Pregnant Sudanese Christian Woman Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Faces Death Sentence in Sudan for Converting From Islam … She Refused to Recant her Faith Declaring, “I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian.”

TAKE A LOOK AMERICA AT THE REAL WAR ON WOMEN AND WHO IS DOING IT, HINT … IT IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, ITS ISLAM.

27 year old Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, a wife and mother expecting another child, was sentenced to death by a Sudanese court for apostasy. The Court ruled that she is Muslim because her father was Muslim, even though she was raised Christian. The court ruled she left Islam and therefore the pregnant Meriam is subject to receive 100 lashes for adultry and then be hanged.  Before imposing this heinous sentence, the court gave her an opportunity to recant her Christian faith, but Elnabi said Ibrahim refused to do so, declaring: “I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian.”

“We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam. I sentence you to be hanged,” Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa told Mrs Ibrahim, addressing her by her father’s name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah.

Mrs Ibrahim also faces a sentence of flogging for adultery on the grounds that her marriage to a Christian man from South Sudan is considered void under Islamic law. She will be given 100 lashes. Because her father was Muslim, she was considered by the court to be the same.

Oh wait Sharia law is pro-woman after all … it prohibits the execution of pregnant women. Instead, the sentence is delayed until two years after lactation. UNREAL.

Ibrahim’s lawyer, Mohamed Jar Elnabi, said that he plans to ask an appeals court to review the sentence, and could file the request as soon as Sunday. Elnabi argues that Sudan’s constitution allows religious conversion without restriction.

CNN:

On Thursday, a Khartoum court convicted Ibrahim of apostasy, or the renunciation of faith, and sentenced her to death.

Ibrahim was born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Her father left when she was 6, and she was raised by her mother as a Christian.

Her lawyer, Mohamed Jar Elnabi, said the case started after Ibrahim’s brother filed a complaint against her.

The brother alleged Ibrahim had gone missing for several years and that her family was shocked to find she had married a Christian man.

Because her father was Muslim, the Sharia law court considered her to be the same. It refused to recognize her marriage to a Christian and also convicted her of adultery, with an additional sentence of 100 lashes.

The death ruling for Ibrahim drew condemnation from Western embassies in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and international rights groups, including Amnesty International.

When are people going to comprehend that Muslim Sharia Law cares little about woman and Islam has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

“The Embassies of the United States of American, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands in Khartoum express their deep concern over the apostasy ruling handed down on Sunday in the trial of Meriam Yahia Ibhrahim Ishag,” said a statement posted on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum.

“We call upon the Government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, including one’s right to change one’s faith or beliefs, a right which is enshrined in international human rights law as well as in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution,” the statement added.

Background of this atrocity … Her own brother ratted her out, who filed a complaint against her, alleging that she had gone missing for several years and that her family was shocked to find she had married a Christian man.

Amnesty International said Ibrahim was arrested and charged with adultery in August 2013 after a family member reportedly claimed that she was committing adultery because of her marriage to a Christian South Sudanese man.

Under Sudan’s Islamic Shari’a law, a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim man, thus any such marriage is considered to be adultery. The court later added the charge of apostasy when Ibrahim asserted that she was a Christian and not a Muslim.

EXIT QUESTION: WHERE IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S CONDEMNATION OF SHARIA LAW AND WHERE IS HIS OUTRAGE OVER THIS WAR ON WOMEN?

Former New England Patriots TE Aaron Hernandez Indicted on Two Counts of First Degree Murder in 2012 Drive-By Killing of Two Men in Boston, MA

MORE TROUBLE FOR FORMER NFL STAR AARON HERNANDEZ …

Former New England Patriots TE Aaron Hernandez was indicted Thursday on two counts of first degree murder for the 2012 drive-by shootings of two men in Boston, Massachusetts. Hernandez was also indicted on three counts of armed assault with intent to murder and an additional count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Hernandez is alleged to be the shooter in the  July 16, 2012 drive-by murder of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado. Aaron Hernandez is currently residing in the crowbar hotel  awaiting his trial for first-degree murder charges  in the shooting death of  Odin Lloyd, whose body was discovered June 2013 in an industrial park near Hernandez’s mansion. Following the death of Lloyd and Hernandez’s involvement, he then became under suspicion of for involvement in the unsolved 2012 double murder.

