Friday, November 1, 2019

Revolt in Lebanon

For the first time, young Lebanese realize that the enemy is within.
 

8
An unprecedented phenomenon is occurring in Lebanon at this time. Young Lebanese are crossing confessional lines protesting the corruption of the elected elites. For the first time, Lebanese have realized that their enemy is not an outside force, rather it is within. It is their own government and political leaders. Young and older Lebanese are demonstrating against the widespread corruption and lack of economic reform. Similar protests are occurring in Shiite-controlled Iraq as well.
The inequality between the top 1% of the population and the rest of the Lebanese is confounding. This 1% have more wealth than 58% of the rest of the population. Lebanon’s billionaires have personal wealth estimated to be about $13.3 billion. In the meantime, Lebanon’s public debt exceeds $85 billion, which is more than 150% of its GDP.
One reason for the protests in Lebanon has been the government’s decision to tax the “What’s Up” app., which enabled ordinary Lebanese to make calls free of charge. The irony in this situation is that ‘What’s Up’ is an Israeli creation. The protesters used it to rally people across Lebanon. Lebanese MTV reported that two million people demonstrated in the streets of Lebanon, which is about half the population of the country.
Time Magazine reported on October 23, 2019, that “High, cement blast walls surrounding the United Nations offices in central Beirut are covered with anti-government graffiti. ‘Down with the rule of the mafia,’ is spray-painted next to the word ‘revolution.’ The names of every member of the Lebanese parliament are on the blast wall. The word ‘thief’ is written below each name. Nearby, a crowd chants the same, ‘thieves, thieves.” Lebanese protesters say their politicians have stolen tens, or even hundreds, of billions of dollars from them, aided by laws that allow bank secrecy. Hundreds of thousands of them have taken to the streets over the last six days, in the biggest protests to sweep the country in over a decade.”
Ordinary Lebanese feel that they have no voice in what is happening in the country. As if corruption and nepotism by the political elites were not enough, there is a looming cash crisis as banks in Lebanon remain closed to the public since the mass protests swept the country.
There is a long list of problems bedeviling Lebanon. One such problem is political sectarianism, and the split between pro and anti-Syrian factions. Another is, the proxy conflict between Lebanese-Sunnis supported by Saudi Arabia, and Shiites being supported by Iran. In addition, the government is unable to resolve issues of power and the distribution of resources. To all that, one has to add an environmental problem such as garbage. The uncollected garbage has become a health hazard as it has seeped into the Mediterranean Sea.
One of the many problems, particularly for the Hezbollah terrorists organization cum party, is the war in Syria. Hezbollah’s “soldiers” are doing Tehran’s bidding and propping up the Assad regime at a high cost. The U.S. crippling sanctions on Iran has reduced Tehran’s outlays to Hezbollah. As a result, Hezbollah was forced to cut salaries and services to its Shiite operatives, and community. These “soldiers” have been drafted from mostly poor Shiite neighborhoods, while the leadership is personally benefiting from the war. That has caused a great deal of resentment among the rank and file and prompted unprecedented protests.  
Hezbollah, having prided itself for decades of protecting their impoverished co-religionists and fighting injustice, had its leader Hassan Nasrallah side with the corrupt authorities against the people in the streets. That’s a major setback for Hezbollah as it deals with the current protests, its most difficult domestic challenge so far. It has also resulted in Hassan Nasrallah losing ground with his own supporters.
The Hezbollah’s constituency was forced to accept as an ally, the corrupt Nabih Berri (Speaker of the Parliament). Then, when Lebanon’s economy started to deteriorate around the same time that Hezbollah’s finances were reduced, many Shiites could no longer pay their bills. Berri and his family’s corruption, and outrageous wealth could no longer be tolerated.
Hezbollah has hailed its alleged victories against Israel in forcing the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 and of winning the 2006 war with Israel. It has also claimed victory against Sunni radicals in Syria. This however, has done nothing to benefit the well-being of their Shiite constituents in Lebanon. Iran might have been benefiting from Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria, but certainly not the Lebanese people or the Shiite community. In joining with other protesters, Shiites are seeking to claim their Lebanese identity rather than their religious (Shiite) identity, that has done very little for them. Hezbollah may be the most powerful force in Lebanon, controlling its government and military, but the Shiite community at large is still the poorest in the country.
Joseph Hakim is a native Lebanese with multiple connections to his Beirut hometown. He is also the President of the International Christian Union (ICU), an amalgam of Middle East Christian groups. Hakim had this to say about what he termed the ‘uprising and revolution.’ “Lebanon’s wealth has been depleted since the 1990’s by politicians the likes of Berri, Hariri, Suleiman, Frangieh, Mitaki, and others.” The protesters, Hakim pointed out “Are families who cannot afford to pay their kids tuition, nor their hospital bills. There are homeless in the streets, and desperate young people who want to leave Lebanon for a better future abroad. I cannot ignore the claims of these people, and can only sympathize with them.”   
Hakim went on to say that “the problem with this revolution is that it lacks an organization, the protesters are, however, unanimous in their demand that the entire country’s officialdom resign.” The problem Hakim suggested is that “If the government is dissolved, it will be a catastrophe for Lebanon because the winner of all this will be Hezbollah and its 80,000 fighters.” Hakim continued, “Hezbollah has organized and funded three busloads full of gangs and dispatched them to disrupt the protesters gathering in Beirut. They came with knives, sticks, and loudspeakers, forcing the protesters to listen to Hezbollah’s leader Nasrallah’s speech.”
Hakim stated that according to Lebanese President Michel Aoun, he presented 5 anti-corruption bills since 2013, while still serving as a member of parliament. The gist of these bills was aimed at censoring the Shiite Amal party leader, Nabih Berry’s corruption. Hakim clarified that after the Taif Agreement was signed (October 22, 1989), the presidency (a post occupied, according to the Lebanese constitution, by a Maronite-Christian) lost much of its power. Aoun and his son-in-law ultimately sold-out to Iran and Hezbollah, joining in partnership with Hezbollah in the March 8, political grouping.
Hakim concluded, “I agree with the protesters call for early parliamentary election, and the implementation of an election law that provides for equal participation of all the citizenry.” He added, “I am sad to see the deep split in the Christian community. It is reminiscent of 1988-1990 elimination struggles between the two largest Christian parties: The Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces. This will ultimately cause further weakening of the Christian community in Lebanon.”
In the final analysis, Lebanon needs a true democracy, one in which the government is accountable to the people, not run by a confessional oligarchy and controlled by a terrorist organization (Hezbollah) doing the bidding for the leading state-sponsor of worldwide terror, Iran. 

