The Canadian Green Party on Friday issued a press release condemning “statements made by former candidate” Monika Schaefer. Green Party leader MP Elizabeth May said in the same press release: “I am shocked by comments made by Ms. Schaefer and I condemn her terribly misguided and untrue statements. Ms. Schaefer does not represent the values of the Green Party nor of our membership.”
It began on Thursday, when B’nai Brith Canada exposed Schaefer—the Green Party’s candidate in Alberta in 2006, 2008 and 2011—as denying the Holocaust in a homemade YouTube video. Schaefer described the Holocaust as “the most persistent lie in all of history,” and claimed that victims of Nazi death camps “were kept as healthy and as well-fed as was possible,” and that “there were no gas chambers there.” She denounced “the 6-million lie” and recommended the writings of Ernst Zündel, a German Holocaust denier who had been deported from Canada in 2005.
The Green Party of Canada’s press release “condemns in the strongest possible terms comments by Monika Schaefer, a former candidate, regarding her views on the Holocaust.”
Emily McMillan, Executive Director of the Green Party of Canada, said “Monika Schaefer’s comments denying the Holocaust are outrageous and shocking. Ms. Schaefer has no standing within the Green Party of Canada, and her views are exclusively her own. Ms. Schaefer was rejected as a potential Green candidate for the riding of Yellowhead prior to the 2015 federal election, and also rejected as a potential candidate for the 2014 by-election in Fort McMurray-Athabasca.”
“In light of Ms. Schaefer’s untrue statements made in a recent online video, we will be initiating the process to terminate her membership with the Green Party of Canada at the earliest possible opportunity,” McMillan added.
A Green Party member may be expelled by a resolution of Federal Council or a General Meeting of members. The Party will request a motion be put forward to terminate Schaefer’s membership at its next Federal Council meeting, according to the press release.
On Tuesday a knife wielding female Arab terrorist approached a hitchhiking post at the Gitai Avisar junction in Samaria, an incident that ended in her death. However, the enclosed dashboard camera record of the incident reveals a troubling fact about the encounter: throughout the incident, it is painfully obvious that the two armed IDF soldiers are afraid to shoot the attacker.
They are afraid – but they are not afraid of the terrorist. They are afraid to use their weapon against her and they do everything to avoid having to pull the trigger.
It takes the two soldiers a full 10 seconds, during which they keep retreating from the knife waving attacker, ordering her back as she continues to advance zombie fashion, until they are forced to shoot her.
Then, as the attacker, who is very much alive, continues to writhe in pain on the ground, the soldiers fail to eliminate her, exposing themselves to the real danger of being blown up by an explosive device she could be carrying, or if she got up again with her knife as the Bezeq terrorist did. There is even a point in the video where the two soldiers simultaneously look behind them, losing line of sight with the still-moving terrorist.
If ever there were proof of the damage that the IDF leadership has inflicted on the ability of the soldiers on the ground to defend themselves effectively against crazed terrorist attackers — this one should be played round-the-clock at IDF headquarters. This is a video of soldiers plagued by the fear of being prosecuted for their righteous actions and a fear of being forced to use their weapon against a dangerous terrorist who has clearly stepped beyond the rational realm.
“He was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what? He did well. He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights. They didn’t talk. They were terrorists. Over,” Donald Trump said at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina Tuesday. In comparison, Trump said, “today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist, you go to Iraq. It’s like Harvard. Okay? So sad.”
That assertion may be challenged by Israelis, as Clinton’s senior campaign adviser Jake Sullivan told CNN, “In reality, Hussein’s regime was a sponsor of terrorism — one that paid families of suicide bombers who attacked Israelis, among other crimes.”
Then Sullivan added that “Trump’s cavalier compliments for brutal dictators, and the twisted lessons he seems to have learned from their history, again demonstrate how dangerous he would be as commander-in-chief and how unworthy he is of the office he seeks.”
Not necessarily so. In retrospect, after the violent collapse of the “Arab Spring” everywhere but in Tunisia, Trump’s assessment of what the Arab world requires to keep it stable is not necessarily democracy. Back in October, 2015, Trump said he believed Iraq and Libya would be more useful in forging a stable Middle East if ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi had not been terminated by a succession of American presidents.
“If you look at Iraq from years ago,” Trump said in October, “I’m not saying [Hussein] was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy, but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya, nobody even knows Libya, frankly there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It’s all broken up. They have no control. Nobody knows what’s going on.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) rushed to the defense of both Bushes and Obama, telling Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that Saddam Hussein “was one of the 20th century’s most evil people. He was up there. He committed mass genocide against his own people using chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.”