From NFL star to now potential triple murderer … UNREAL.

VIDEO – CNN

Former NFL star Aaron Hernandez has been indicted in the July 2012 killings of two Boston men, allegations that come a year after what had been a cold case investigation into the late-night drive-by shooting was revived — seemingly by chance — as investigators zeroed in on the former New England Patriot’s alleged involvement in another killing.

A grand jury indicted Hernandez on two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of armed assault with intent to murder and an additional count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Now, prosecutors say the former NFL tight end was the shooter in the July 16, 2012, slayings of Daniel Abreu and Safiro Furtado, who were killed in a drive-by shooting after leaving a popular Boston nightclub.

“Mr. Abreu and Mr. Furtado were ambushed and executed as they drove home,” said Daniel Conley, the Suffolk County district attorney. The Boston Globe first reported the indictment Thursday.

DA: Ex-Patriot Aaron Hernandez ‘stalked and ambushed’ 2 murder victims.

The men, along with three others, were in a BMW at Herald and Shawmut streets when prosecutors say an SUV pulled up beside them and Hernandez opened fire with a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber pistol from the driver’s side. Surveillance video captured Hernandez’s SUV circling the block near the Cure Lounge on Tremont Street and passing the victims “at a slow rate of speed” before they got into their own car, according to court documents released earlier this year.

“Our investigation has not uncovered any evidence that these two groups were known to each other, but their chance encounter inside the club triggered a series of events that ended in the murders,” Conley told reporters at a news conference this morning. “For us, this case was never about Aaron Hernandez. This case was about two victims who were stalked, ambushed, and senselessly murdered on the streets of the city they called home … On the morning Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtado were killed, they were described in media reports as being tied to a Cape Verdean gang based in Dorchester. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither of them were involved in gangs, guns, or violent crime, and that characterization was unfair to their memory and their families. We have nothing but sympathy for them and their ordeals.”

House Votes To Hold IRS Official Lois Lerner in Contempt of Congress in IRS Targeting Tea Party Scandal

The House of Representatives voted to hold IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress by a 231 to  187 vote. Lerner has invoked her 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination not once, but twice at Congressional hearings. Many believe that Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights by testifying in front of a Congressional hearing by making an opening statement and then going silent. The matter will now be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the contempt charge will then be referred to a grand jury. However, it is unknown how the Eric Holder Justice Department will proceed, if at all. If ever convicted, Lerner could face between one and 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $100,000. Lois Lerner has since left the IRS, but not without being able to keep her whopping six figure pension.

Wasn’t the Obama administration supposed to be the most transparent presidency ever?

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold a former Internal Revenue Service official in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the agency’s special targeting of groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names that were seeking tax-exempt status.

On a 231 to  187 vote, the House approved a contempt citation against Lois G. Lerner, whose admission last year that the tax-enforcement agency had targeted conservative groups infuriated lawmakers in both parties, led to an overhaul of the IRS and Lerner’s eventual retirement from government service.

The House also passed a resolution Wednesday that called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. House lawmakers voted 250 to 168 to pass the resolution in which 26 Democrats joined all voting Republicans to approve it.

CBS News-DC: US Attorney To Oversee Lerner Contempt Case Appointed By Obama.

The matter now goes to Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Federal law says Machen has a “duty” to bring the matter before a grand jury. But a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it was unclear whether the duty is mandatory or discretionary. Machen was appointed to his job by President Barack Obama.