 Share

The Pelosi-Schiff Masquerade

House Democrats adopt surreal and kafkaesque one-sided impeachment process.
 

It is fitting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose Halloween to treat the Trump-hating Democrat base to a resolution formalizing the impeachment process against President Trump while tricking the American people into thinking that the process will be fair. The resolution was passed by the extremely partisan vote of 232-196, with all Republicans who voted opposing it and all but two Democrats voting yes along with one independent. Pretending that this exercise was anything but a crass effort to reverse the results of the 2016 presidential election with bogus accusations, Pelosi put on her mask of virtue during the debate preceding the vote and read from the preamble of the Constitution. She solemnly proclaimed, “What is at stake in all this is nothing less than our democracy.” What Pelosi and her henchman Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, are doing is to drive a stake into the fundamental constitutional principles of due process and the rule of law.
The resolution formalizes a set of rules that essentially ratify the closed-door star chamber proceedings that Schiff has been conducting for several weeks. He will continue to conduct such proceedings with selective leaks to manipulate public opinion against the president. The public will only be able to see whatever redacted transcripts of the closed-door depositions that Schiff in his sole discretion decides eventually to release. Schiff will still be able to stifle any questioning he does not like of witnesses by Republican members, as he reportedly has done in the past. The Republican ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, will have to ask Schiff for permission to request or subpoena testimony from witnesses and for the production of materials Republicans would like to examine. The Republican minority’s only recourse if Schiff refuses to concur is the right of appeal to the whole Democrat-run Intelligence Committee. This Kafkaesque procedure would even extend to a Republican request to hear from the original whistleblower, who the Democrats evidently no longer feel is a necessary witness. How strange that is since it was the whistleblower’s complaint about alleged presidential abuse of power to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political rival that started us down the path that we are on today in the first place.
Since Schiff himself is a fact witness as to prior dealings between members of his staff and the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed his complaint, Schiff should at minimum recuse himself from having any say as to whether the whistleblower can be called as a witness. According to a report by Paul Sperry in RealClearInvestigations, the person most likely to be the whistleblower is “a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House” who “previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.” This individual, Mr. Sperry wrote, “huddled for ‘guidance’ with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC [National Security Council].” He was also reportedly involved in anti-Trump related activities both before and after President Trump took office. As a matter of fundamental fairness, Republicans should have the unfettered right to subpoena this individual in order to get to the bottom of whatever political motives to bring down the president sparked the Ukrainegate imbroglio.
Only after Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee submits its report and materials that it has collected to the House Judiciary Committee, led by the Trump-hating impeachment zealot Rep. Jerrold Nadler, will there supposedly be procedures in place “to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.” The Democrat majority will be free to limit the scope of such participation as much as they like. Moreover, just as is the case with the House Intelligence Committee, the Republican ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Doug Collins, will have to obtain Nadler’s concurrence for witnesses and production of materials. Again, the Republican minority’s only recourse if Nadler refuses to concur is the right of appeal to the whole Democrat-run Judiciary Committee – the same Kafkaesque procedure that the Democrats can continue to use to block testimony from the whistleblower or any individual who may contradict their narrative.
When the Judiciary Committee concludes it proceedings, the resolution says, it “shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.”
If the near unanimous Democrat vote for the House Halloween impeachment process resolution is any indication, the Democrat majority is poised to impeach President Trump without the need for any more time-consuming hearings. Pelosi and Schiff, to be followed in due course by Nadler, are just putting on a show. They are trying to use the steady drip, drip, drip of leaks from Schiff’s committee to turn the tide of public opinion further in favor of impeaching President Trump, hoping to peel some Republican votes in the House away from supporting the president and putting pressure on the Republican-controlled Senate that will be conducting the trial. Once the public phase of the impeachment hearings begins, the Democrats will trot out the witnesses they think will make the most impression on television. They certainly do not want a repeat of the Mueller fiasco. The closed-door depositions are serving as useful auditions.
