Hitler and Gaga

Fathi Hamad of Hamas, quite keen to 'sacrifice' the children of others...Only he was happy for Israel to airlift his daughter to hospital!

Not so quick for his own kids to be sacrificed,
he relies on the IDF to airlift his sick daughter to hospital.


Many will be surprised at the nauseating hypocrisy of this individual. I am not. Fathi Hamad is on record here talking of how during Operation Cast Lead Hamas sacrificed the lives of their own women and children, using them as a screen to launch rockets at Israel. However this weekend he was quite happy for the IDF to airlift his own daughter to Jordan for emergency hospital treatment. Source is here for translation. Original from elderofzion here.

Quick Look at the Lib Dems Part 2 - Their intense cynicism, 'demonising Israel to win Muslim votes... Except in Hampstead'

Jenny Tonge has condoned Suicide bombings.

She called for an investigation into claims that the IDF harvested organs from Haiti.
Yet she remains a Liberal Democrat and Clegg never withdrew the whip from this unpleasant
woman. I really wish what I am saying about her is untrue but she is a stain on the Lib Dems.







It's time again to look at the Lib Dems. They have a charismatic leader no doubt about that. However what about their policies? Foreign affairs for instance:

1. Take UK into the single currency.
2. Further integration into the EU (that trans-national body ruled by an unelected commission that has no audit budgets).
3. A potential shambles of an immigration policy, then again it is a shambles already.
4. I said earlier how scrapping Trident is not bereft of good sense. However it would cost the UK their place at the UN Security Council that is important. Clegg would quite possibly see Britain's place at the UNSC ceded to the EU?

However the worse thing about the Lib Dems? I mean all parties have some crazy ideas there are worse parties than them (Greens/BNP etc). Is their utterly cynical campaign against Israel to woo Muslim votes. I've cross posted this bit below from Chas Newkey Burden. Check out his philosemitic blog it's cool. Also the Lib Dems have the utterly vile Jenny Tonge amongst their ranks. An odious creature on a par with Nick Griffin of the BNP in terms of bigotry. Clegg could have sacked her he did not. Anyway see below for full text from Chas.


By: Chas Newkey-Burden

The Liberal Democrats at both national and local level have adopted an aggressive anti-Israel stance. They choose to communicate this message particularly in areas with large Muslim populations – suggesting that their anti-Israel stance is motivated by a desire to win Muslim votes.

During Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s effort to stop rocket attacks from Hamas in Gaza, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg came right out and said that “we must stop arming Israel” and even called for trade sanctions against Israel. This was echoed by the Lib Dems’ MP from Rochdale who branded Israeli actions a “massacre” and said to a rally in Trafalgar Square: “I am here on behalf of Nick Clegg to show solidarity for the people of Palestine….I want to stop the massacre [by Israel]”.

Jenny Tonge remains a member of the Lib Dems in the Lords, despite calling for an investigation into whether the IDF were harvesting body parts in Haiti – an outrageous and totally unsupported allegation. She was made a Lord by the Lib Dems after expressing sympathy with suicide bombers. She may well have finally lost her job as a Health Spokesperson, but surely the whip should be withdrawn and she should be expelled from Lib Dems entirely. It took years of anti-Semitic remarks for Tonge even to lose the Spokesperson job.

At a local level, the Lib Dems have ruthlessly targeted voters in Muslim areas with an anti-Israel message to whip up hatred against Israel and garner votes. Here is an example of a leaflet they used in an area of Redbridge with a large Muslim community – again calling for Israel to be disarmed and showing a photo of a dead child in Gaza. A similar Lib Dem leaflet was aimed at the Muslim community in the Kings Cross area of the Borough of Camden. Indeed, the Lib Dem Parliamentary candidate there, Jo Shaw, has made great play of her opposition to Israel, as shown by her website. The website post is totally unashamed about the fact the Lib Dems used the issue to recruit new Muslim members, saying: “The meeting was to welcome new Lib Dem members from Camden’s Bangladeshi community, who were heartened by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg being the only mainstream party leader to call for a halt to arm sales to Israel”.

Here in Hampstead & Kilburn, where I’m the Conservative parliamentary candidate and there is a large Jewish community, we don’t see any Lib Dem leaflets calling for Israel to be disarmed. Instead, the Lib Dems put out cheery leaflets targeted specifically at Jewish voters (somehow, they seem to have compiled a list of Jewish people in the area). The leaflets have Hebrew script, and imply friendship with Israel through photos of their candidate at the Western Wall and with members of the Knesset, accompanied by claims to “understand the community”.