“We will carefully review the report from the speaker of the House and take whatever action is appropriate,” Machen’s office said in a statement.

The vote calling on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel was 250 to 168, with all Republicans voting in favor and most Democrats voting against.

Attorney General Eric Holder has denied previous requests to appoint a special counsel, saying it was unwarranted.

UPDATE I: Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi misses Lois Lerner vote for fundraiser.

NAACP Was Set to Give L.A. Clippers Owner Donald Sterling a Lifetime Achievement Award Next Month Before He Was Caught on Audio Tape Making Racist Comments … What About all the previous Racism?

NAACP was for giving a racist NBA Basketball owner a Lifetime Achievement Award, before they were against it … WHERE WERE THEY BEFORE WITH HIS PREVIOUS RACIST ACTS?

The L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling was supposed to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award next month from the NAACP’s Los Angeles chapter. However, that was before Sterling was caught on an audio tape making racist and disgusting comments to his girlfriend regarding minorities. The award was supposed to be given on May 15, 2014. Upon the surfacing of the explosive and highly racial audio, the NAACP urged the chapter to withdraw Sterling from its honoree list and suggests that “African Americans and Latinos should honor his request and not attend the games.”

Sorry, my question is not that the NAACP is rescinding this Lifetime Achievement Award, it is why the so-called civil rights group ever gave it to him in the first place? Hey NAACP, Why so Silent?

pic – NAACP Los Angeles, CA

But that was then, this is now, NAACP Interim President Lorraine Miller said Sunday on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that the NAACP will not go forward with plans to give a lifetime achievement award to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. She went on to say, “If you’re silent about this, then you’re accepting this. People have got to say that this is not good and do something about it.” Um, who was being silent? One would say the hypocritical NAACP. Did they forget above his previous racist behavior, or were they just being silent? And guess who has joined the act and is calling for a boycott of Clippers games, why the Rev. Jessee Jackson of course.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Miller condemned the racist remarks allegedly made by Sterling that were caught on audio recording and leaked over the weekend. The NAACP’s Los Angeles chapter was scheduled to give Sterling a lifetime achievement award at its 100th anniversary celebration next month.

“He is not receiving a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP,” Miller said.

HEY NAACP … WHY SO SILENT?

The NAACP must have missed the documented history of allegedly racist behavior where Sterling had been sued twice by the federal government for allegedly refusing to rent apartments to Blacks and Latinos. Oops, hey NAACP … why so silent? Maybe they might want to read about the case below?  I guess the NAACP was also remaining silent when former Clippers exec and NBA great Elgin Baylor sued Sterling  for racial discrimination. A jury was ultimately not convinced and shot down Baylor’s case.  But when has that ever stopped the NAACP, can you say Trayvon Martin.

United States v. Donald Sterling, et al. (C.D. Cal.)

On November 12, 2009, the court entered a consent order resolving a pattern or practice lawsuit in United States v. Sterling (C.D. Cal.). The complaint, filed on August 7, 2006, alleged that Donald Sterling, Rochelle Sterling, the Sterling Family Trust, and the Korean Land Company, L.L.C. violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of race, national origin and familial status by refusing to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresenting the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and providing inferior treatment to non-Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles. The complaint also alleged that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to African-American prospective tenants and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to African-American prospective tenants in the Beverly Hills section of Los Angeles. In addition, the complaint alleged that the Sterling Defendants refused to rent to families with children and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to families with children throughout the buildings that they own or manage in Los Angeles County. The United States also alleged that the Sterling Defendants made statements and published notices or advertisements in connection with the rental of apartment units that expressed a preference for Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles and expressed discrimination against African-Americans and families with children in Los Angeles County.

The consent order requires the Defendants to: (1) pay a total of $2.725 million in monetary damages and civil penalties; (2) implement a self-testing program over the next three years to monitor their employees’ compliance with fair housing laws at their Los Angeles County properties; (3) maintain non-discriminatory practices and procedures; and (4) obtain fair housing training for their employees who participate in renting, showing, or managing apartments at the Los Angeles County properties. The order settles the claims of the United States and the private plaintiffs.

