A group of Muslims in Libya abducted a Christian nurse from her home then repeatedly gang raped her only days after a Christian construction worker was beheaded in Benghazi for not being a Muslim.
Shoebat reports that a gang of six Muslim men pulled a Filipino nurse from her home and repeatedly gang raped her in Libya’s capitol, Tripoli.
The group of thugs snatched the woman on Wednesday then took her to an unknown location, where six men repeatedly assaulted her, according to the foreign affairs spokesman for the Philippines, Charles Jose.
As a result of the woman’s rape, the Filipino government has called for the evacuation of all 13,000 of its citizens in Libya, which has seen a massive increase in violence over the last few months. In fact, just days prior to the woman’s rape, a Christian Filipino construction worker was beheaded by Muslim savages amid allegations he wasn’t a Muslim.
“We condemn these crimes that have been committed against our people,” President Benigno Aquino’s spokesman Herminio Coloma said in Manila.
As Shoebat points out, the reason such horrific crimes are being committed against the Filipino people is because of their Catholic faith.
“From the Reconquista to the Crusades, the Catholic Church was, and is still, the primary enemy of the Muslim heresy.”
The very people that Obama has been aiding and abetting have been perpetrating theses heinous acts on non-Muslims, and they’re going unchecked. Meanwhile, the United Nations is looking to prosecute the Israelis for “war crimes” due to Palestinian casualties while defending themselves from the animalistic extremists that make up Hamas.
It’s mind-boggling that anybody could ever expect peace with people who are so blinded by their ideology, yet repeatedly their actions are excused or widely ignored while those who speak out against them are demonized as “Islamophobic.” If speaking out against disgusting and barbaric acts such as this makes us Islamophobic, then we should all wear the label with pride.
A mother is irate after discovering that her daughter’s school had given her an implant under her skin without parental consent nearly a year after the procedure had taken place.
Bernadette Jessop was informed by her daughter, Layla Rylands, that she had been fitted for a contraceptive implant at her school, Ashwell Academy in England. The implant had been injected a mere four days after the young girl’s thirteenth birthday.
As any parent would be, Bernadette was furious upon hearing the news. She believes her daughter is too young for a contraceptive procedure to have taken place without her prior consent.
According to Hull Daily Mail, “The implant, a small rod that is inserted under the skin of the upper arm after a local anaesthetic has been applied, releases hormones into the body to prevent pregnancy.”
“The school asked me not long ago for my consent for her to watch a film about sex. I didn’t give my consent until I knew what the film contained, yet I don’t get the chance to give my consent for her to get the implant?” Bernadette explained. “When I found out I felt sick. At the end of the day, I’m her mum, and at that age, it is wrong.”
Apparently, sexual health workers visit schools in the Bransholme area to give contraceptive advice to teenagers. If a student is deemed “competent,” they are allowed to give the okay for the procedure without parental consent.
The only problem is the school Layla attends is for students with “complex academic and social needs.”
“Layla is in that school because she has behavior problems,” explained the irate mother. “How can you deem a child with problems competent to make that decision?”
Bernadette believes her daughter was too young to not only make that type of decision, but was not at an appropriate age to be discussing contraceptive issues with anyone other than her family.
“In a moment of madness I said yes. If I was a parent and my daughter had it and I didn’t know, I would be furious, just like my mum,” explained Layla. “I do think parents should know, but I was afraid to say and I had signed a form that said it was confidential.”
The only response the school has offered is that “the academy has a duty of care towards its students, some of whom are extremely vulnerable, and their health and well-being is of the highest concern to us.”
If the school needs to get consent from the parents to show a student an educational film about sex, it seems that implanting something into a teenager would also require a consent form. Bernadette has a right to be irate — as well as any other parents who are unaware of the school’s influence in their child’s contraceptive choices.
U.S. military leaders have expressed reservations about any move to lift the Pentagon’s ban on transgender people serving in the armed forces, an issue since Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s suggestion that he is open to the idea, officials say.
Carter told troops in Afghanistan that he was open-minded when asked if the Defense Department was planning to remove one of the last gender- or sexuality-based barriers to military service. But some defense officials have said they have broad concerns about the impact of such a change.
The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Much of the opposition centers on questions of where transgender troops would be housed, what berthing they would have on ships, which bathrooms they would use and whether their presence would affect the ability of small units to work well together.
There also are questions about whether the military would conduct or pay for the medical treatment and costs associated with any gender transition, as well as which physical training standards the troops would be required to meet.
