American Jewish Reggae Star Matisyahu Star Disinvited

 

American Jewish Reggae Star Matisyahu was disinvited from appearing at the Rototom Sunsplash festival in Benicassim, north of Valencia, Spain. The refusal was based on his refusal to sign a sworn affidavit professing support for the Palestinian State’s rights to exist, which actually means support the end of Israel as the Arabs have made it evidently clear their replacing the Jewish state is the only acceptable solution to their quest for statehood. None of the other performers were demanded to sign such an affidavit and we are willing to bet that everyone attending the concert will not be pressed to sign such an affidavit, well, unless they are found to be Jewish, or worse, Israeli. This demand was made because Rototom Director Filippo Giunta and the others who are arranging the concert buckled from the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction on Israel and Jews) pressures demanding that Matisyahu be banned or made to publically state his belief in the Palestinian cause, which is also an affirmation against Israel, or be banned from performing. The result was Rototom Director Filippo Giunta reportedly turning to Matisyahu and demanding he produce a “signed statement or video” which stated “in a very clear way” that he supported the establishment of an Arab “Palestinian” state. This episode clarified some other developments by having a torrent of thoughts coalesce leading one to a singular theme as a disturbing progression by one of the major political parties in the United States. The rise in anti-Semitism is not only healthy and growing in Europe, but has been showing signs of blossoming with the left in the United States.

 

 

American Jewish Reggae Star Matisyahu disinvited from appearing at the Rototom Sunsplash festival in Benicassim, north of Valencia, Spain. The refusal was based on his refusal to sign a sworn affidavit professing support for the Palestinian State’s rights to exist in the borders they choose. Rototom Director Filippo Giunta and the others who are arranging the concert buckled from the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction on Israel and Jews) pressures demanding that Matisyahu be banned or made to publically state his belief in the Palestinian cause which he refused. Matisyahu was the only performer placed under such a requirement because of his Jewish faith. Because he was so singled out for this treatment it was blatant anti-Semitism.

 

 

Let’s go back a number of years and we might remember when Senator Joe Lieberman appeared to have fallen on the wrong side of the Democrat Party leadership. Some claim it was his placing Israel ahead of party loyalty and others claim it was his apparent abandonment of liberal principles, especially his support of the Iraq war. Senator Joe Lieberman had run afoul of the Democrat Party so they put up a challenge opposed to him for voting wrong way on Middle East Iraq votes, particularly the surge. Were there other Democrat Party Senators who voted the wrong way, yes but perhaps not as consistently. The reason being that the Democrat Party had started to pull away from supporting Israel with blanketed support as the Palestinians had started to become a cause celeb. Part of the turn was initiated in parallel to the opposition to the war in Iraq and especially the surge. Senator Lieberman fell on the wrong side of everything Middle East and foremost by supporting the surge and the last hope for the military to prove successful rather than accept defeat and find a politically acceptable manner of pullout with whatever loss of face and repute as might be occurred. This led to the Democrat Party running Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman with full Democrat Party guns behind Lamont in an intra-party shootout. The result, unsurprisingly, was Ned Lamont; so, Senator Lieberman made a run as an independent against his Democrat nemesis and the Republican and took them both to school winning his last hurrah and a final stint as Senator from Connecticut. There were some who posed the question that perhaps some of the reasoning for the turning against Senator Joe Lieberman was at least partially due to anti-Israel sentiment or even anti-Semitism.

 

Perhaps if the debacle with Senator Lieberman had been a one off situation then there would have been no reason to hold suspicions but going forward a short time and we come to the Democrat Convention of 2012. There was one embarrassing situation for the Democrat Party Convention Chairperson who was presenting the floor with a motion to amend the Party Platform to restore to the platform faith in G0d and support for Jerusalem to be the recognized capital of Israel. The vote was taken three times with the Ayes and Nays each growing proportionally larger as the two sides each attempted to be heard and thus each call for a vote gave the same result which was insufficient to accept the motion. The desperation was evident on the Chairperson’s face who in the end simply declared the motion passed despite the vote from the floor. We have shown the video before in our article Some Misperceptions of the Arab Israeli Conflict. The display would be amusing if not for being so particularly sad. This time the culprit is not only Anti-Israel and Anti-Zionism and plain but also blatant anti-religion. If only this were the last instance.