Bias law suit: Baylor v. National Basketball Association et al., case number BC407604, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District.

The former general manager of the Los Angeles Clippers has slammed the National Basketball Association, the team, Clippers owner Donald Sterling and management agent Richard Andy Roeser with a lawsuit, accusing the parties of race and age discrimination and unlawful retaliation. On Thursday, Elgin Baylor filed suit in the Los Angeles division of California Superior Court, accusing his former team and colleagues of a slew of employment-related misdeeds.

“Elgin Baylor, a former NBA executive vice president and general manager, charges that he has suffered severe and continuing injury, including severe economic and noneconomic injuries as a result of unlawful and wrongful conduct engaged in by the defendants, individually and/or corporately,” the complaint said. “Consequently, in this action, Mr. Baylor seeks an award of economic, noneconomic and punitive damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

US Supreme Court Sets Aside $3.4 Million Verdict for Child Porn Victim … SCOTUS Says: May Claim Damages from Every Person Caught with Illegal Images

The case was Paroline vs. United States:

The SCOTUS has setaside a$3.4 million verdict again a Texas man named Doyle Paroline. The 5-4 decision upholds part of the Violence Against Women Act which calls for restitution to victims of child pornography, but it has some up with a compromise position on how to set the monetary amount.  The SCOTUS majority opinion says those who possess the child porn images must pay something because they have contributed to the abuse. In essence, the Court ruled that a federal district court judge must calculate how much to assess against Paroline personally. The WAPO points out that the 5-4 decision was not the typical SCOTUS left-right split, which although the opinions were based on different rationals, at least issues like child porn are dealt with not along political lines.

Victims of child pornography whose images of sexual abuse have circulated on the Internet may claim damages from every person caught with illegal images, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

But justices rejected the idea that a single person who possesses such images may be assessed the full amount due to the victim, setting aside a $3.4-million verdict against a Texas man in a favor of a woman whose childhood rape was photographed and widely circulated on the Internet.

The 5-4 decision upholds part of the Violence Against Women Act which calls for restitution to victims of child pornography, but it adopts a middle-ground position on how to set the amount.  It said those who possess the images must pay something because they have contributed to the abuse.

“It makes sense to spread the payment among a larger number of offenders in amounts more closely in proportion to their respective causal roles and their own circumstances,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “This would serve the twin goals of helping the victim achieve eventual restitution for all of her child pornography losses and impressing upon offenders the fact that child pornography crimes, even simple possession, affect real victims.”

His opinion in Paroline vs. United States leaves it to federal judges to decide on the proper amount in each case.

The case began when a young women using the name “Amy” learned the photos of her sexual abuse as an 8 year old child were circulating on the Internet. Sadly, it was her uncle, Eugene Zebroski, that was her abuser. Initially, a federal judge refused to order Paroline to pay restitution because there was no proof his offense caused or contributed to Amy’s abuse. However, a federal appeals court in New Orleans would overturn that decision and ruled for Amy and said Paroline was responsible for paying the full amount she had sought, a total of $3.4 million.

Paroline was among an estimated 71,000 people worldwide who viewed the attacks.

The full decisions can be read HERE.

Much, much more at the SCOTUS Blog, Opinion analysis: Dividing the duty to pay for child porn.

Each individual — among hundreds and maybe thousands — found guilty of keeping and looking at images of a child being sexually abused must pay the victim something more than a “trivial” sum, but none of them can be required to pay for all that the victim has lost, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a five-to-four decision.

The ruling in the case of Paroline v. United States, settling a dispute among lower courts on a mandatory law of restitution to victims of child pornography, refused to establish a specific formula for allocating the financial blame, telling federal trial judges to “do their best,” with a few suggestions for starting points.  Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.