The military has dealt with similar questions as it has integrated the ranks by race, gender and sexual orientation. And in many cases comparable worries have been raised, including whether the changes would hinder small units that often have to work together in remote, confined locations for long periods of time.
Transgender people, who believe their gender identity is different from the one they were born with — and who sometimes take hormone treatments or have surgery to change — are banned from military service. But studies and surveys estimate 15,000 transgender people serve in the active duty military and the reserves, often in secret but in many cases with the knowledge of their unit commanders or peers.
Carter, who became Pentagon chief just five weeks ago, told troops in Afghanistan last month that the key question should be: “Are they going to be excellent service members? And I don’t think anything but their suitability for service should preclude them.”
What he didn’t know at the time was that one of the troops in attendance was a transgender individual who is serving with the full knowledge of the person’s commander.
People familiar with the event would not identify the transgender service member or say if that person met or had a photograph taken with the secretary, saying it could put the person’s job in jeopardy.
That transgender service member lives in barracks for that person’s chosen gender identity, not the one listed on the troop’s identification card, said Allyson Robinson, policy director for an association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender military personnel called Service members, Partners, and Allies for Respect and Tolerance for All, or SPARTA. Robinson said the person is “acknowledged as one of the top performers in the unit,” and is known to be a transgender individual by others in the unit.
The transgender issue has come to the fore as the military has struggled with how to deal with convicted national security leaker Chelsea Manning’s request for hormone therapy and other treatment for her gender dysphoria while she’s in prison. Manning, arrested as Bradley Manning, is the first transgender military prisoner to request such treatment, and the Army recently approved the hormone therapy, under pressure from a lawsuit.
WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the best-known military commander of his generation, has reached a plea deal with the Justice Department and admitted providing his highly classified journals to a mistress when he was the director of the C.I.A.
Mr. Petraeus has agreed to plead guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor. He is eligible for up to one year in prison, but prosecutors will recommend a sentence of probation for two years and a $40,000 fine.
The plea deal completes a spectacular fall for Mr. Petraeus, a retired four-star general who was once discussed as a possible candidate for vice president or even president. He led the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was the architect of a counterinsurgency strategy that at one time seemed a model for future warfare.
But the deal also ends two years of uncertainty and allows Mr. Petraeus to focus on his lucrative post-government career as a partner in a private equity firm and a worldwide speaker on national security issues. Even while under investigation, he has advised the White House on Iraq and terrorism issues.
The mistress, Paula Broadwell, is a former Army Reserve officer who had an affair with Mr. Petraeus in 2011, when she was interviewing him for a biography, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.”
During one of the interviews for that book, Ms. Broadwell asked about his “black books,” the notebooks that contained handwritten classified notes about official meetings, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and the names of covert officers.
“They are highly classified, some of them,” Mr. Petraeus replied, according to an excerpt from the taped interviewincluded in court documents. Three weeks later, Mr. Petraeus emailed Ms. Broadwell and agreed to share the black books. He gave them to her the next day.
When questioned by the F.B.I., Mr. Petraeus denied providing Ms. Broadwell with classified information. “These statements were false,” federal prosecutors wrote. “Defendant David Howell Petraeus then and there knew that he previously shared the black books with his biographer.” A lawyer for Mr. Petraeus did not respond to a message seeking comment.
Mr. Petraeus resigned as the director of the C.I.A. in 2012, three days after President Obama was re-elected. At the time, Mr. Petraeus acknowledged the affair, but denied any criminal wrongdoing.
The plea deal spares Mr. Petraeus a high-profile trial where embarrassing details about the affair would have been presented to the jury and made public. Mr. Petraeus is still married to Holly Petraeus.
Mr. Petraeus received most of his accolades for his service in Iraq. He was credited with directing the so-called surge of American forces in 2007 that pushed militants of Al Qaeda, who had taken control of several major cities and provinces, out of the country, stabilizing Iraq and allowing thewithdrawal of all American forces about five years later.
In 2010, Mr. Obama asked Mr. Petraeus to attempt the same feat in Afghanistan, where the Taliban had gained significant territory. His counterinsurgency measures at that time had some success, but not nearly as much as in Iraq. Nevertheless, he was revered by members of both parties, and in 2011, Mr. Obama tapped him to lead the C.I.A.
Since leaving the C.I.A., the globe-trotting Mr. Petraeus has carved out a lucrative life for himself as a partner in Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, one of New York’s wealthiest — and most secretive — private equity firms, and also in academia and as a paid public speaker. He has taught at some of the nation’s most prestigious universities, and is a visiting scholar at Harvard.