While various witnesses have provided their own interpretations of the July 25, 2019 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and whether there was a quid prop quo based largely on hearsay and their own subjective opinions, the one witness with first-hand knowledge that appears to have caused the most stir is Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman. He is a decorated officer in the U.S. Army with years of diplomatic and national security experience, who came to the United States with his family from his native Ukraine when he was 3 years old.
Colonel Vindman testified earlier this week in private to House impeachment investigators, recounting what he heard from listening in to the July 25th call. Colonel Vindman claimed that key portions of that conversation were omitted from the detailed memo of the call released by the White House, which he tried to have added with mixed success. The colonel reportedly told investigators of concerns he shared with his superiors regarding what he perceived as demands being made on the Ukraine government at the highest levels to open investigations that would benefit President Trump politically. These investigations were intended specifically to center on alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as well as on the employment relationship Joe Biden’s son Hunter had with a Ukrainian energy firm and Joe Biden’s alleged role in getting the prosecutor fired who was investigating the firm. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,” Colonel Vindman said in his opening statement to the investigators, “and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.” He added, “This would all undermine U.S. national security.”
Colonel Vindman reportedly said that one of the omissions from the July 25th call memo was President Trump’s mention of a recording of Joe Biden discussing Ukraine corruption and that another omission was President Zelensky’s specific mention of Burisma Holdings, the name of the Ukrainian energy company that employed Hunter Biden. Colonel Vindman said he was unable to have these omissions rectified. However, assuming that both these statements were made during the call but omitted from the memo, so what? The recording, presumably the one in which Joe Biden boasted how he managed to get Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, hurts Biden more than it hurts President Trump. In any case, the call memo alludes to President Trump’s mention of the subject of this recording when the president was quoted as saying, “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.”
As for Colonel Vindman’s claim that the call memo omitted President Zelensky’s specific reference to Burisma, the memo quoted President Zelensky, shortly after President Trump’s mention of Biden, as referring to “the company that you mentioned in this issue.” Perhaps it would have been more meticulous to include the specific name Burisma in the call memo, but this amounts to no more than form over substance.
The problem with Colonel Vindman’s testimony, as reported, for the Democrats is that it does not provide proof to advance their ‘inappropriate pressure on Ukraine’ narrative against the president. When asked to substantiate his claim of a “demand” for Ukraine to “investigate a U.S. citizen,” Colonel Vindman was reportedly unable to do so. He was simply interpreting a request by the president of the United States as inherently equivalent to a demand that the president of Ukraine could not refuse. The Ukrainian president is in a better position than Colonel Vindman to say whether he felt pressured. He said he did not, which makes sense since the Ukrainians did not know that hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid had been withheld at the time of the July 25th call. The subject of Ukraine defense came up during the call only in the context of President Zelensky’s statement that “we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes” after he had thanked President Trump for his “great support in the area of defense.” In any case, if there were a demand as Colonel Vindman claimed, why was the military aid that had been withheld released in September without such “demand” being met? The Ukrainian government had not issued the public statement committing to the investigations that were allegedly being sought by Rudy Giuliani and others in President Trump’s inner circle as the purported condition for resumption of the aid and a White House meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump.  
The Democrats are using foreign policy and national security establishment witnesses unhappy with President Trump’s skepticism towards Ukraine to pile on the president with repetitious assertions. It is a cynical masquerade that, like the debunked Russian collusion conspiracy theory pushed so relentlessly by Schiff until it ran out of steam, is all about delegitimizing President Trump’s victory in the 2016 election and putting an albatross around the president’s neck as he runs for re-election.

