Meriam Ibrahim Has Been Released From Government Custody Again

CBN News is reporting today that Meriam Ibrahim has been released from government custody again in Sudan.

The article reports:

“She was seized at the airport by the National Intelligence and Security Services of Sudan who do not answer to criminal courts – they are outside the judicial system,” Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, said.

Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, says the Sudanese government has assured the U.S. that the family has now been released again. Harf said U.S. officials are continuing to work on getting them out of the country.

…The 27-year-old Ibrahim was originally sentenced to 100 lashes and execution by hanging because the government says her father was a Muslim. Therefore, under Islamic law known as Sharia, she’s not allowed to become a Christian, even though she contends she was never a Muslim in the first place.

It is becoming obvious that Mrs. Ibrahim will not be safe until she is out of Sudan. It is also quite possible that radical Muslims will be a threat to her safety if she comes to America. However, the right thing to do is to bring her, her husband and her children here and put them in the witness protection program to protect their identity. Sharia Law is nasty, and many Muslims believe in it. They believe that they would be serving their god by killing this woman because she is a Christian. Many years ago I knew someone who left an abusive Muslim husband and was put into the witness protection program to avoid an Honor Killing–her brother had vowed to kill her in the name of allah. Sharia Law is not something we want to allow in America.

Why We Need American Influence Around The World

Yesterday freedom-loving people in the world rejoiced because a Sudanese court annulled the death sentence of Meriam Ibrahim, who was in jail with her children for marrying a Christian and for “abandoning” the Muslim faith.. Unfortunately, the joy at her release was short-lived.

CBN News is reporting today that she was re-arrested Tuesday at the international airport in Khartoum while trying to leave the country.

The article reports:

The case drew outrage from the international community. Protesters recently gathered outside the White House to demand action by the Obama administration.

“She and the children should be reunited at home with her family rather than held in prison on charges of apostasy,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, calling Sudan to repeal it’s anti-human rights laws.
He also suggested that Sudan repeal any Islamic laws that go against basic human rights.
Meanwhile, the American Center for Law and Justice is calling Ibrahim’s arrest a “deeply troubling” development.

“The decision to take the entire family into custody is a violation of international law and we call on Sudan to release them without delay,”  ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow said in a statement.

This is the face of Sharia Law. This is what Muslims (even some ‘moderate’ Muslims) want to bring to America. Make no mistake, Sharia Law and religious freedom cannot co-exist. If you like your religion, you cannot keep it under Sharia Law. Americans need to stand strong for human rights in our own country and for people around the world. We need to exert a lot of pressure on Sudan for the treatment of this woman–her husband is an American citizen and her children are American citizens. Is American citizenship worth anything right now?

Is This Something We Really Want To Do?

CBN News posted a story today about the Obama Administration’s plan to give up control of the internet.

The article reports:

America has always been the main player in managing the World Wide Web. Even conservatives who typically want to limit the role of government say it’s an example of Washington doing something well.

“It’s a very relaxed control, which is why I think we’ve seen the Internet grow to be an incredible voice of freedom, not just in the United States, but around the world,” Jordan Sekulow, with the American Center for Law and Justice, told CBN News.

In the late 1990s, the Commerce Department formed a nonprofit agency called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, which governs the system that assigns website addresses and directs Internet traffic.

The Obama Administration has stated that as a result of the activities of Edward Snowden, America has been under international pressure to give up control of the internet.

The article points out that Russia and China are waiting to fill the vacuum if America gives up control and that eventually the internet would fall under the control of a U.N. organization called the “International Telecommunications Union.” This could easily result in the end of free speech on the internet or a curtailing of business activity.

The article further reports:

Congress is considering two actions. The first delays the transfer of control and the second requires congressional approval before the Obama administration can act.

There’s also bipartisan concern. Even former President Bill Clinton thinks the administration’s plans are a bad idea.

“A lot of people who have been trying to take this authority away from the United States wanted to do it for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empower their people,” Clinton said.

President Clinton is right. This may be the first and last time I agree with him, but he is right.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Foxes Continue To Investigate Recent Disappearances In The Chicken Coop

Yesterday CNS News reported that Cleta Mitchell, an attorney representing nine tea party groups who were targeted by the IRS, told CNSNews that she has not yet heard from the FBI investigators.

The article also reports:

American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) Executive Director Jordan Sekulow, whose organization now represents 41 tea party groups in a case against the IRS, told that they, too, are waiting to hear anything pertaining to the investigation.

“To date, none of our clients or any of our attorneys has been contacted by the FBI. The Director continues to assert that this is a priority for the Bureau, but at this point, there’s little evidence to suggest that this probe is on the fast track,” Mr. Sekulow wrote. “There has been no contact with any of the 41 conservative organizations we represent – the real victims of this IRS targeting scheme. Our expanded lawsuit continues to move forward.”

Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots stated that the network of Tea Party groups that were targeted by the IRS have not been contacted by the FBI either.

I wonder how much of the taxpayers’ money the FBI is spending on this investigation. The thing to remember here is the precedent. If those working at the higher levels of our government begin to target American citizens without fear of repercussions, we will soon find ourselves in a state where freedom of speech and freedom to protest are a distant memory.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Looks Innocent But It Isn’t

CBN News reported today on U.N. Resolution 16/18, a U.N. Resolution supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The resolution sounds very practical until you examine it closely. The resolution seeks to limit freedom of speech when dealing with Islam.

The Center for Security Policy reports:

The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UN Human Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam.  That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ twelve-year campaign to “prohibit and criminalize” such defamation in accordance with the “blasphemy laws” that are part of the totalitarian doctrine they call shariah.

Then, as more and more of the Free World began awakening to the danger posed by such efforts to compel them to submit to shariah, Team Obama helped engineer a new document at the Human Rights Council.  Adopted in March, Resolution 16/18 focused, instead of banning defamation, on getting the world’s nations to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization, and  discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  

The countries in the OIC that are sponsoring this are countries where a person can be put to death for converting to Christianity or encouraging anyone else to become a Christian. Do we really believe that they are for preventing discrimination based on religion?

The article at CBN reports:

Sekulow (Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice) says his organization is fighting to keep the resolution from becoming adopted because it could backfire and be broadly misinterpreted country by country.

“Just the building of churches … having a cross outside your door can be inciting violence,” Sekulow explained.

“So if you let them define these definitions when there is no problem coming from the minority faiths, this is somehow going to ‘green light’ their suppression,” he added.   

We need to remember that freedom of religion is not a right in many countries around the world. Letting a group of countries where freedom of religion does not exist pass a law about religious discrimination is simply not smart–the intentions of those countries may be very different than the intentions of the countries in the world where all faiths are welcome.

Enhanced by Zemanta