“The broader nation needs his advice, and I think it’s been evident that people still want to hear from him,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. “People are forgiving and know he made a mistake. But he’s also a national hero and a national resource.”
Mr. Petraeus’s friends and allies have been highly critical of the Justice Department for keeping the investigation open so long. Republicans in Congress accused Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. of using the investigation to silence Mr. Petraeus. On the other side, some investigators were privately critical of the Justice Department for not moving more aggressively against Mr. Petraeus, particularly when Mr. Holder has led a crackdown on government officials who reveal secrets to journalists.
F.B.I. agents discovered the affair as they investigated cyberstalking allegations that had been made by Jill Kelley, one of Mr. Petraeus’s friends. Ms. Kelley, of Tampa, Fla., told the F.B.I. that an anonymous person had been sending her threatening emails that told her to stay away from Mr. Petraeus.
The agents determined that the emails were coming from Ms. Broadwell. As they investigated Ms. Broadwell, they learned of the affair and found evidence that Mr. Petraeus had shared classified information with her.
Despite the affair and reports that the F.B.I. and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended charges against him, several senators continued to support him.
In a letter to Mr. Holder in December, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the investigation had robbed the United States of its most experienced military leader. On Tuesday, Mr. McCain said in a statement that it was time to consider the matter closed.
“At a time of grave security challenges around the world,” Mr. McCain wrote, “I hope that General Petraeus will continue to provide his outstanding service and leadership to our nation, as he has throughout his distinguished career.”
In the days after Mr. Petraeus resigned in 2012, Mr. Obama appeared to clear him of any significant wrongdoing. At Mr. Obama’s first news conference after being re-elected, the president said he had no evidence that Mr. Petraeus had disclosed classified information “that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security.”
“We are safer because of the work that Dave Petraeus has done,” Mr. Obama said, referring to his career in government. “And my main hope right now is — is that he and his family are able to move on and that this ends up being a single side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career.”
But while the disclosures may not have directly affected national security, the F.B.I. found that they amounted to a significant security breach — especially because they had been committed by the C.I.A. director.
While the details were salacious — a love affair that toppled the career of a national icon — Mr. Petraeus is far from the first high-ranking official accused of mishandling classified information. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was admonished but not charged in 2008 for keeping information about the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program at his house.
John M. Deutch, the C.I.A. director from May 1995 to December 1996, lost his security clearances but was not charged for keeping government secrets on his home computer. Samuel R. Berger, a former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in 2005 to a misdemeanor and paid a $50,000 fine for removing classified documents from the National Archives.
But Mr. Petraeus received a light penalty compared with others caught up in Mr. Holder’s crackdown on leaks. Stephen J. Kim, a contractor, received a yearlong prison sentence for disclosing classified information to a reporter for Fox News. A former F.B.I. bomb technician, Donald Sachtleben, received nearly four years in prison for discussing classified information with The Associated Press. And Jeffrey A. Sterling, a former C.I.A. officer, faces the possibility of a lengthy prison term for talking about classified information with a reporter for The New York Times.
Alabama official ordered to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
A federal judge in Alabama on Thursday ordered a probate judge in Mobileto begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but it remains unclear how broadly her order will apply in a state that is still largely in a defiant posture concerning same-sex marriages.
United States District Judge Callie Granade ordered Don Davis, the probate judge in Mobile, to open his office and start issuing licenses.
“Probate Judge Don Davis is hereby enjoined from refusing to issue marriage licenses to plaintiffs due to the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriages,” the judge wrote in an eight-page order.
“If plaintiffs take all steps that are required in the normal course of business as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license to opposite-sex couples, Judge Davis may not deny them a license,” Judge Granade said.
The action comes amid a week of conflicting legal arguments, confusion, and open defiance among officials in Alabama after a ruling by Judge Granade striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriages took effect on Monday.
Despite the ruling, most of the state’s probate judges, who issue marriage licenses in each county, are refusing to begin providing licenses to gay men and lesbians wishing to marry. Some simply closed their offices and refused to issue any licenses at all.
In contrast, probate judges in 23 Alabama counties voluntarily started issuing licenses without regard to the sexual orientation of applicants.
Those refusing to issue licenses have cited an order issued by Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore the day before the federal ruling was to take effect.
On Sunday, Chief Justice Moore ordered Alabama probate judges to uphold Alabama law, rather than the federal decision.
