Sudanese woman gets to nurse her baby for two years then gets executed for being a Christian-Pakistani woman gets stoned to death by her own family in 'honor' killing. If you have to visit these countries you may want to wear a fake beard or burqa and never say your a Christian-or a Jew-or anything else-
KOO KOO-does this mean that a woman is no longer desirable while in a burqa so this is liberation?
Here's a pretty burqa for you.
Every pic tells a story.
A Sudanese woman sentenced to death for refusing to renounce her Christian faith has given birth in prison, and could now be lashed 100 times — even as she's permitted to nurse her newborn for two years before the execution is carried out.
Meriam Yahya Ibrahim, 27, gave birth to a girl early Tuesday in the hospital wing of a prison in Omdurman, one of her attorneys, Mohamed Abdelnabi, told FoxNews.com by phone from Khartoum.
"She's fine, and Meriam as well," Abdelnabi said of the baby girl, who will be named Maya.
"She's fine, and Meriam as well."- Attorney Mohamed Abdelnabi
Ibrahim's husband, Daniel Wani, tried to visit his wife and newborn after the birth but was not allowed, Abdelnabi said.
Ibrahim, whose father was Muslim but whose mother was an Orthodox Christian from Ethiopia, was convicted of apostasy earlier this month and sentenced to death after a four-day “grace period” to repent had passed.
Ibrahim’s 20-month-old son, Martin, has been detained with her since late February. She will also nurse her newborn while in prison.
The court in Khartoum ruled earlier that Ibrahim must give birth and nurse her baby for two years before being executed, but must receive 100 lashes for adultery immediately after having her baby — for having relations with her Christian husband. Ibrahim could have spared herself death by hanging simply by renouncing her faith.
LAHORE, Pakistan – A pregnant woman was stoned to death Tuesday by her own family outside a courthouse in the Pakistani city of Lahore for marrying the man she loved.
The woman was killed while on her way to court to contest an abduction case her family had filed against her husband. Her father was promptly arrested on murder charges, police investigator Rana Mujahid said, adding that police were working to apprehend all those who participated in this "heinous crime."
Arranged marriages are the norm among conservative Pakistanis, and hundreds of women are murdered every year in so-called honor killings carried out by husbands or relatives as a punishment for alleged adultery or other illicit sexual behavior.
Stonings in public settings, however, are extremely rare. Tuesday's attack took place in front of a crowd of onlookers in broad daylight. The courthouse is located on a main downtown thoroughfare.
A police officer, Naseem Butt, identified the slain woman as Farzana Parveen, 25, and said she had married Mohammad Iqbal, 45, against her family's wishes after being engaged to him for years.
Replies
Yeah, the Democrats are so much in love with the rich, even Forbes acknowledged it in 2014.
Forbes 1/08/2014 @ 2:42PM 14,633 views
How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?
Warren Buffett with President Obama (Photo credit: Medill DC)
If you brought back either of the Roosevelts—Teddy or Franklin—from the grave, the most astonishing thing they would find is that the “malefactors of great wealth” have become the benefactors of today’s liberalism, and Democrats have become the party of the rich. In the economic crisis of the 1930s, the rich hated FDR. Most of today’s rich love Barack Obama—so much so that Washington D.C. area airports ran out of space to handle all of the private jets flying in the well-heeled for both of his inaugurals. Forget the “limousine liberals” of the 1960s and 1970s, sending their own kids to private schools while advocating forced busing for everyone else; behold today’s burgeoning class of “Gulfstream liberals,” who jet about the globe while fretting about global warming.
What accounts for this astonishing state of affairs, and what does it mean for our politics in this age of supposed concern over economic inequality?
To be sure, labor unions (along with trial lawyers) still provide the majority of the Democratic Party’s campaign funds and organizational muscle on election day, but it is the super rich of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, combined with the super rich of Hollywood, who command the priority attention of Democratic Party leaders these days. Of the ten richest zip codes in the U.S. eight gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last two presidential cycles. President Obama doesn’t go to union halls to host fundraisers; he goes to posh Wall Street townhomes, the Hollywood hills, or to Tom Steyer’s house in Pacific Heights. Steyer, a billionaire investor and wannabe George Soros, is the perfect model of today’s rich liberal, and shows where the balance of power on the Left rests today. Organized labor wants the Keystone pipeline built; Steyer, who imbibes deeply the green Kool Aid, is adamantly against Keystone. Note who Obama is siding with.
Yes, but haven’t many of the leading plutocrats, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, embraced higher income taxes? Yes, they have, but one important fact has escaped notice: higher income tax rates will not touch the bulk of the fortunes of today’s plutocrats, for the simple reason that the great bulk of the accumulated wealth of Gates, Buffett, Silicon Valley and Wall Street consists of appreciated asset values—not ordinary income. Few seem to be aware that most of this wealth has never been taxed, and in the case of Buffett and Gates, who are taking advantage of the charitable foundation laws, will never be taxed. Even a return to Paul Krugman’s nirvana of 90 percent marginal income tax rates of the 1950s would do little to reduce the wealth gap in the nation.
At a time when the Democratic Party is moving leftward, away from Bill Clinton’s relatively centrist economic outlook, what explains the growth in the ranks of super-rich liberals? (Or, to flip the Thomas Frank title, what’s the matter with Connecticut?) It is worth noting that many of today’s leading liberal super-rich are not heirs of fortunes, like Stewart Mott and various Rockefellers of previous decades, whose liberalism could be attributed to personal guilt over unearned wealth. Most of today’s super rich liberals are financiers and entrepreneurs, like Google founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin. Liberal guilt is not entirely absent from the mindset of the new rich, as can be seen especially in the mindless mantra that the rich have an obligation to “give back,” as though they “took” something in creating wealth by serving the marketplace with dazzling innovations like computer software and internet marketplaces.
There are several parts to this story, but perhaps the most significant is the presumption of the new rich today that they’re simply smarter (look at how fast I got rich?, they think), and today’s elitist, technocratic liberalism appeals to their superficial intellectual vanity. As a one-time critic of the new super rich once put it, “they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured with a high SAT score.” (That critic was Barack Obama, in The Audacity of Hope.)
The dependence—if not slavishness—of Democrats on the new super rich is best revealed by the dog that isn’t barking in the current liberal crusade against economic inequality: where is the call for a straight up wealth tax? Where is today’s Huey Long, who in 1935 proposed that no one should be allowed to keep any wealth beyond $50 million—or perhaps, he suggested, only $10 million. Whatever the figure, Long said, “it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond that point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses.”
Where is the voice of Huey Long in today’s supposedly populist liberalism? Long’s $50 million wealth limit, adjusted for inflation, would be about $850 million today—still more than anyone could spend in a lifetime. But not even Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders will go there. (The only person who has mooted the idea so far, ironically enough, is the quixotic and still befuddled David Stockman.) Why not? Probably because any such proposal would make Republicans out of the Hollywood and Silicon Valley crowd in a big hurry. The scene is another good reminder of the hypocrisy of modern liberalism.
Oh the irony...one name...Mitt Romoney! Every con 1%er's W-dream for president. LOL
Oh and can you say...Koch's and Murdoch's?
They're all on "the winning team" as well, along with Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, AND Oprah Winfrey.
the same ding dongs managed to steer the conversation here away from the insane sharia dorks
lol
Yep, that's the truth, Feather!
The truth hurts.
nice one Feathers.......lol
Good one Featherwinger. This one is funny also:
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next