What leaves me staggered is that these leaflets – with Hebrew lettering and targeted at Jewish voters – were produced by the Camden Lib Dems, the very same organisation who sent the leaflets to Muslim voters in Kings Cross calling for Israel to be disarmed. They may even have been printed on the same machine for all I know.
The double standards are truly breathtaking. I have stood up and said this publicly already. For the record, I’m a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. I spent a very happy summer in 1994 living and studying at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot. Israel, like any country, must have the right to ensure its security against terrorist attack.

What the Lib Dems have been doing to whip up hatred against Israel to win votes in a UK election is totally unacceptable, and pours fuel on the flames of racial and religious tension. I condemn it unequivocally.

A Quick Look at the Lib Dems Part One

Doing Quite well at the moment but what of his
Policies?

The Lib Dems under Nick Clegg are doing quite well in the polls following Thursday night's debate. However why is this and how much focus is there on their policies? I've pasted below a quick excerpt from a recent FT article. The article critiques their economic policies and wonders what they would do in the case of a hung Parliament. Read below for the text from the FT or follow the above link. My points about the Lib Dems:

1. They should be called the Liberal Autocrats as they favour more 'integration' with the undemocratic trans-national EU.
2. Their immigration policy is a nonsense.
3. Scrapping Trident is not a bad idea, although it would cost the UK's position on the UN Security Council (that in itself is not a sensible reason for keeping Trident I know).
4. Scrap ID Cards, I'm 100% in favour of!
5. Their increase in capital gains tax will hurt business and investment.
6. Allowing people earning under 10k to avoid income tax is not a bad idea.
7. An amnesty for illegal immigrants would be fine if there was only a few thousand of them, but I fear the floodgates would open.
8. Their proposed public sector cuts do not go far enough.

I'll be back with more in a future post. The Lib Dems are a breath of fresh air for sure and the current success of Clegg could mean a change to the voting system if it translates into success at the polls. However what are they like when it comes to Foreign Policy and are they very cynical when it comes to that issue? See the next post for further details. FT below:

Tax
What have the Liberal Democrats announced? The Lib Dems would make the first £10,000 of earnings tax-free, putting £700 back into the pockets of millions of people on low and middle incomes. This rise in the tax thresholds, which would cost £17bn overall, would free 3.6m people on low incomes from having to pay any income tax at all.
The change would be paid for by cutting tax relief on pensions contributions, increasing capital gains tax, cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, reforming aviation taxation and introducing an annual 1 per cent mansion tax on property values above £2m.
What do the critics say? Opponents say the tax-raising measures would damage enterprise and investment and, in some cases, lack credibility, particularly the bid to save £4.65bn from extra anti-avoidance measures.
Although the tax rises would hit the wealthy, the design of the tax giveaway has come under fire from the left as it would disproportionately benefit households in the top half of the income spectrum. Many of the poorest have incomes too low to pay income tax and so would not gain.
FT verdict The idea behind these proposals – that the poorest taxpayers currently pay a bigger chunk of their income in tax than other groups – is muddled because it neglects the fact they get nearly all their income from the state. The Lib Dem proposals on capital gains tax would damage enterprise and investment. Recycling the proceeds into big tax cuts would be a mistake given the state of public finances.


Vanessa Houlder
Hung parliament
What have the Liberal Democrats announced? Nick Clegg says whichever party has the biggest mandate after the election in a hung parliament would have “the moral right” to try to form a government. His formula implies the Lib Dems would discuss a possible deal with the leader of the party with the biggest mandate in a hung parliament. But what does he mean when he talks about “the biggest mandate”? The Lib Dem leader was vague yesterday about whether he is talking about the party with the most seats or the most votes. If recent opinion polls were translated into a national swing on May 6, Labour could win the most seats while the Tories could win the most votes. Mr Clegg is giving himself room for manoeuvre.
What do the critics say? Mr Clegg should come clean on what he would do in a hung parliament. If he is privately willing to keep Mr Brown in power even if he lost his Commons majority, the voters have a right to know. On the other hand, many Lib Dem supporters would be horrified to think their votes would help to sustain a minority Tory administration: such a move could cause serious tensions.

FT verdict Mr Clegg would be willing to work with Labour or the Tories in exchange for delivery of key Lib Dem policies. But he would be more likely to sit on the opposition benches.

