying this further.

  109. Papabile says:

    @jflare

    The delegates could make the exact same motion to suspend the rules and amend the platform again, but they would never be recognized by the chair. Of course, recognition is the perquisite of the chair.

    With that said, there’s no way one would want to take a real chance that the President could lose his issue by going to a roll call by tellers, or division vote. It would be too embarrassing.

    The procedural process in the legislatures is something few people understand. I spent years on the Hill as a staffer, and it was amazing to realize that a significant portion of Congress doesn’t even really understand the motions available to them or how the floor is run and why it is so scripted. All too often its simply treated as a team game. What you saw yesterday was the Chair moving the agenda forward for the coach. The Team scored a first down, albeit an ugly one.

  110. roydosan says:

    Sissy: I did wonder how long it would take for someone to raise “anti-semitism” – as soon as someone does that you know they’ve lost the argument. Matt R raised many valid points which you can’t/won’t respond to maybe because there is some truth to them.

    Anyway, whilst we debate Israel plans to illegally demolish 88 Palestinian homes in Silwan, East Jerusalem to make way for a ‘tourist theme park’. The reality of Israeli occupation is not terrorism (hardly any attacks in recent years and only three suicide bombings since 2006) but the brutal occupation of a subject people with arbitrary arrests, detention without trial, home demolition and expulsion. How would you feel if you came home to find your home being bulldozed and left with nowhere to go? If Israel will treat the Palestinians as human beings then Israel will have my full support but till that day I cannot pretend that the treatment of Palestinians (Christian, Catholic and Muslim) is anything other than reprehensible and actually not ultimately in Israel’s interests either as the Palestinians are not going to disappear. If you won’t listen to me listen to the RC Patriarch of Jerusalem here.

  111. Sissy says:

    roydosan: You must not have been paying attention, because I used “anti-semitism” in my very first response to you, IIRC. I suggested you lay off the Jimmy Carter anti-semitism training manuals. You and your partner Matt R are a little too transparent. I would suggest you guys hone your propaganda skills somewhere other than a Catholic site. Catholics have been trained in the use of logic and reason. Emotional appeals devoid of truth don’t really go over very well. Nice try, though.

  112. roydosan says:

    Sissy: I apologise – I forgot that but could you please point out where anything I said could remotely be described as anti-semitic? I mean seriously? I am a Catholic and that is why I am backing the Catholics in Israel/Palestine not the people persecuting them. Elsewhere on this blog there is a quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer – “silence in the face of evil is itself evil”. I don’t believe that Israel is evil but I can see that the way it treats the Palestinians – including many of my fellow Catholics – is evil. Go and visit Bethlehem and Jerusalem and speak to the Christians there and ask them what their major problem is and I’ll bet the answer you will get is not fear of militant Islam but the real horror of an illegal and oppressive occupation.

  113. Johnno says:

    @Papabile

    The rules changes at the last second amongst other activities to unseat delegates because they didn’t reflect the primaries, show that the party is doing whatever it wants changing the rules at a whim and all without following due process and effectively shows that there is no fair and valid democratic process in America. What recently happened grants teh establishment mroe power and effectively cuts off all grassroots efforts to get good and honest men elected. Now the only ones worthy are those who will not upset the status quo.

    @Southern Catholic

    I meantioned it with regards to changing the rules by fiat despite the protests againt it, even to the point of deciding the vote beforehand such that the decision was firmly already set up on the teleprompter before the vote even began. We have video footage of it. The outcomes were already decided. Even then the Republicans after the fact changed the rules and thus have accumulated power to the establishment that no grassroots efforts can ever make it into teh party. Now by fiat the appointed candidate chosen by teh establishment can seat and unseat delegates at will. It basically exposes teh fact that the Republican party is controlled by powerful interests and that no democratic process is applicable to the candidates taht are allowed to fairly run for President. Not to mention a whole lot of other events that I can list for you from preventing delegates from entering the building, hiding bullets in the luggage of delegates, turning off mircophones during the vote call etc. It is at best an embarassment, at worst displays that something truly crooked is going on with regards to the entire American electorate system. but then again this has long been an open secret.

    Anyone who thinks that their country can be turned around based on teh guy in opffice has never learnt anything, and expects too much. Something radical needs to happen such as escaping the two party system, but most are too afraid because they’ve now been caught in a trap they built around themselves that they cannot escape from.

    For both of you, here are some links to topics discussing this:
    http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/ron-paul-delegates-find-dissent-is-unwelcome-within-the-gop-ranks/Content?oid=3141068
    http://www.dailypaul.com/252386/ben-swann-did-rnc-scripted-rules-change-start-a-civil-war-in-the-republican-party
    http://www.dailypaul.com/253604/ben-swann-rnc-power-grab-vs-dnc-power-grab-the-dems-had-a-ron-paul-moment

  114. Sissy says:

    roydosan, if you’re Catholic, you need to seek better sources of information. There is no “occupation” in Israel. It’s their own land. All of it. And if there is a Christian anywhere who fears Jews more than militant Islam, that person is deluded. I think we’ve beaten this horse to death.