The chief justice noted that the federal lawsuit challenging Alabama’s marriage laws named the state’s attorney general, Luther Strange, as the sole defendant. He said the federal courts had no jurisdiction to order any probate judge to comply with its decision, since no probate judge was named as a defendant in the underlying lawsuit.
Lawyers for four same-sex couples in Mobile sought to correct that deficiency on Monday by amending their complaint to include Davis as a defendant.
With Davis as a defendant in the lawsuit, Judge Granade on Thursday was able to exert jurisdiction over him and order him to begin issuing marriage licenses.
The legal gymnastics were necessary in part because the federal appeals court, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, has not yet ruled on the merits of Judge Granade’s decision. Such a ruling would establish binding precedent throughout all three federal districts in Alabama.
Granade’s decision last month invalidated Alabama’s marriage law and a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as “inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman.”
Granade concluded that Alabama’s marriage definition violated a fundamental right under the US Constitution for same-sex couples to marry. She also ruled that it violated their constitutional right to equal treatment.
Alabama officials had asked both the appeals court and the US Supreme Court to stay the decision until the merits of the case should be litigated – or at least until the US Supreme Court decides four pending same-sex marriage cases raising the same issues.
Both the appeals court and the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay.
Judge Granade’s injunction only applies to Davis. It is possible that other same-sex couples will have to file lawsuits naming other probate judges as defendants to force them to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
It also possible that state officials may recognize that Judge Granade’s decision is based on an interpretation of the US Constitution, which binds all public officials – state, local and national. In that sense, probate judges may voluntarily comply with the principles expressed in Granade’s decision.
“Today’s ruling by Judge Granade provides clear direction to Judge Davis and other probate judges and will help ensure that all same-sex couples in Alabama, regardless of where they live, have the freedom to marry,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, in a statement.
According to the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, on Thursday afternoon prior to the ruling, 23 county probate judges were issuing marriages licenses to all couples, 18 were only issuing licenses to heterosexual couples, and 26 – including Mobile – were refusing to issue any licenses.
Granade’s order should, at a minimum, reduce that last number from 26 to 25.
Feminist Aborts Baby For Being A Boy, Shocked People Don’t Approve
Sex-selecting abortions are nothing new, they happen all the time in China, for example. While they undoubtedly happen in the United States, people don’t brag about them. At least they didn’t.
It’s hard to believe this is real, but according to the website “Injustice Stories,” a woman named Lana, a self-described feminist, boasted of aborting her baby because it was a boy. Then, after making that declaration, claims to be shocked that some people might have a problem with that.
Lana, who only uses her first name, appears to be a child of privilege. She boasts of involvement in “fighting for women’s rights” being all-consuming, “even to the point of eschewing a career.” Yet that lack of a career hasn’t stopped her from travelling to “many different places” to continue that “fight.
She tells the story of a flight to an Occupy Wall Street event in San Francisco where she screamed “Assault” because the man sitting next to her said “B******* like you need to learn their place.”
Putting the unlikeliness of that exchange aside, Lana then demanded to be moved to another seat. That’s when she was told the only empty seats were “both back in economy.” At which point she demanded the man be moved.
When the flight attendants came running, one of whom was male, they refused to force the man to move because he hadn’t done anything. Lana, regretfully, relented and, in tears, moved herself.
The encounter left her “having felt as though I had been verbally and emotionally raped.”
That flight, according to Lana, left her forever changed. “By the time we landed, my outlook had changed, I could no longer depend on men to be an ally of the cause,” she wrote.
Lana was pregnant at the time, and thought she “had a good idea” who the father, or as she puts it, “the donator” happened to be. She was convinced she was having a girl because, well, she wanted a girl. Or at least a baby with a vagina, the “gender” part would be up to the child. “I had already started buying gender neutral clothing since I did not want outside influences affecting what gender she would ultimately become,” she writes.
After researching all-girl daycares and schools with the plan to make sure that “No man will be around to hurt her progress, no boys there to demean her or call her names,” Lana got horrible news from her doctor – her baby had a penis.
She spent the next two days in fit of crying rage. How could this happen to her? She says, “My home became my prison and my fetus became my warden.”
Within a few days she had aborted the baby. “My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong,” Lana claims. “I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good.”
Lana informs readers that she is now the mother of “a beautiful 1 year old female who will hopefully grow up to be just as strong and driven as her mother.”
She ends her post with:
I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male.
I don’t hate men, I hate the patriarchy, what men, and even some women, turn into, I wasn’t going to let that happen with my offspring. The chances were greater that it would with a male, it was unacceptable.
