Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Pakistan's Supreme Court Acquits Woman Of Death Penalty For Drinking Water From Same Vessel As Muslims..
Now she is in danger because many Islamic organizations and clerics are still demanding that she be hanged.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar announced the long-awaited verdict. She's reportedly been taken to an undisclosed location and some expect she and her family will leave the country.
Her husband, Ashiq Masih, praised the court's decision.
"I am very happy. My children are very happy. We are grateful to God. We are grateful to the judges for giving us justice. We knew that she is innocent," he said.
The 51-year-old Christian mother was arrested in 2009 after her Muslim co-workers accused her of insulting the Muslim prophet Mohammed – an offense punishable by death in Pakistan.
Bibi says she was falsely accused and is very respectful of Muslims and Mohammed.
The alleged incident occurred when Bibi took a sip of water while she was working. Her Muslim colleagues accused her of contaminating the water because she was a Christian.
She's been sitting in prison ever since with the threat of execution hanging over her head.
Human rights activists have been actively seeking her release over the past several years to repeal the Pakistani court's death sentence.
No Pakistani Christian has been held on blasphemy charges longer than Bibi. If she had lost her final appeal, she could have been put to death.
Pakistan's 295-C blasphemy law is based on sharia (Islamic law), which mandates execution for those found guilty of committing blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed.
Even with the court's decision to free her, she is likely not safe.
Other prisoners freed on blasphemy charges have been murdered by Islamic extremists. Muslim radicals assassinated former Punjab Governor Salman Taseer and Shabbaz Bhatti in 2011. Both men supported Bibi and had called for an end to Pakistan's Blasphemy Law.
"Clearly she will need asylum in a western country where she can live out the remainder of her days in peace," Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of the British Pakistani Christians Association, told CBN News. "These charges have been proven false time and again and it is time for her to return home to her family."
The church in Pakistan is urging believers around the world to pray for Bibi and her family.
In 2016, her family gave a statement from Bibi to an Italian newspaper, La Stampa, saying, "I forgive my persecutors, those who have falsely...
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar announced the long-awaited verdict. She's reportedly been taken to an undisclosed location and some expect she and her family will leave the country.
Her husband, Ashiq Masih, praised the court's decision.
"I am very happy. My children are very happy. We are grateful to God. We are grateful to the judges for giving us justice. We knew that she is innocent," he said.
The 51-year-old Christian mother was arrested in 2009 after her Muslim co-workers accused her of insulting the Muslim prophet Mohammed – an offense punishable by death in Pakistan.
Bibi says she was falsely accused and is very respectful of Muslims and Mohammed.
The alleged incident occurred when Bibi took a sip of water while she was working. Her Muslim colleagues accused her of contaminating the water because she was a Christian.
She's been sitting in prison ever since with the threat of execution hanging over her head.
Human rights activists have been actively seeking her release over the past several years to repeal the Pakistani court's death sentence.
No Pakistani Christian has been held on blasphemy charges longer than Bibi. If she had lost her final appeal, she could have been put to death.
Pakistan's 295-C blasphemy law is based on sharia (Islamic law), which mandates execution for those found guilty of committing blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed.
Even with the court's decision to free her, she is likely not safe.
Other prisoners freed on blasphemy charges have been murdered by Islamic extremists. Muslim radicals assassinated former Punjab Governor Salman Taseer and Shabbaz Bhatti in 2011. Both men supported Bibi and had called for an end to Pakistan's Blasphemy Law.
"Clearly she will need asylum in a western country where she can live out the remainder of her days in peace," Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of the British Pakistani Christians Association, told CBN News. "These charges have been proven false time and again and it is time for her to return home to her family."
The church in Pakistan is urging believers around the world to pray for Bibi and her family.
In 2016, her family gave a statement from Bibi to an Italian newspaper, La Stampa, saying, "I forgive my persecutors, those who have falsely...
Vlad The Impaler: Halloween Yard Decoration Champion From 1456-1462
Vlad The Impaler Of Muslim Invaders Constructs A Forest!
Vlad The Impaler Says: I Don't Always Impale Furniture...
Vlad The Impaler: Halloween Yard Decoration Champion From 1456-1462
Childhood Was Thinking That Vlad The Impaler Was The Villain...
Vlad The Impaler Of Muslim Invaders Discovers Marshmallows..
Vlad The Impaler Of Muslim Invaders Has A Question For Europe:
Vlad The Imp..