 Share

The Unholy Alliance of the Hate-America Left

Omar and Sanders unite at the site of SJP’s National Conference.
 

8
By an odd coincidence—or maybe not—the University of Minnesota is playing host to two disturbing events this weekend. The Hamas-funded anti-Israel campus hate group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) will hold its national conference on November 1-3 on Minnesota’s campus. Then, just as SJP’s hate fest is winding down, notorious Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whose district includes the University of Minnesota, will hold a campaign rally on campus with democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, whose candidacy for president she recently endorsed.
A lifelong supporter of communist dictatorships and causes, Bernie is known for his radical proposals to drastically increase taxes on the wealthy and to impose strict—and economically devastating—limits to carbon emissions. Less well known are Bernie’s views on Israel and his record of supporting aid for Israel’s terrorist adversaries. 

A Jew by birth, Sanders has long claimed to support Israel and even lived on a kibbutz near Haifa for several months as a young man in the 1960’s. In a 2017 speech at the organization J Street, Sanders lauded the idea of a Jewish homeland while still echoing Hamas genocidal talking points regarding Israel’s alleged “fifty-year long occupation” of Palestinian land and “displacement” of the Palestinian people.  And he has blasted the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “racist.” 

Sanders recently supported using U.S. aid to Israel as “leverage” to demand changes in Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.  “My solution is, [to say] to Israel, if you want military aid, you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza. I would say that some of that $3.8 billion should go right now to humanitarian aid in Gaza,” Sanders declared.

Gaza, of course, has been governed since 2007 by Hamas terrorists who have promised to “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine,” and who call for the genocide of the Jews in their founding charter. In giving funds designated for Israel to Gaza, Sanders would be funding the destruction of the Jewish state. As Israel National News pointedly noted, “Hamas has taken most of the aid monies it receives to strengthen its fighting capability.” 

Rep. Ilhan Omar has made no secret of her hatred for the Jewish state. In a 2012 tweet, which she has repeatedly defended, Omar declared “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” More recently in February 2019, Omar ignited a firestorm by tweeting “It’s all about the Benjamins [$100 bills], baby,” accusing the pro-Israel organization AIPAC of paying politicians to take favorable policy positions on Israel. Omar is a supporter of the Hamas-funded Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel and her congressional campaign was strongly supported by the Hamas-created Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which held several fundraising events on her behalf.
So what brings together the incendiary socialist presidential candidate and the radical Islamic Jew-hating congresswoman? Is it mere coincidence that their rally is planned for the conclusion of SJP’s infamous national conference? 

In his 2004 book Unholy Alliance, Freedom Center founder David Horowitz traced the origins of the left’s Faustian bargain with Islamic radicals to a shared hatred of America and its founding principles and a fervent belief in the possibility of a utopia that can transcend national borders and even human nature.

In the decade-and-a-half since its publication, this prescient work has been borne out again and again as the progressive left and the forces of Islamic jihad, enter into ever greater collaboration to achieve an unholy synergy of America-hating, Israel-hating, capitalism-hating radicalism. By allying themselves with Islamic jihadists, the left has abandoned all pretense of caring about the individual rights it claims to hold sacred such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the equality of men and women in subservience to the larger goals of revolution and destroying the existing order. The ends justify the means.