  115. Matt R says:

    @sissy, @supertradmum, and others:
    Roydosan said it pretty well. I am Catholic; I’ve commented numerous times on the blog about my experiences at church, particularly as a server so I’m not a Muslim by any stretch. I am not anti-Semitic (the Jews are our elder brothers in the faith), but Roydosan re-iterated my points about the way Palestinians are treated. I tried to do my research. Occasionally logical fallacies occur in my work, but please point them out! I’d appreciate that-in charity of course-and to aid the discussion. Also, repeating oneself with a new phrase doesn’t serve as evidence, and it bugged me that legitimate counterarguments were raised, but destroyed by fallacies.
    I’m sorry for such a long comment, and for anything that’s offensive/uncharitable. But I stand by my position.

  116. Sissy says:

    Matt R, if you’re sincere, start with the original documents. Do not accept secondary source materials that just support your emotional instinct to feel sorry for people the media have painted as victims. Your underlying premise is false, so it’s very tedious to try to debunk the lists of “facts” you and roydosan keep publishing. Start with your faulty premise if you are sincere: there is no historical people or nation of Palestine, other than the nation-state of Israel. Once you accept that fact, all of the Arab propaganda falls apart. I’d suggest you start your re-education there. Remember: “Palestine” = North America or Scandinavia. It is not a country, and it never was. Good luck with your studies and peace.

  117. roydosan says:

    Sissy: forget your ancient history – yes there was an ancient state of Israel but it was destroyed by the Romans 2,000 years ago. In the intervening period other people (Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Crusaders, etc) moved into the area of Israel and settled there and you know what it’s all irrelevant because the only thing that matters are the people that live there now. The old biblical claims have no relevance whatsoever. Imagine this: here you are happily going about your business when someone shows up from several thousand miles away and takes over your garden and builds a house on it. You shrug it off at first but then not only do they build a house on your garden they actually lay claim to your house as well. You laugh it off saying ‘I’ve lived here for x generations and here are the deeds to the house: it’s mine.’ Then your new neighbour rocks up with a gun forces you and your family out and takes over your house. You’re forced to flee to the other side of town and live in a refugee camp. Then your new neighbour shows up again and guess what? He wants your new home as well! Well you didn’t have a permit to build there and the new council set up by your neighbour agrees so along comes the bulldozer and you’re forced to flee again. The justification for all this says your neighbour is that “God gave me this land.” Doesn’t that sound ridiculous and completely unfair? Yet this is what has happened to the Palestinians. Even if you deny the existence of Palestine you cannot deny the existence of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians are not just a name or ‘painted as victims’ – they are real people with hopes and aspirations for the future and the future of their children just like you and me. What are the Palestinians meant to do? Live like slaves forever in the land of their birth?

    I will pray for you and I will pray for all in the Holy Land that they may live together in peace and justice for all – Jew, Muslim and Christian.

  118. Supertradmum says:

    roydosan, I suggest you read my link above. As to saying Biblical claims are not valid, you are commenting against the Church’s stand that notes that both Israel and Palestine have a right to national interests, with the awareness that the Vatican has national relations with Israel, but not with Palestine. In other words, the Vatican has an ambassador to Israel and a Papal Nuncio, while only an Apostolic Delegate to Palestine, because it is not a nation. Only nations get nuncios.

  119. Matt R says:

    @Supertradmum, I’m going to set my terms first. A state is a defined entity with a unified governing system of sorts. A nation is a cohesive cultural group in a defined or approximated territory. A nation-state is a cohesive cultural group with its own governance, and seeking (or has) recognition by the world as such. The US is a state (not a nation, politicians’ diction aside) but we didn’t have a nuncio until 1984. That doesn’t mean the Holy See didn’t recognize our separate existence from the UK from 1776 and 1783 until 1984. Also, the Holy See recognizes the PA as the delegated, semi-autonomous govt of the PT, and negotiates with them as such; I’m sure they understand their position arguing for independence, generally along the 1948 partition lines. Looking at the presence of a nuncio in a given country misses the Holy See’s position. Also, the term country will not be used by me, since it is not useful for the purposes of political geography.
    I respect the Biblical claims, but only to a point. Firstly, Zionism was not primarily a religious movement for many years, and even today the Biblical claims do not have bearing on all arguments for a Jewish state, unified or partitioned. Conditions have markedly changed since ancient times. Today, the Palestinians identify as a nation, and after his rejection of the Biblical claims, Roydosan is correct in describing the conditions in the area today. He did not ignore Israel’s right to existence; rather he attacked its policies and method of asserting its existence.
    @Sissy, peace be upon you. But, your last comment is confusing, and I’m truly not sure what your point is, beyond dismissing our arguments and the repeated assertion that there is no right to a Palestinian state-which is a rejection of the other part of the nuanced Church position (as I quoted from above, from Ven Pius XII’s encyclical).