George Parker
Reforming the City
What have the Liberal Democrats announced? The Lib Dems want to rebalance the “unsustainable economy” by shrinking the size of the City and fostering a more diverse low-carbon economy. The big banks would be broken up so that there was a clear separation between retail banking and “high-risk investment banking”. A 10 per cent levy would be introduced on bank profits, which could not be offset against losses, raising about £2.2bn a year.
The party has pledged to crack down on “obscene greed”. This includes a ban on any board directors taking a bonus; a £2,500 cap on cash bonuses; tougher disclosure rules to name any banker earning more than the prime minister; and powers to levy a fine on any bank director over his company breaching pay rules.
What do the critics say? The measures are designed to pander to public anger rather than increase financial stability. A bank levy is backed by the Tories. But enforcing the measure without international agreement will penalise the City. The plan to split investment banks addresses the wrong problem, because most of the banks that failed were not hybrid super-banks. Finally, the crackdown on City pay will drive bankers out of London.
FT verdict An unsavoury mix of populism and seemingly easy fixes. The more serious proposals for splitting up big banks and imposing a levy on profits are flawed but deserve consideration, if done on a global basis. There is nothing liberal or sensible about a draconian clampdown on bonuses.

Alex Barker
The deficit
What have the Liberal Democrats announced? A series of “savings” to “start to reduce the deficit” from 2011 onwards. The Lib Dems claim their plans will cut government spending by about £15bn. A third of this will go towards new spending pledges, while £10bn will help to pay down the deficit.
Restrictions on benefits including ending Child Trust Funds, restricting tax credits, scaling back Regional Development Agency funding by £600m. Instead of a public sector pay freeze, the Lib Dems will place a £400 cap on pay rises. The third tranche of the Eurofighter will be scrapped along with ID cards.
What do the critics say? The plans to curb spending are over-optimistic, giving the impression of restraint without being honest about the pain. They also do not go far enough.
FT verdict Mr Clegg deserves credit for attempting to spell out cuts in detail. But they fail the test of being “honest” about the deficit and do not reflect the tough decisions facing the next government. Alex Barker

Another Story the BBC Missed, Johnson Beharry VC refused to shake Gordon Brown's hand

I suppose I should not be surprised. That the BBC our state broadcaster, which I am legally obliged to fund has missed this story. Johnson Beharry a VC winner recently snubbed the PM at an official function. Why did the BBC ignore this story? Same reason they ignored this one. The answer lies in BBC bias by omission. Now who would be willing to say that if a US Serviceman who won say a Congressional Medal of Honour, yet went on to snub George Bush jnr that the BBC would ignore that story. Of course not for one thing they would find that a more comfortable subject matter to deal with. That is because that admittedly hypothetical scenario would fit into a anti-Bush/US meme. The BBC does not want to embarrass Gordy our PM.

Just in case you missed it, here's the YouTube Video concerning Desmond Travers..

I wonder who got the original removed from YouTube and why? Still fortunately I have a copy and so it can remain on here. I have added it as it contributes to my discussion with Colm below Oh yes and there's an election by the way...

A Quick Portrayal of a Modern Hypocrite and Fool..Colonel Desmond Travers IDF

Desmond here was part of an
investigation team that descended
into the production of propaganda

This is a quick article as I need to gear up for covering the pending election. Not that the election will change a single thing in Britain anyway. British Colonels and occasionally American ones have been occasionally portrayed in the media as blimp like figures. Often this is done for amusement. However that accolade now must surely belong to Desmond Travers of the IDF. No not that IDF this IDF the Irish Forces. So who is Desmond Travers? Well he is a former Senior Officer of the IDF and was one of the panelists that produced the Goldstone report for the UN. That is the report which accused both Hamas and Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. The Goldstone report is widely used to criticise Israel. In fact it has some authority in many people's eyes as it was produced by a UN body. Even though the body itself is a complete turkey which appointed Sudan as a member on May 4th 2004! Previous members have included Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Cuba. You probably get the point. That was the esteemed body for which Travers worked.

So my concerns for Travers are? Well quite simply the man is not equal to the task of performing an investigation into human rights violations. He has serious baggage, it was his intent from the start to use the report as a means of attacking Israel. This man should not be trusted to run a bath let alone mount an investigation. Read the following report in the Jerusalem Post by Alan Dershowitz. The Goldstone report was never meant to be impartial. In fact it could not possibly have been. Travers would have seen to that himself. He wanted to use the report to attack Israel. Travers has also unsurprisingly made paranoid and anti-Semitic remarks about a 'Jewish lobby'. For proof of that and a video of the man displaying his limited grasp of debating skills look at this piece by my friend Chas Newkey-Burden. Note how Travers evades the question. Also his completely contradicts himself saying that remarks about mosques storing munitions, can only be made if supported by forensic evidence. He states assuredly that no mosque did store munitions in Gaza, yet he he conducted no forensic investigation himself. He then theorises that munitions would not ever be stored in a place of worship, as his ancestors had been insurgents during the Irish war of independence. His ancestors had not done so between 1919- 1921 so therefore Hamas would never do so in 2009! What fatuous nonsense! The video is below:





Desmond Travers is a hypocrite, a political actor and not an investigator and an utterly disingenuous fool. You don't like me calling you that Des? Tough plenty of other people are and you can always sue me. Only I'll use your own words as evidence for this claim.