So it hardly seems coincidental that Congresswoman Omar and Senator Sanders have timed their campus visit to coincide with the concluding ceremonies of SJP’s festival of Jew-hatred. Sanders’s brand of socialism and Omar’s allegiance to Islamic extremism both have at their core a deep and abiding hatred of America—of its freedoms, of its possibilities, of its commitment to individual liberty over collectivist tyranny. Their hatred may be irrational, but their alliance is logical and calculated.
* * *

 Share

The Brexit Mess

The darkness ahead -- if we fail in our task.
 

5
“Katie - what on earth is happening with Brexit?”
It’s a question I have been desperate to answer and have found myself unable to answer -- as one day of uncertainty has led into the next. The word ‘unprecedented’ is commonplace in the UK right now.
Trying to give an accurate update on Brexit has been like trying to sell yogurt in the desert. It is past its shelf life even before it reaches the store.
But despite the attempts by our Remain-leaning Parliament to frustrate the will of the people, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has finally found a way forward, albeit a long way from the "Leave" we were promised for Oct. 31. Even the ceremonial 50p coins minted for the occasion will be smelted down in despair.
Bojo has called a General Election for December 12, 2019 in the hopes of breaking the endless deadlock over Brexit. And despite a desperate effort by the opposition to allow 16-year-olds and 3 million EU foreigners (who do not have British citizenship) to vote, Boris has prevailed.
The British people will go back to polls and vote for a new government to take them into 2020. Boris believes it will give him the majority he needs and a fresh mandate to Get Brexit Done and get us out of the European Union -- his battle cry since he entered the House of Commons.
But the risks are considerable and the choices are stark. This will not be just a vote on Brexit. This election merges Brexit votes and party loyalty. There are crossed allegiances at every turn. Leave-supporting Labour voters will never vote Conservative, for example -- similarly entrenched in their view as a Never-Trumper is inside the GOP.
In the most basic terms, these are the choices facing British voters:
  • Conservatives: Leave with a deal;
  • Liberal Democrats: Remain in the EU  - overturn Brexit;
  • Brexit Party: Leave with No Deal;
  • Labour: Remain in the EU and offer a second referendum.
Rather like a trip to the oral hygienist, this election is not something anyone is particularly looking forward to.
Over the last weeks and months, many politicians have made themselves the enemies of the people -- voting against the wishes of those they are supposed to represent. Estate Agents and Solicitors were the least respected professions in this country. Politicians now wear that mantle with some shame.
These Members of Parliament aren't going to be too eager to go knocking on the doors of people they have let down so badly, especially so close to Christmas. I can only imagine the reception they will receive. Just this week online, a British voter was sharing how to wire your doorbell to the electricity supply in readiness. I believe this was the British sense of humor at work.
Stop any decent Brits in the street and ask them what they think about Brexit and they will sigh at you and tell you they are sick to the back teeth with the whole thing. They just want it done and over with, whatever it might be.
Asking people to vote again, after their last vote has been ignored, is asking people to invest time, faith, and energy in a process for which they have none.
Just like the decent Americans I know, most are fully-loaded with everyday life: we have kids to drop at school, elderly parents to care for, jobs to maintain, a sick friend who needs a visit, a car that needs servicing and a bit of guttering that needs reattaching to the roof. Real things that need fixing for our families.
Expecting busy people to stand in line in the darkness of a British winter and vote again is like asking my kids to do extra homework. They’d assume I was mad.
And December elections are a rarity for precisely these reasons. No one thinks they are a good idea. The last one was in 1923. And produced a hung parliament. This is not a good omen.
There is a big issue at the heart of all this that will need to be resolved. Many Labour (left-leaning) areas of the UK also voted Leave. These are the hardcore, working class people of Britain from the factories and the mines. Their families have voted Labour for generations. If they voted Tory their parents would turn in their graves.
Disillusioned with Labour who want to Remain, the Brexit Party is their best alternative. There is a real danger the Brexit vote will be split.
Boris’s spokesperson says Nigel Farage is "not a fit and proper person." And Farage says Boris and his Brexit deal are not to be trusted. This is one thing our side is spectacularly good at on both sides of the Atlantic -- fighting against itself.
What heartbreak there will be for true Brexiteers if vote-splitting results not only in a win for Remain parties, but places a socialist, pro-Hamas, anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn in as Prime Minister.
Two things need to happen in rapid order:
First:
Boris needs to show some magnanimity towards the Brexit Party. Offering Farage a clear run at Labour seats where a Conservative MP has no chance of winning would reward Farage’s Brexit movement for their effort and endeavour, in return for them stepping aside for Conservatives elsewhere. Brexiteers are desperate for them to do a deal.
Pragmatism, not egoism, will win this election. The "Leave-EU" plan needs to introduce an app to assist with tactical voting. This is a sensible approach to an archaic voting system in the UK.
Second, and most importantly:

The good people of Britain need to be disciplined in our determination to make Brexit happen, "Once more into the fray!"
We must stand in line in the cold and the dark at the ballot box and put our faith in this vote, despite all that has gone before. We must place aside the three long years our will has been disrespected to fight back for the Brexit we voted for on June 23, 2016. And we have to do all this because the alternative is just too terrible to consider.
If we fail in this task, fail to back Boris and his promise to Get Brexit Done, if we waiver and vote against Boris disregarding a voting system rigged in favor of the largest party, if we simply stay indoors, then we fail to honor those who believe in this country and have faith in our nation. And we fail in our determination to prevail against all the odds and against the Establishment itself.
This is our opportunity to fill Parliament with decent people who deserve a seat in that House and oust those who do not.
For three long years we have been told we are too stupid, too lazy, too racist, too dependent, too weak, too fearful to trust in a sovereign Britain.
Now is time for us to stand shoulder-to-shoulder once more, and roar back like a lion.
Now is the time to remind the powerful and the Parliament that the British people still believe in this great country and are still determined to be heard.
Katie Hopkins is a British media personality, columnist, former businesswoman and one of the U.K.'s leading freedom fighters. Visit her on Twitter: @KTHopkins and email her at: katie@katiehopkins.co.uk.

 Share

2020 Dems Stand With J Street, Hamas and ISIS Against Israel

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders declare war on the Jewish State.
 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Not a single 2020 Democrat candidate from the massive field spoke at AIPAC’s pro-Israel summit in the spring. But 5 of the 2020 Dems, Sanders, Buttigieg, Castro, Klobuchar, and Bennett, were featured at the J Street conference alongside anti-Israel activists, BDS supporters, and terrorists.
Those 2020 Dems who couldn’t attend the anti-Israel hatefest in person sent video messages.
Elizabeth Warren sent in a video message threatening to cut off aid to Israel unless it surrenders to Islamic terrorists. Then she promised to divide Jerusalem, turning half the ancient holy city into a killing ground for the murderous terrorists already occupying Gaza and portions of the West Bank.
Joe Biden, Beto O’Rourke, Marianne Williamson, and even Andrew Yang joined her in sending messages of support and friendship to the anti-Israel group which has featured BDS supporters and terrorists.
The majority of the 2020 Democrat field have aligned with an anti-Israel organization.
J Street’s conference speakers included Osama Qawasma, a Fatah spokesman, a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, and an advisor to PA terrorist leader Mahmoud Abbas. Osama had claimed that Israel “rules” over America, that it’s worse than Hitler, and is plotting against all the Arab countries.
Osama had defended Palestinian Authority laws that would sentence any Muslim who rents a home to Jews to a lifetime of hard labor, and ranted, “Those traitors are destined to die a humiliating death.”
The J Street speaker had also stood in solidarity with Hamas. “We firmly oppose the American-Israeli attempts to denounce Hamas as terrorist,” he had declared.
None of the 2020 Dems had spoken at AIPAC. But they were happy to stand with J Street and Hamas.
Another terrorist at the J Street conference was Saeb Erekat, the Secretary-General of the PLO Executive Committee, who has defended Hamas and insisted that his terror group will go on funding terrorists.
Also speaking at the anti-Israel hatefest was Ayman Odeh who heads the Joint List: a coalition of four anti-Israel Arab Islamic parties including Hadash, formerly the Israeli Communist Party, which supports Assad, and the United Arab List, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement.
Hamed Abu Daabas, the head of the "moderate" Southern branch of the Islamic Movement, had said that, "ISIS raises reasonable demands like the establishment of an Islamic state, but their methods for reaching their objective raise concern in many nations across the world."
He had argued that, "If it were not for the shocking ways in which they kill, it would be possible to see ISIS like any other Jihadi organization."
Odeh had tweeted that he had called Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, to congratulate him.
This is what Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Marianne Williamson, Michael Bennett, Andrew Yang, aligned themselves with at J Street.
Israel is out. J Street, Hamas, and ISIS are in.
There were loud cheers when the 2020 Democrats were urged to cut off aid to Israel, but there was only tepid applause when the death of the ISIS leader was mentioned. It was clear whose death the J Street audience really wanted. They didn’t want the destruction of the Islamic State, but of the Jewish State.