 

The latest two incidents occurred really recently. The more intense and obvious was the treatment served to Senator Schumer, the Senior Senator from New York, a faithful Democrat Party stalwart who also has lobbied very strenuously for President Obama’s agenda and many other Democrat positions over the years placing him in line to replace Senator Reid as head of the Democrat Party in the Senate once Senator Reid steps down. Then Senator Schumer informed President Obama that he was going to vote against the Iranian Nuclear Agreement in the Senate and requested to be permitted to announce this the next morning quietly. That was not to be permitted. The White House came out shooting breaking the news almost as immediately as they were notified and a coordinated all on assault against Senator Schumer came charging with all guns blazing from the far left of the Democrat Party. Senator Schumer was denied his quiet announcement after which he had promised he would not lobby others to vote with him thus making as small an effect and as few ripples as possible. But that was not to be; instead Senator Schumer was to be pilloried from pillar to post and made a great spectacle as a warning to the rest of the Democrat Senate and House members. Senator Schumer was also used as to further President Obama’s spectacle of claiming the only opposition to his Iran Deal came from Israel and only Israel as there, according to the White House and friends, were no other nations against the Iran agreement. There were even accusations which claimed that Senator Schumer was a traitor as were any supporters of Israel who were against the deal, especially those who, like Schumer, were Jewish. This was resorting to an old libel against the Jews as being more devoted to some amorphous Jew conspiracy which was always against the ruling party or group thus all Jews were traitors. There have been leftist sources who have utilized the fact that Schumer is a Jew and pro-Israel in his voting record to piece together the obvious problem that if Schumer was the poster boy for the Jews influence, money, media, lobbyists and world behind-the-scenes influence by the Jews working, now against the President, the deal with Iran and the good of the United States; then every Jewish group would be against the treaty but there is J-Street, three-hundred-forty Rabbis and another groups of Jews from Hollywood among others supporting the President. The seeming open anti-Israel and anti-Zionist slant and outright defamation, especially pertaining to Senator Schumer and anyone or any group supportive of Israel or Jewish group in opposition of the Iran Agreement must be traitors and only their allegiance to Israel over the United States can be behind such opposition. Senator Schumer, and I am willing to bet any Jewish Democrats opposing the President’s pet foreign policy project, the Iran Nuclear deal, can only be driven by their traitorous allegiances. There have also been calls and threats and even covered promises that Schumer not only can forget being placed at the top spot which his untiring work for the Democrats over his career most definitely qualify him for, but this one “sin” of supporting Israel and, as he has stated, the United States from a bad deal which is being made with a regime that is notorious for cheating on every treaty and agreement they have ever entered and allowing them to continue without dismantling their entire nuclear program and with an inspection routine with holes large enough to fly a B-52 through and not even clip either wingtip, for this Schumer and any others of the Democrat Party are being denied any future top positions or chairmanships and will likely face a challenge placed to defeat them in their next election cycle. Is this the new Democrat Party, pull the extreme leftist anti-Israel line and toe it religiously or the Democrat Party will call out the shock troops and destroy you no matter your prior service to the Party?

 

 

Democrat Presidential Candidate and apparent front-runner Bernie Sanders greets and thrills an extremely packed house up to the rafters with enthusiastic supporters. Bernie Wow’s the crowd who responded with explosions of applause and yells of approvals. Bernie loves Oregon and Oregon loves Bernie, too bad the chiefs of the Democrat Party don’t particularly like Bernie Sanders. One can wonder why but it does appear to be the going trend among Democrats to dis anybody who even fairly takes Israel’s side even if only half the time.

 

 

To answer that question we can go to a Jew who is seeking the Democrat nomination for President, Bernie Sanders. Bernie is not an ideologue when it comes to supporting Israel but still he was questioned about holding dual citizenship both American and Israeli. He does not and never has as far as we here could ascertain though he has visited Israel a number of times, big crime there, Bernie. The interesting item has been with Hillary falling victim to her own perfidy and dropping in the polls like a lead balloon, Bernie Sanders is rapidly becoming the Democrat Party frontrunner. This has spawned some in the leadership of the Democrat Party from disparate states and organizations to panic and begin desperately seeking anybody but Bernie candidates. They have gotten so desperate as to float the names of John Kerry and Al Gore, two men who have proven their worth as Presidential candidates by losing to who the Democrats believe was the worst President in all of history, George W. Bush. There have been calls to get behind Joe Biden for President. These actions are more proof of the Democrat panic of having a Jew, even a socialist and extreme leftist Jew as their front runner. I will not claim that the leadership of the Democrat Party are all anti-Semitic, or even that there is a sizeable such persuasion in the leadership. But I will suggest that the leadership of the Democrat Party feel quite assured that they cannot win the Presidency placing a Jew at the top of the ticket or likely anywhere on the ticket and that is what has them in such a panic. The saddest thing is they can still count on receiving well over seventy-five or even eighty-five percent of the Jewish vote no matter who they run or do not allow to be their frontrunner. I am unsure which is more distressing, the clamor for anybody but Bernie or the near complete support for a Party which would not have a Jew as their leader by the Jewish voters. Somewhere there is a disconnect and I am afraid it is with the Jewish voters who vote with blinders on so they will see only that which they are meant to see. Bernie Sanders, next target?

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Why Did the Democrat Platform Omit G0d?

Way back in 2008 before the Democrat Party spun out of control the Democrat Party Platform read in the section titled Renewing the American Dream, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their G0d-given potential.” Now, flash forward disregarding everything in between to 2012 and the new version of Renewing the American Dream reads, “We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.” According to ABC News, a Democrat Party official clarified the change with the omission of the name of G0d explaining that, “The 2008 platform reference is ‘G0d-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion(s)’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”

Am I to believe their explanation that taking out any reference to G0d is equal in weight, meaning and respect for the Creator as using the phrases ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion(s)’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times and, ‘clergy’ 1 time? I guess it does not matter to the Democrat Party that this lack of reference to the L0rd our G0d will likely mean they have left a potentially large group of people feeling rejected. These are in addition to the others they have left when they slid away from being the party that stood for keeping Government out of our personal lives into the party of Big Government which dictates everything you do and don’t right down to what you eat, the size of the portions and so much more. The Democrat Party once ran a candidate for President of the United States who campaigned and followed through on a platform calling for lower taxes and a rebuilding of our military by increasing its numbers, abilities and modernizing it from top to bottom. This was the same man who declared, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…” My how things have changed. Now we have a President who made the number-one task for NASA to be, according to Administrator Bolden who announced NASA’s mission as threefold in July 2010: (1) “re-inspire children”; (2) “expand our international relationships”; and “foremost” (3) “reach out to the Muslim world.” And to make sure that NASA does not return to any of its past glories, this same President has cancelled the plans for NASA to return to the Moon. As I said earlier, “My how things have changed.”

But why would one of the major political parties of the United States of America take out any reference to G0d from their platform. The Declaration of Independence makes specific references to our Creator as the origin of our rights. This reference to G0d is the foundation upon which the United States was founded. One can only question such an omission, especially when done intentionally as they could have gone back and corrected the lack of reference to G0d had it been an error of omission. Not doing so makes this an intentional act with obvious forethought. The only thing I can see as the reasoning for not having any mention of our Creator or the grace of G0d which has often been credited for American greatness would be a complete and total single-minded tunnel-visioned dedication to a misconception of the idea of a wall of separation between church and state. This would be a misconception of Amendment I which does not state, nor does anywhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, any of the other Amendments to the Constitution or any of the founding documents, that a wall of separation exists between Church and State. The phrase originates in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in reference to their fears of potential for religious persecution as they were a small sect and feared government interference.

Thomas Jefferson’s letter reads and can be verified here.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

A careful reading of Thomas Jefferson’s phrasing reveals that this wall of separation placed between Church and State, actually religion and Government, is a one way wall. The wall of separation guards the Church and religion from any influences or interferences by Government actions, laws, regulations, limitations and coercions. It says nothing that limits religious influence, persuasion or influence by Churches or religions upon the State. This prevents Government from establishing a preferred religion or an actual State Religion or making laws requiring or forbidding prayer or religious participation. What Amendment I does not limit is any influences by Churches or religions on the State. Should a single Church or an entire religion decide they wished to enter politics and run a candidate technically that would be permissible. Where the limits would kick in would be should a religion actually run candidates in sufficient numbers and actually win an unstoppable majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the President, they would then quickly run into the limitations of Amendment I. Despite the obvious popularity and near universal support it would take to win such majorities, this religion would still be denied any powers to give their churches or the religion itself any advantages in any way, shape or form. They would be prevented from giving their religious institutions any tax advantages over other religions, granting their church preferences of any kind not also guaranteed for all other religions, and they could not mandate or enact their cannon or other religious laws, customs, preferences, or any form of influence upon the public as all such actions would violate the wall protecting religion from the State. When we refer to the “wall of separation between Church and State” we would be far more accurate to say “wall of protection of the Church from the State”. But even going completely overboard in one’s zeal regarding separation between Church and State, regardless of direction, still leaves one to wonder if completely devoiding the Democrat Party Platform of any and all references to the Creator, G0d, the L0rd, or any reverential tribute to the source of our unalienable Rights. Perhaps the Democrat Party no longer respects either our unalienable Rights or the source thereof.

Addendum:

After receiving far more publicity and criticism than expected or bearable for their omission in mentioning the Creator, our G0d, in their platform, the Democrat Convention rethought this and has decided that to avoid further scorn it would be easier to simply bend to the pressure. It still says a lot about the importance the writers and thinkers behind the original draft of the Democrat Party Platform place on the founding concepts, ideas, ideals, and credit to something greater than ourselves which weighed so heavily from the Founding Fathers up until their 2012 Platform. One has to wonder if their hearts are behind their new wording or if it is simply another attempt to dodge responsibility for their true feelings.

Beyond the Cusp