  120. jflare says:

    Matt R,
    You seem to assume that the Holy See has the authority to recognize who is and who is not a nation or nation-state. I think that assertion to be historically dicy at best. Downright incorrect at worst. Though the Vatican City state may have diplomatic relations–or not–with one country or another, you’d be sorely mistaken if you think the world necessarily worries much about who the Church’s diplomatic corps chooses for its international relationships. Certainly we, the United States, do not.
    By the way, I don’t think your definitions work very well. If a nation needed to have a particular culture to exist, most of the recognized nations on this earth could not exist. Most nations have multiple cultural groups; most times, these cultural groups are quite prone to quarrel with each other. We, in the US are certainly no exception.

    No, a nation-state will likely be best defined thus:
    - A geographical land mass with well-defined and well-known boundaries. Such boundaries USUALLY have some form of security, if only to ensure a degree of awareness of who comes in and who goes out.
    - A p0pulace that acknowledges some form of noticeable governing authority.
    - A generally recognized rule of law by which all people are typically required to live their lives.

    USUALLY, though not entirely always, a nation-state will exchange diplomats with other nation-states, the better to conduct international relations with each other.

    To the Palestinian/Israeli question:
    - Whether you or I consider the Biblical precept relevant or not, much of the Jewish population around the world DOES consider it relevant. Including here in the US. Some have, in fact, moved from the US, TO Israel, precisely to take up residence in what they consider to be their homeland. I have not yet heard any competent argument regarding why they should not.
    - Whether the self-proclaimed Palestinians like it or not, the UN attempted to recognized both Israel AND Palestine in 1947. Israel accepted this. Palestinians did not. In 1947, various Arabs (Palestinian or otherwise) inflicted a pretty bloody civil war in the region, quite possibly with the intent to forcibly remove the Israelis. . They lost. I would suggest that the UN and various nations had little choice but to recognized Israel in 1948 if only because the Israelis bothered to organize themselves as a nation-state and agreed to allow others to exist.
    - Palestinians may not like this either, but if the Israeli’s haven’t been perfect angels since 1948, they HAVE at least conducted themselves about as well as a nation as has any other. I do not believe that Palestinians can rightly argue about abuses inflicted by the Israelis against them: It’s pretty much impossible to negotiate honestly with someone who demonstrates a stubborn refusal to abide by an agreement.

    If the self-proclaimed Palestinians wish to see their own nation-state come to exist, they’re going to need to cease inflicting bloodshed against a nation that certainly has the right to fight back.

  121. jflare says:

    Papabile (et al),
    I might suggest that, whatever a Chair is allowed to do technically by parliamentary procedure, declaring a majority vote to have occurred in that manner is anything BUT smart. If they want to win the election, they’d be well advised to allow their delegates a chance to speak their piece and vote as they choose. If the Chair merely ignores them, he may induce a slowing of momentum for their agenda. They won’t want to do that.

    Basic comprehension of democracy provides that if a majority rules, one would be wise to be certain of HAVING a majority, one that can be demonstrated by a clear vote. A voice vote that’s close can be disputed endlessly by the side that loses, regardless of what the Chair may admit. If they can’t immediately create problems with the lack of a roll-call, they certainly CAN create trouble in other ways.

    Besides, partly because of the subject matter and the means they allowed for us to hear about it, the official verbiage placed on the platform..has less impact now. I know what I heard on the radio. So do millions of others. Certainly the delegates know.
    I’m no more eager to see the Democrats excise God or Jerusalem from their platform than anyone else. Even so, whatever the Chair and his staff thought they accomplished, I’m not even remotely convinced that most Democrats necessarily have any interest in hearing God’s Word.

    That voice vote only confirmed a point of view that’s been on display for most of 40 years.

  122. Ann Roth says:

    Sissy and Supertradmum,

    I am really shocked at the way you have addressed Matt R. and Roydosan. I have noticed in the last several weeks that you two have become very difficult and rude in your comments. Perhaps you need to take a break from the comboxes. [Hang on. This is MY blog, not yours. You don't get to tell anyone here how they can participate. I will delete the rest of your comment.]

  123. Sissy says:

    Ann Roth: thank you for your charity. I will certainly leave this site immediately at you request. My apologies to all, and I pray the Lord’s blessings upon all of you.