CHAOS: Armed Migrant Horde Opens Fire on Mexican Cops
The attack took place near Ignacio Zaragoza, Chiapas, when members of Mexico’s Federal Police were escorting the migrant caravan as part of “Operativo Caminante” or “Operation Walker” across the southern border state. According to Mexico’s Interior Secretariat, two men identified only as 22-year-old “Jerson” and 17-year-old “Carlos” spotted the group of police officers guarding the caravan and began firing at them.
The attackers’ pistol jammed, allowing police officers to arrest them without any injuries. Federal authorities seized a .380 caliber Glock with nine rounds still in the magazine.
The attack came soon after Mexican authorities issued a warning about migrants in Guatemala who were preparing Molotov cocktails and acquiring firearms to use against police officers in their attempts to break through the border to Mexico. Over the weekend, several clashes occurred where migrants threw rocks and used...
Republicans Confidently Move Closer to Improving Senate Majority
The GOP currently has 51 seats in the Senate, while Democrats and independents who caucus with Democrats hold 49 seats–meaning Republicans, walking into Nov. 6, cling to the slimmest of majorities ahead of the midterms. But because of the map of seats that are on the ballot this year, and the fact that many of them include red state Democrats up for re-election in states President Donald Trump won against Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016, Republicans have been able to channel their energies less into defense and more into fighting to pick up as many seats from Democrats as possible.
There are four Senate seats–those in Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, and Arizona–that are currently GOP-held that are viewed as competitive going into this midterm. In two of them–Texas and Nevada–the incumbent Republican senator is running for re-election. In Arizona and Tennessee, new candidates have emerged. In each of these four races, with the possible lone exception of Arizona, recent polling seems to indicate Republicans will hold them all.
Texas is particularly interesting because Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a 2016 GOP presidential primary rival of Trump, faces a well-funded challenge from Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX). O’Rourke has smashed fundraising records, and polls earlier in the campaign seemed to suggest that the flashy Democrat who openly embraces impeachment of Trump, if elected, has a chance at dethroning the first-term incumbent political heavyweight Republican Cruz. But, since President Trump held a come-together rally with Cruz in Houston–which was attended by tens of thousands, with more than 100,000 RSVPs, leaving thousands outside unable to get in–polling has swung back in Cruz’s direction.
A new survey released on Tuesday evening from CBS11/Dixie Strategies, in fact, found Cruz has pulled over the 50 percent mark to 52 percent and commands a double digit lead of ten percent over O’Rourke’s 42 percent, with five percent were...
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every...
A Brief History of Leftist Political Violence in 1 Year
The attacker, Farzad Fazeli, an Iranian Clinton supporter, had previously posted, “Don Trump won’t clean his own house, so he’s too dirty to know right from wrong. Impeach/incarcerate him before more children die. P.S. complacency is worse than being the shooter.”
Next month, Shane Mekeland, a Republican running for the Minnesota House of Representatives, suffered a concussion after being punched in the face at a restaurant. “You XXXXX people don’t give a XXXX about the middle class,” his assailant had shouted at him.
Mekeland is back on the campaign trail, while still recovering from the assault. “The media and the likes of Maxine Waters, Hillary, and Eric Holder as of late is driving this behavior,” he warned.
“If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, at a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” Rep. Maxine Waters had urged an angry leftist mob.
Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general and a possible 2020 candidate, had urged, “When they go low, we kick them.” He had tweeted at Democrats, urging them to, “Use the rage.”
Hillary Clinton had told CNN, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.”
Senator Hirono had refused to condemn the harassment of Republicans, telling CNN, “This is the kind of activism that occurs and people make their own decisions. If they violate the law, then they have to account for that.”
That same month, also in Minnesota, State Rep. Sarah Anderson, a Republican, was punched by a man when she tried to stop him from vandalizing her campaign signs.
Also in October, Kristin Davison, the campaign chief for Adam Laxalt, the Republican candidate for governor in Nevada, was left with pain and bruises after a confrontation with a Democrat operative. Her alleged assailant faces a charge of misdemeanor battery.
Three violent attacks on Republican political figures in just one month alone earned almost no coverage in the media.
Instead the media egged it on. Even the country’s leading leftist papers urged greater displays of rage.
October editorials, columns and op-eds in the New York Times included headlines such as, “Get Angry, and Get Involved,” “Tears, Fury or Action: How Do You Express Anger?”, “Fury Is a Political Weapon And Women Need to Wield It.”
The explosion of violence against Republicans in October was the culmination of a climate of crazed hatred, which lead to death threats, and when those were unaddressed, to actual physical violence.
In the two months from May to June, 30 Republican members of Congress were attacked or threatened.
These included, Christopher Michael McGowan who warned Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s staff, “I am not making a joke. I will kill him.” It included Steve Martan, a “pacifist”, who threatened to shoot Rep. Martha McSally....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)