Yes, but, in the immortal words of FDR, when someone asked him about the wisdom of supporting Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, “He may be an SOB but he’s our SOB.” Back in 1979, when Iran’s Shah was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution, giving way to an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which drove the US out of Iran (and kept hundreds of American hostages), only Saddam Hussein was able to limit the spread of Iranian influence in the region. The Iran–Iraq War lasted from September 1980 to August 1988, exacting millions of victims in the service of Western interests in the region. No Arab democracy (an oxymoron if ever there was one) could have stopped Iran. The only force able to facilitate Iran’s yearning for regional hegemony were presidents Bush I and Bush II, followed by Obama.
On July 25, 1990, US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie held an emergency meeting with Saddam, who attacked American policy with regards to Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Saddam complained bitterly: “So what can it mean when America says it will now protect its friends? It can only mean prejudice against Iraq. This stance plus maneuvers and statements which have been made has encouraged the UAE and Kuwait to disregard Iraqi rights.”
Saddam was referring to his neighboring oil sheiks “drilling sideways” into Iraqi deposits. Saddam viewed the entire concept of there even being a country named Kuwait to have been a conspiracy of British Petroleum and Her Majesty’s government to steal oil-rich Iraqi land. Saddam felt that in light of his service to the US, he should receive its support in his conflict with the Kuwaitis.
Ambassador Glaspie replied that the US would rather see the conflict resolved through peaceful means, but in the end, “…we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”
And so, after his ultimatum to the Sabah ruling family of Kuwait had failed, Saddam invaded Kuwait, believing the US was going to take a neutral position on his move. But his move frightened the Saudis, whose Ambassador under both Bush administrations had his own desk in the Oval office, and they pressured Bush I to start what is now a 26-year program of completely destabilizing the Middle East, complete with attacks on US soil, lingering civil wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, two worldwide Islamic terrorist armies, one of them a Caliphate wannabe blowing up half of Europe. All of which could have been avoided had the Bush I and certainly Bush II administrations been more accommodating to the monstrous dictator who used to be our monstrous dictator.
The Democratic and Republican establishments insist on presenting Trump as an admirer of dictators, which he may be — but that was not the case Trump has been making for boosting rather than unseating dictators, such as Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Trump has a much clearer view regarding US foreign interest than do the establishment politicians on either side of the aisle, and it ain’t about spreading the spirit od democracy and goodwill to all mankind.
One of the medics who treated the woman was Ofer Ohana. Ohana was on his way to court to provide testimony for the soldier in Hebron who killed the downed terrorist. Ohana was the medic on site after the Hebron terror attack.
The woman has been transported to Sharei Tzedek hospital. She’s listed in lightly wounded condition with injuries to her face.
Jerusalem (TPS) — Rabbi Michael (Miki) Mark, who was killed on Friday in a terrorist shooting attack, was laid to rest on Sunday afternoon in Jerusalem. Thousands attended his funeral, which began in his home town of Otniel and ended with his burial in the Har Hamenuhot cemetery in Givat Shaul.
Rabbi Mark was the director of the Otniel Yeshiva and a teacher at Yeshivat Torat Shraga, Yeshiva University’s post-high-school yeshiva for American students in Jerusalem. He is survived by his wife, Chava Rachel Mark, who sustained serious injuries in the attack and remains hospitalized, and ten children, two of whom were also wounded in the attack.
“When he started as principal this past year, he took a real interest in the overseas students,” Phil Katz, the head of the overseas program at the Otniel Yeshiva, told Tazpit Press Service (TPS). “He would constantly speak to us, and he put a major effort into improving our learning experience in Israel. It’s a terrible loss.”
The funeral service began at the Otniel Yeshiva, where many current and former students came to pay their last respects. President Reuven Rivlin, a distant cousin of Mark’s, delivered a eulogy.
“I stand here today before your bier, Michael, Miki, in sadness and pain. With me stands an entire grieving nation,” President Rivlin said. “You were a pillar of the Otniel community and the whole Hebron hills region. The Hebron hills region, the historic cradle of Jewish civilization, keeps losing the best of its children to terrorism. But our roots here are strong, and terrorism will not defeat us.”
Once the eulogies at the Otniel Yeshiva were completed, the Mark family, accompanied by hundreds of mourners, supporters, and an army escort, traveled in a funeral procession to Jerusalem, where Mark was laid to rest.
On the way to Jerusalem, the family stopped at the site on Route 60 where the terror attack took place.
