Margaret was very upset as her husband Albert had just passed away. She went to the undertaker’s to have one last look at her dearly departed husband. The instant she saw him she started crying. One of the undertakers strides up to provide comfort in this somber moment. Through her tears she explains that she is upset because her dearest Albert was wearing a black suit, and it was his dying wish to be buried in a blue suit.
The undertaker apologizes and explains that traditionally, they always put the bodies in a black suit, but he’d see what he could arrange. The next day she returned to the undertakers to have one last moment with Albert before his funeral the following day. When the undertaker pulls back the curtain, she managed to smile through her tears as Albert is resplendent in a smart blue suit.
She said to the undertaker “Wonderful, wonderful, but where did you get that beautiful blue suit?”
“Well, yesterday afternoon after you left, a man about your husband’s size was brought in & he was wearing a blue suit. His wife explained that she was very upset as he had always wanted to be buried in a black suit,” the undertaker replied.
The wife smiled at the man.
He continued, “After that, it was simply a matter of swapping the heads.”
Egypt: Police stood by and encouraged a Muslim mob attacking a church. After local Muslims in Ezbet Sultan Pasha village learned that Christians, who form about 20% of the population, were on their way to legalizing a church building, they surrounded it on July 6, after Friday prayers. “The protesters were chanting slogans against us [Christians], such as ‘We don’t want a church in our village,'” said one resident. “We locked ourselves in our homes during the demonstration because we were afraid that they would attack us. Police didn’t do anything to disperse the demonstrators and didn’t arrest anyone of them.” Demonstrations continued into the next day with no police intervention.
On the following Friday, again after Muslim prayers, local Muslims and others from neighboring villages, surrounded the church again and hurled stones and bricks at it and a at nearby Christian home. “They were shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ [‘Allah is greater’] and chanting hostile slogans against Copts, such as: ‘We will not allow any church to exist in our Muslim village,’ ‘We will not allow any other prayers to be held in our Muslim village except our prayers,'” said another Christian resident. According to the report:
“While police did not intervene, one of the officers apparently promised the protesters that no church would be allowed in the village. … [T]his declaration encouraged the protesters who clapped shouting ‘Allahu akbar’…. There are at least approximately 3000 pending applications from churches that still need to be examined by the government commission set up to verify whether they meet legal requirements.”
via “We Will Displace You”: Extremist Persecution of Christians, July 2018
As her aunt held her down, the child screamed and fought desperately to escape. But even as she struggled, the woman sliced at the child’s genitals with a razor, sending blood coursing down her legs. Years later, the girl recalled, “They tied my legs together the whole way down so I couldn’t open my legs. I was like that for three or four weeks.”
She was only 6 years old.
Two hundred million women worldwide have endured similar torture through female genital mutilation (FGM), or are at risk of becoming victims. Yet last month, a Michigan judge ruled that laws preventing such torture and abuse of girls were unconstitutional, raising the risk of genital cutting for hundreds of thousands of vulnerable girls across America.
The decision, passed down in a case involving the prosecution of two doctors who performed the procedure in a suburban Detroit clinic, addressed a 1996 federal ban on FGM, which U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman claimed overstepped congressional power. The Federalism clause permits the federal government authority only over criminal cases involving interstate commerce, which Friedman argued was inapplicable in this case. Nor, he said, is there a “rational relationship” between federal equal rights treaties and a ban on FGM, as it only affects women.
Rather, the judge argued, the power to ban FGM, like other criminal law, lies with the states; and while Michigan does have such a statute in place, it was instated after the doctors and the mothers of nine girls had been arrested and charged. Friedman therefore dismissed those charges.
via Thousands of American Girls At Risk As Judge Strikes Down Federal FGM Ban
he UN Migration Pact represents a catastrophic dismantling of key components of democratic institutions by the United Nations, a body that has increasingly allied with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Pact — officially named the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” — indicates that it “offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination.” It also states that “No country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own.”