Full text on Travers in the Jerusalem Post below:


When Irish Colonel Desmond Travers eagerly accepted an appointment to the Goldstone Commission, he was hell-bent on revenge against Israel based on paranoid fantasies and hard left anti-Israel propaganda. He actually believed, as he put it in a recent interview, that "so many Irish soldiers had been killed by Israelis," with "a significant number who were taken out deliberately and shot (in southern Lebanon.)" This is of course complete and utter fantasy, but it was obviously part of Col. Travers' bigoted reality.

Travers came to the job having already made up his mind not to believe anything Israel said and to accept everything Hamas put forward. For example, Israel produced hard photographic evidence that Gaza mosques were used to store rockets and other weapons. Other photographs, taken by journalists, also proved what everybody now acknowledges to be true: namely that Hamas, as its leaders frequently boasted, routinely use mosques as military munitions depots. When confronted with this evidence, Travers said, "I don't believe the photographs." Of course not; they don't comport with his politically correct and ideologically skewed world-view. This is what he had previously said about why he didn't believe that Hamas used the mosques to store weapons:


We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. ...If I were a Hamas operative the last place I'd store munitions would be in a mosque. It's not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a [sic] many better places to store munitions."


But that is exactly what Hamas did, despite Travers' insistence on paraphrasing Groucho Marx's famous quip, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Most disturbing, however, was Travers' categorical rejection of Israel's claim that it attacked Gaza only after enduring thousands of anti-personnel rockets intended to target Israeli civilians, mainly schoolchildren. In fact, Hamas rockets hit several schools, though fortunately the teachers had dismissed the students just before the rockets would have killed dozens, perhaps hundreds, of them.

This is what Travers said about Hamas rockets:


...the number of rockets that had been fired into Israel in the month preceding their operations was something like two. The Hamas rockets had ceased being fired into Israel and not only that but Hamas sought a continuation of the cease-fire. Two had been fired from Gaza, but they are likely to have been fired by dissident groups, [i.e. groups that were violating a Hamas order not to fire rockets]." (emphasis added).

Again, Travers' rendition defies the historical record and tells us more about Travers than it does about what actually provoked Israel into finally taking action to protect some million civilians in range of Hamas' rockets. In fact Israel complied with the cease-fire, under the terms of which Israel reserved the right to engage in self-defense actions such as attacking terrorists who were in the process of firing rockets at its civilians.

Just before the hostilities began, Israel offered Hamas both a carrot and a stick: it reopened a checkpoint to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. It had closed the point of entry after the checkpoint was targeted by Gazan rockets. Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, also issued a stern, final warning to Hamas that unless it stopped the rockets, there would be a full-scale military response.

This is the way Reuters reported it:


Israel reopened border crossings with the Gaza Strip on Friday, a day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned militants there to stop firing rockets or they would pay a heavy price. Despite the movement of relief supplies, militants fired about a dozen rockets and mortar shafts from Gaza at Israel on Friday. One accidentally struck a house in Gaza, killing two Palestinian sisters, ages 5 and 13." (emphasis added)


Despite the opening of the crossings, the Hamas rockets continued - not none, not "something like two," but many - and Israel kept its word, implementing a targeted air attack against Hamas facilities and combatants.

Not surprisingly, Travers said that he "rejected ... entirely" Israel's claim that its "attack on Gaza was based on self-defense." Instead, he compared Israel's attack on Hamas to the unprovoked Nazi bombing of "Guirnica."

Travers has repeatedly claimed that "no substantive critique of the [Goldstone] report has been received." This is an out-and-out lie. I have read dozens of substantive critiques, and have written a 49-page one myself. The truth is that Travers has studiously ignored and refused to respond to these critiques. And of course he blames everything on "Jewish lobbyists."

Nor was Travers the only member of the commission with predetermined views and an anti-Israel agenda. Christine Chinken had already declared Israel guilty of war crimes before seeing any evidence. Hina Jilani had also condemned Israel before her appointment to the group, and then said that it would be "very cruel to not give credence to [the] voices" of the victims, apparently without regard to whether they were telling the truth. And then there is Richard Goldstone, who told friends that he too took the job with an agenda, which he says was to help Israel! Why any reasonable person would pay any attention to a report written by four people who had prejudged the evidence and came to their jobs with agendas and biases is beyond comprehension.