  124. Supertradmum says:

    Ann Roth, to suggest to someone that they need more study or education is not rude. Teachers encourage, lead, cajole others to move away from biased thinking into rational discourse. I think Sissy was doing this. Those of us who have taught ancient and Middle-Eastern history have a long view and a detailed one. One cannot be content with a view of history which dates to 1963.

    I never questioned sincerity, but if I may quote someone much greater than I: “Sincerity does not and cannot substitute for truth.” J. Pritchard in Calling Down the Fire

  125. Ann Roth says:

    Sissy questioned his sincerity. And faith.

    “One cannot be content with a view of history which dates to 1963.” ? Neither Matt nor Roydosan limited their view to 1963. Making this statement is misstating what they have said which is _____ (you fill in the blank). I believe you are sincere, but a blatant misstatement such as this makes me question your ________(again, fill in the blank). I don’t want to make allegations but I do want to point out that this mode of argument ruins your credibility.

    The long view of history shows that there has been quite a bit of movement of peoples, nations and countries. The map of today looks nothing like a map of the ancient world in terms of borders, governments, and such. From what I have read above, you have based much or all of your argument on the premise that because is it was so in the ancient world so it must be today. Please clarify if that is not your view.

  126. Supertradmum says:

    AnnRoth, if you go to my link above, it may help the conversation. I am not going to go farther into this rabbit hole here.

  127. Ann Roth says:

    Supertradmum,

    Is there something specific on your blog that you want me to look at? I have been to your blog before. Very interesting but unless you address the issue there it is a rabbit hole. Teaching history does not mean what you think it means. You could have been poorly taught or come to the wrong conclusions.

    “to suggest to someone that they need more study or education is not rude” yes and no. Just because someone has a different view of history or political issue does not mean they need more education. There are some things that are neutral. People of intelligence can disagree. It most certainly is insulting to tell someone they are not intelligent or educated and that is what you and Sissy did.

    I think what we really have here is a belief that Jerusalem should be under Israeli control because you trust the Israelis more than the Muslims. Fair enough. So do I. I think you and Sissy have tried to use your reading of ancient history to justify a political claim and now you are down a rabbit hole and can’t get out.

  128. Supertradmum says:

    AnnRoth,

    Palestine is not a state. Israel is. Jerusalem was divided form 1948-1967. How the Vatican deals with these facts is interesting and cautious.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/archivio/documents/rc_seg-st_19931230_santa-sede-israele_en.html

    http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=595925

    There will be a statement from the Vatican in December 2012 concerning on-going negotiations regarding holy sites, land and taxes. In his 2009 visit to Jerusalem, Pope Benedict talked about the universal vocation of the City, which would seem to indicate that the traditional Church’s teaching regarding Jerusalem as a International City only may be still in place. However, the on-the-ground reality is that the Vatican deals with Israel as a nation-state, and works within international law regarding West Jerusalem as the capitol de facto. The Vatican has not made a new statement as to the territories gained in the 1967 war (East Jerusalem), but more will be forthcoming. The Vatican has never said that the area of Palestine has a right to Jerusalem as a capitol and that is my position-in fact, years ago there was a leaked Vatican document to the contrary; the bifurcation of the City from 1948-1967 was a poor compromise, which did not work. The wording of the new financial agreement will be interesting to examine.

    Two statements of the Pope, on his visit in 2009, are significant: “Let it be universally recognized that the State of Israel has the right to exist, and to enjoy peace and security within internationally agreed borders. Let it be likewise acknowledged that the Palestinian people have a right to a sovereign independent homeland, to live with dignity and to travel freely.” These statements say nothing about Jerusalem.

    Of course, some of the Jewish people and the Muslims think the Vatican wants Jerusalem for the Catholics! This is not true, as we make the distinction between the heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, and the earthly one. I am not writing any more on this.

  129. StJude says:

    BrotherBoniface says:

    “Did the Democrats just have a Matthew 26:34 moment?”

    Is the Rooster.. Obama? ; )

  130. Ann Roth says:

    Sissy,
    I’m sorry. Matt R is my son. We just all have to be more careful. I believe you have much to offer these discussions and it was not right of me to tell you to basically “get lost”. (Actually, whether you have anything to offer or not, anyone should be able to engage in these discussions and learn, right?)I hope you will see this comment.

  131. Sissy says:

    Hi Ann: I figured out that Matt was your son after thinking it over. I’m a mother of a son, too, so I completely understand. I am truly sorry I came across in such an abrasive manner. I never intended to insult Matt or accuse him of any personal animus towards Israel. My only intention was to suggest that his source materials might not be neutral and unbiased. My words were poorly chosen. I’ve being reading the blog, hoping to see a comment by Matt so I could apologize to him directly. Thank you for your comment, and I hope Matt will accept my apology.

  132. Ann Roth says:

    Sissy,

    Thank you. I will let him know. God bless you.