This means (sarcasm warning ahead) that all countries must depend on the competent, just and democratic United Nations to guide them to enjoying the benefits of mass migration. To do this, one would have to turn a blind eye to the globalist vision of open borders that has plunged Europe into crisis, a crisis that has led in turn to the rise of the so-called “populist” movement. Contrary to the media’s labeling of it as “racist” and “Nazi,” this movement supports democracy, supports Israel, and aims to defend free societies, marginalize Islamic supremacists, and stop their incursions into Western countries. So-called “populist” leaders have also sought to protect their citizens from the damage of unlimited, unvetted migration.
Canada, in contrast, has offered to “lead the charge”on the UN Migration Pact.
As a concerned, patriotic Canadian citizen and Royal Canadian Air Force F18 retired combat pilot, Major Russ Cooper — co-founder of the group Canadian Citizens for Charter Rights and Freedoms — wrote a summary of his concerns about the UN Migration Pact:
via Canada: Opposition, protests and a petition against the UN Migration Pact
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) will vote today (Thursday) on a U.S.-drafted resolution condemning egregious violations undertaken by the Palestinian Hamas movement.
The organization – which rules the Gaza Strip and has done for the last 11 years – stands accused of numerous actions worthy of international condemnation.
In what will likely be outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley’s last action at the institution she has consistently accused of having a strong in-built anti-Israel bias, the resolution condemns Hamas and its use of violence, including “repeatedly firing rockets into Israel, using “airborne incendiary devices” and the use of resources to build “military infrastructure” targeting civilians.
Jason Greenblatt, Donald Trump’s special representative for international negotiations tweeted on Wednesday that the root cause of Palestinian suffering in Gaza could laid at Hamas’ door.
via Will UN Vote to Condemn Hamas Today?
If the United States blocks Iran’s oil exports, Iran’s president threatened that his nation is prepared to shut the Straits of Hormuz, a critical shipping route and waterway for the world’s oil supplies, CNBC reported Tuesday.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told state television, “if someday, the United States decides to block Iran’s oil [exports], no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf.”
In November the U.S. reimposed nuclear sanctions on Iran, targeting its energy sector and has reduced its exports by 1 million barrels a day.
According to CNBC, in 2015 some 18.5 billion barrels of crude oil, accounting for about one-third of all crude shipped overseas, passed through the critical waterway.
Rouhani’s threat was made as the U.S. has ordered a strike group associated with the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis to deploy to the Persian Gulf.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that military officials described the move as “a show of force against Iran.”
The carrier group would also be supporting U.S. and allied efforts against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
via Iran’s Rouhani Mulls Blocking Critical Waterway
“That’s how the call for a free Palestine ‘from the river to the sea’ gained traction in the 1960s. It was part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of historic Palestine. Palestinians hoped their state would be free from oppression of all sorts, from Israeli as well as from Arab regimes.”
Remember, she is talking about the people who elected Hamas in Gaza. Hamas is dedicated to eradicating Israel in the name of Islam. The Palestinian Authority that rules Judea and Samaria is likewise given to annihilationist Islamic rhetoric regarding Israel, particularly from its Fatah arm. If the “Palestinians” want a “secular democratic state,” why haven’t they established one in either Judea and Samaria or Gaza?
“And notwithstanding the extreme rhetoric of some leaders on both sides, a recent joint poll shows that only a small minority of Palestinians see “expulsion” as a solution to the conflict – 15%…”
Maybe, but those “Palestinian” people aren’t in charge. And Mahmoud Abbas has said that no Jews would be allowed to live in a “Palestinian” state, as has Sheikh Hammam Saeed, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. Fatah has also called upon Jews to leave the area.
The Forward should be ashamed for publishing this grotesque attempt to whitewash a clearly genocidal call. Maha Nassar is an Associate Professor in the School of Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Arizona; the Forward follows this piece with the announcement that “the views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.”
Well, all right, but notice that you seldom see op-eds in the Forward by those who don’t reflect its editorial stance.
via Forward op-ed: “From the river to the sea” just means that “Palestinians” want a “secular democratic state”