Warren’s video message blasted Israel, but did not offer a single word of criticism of the Palestinian Authority and its terrorists. She threatened to pressure Israel, while promising to welcome back the Palestinian Authority’s delegation back to D.C. Warren’s frantic pandering to the terror lobby was only outdone by her even more radical rival, Bernie Sanders, who vowed all out war on the Jewish State.
Bernie Sanders, to thunderous applause from anti-Israel activists at J Street, vowed to redirect foreign aid from Israel to Hamas-run Gaza. He then spent several minutes ranting about the Jewish State.
"If you want military aid, you're going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza," Sanders said, referring to the Islamic terror state that is constantly trying to murder Jews.
He also claimed that Israel was “laying the groundwork for future violence” by blocking Gaza’s terrorists.
Bernie’s previous conference appearance, before J Street, had been at the Islamic Society of North America at a presidential forum moderated by Salam Al-Marayati, who has defended Hamas.
His campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, had been the co-chair of Islamic Awareness Week, an event that had included a fundraiser for a Hamas front group.
And Bernie made it clear what he has to offer to the Hamas supporters of America.
“Being Jewish may be helpful in that regard,” he suggested. “It’s going to be very hard for anybody to call me, whose father’s family was wiped out by Hitler, who spent time in Israel, an anti-Semite.”
The term Bernie is looking for is “collaborator”. He can ask George Soros for some helpful tips.
From Jesse Jackson to Rep. Ilhan Omar, and from the Sandinistas to the Soviet Union to Hamas, Bernie Sanders has always stood with anti-Semites and against Jews. At J Street, the radical leftist clarified his formerly unspoken despicable trick of using his accent and last name to shield the anti-Semites plotting to aid terrorists and kill millions of Jews from accusations of anti-Semitism.
Marianne Williamson condemned Israel’s “occupation” of the Golan Heights, and announced that she would not recognize its annexation, despite the fact that the United States has already recognized it. The creepy leftist cult leader also insisted that blockading Hamas terrorists in Gaza was “morally wrong.”
Amy Klobuchar condemned Israel for keeping out Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib. And she did not rule out an aid cutoff.
Julian Castro said that he wouldn't take a cutoff of aid to Israel "off the table." Like, Elizabeth Warren, he called for dividing Jerusalem between Israel and an Islamic terrorist state. He also vowed to restore U.S. foreign aid to the terrorists which they have been using to reward the killers of Israelis and Americans.
Cutting aid to Israel and giving money to the terrorists was the major theme of 2020 Democrats.
Not just Castro, but nearly every 2020 Democrat called for restoring aid to the terrorists. And that means that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas will have more funds at their disposal for killing Israelis.
J Street events are always festivals of anti-Israel hatred. But this time, all the Dems were on board.
Aside from the 2020 contenders, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke at the hatefest featuring BDS and terror supporters. The Democrat leadership, of the Senate, the House, and, aspirationally, the White House, were all in on J Street and against Israel.
J Street had been set up by George Soros and other anti-Israel figures to destroy support for Israel among Democrats. The J Street conference makes it abundantly clear that they have succeeded.
And that pro-Israel Democrats, who have tried to stop their party from going dark, have lost.
What was once a fringe view has become the default position of the Democrat Party. Despite the usual rants about AIPAC’s influence, the talking points for the Democrats are coming from J Street.
That was abundantly clear at the J Street conference as Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Iran smear artist, and Tommy Vietor, pressured 2020 Democrats to say that they would cut off aid to the Jewish State. J Street aggressively promoted its call for embedding opposition to Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, which they falsely described as the “occupation”, into the party platform of the Democrats.
J Street didn’t make this happen. The radicalization of the Democrats did. The conference was just a symptom of how extreme and extremely anti-Semitic the radicalized party has become.
The J Street conference with its terrorists, activists, and apparatchiks is the new face of the Democrats.

 Share

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *