Democratic party's 'Muslim youth activist' gloats over Paris attack
This is from
Daniel Greenfield.
Zaid Jilani has many credentials as an activist of the left. He was a
blogger at the Center for American Progress’ Think Progress site, the
unofficially official spin project for Obama Inc, until he was fired for excessive anti-semitism, even by the standards of a site run by a man who had helped fundraise for Hamas before going to work for Nancy Pelosi.
Jilani went on to blog for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee,
also known as Bold Progressives, which is behind the Draft Elizabeth
Warren campaign. He currently writes for Salon.
Democrats.org, the site of the Democratic Party, had also featured him as their youth activist.
His response on Twitter to the Muslim mass murder of Mohammed
cartoonists in France was to gloat about the terror skills of his
co-religionists.
And you thought Elizabeth Warren was an improvement over Hillary Clinton?
Labels: Arab-Muslim blood lust, Barack Hussein Obama, Center for American Progress, Elizabeth Warren, France, Hamas, Hillary Clinton, Islamic terrorism, National Democratic Party, Paris
If you thought Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate...
If you thought Hilary Clinton was a bad candidate, please meet her rival - extreme Leftist Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip:
Jack W).
Yes, that's right. She just agreed with someone comparing Israel's actions to the Holocaust.
The person who was speaking in the video whom you could not see was one
Eva Moseley, a long-time anti-Israel 'activist.'
There has been a lot of debate over whether or not Moseley's claims are legitimate. Front Page Magazine called her an "honest fraud" because she describes her holocaust story as her "schtick."
In a shockingly unguarded moment, she wrote the following email
to her comrades at the Peace Commission: “I can do my “I escaped from
Nazi Vienna and am unhappy with what Israel does” schtick, if you think
that would help.”
Moseley has been an activist for years. Most recently, she signed a Change.org petition
called “Unequivocally Condemning Israel's Ongoing Massacre In Gaza,”
which it called “The Latest Chapter In More Than A Century Of Zionist
Colonialism, Dispossession, Ethnic Cleaning, Racism, And Genocide --
Including Israel's Very Establishment Through The Uprooting And
Displacement Of Over 750,000 Palestinians.”
Warren could be President of the United States two and a half years from now. Would Moseley play a role? What could go wrong?
Labels: Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Holocaust, US presidential campaign 2016
Left blasts Hillary Clinton for - wait for it - being too much of a hawk
I guess that the Left has decided that they want Elizabeth Warren (God Forbid) to be President of the United States. They have decided that
Hillary Clinton is too much of a hawk.
“[A] Clinton presidency undos [sic] all our progress and returns the
financial interests to even more prominence than they currently have,”
Melissa Byrne, an activist with the Occupy Wall Street movement, said in
a November 2013 email.
The progressives expressed an appetite
for an alternative to Clinton to teach her — and those from the centrist
wing of the party — a lesson.
Liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has repeatedly said she won’t run for president, but some on the left aren’t convinced.
“The
establishment Dems need to be punished, and the best way for that to
happen is for Warren to beat Hillary in the primary on a populist
message,” Carl Gibson, a progressive activist and writer for Occupy.com,
wrote in one email.
Even though months have passed since the emails were sent, the sentiment remains.
...
One of Clinton’s biggest critics among the group is Guy Saperstein, a
major Democratic donor and part owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball
team.
In emails, Saperstein called a report out in December of
last year that Clinton offered a “reassuring” message to Goldman Sachs
executives “horrific,” and slammed her for “ducking a lot of issues,
like the Keystone pipeline.”
He also raised questions about her
leadership at the State Department and referenced “the type of
intimidation the Clintons want to quietly promote [in the velvet glove,
of course].”
Saperstein expressed concerns that voters would begin to speculate over her personal life and relationship with her husband.
“None of that would be helpful to her candidacy,” he wrote.
For Israel, either choice would be a disaster. What could go wrong?
Labels: Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, US presidential campaign 2016
Israel's other weapons sources
Those of you who recall the story from 10 days or so ago when it was disclosed that the United States had
denied Israel Hellfire missiles for use in Gaza, and who are aware that Britain and Spain have placed an embargo on weapons sales to us, might be wondering whether Israel has sources for weapons other than the United States and Western Europe. Unfortunately, while we have such sales
they are negligible.
According to Defense Ministry figures, around one-quarter of the
output of the Israeli defense industry is intended for IDF use. The rest
is exported.
Despite official Israel’s reluctance to get specific
about its arms trade, reports submitted by various states to the UN’s
Register of Conventional Arms shed some light on the matter. For
example, Ukraine’s official reports state that two years ago, Ukraine
sold Israel 193 missiles and 32 launchers. According to reports made as
part of the voluntary disclosure mechanism, in 2010 Ukraine sold Israel
four Strella (SA-7) missiles and two launchers, about 75 Igla missiles
of various models and 10 launchers for them. It is not clear why Israel
purchased so many Russian-made shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
The assumption is that they are being acquired as part of Israel’s
development of systems to counter them, such as the aircraft-defense
system. As recently as February, Defense Ministry officials and Elbit
Systems announced the successful completion of tests of the Sky Shield
system, which is intended to protects civilian aircraft from
shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. Arms experts have said it likely
that Russian-made missiles were used in the test. Still, the number of
missiles Ukraine reported selling to Israel is relatively large even for
that purpose. Defense Ministry officials declined to comment for this
report.
Reports in the UN Register that were examined in recent
years point to some more interesting acquisitions, mainly for
Soviet-made arms that are not considered at the forefront of technology.
For example, in 2008 Ukraine reported that it sold Israel a launcher
for BM-21 rockets — a launcher that the Israeli army used in the past
after it was captured as booty in the Yom Kippur War and used during the
first Lebanon War. Hezbollah uses it to fire Grad rockets. In 2006, the
Czech Republic sold Tochka tactical missile systems to Israel. Two
years previously, Bulgaria sold Israel six 130 mm artillery systems
about which no further details were provided.
Against the backdrop of reports about Britain and Spain examining their
arms sales to Israel, an expert characterized the amount of arms that
Israel purchases from countries other than the United States as
“negligible.”
...
Israel has signed several significant defense contracts with other
countries in recent years. Germany provides Israel with submarines from
its HDW shipyards in Kiel. Israel has purchased six submarines so far,
three of which are in use by the Israel navy. The IDF has taken delivery
of two submarines, with additional deliveries scheduled through the end
of 2019.
Italy last year arranged to sell 30 M-346 training
aircraft to Israel. The first of these are already making their first
flights. As part of the deal, Israel sold Italy several defense
products, an Israeli-made satellite and a deterrent aircraft produced by
Israel Aerospace Industries in a deal estimated at $2 billion dollars.
Last
month, the Defense Ministry issued an international tender for the
purchase of “defense ships,” which will be used to protect the offshore
natural-gas drilling rigs in the Mediterranean Sea. According to an
Israeli Navy plan for the protection of the rigs that the defense
minister and the chief of staff approved about two years ago, four more
large vessels will be required to secure the area properly, at a cost of
roughly 100 million dollars per ship. The names of several foreign
shipyards — in Germany, Italy, the United States and South Korea — were
mentioned in the past as possible makers of the ships that would protect
the natural-gas fields.
There are two answers. In the short term, export less and use our own arms. That will help only when the arms in question are arms that we produce domestically. Obviously, there are things (like submarines) that we do not produce domestically, and for which we will still be dependent on other countries.
But in the long run we should be developing our own military industry more than we have been. If we have learned nothing else in the last six years, we should have learned that there are even situations where we cannot count on the United States. We should not be dependent on anyone. Not even the United States. What if Hillary Clinton - or possibly worse Elizabeth Warren is the next President? We would have 4-8 more years of pressure and unreliability. It's time that we learn to cope on our own. We're a big enough economy to pull it off.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Britain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Elizabeth Warren, Germany, Hillary Clinton, Italy, military equipment, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, United States, weapons acquisition
Ukrainian officials get their connection to Gaza
Evelyn Gordon reports that while the West is willfully blind to the connection between Ukraine and Gaza, many
Ukrainian officials do get it.
Three weeks ago, Andriy Parubiy, the head of Ukraine’s National
Security and Defense Council, compared eastern Ukraine’s situation to
what Israel faces and warned that terrorists would likely adopt similar
tactics in other countries if the West didn’t take a firm stance against
them.
“We, of course, studied the experience of both Croatia and Israel, but here a lot of new features are added,” Parubiy said.
“And, if Russia sees that this experience is successful, this
experience can very easily be used in any Baltic countries, and even in
Belarus and Kazakhstan.”
Yesterday, Ukrainian Ambassador to Israel Henadii Nadolenko made both the comparison and the warning even more explicit in an op-ed in Haaretz.
Unambiguously titled “Ukraine and Israel: Together in fighting
terrorism,” it declared, “We, the representatives of Ukraine, have,
together with the people of the State of Israel, personally felt the
totality of the threat posed to civilians by the criminal activities of
the terrorists.”
After enumerating the losses both countries have suffered, Nadolenko
continued, “I am convinced that the huge loss of civilian and military
life might have been avoided had the activities of terrorist
organizations had been condemned by the international community.” Then,
citing the recent downing of a civilian airliner over eastern Ukraine,
he drove the point home:
I would like to emphasize once again that the crime,
which killed 298 innocent civilians from around the world, is another
confirmation of the fact that today’s terrorism is not constrained by
borders…
In this regard, once again I would like to appeal to the thinking and
caring people of the world to demonstrate their support for these
peoples, who came upon a fight with an evil that threatens the security
of everyone, regardless of nationality or place of residence.
I believe that the countries that are faced with terrorism and who
try to fight this evil should support each other, and should join their
efforts in order to draw the world’s attention to our cause. We must
begin to receive real help and support from international organizations
in order to combat this threat.
I feel sorry for the Ukrainians. They cannot fight Russia on their own, and the odds of them getting any help from the West so long as the Hussein Obama administration is in power are not good. They have to hold out for at least another two and a half years (longer if Obama is replaced by Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren).
What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Islamic terrorism, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine, US presidential campaign 2016
The silent Dems
15 Democratic Senators are
co-sponsoring the Kirk-Menendez Iran Sanctions Act, which would automatically strengthen sanctions against Iran if the Iranians don't behave. 10 Democratic Senators who chair committees have
come out against the bill. And while I reported early Monday morning that the bill could ultimately win a
veto-proof 77 votes, Lefty blogger Greg Sargent argues that we really don't know how any of the remaining 30 Democratic Senators will vote.
He finds their silence on the issue odd.
The basic storyline in recent days has been that the
pro-sanctions-bill side is gaining in numbers, while the
anti-sanctions-bill side hasn’t — even though the White House has been
lobbying Dems very aggressively to back off on this bill, on the grounds
that it could imperil the chances for a historic long-term breakthrough
with Iran. As Josh Rogin puts it, “the White House’s warnings have had little effect.”
We’re very close now to the 60 votes it needs to pass. The Dem
leadership has no plans to bring it to the floor, but there are other
procedural ways proponents could try to force a vote. And if
the numbers in favor of the bill continue to mount, it could increase
pressure on Harry Reid to move it forward. Yes, the president could veto
it if it did pass. But we’re actually not all that far away from a
veto-proof majority. And in any case, having such a bill pass and get
vetoed by the president is presumably not what most Democrats want to
see happen.
So it’s a bit puzzling that we’ve heard so little from Senate Dems
who might be inclined to support the White House in holding the line
against the sanctions bill right now.
Curiously, Sargent ignores one factor that might have a lot to do with the silence: A fear of antagonizing the White House, on the one hand, balanced against a fear of losing a reelection bid on the other hand. How many of those 30 Democrats are up for reelection this year? Anyone care to check?
It's also curious to see Sargent seemingly adopting Peter Beinart's view of
Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma - pictured above) as being "the party’s hottest star, ... an anti-Wall Street crusader with no distinct foreign policy views whatsoever." Really? If
this can be believed, her positions on Israel and Iran aren't as horrendous as a lot of other Democrats. In any event, I'm sure she has views and if the rumors of her running in 2016 turn out to be true, we will find out a lot more about them (I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on that). You might recall that in 2008, a certain Senator from Illinois was described as not being very interested in foreign policy.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, midterm elections, Peter Beinart, Robert Menendez