By the time the procession reached Jerusalem’s Givat Shaul cemetery, thousands of mourners had arrived. A police spokesman told TPS that in his estimation, at least 4,000 people attended Rabbi Mark’s burial.
According to Hadassah Medical Center spokesperson Hadar Elboim, Chava Rachel Mark remains in serious but stable condition, though she is breathing on her own.
The Marks’ 14-year-old daughter, Tehila, who also sustained serious injuries in the attack and is confined to a wheelchair, was released from the hospital to attend her father’s funeral.
Both of Israel’s chief rabbis eulogized Rabbi Mark at the burial, as did Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, Mark’s first cousin.
“I swear in the name of the Israeli defense establishment to keep the State of Israel, which you loved so much, united within and protected from without,” Cohen said. “Farewell, my dearest Miki. You were a man of peace, and I loved you with all my soul.”
Michael Bachner and Tzvi Yedidyah Lev contributed to this article.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization which has been shilling for some of the worst anti-women regimes on the planet, believes the real danger to Muslim women in the US is presumptive GOP presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. This is because of Trump’s “apparent support for an Islamophobic town hall question which will endanger American Muslim women.”
During a question-and-answer session Thursday at a town hall event in Manchester, NH, an audience member asked candidate Trump, “Why aren’t we putting our military retirees on that border or in TSA? Get rid of all these hibi-jabis they wear at TSA?”
The questioner was referring to the “hijab,” the Islamic head scarf worn by Muslim women, as part of their task to conceal themselves entirely from male eyes, because males cannot be blamed if they are overcome by their desire and end up raping said women. In fact, under Islamic law, the raped woman is more often than not the party to be punished.
Trump appeared to support the questioner’s anti-Muslim views when he responded, “I understand. . . You know, and we are looking at that. . . And we are looking at that. We’re looking at a lot of things.”
“By appearing to endorse the bigoted views of one of his supporters, Donald Trump is placing all American Muslim women who wear Islamic attire in danger,” said CAIR Government Affairs Director Robert McCaw. “American Muslims, and particularly Muslim women, are facing an unprecedented spike in discrimination and hate attacks, due in no small part to Donald Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric and policy proposals.”
McCaw added that the proposed removal of Muslim TSA staffers devalues the crucial work they do on a daily basis to protect the nation.
Not crucial enough, apparently, as was evident last month when the acting head of the Transportation Security Administration was reassigned after an internal investigation by the Department of Homeland Security had found security failures at dozens of the nation’s busiest airports. The breaches allowed undercover investigators to smuggle weapons, fake explosives and other contraband through 95% of TSA checkpoints.
Earlier this year, CAIR said Donald Trump’s continued his use of “a debunked myth” about US General John Pershing executing Muslim prisoners in the Philippines using bullets dipped in pig’s blood was endangering ordinary American Muslims who were already facing a surge in hate.
But is it a myth?
In 1941, TIME Magazine ran a letter to the editor from a soldier named J. R. McKey who had served with Pershing in the Philippines decades before. In the letter, McKey describes using pigs in burials to deter Muslim insurgent activities, but does not ascribe the act to Pershing.
McKey wrote, “US soldiers … had a pretty good cure for juramentado [Moro swordsmen] activities. Knowing the horror of the Mohammedan for any contact with swine, and particularly with its blood, these American roughnecks, when they had killed a juramentado, held for him a very public funeral. The body of the defunct bad man having been deposited in the grave, a pig was brought, stuck, its blood sprinkled freely over the D B M, the dead pig thrown in with him, and the burial completed.”
Some reports do say that Pershing was engaged in burying Muslims with pigs or throwing pig’s blood on them. According to the History News Network, a Chicago Daily Tribune article from 1927 describes Pershing sprinkling prisoners with pig’s blood, then setting them free to warn others of being doused with the blood. “Those drops of porcine gore proved more powerful than bullets,” the article wrote.
Christopher Capozzola, a history professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also cited an incident in which Pershing brought a pig’s head to a ceasefire negotiation with a Muslim leader.
CAIR has previously stated that Trump’s pig’s blood claim and other instances of his “Islamophobic rhetoric,” including his calling for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States, his false claim that “Islam hates us,” his refusal to rule out special IDs for American Muslims, and his willingness to consider closing down American mosques place millions of innocent, law-abiding citizens in the American Muslim community at risk.
CAIR has reported an unprecedented spike in anti-Muslim incidents nationwide since the Paris terror attacks, the San Bernardino shootings and Trump’s call for a complete ban on Muslims entering the United States.
It is possible however that the former two may be at least as important as the latter reason for hate against Muslims…