If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.
The backlash was immediate, and harsh. Lana, much to her shock, was on the receiving end of negative comments and even death threats.
At the request of the editors of the website, Lana returned to answer critics. She was as unrepentant the second time as she was the first.
The NCAA said continuing the litigation would only delay the distribution of funds to sex abuse survivors.
“While others will focus on the return of wins, our top priority is on protecting, educating and nurturing young people,” said Harris Pastides, University of South Carolina president and member of the NCAA board.
The consent decree sprung from the scandal that erupted when Sandusky, a retired football assistant coach, was accused of sexually abusing boys, some of them on Penn State’s campus.
It had eliminated all wins from 1998 – when police investigated a mother’s complaint that Sandusky had showered with her son – through 2011, Paterno’s final season as head coach after six decades with the team and the year Sandusky was charged.
In September, the NCAA announced it was ending the school’s ban on post-season play and restored its full complement of football scholarships earlier than scheduled.
The restored wins include 111 under Paterno, who died in 2012, and the final victory of 2011, when the team was coached by defensive coach Tom Bradley. It returns Paterno’s record to 409-136-3.
The consent decree had also called for Penn State to provide $60 million to fight child abuse and combat its effects. The lawsuit scheduled for trial next month began as an effort by two state officials to enforce a state law that required the money to remain in Pennsylvania.
Under the settlement, the money will remain in Pennsylvania.
As part of the new proposal, Penn State acknowledges the NCAA acted in good faith.
“We acted in good faith in addressing the failures and subsequent improvements on Penn State’s campus,” said Kirk Schulz, chair of the NCAA board of governors. “We must acknowledge the continued progress of the university while also maintaining our commitment to supporting the survivors of child sexual abuse.”
The 2012 consent decree was signed by Penn State’s then-president, Rodney Erickson, a month after a jury convicted Sandusky and shortly after former FBI director Louis Freeh released the scathing results of a university-commissioned investigation into the Sandusky matter.
Its unprecedented penalties drew heated and sustained opposition by Penn State alumni and fans who argued the Freeh report was factually incorrect, defended Paterno’s handling of the Sandusky scandal, noted it punished people who had nothing to do with Sandusky and said that the school’s athletics program had been considered a national model.
In recent months, emails and other documents have been attached to court filings by the NCAA and the plaintiffs, state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman and state Treasurer Rob McCord.
In one, an NCAA official described its pursuit of the penalties as “a bluff” and said asserting jurisdiction would be “a stretch.” Other records documented that Penn State narrowly avoided a multi-year “death penalty” which would have suspended the college football powerhouse from playing at all.
Corman signed off on the proposal, the senator said at a news conference in Harrisburg.
“The fact of the matter was, an evil predator operated in our community for years and everyone missed it,” Corman said. “The NCAA has surrendered. The agreement we reached represents a complete victory for the issue at hand.”
Corman said that there was a lack of due process and the NCAA came in “with a heavy hand” to manipulate the process. “Clearly there was a rush to judgment,” he said.
McCord supports the agreement in principle, but he “intends to carry out a careful review of the details and language before he signs off,” said his spokesman Gary Tuma.
Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of 45 counts and he is now serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence. He maintains his innocence.
Paterno’s surviving family members and others had been pursuing another lawsuit over the consent decree. That lawsuit was narrowed by the judge so that it now includes the family, former assistant coaches Jay Paterno and Bill Kenney, and former trustee Al Clemens. Former players, faculty and trustees were removed as plaintiffs.
In a statement, Paterno’s family called the announcement of a potential settlement “a great victory for everyone who has fought for the truth in the Sandusky tragedy.”
They said: “This case should always have been about the pursuit of the truth, not the unjust vilification of the culture of a great institution and the scapegoating of coaches, players and administrators who were never given a chance to defend themselves.”
The incident took place in the city of Shangqiu, where 32-year-old Fan Lung used his wife’s cell phone to send an email to his lover, 21-year-old Zhang Hung. Unfortunately for Fan, he forgot to log out of his email before returning his wife’s phone.
Fan’s wife, 30-year-old Feng Lung, later came across the two-timing father-of-five’s message to his mistress along with a few other emails. As expected, she flew off the handle. In a fit of rage, the betrayed wife grabbed a pair of scissors, went into the room where her husband slept, and chopped off his penis.
Fan was taken to a hospital where surgeons reattached his member, but Feng wasn’t done with her husband yet. Shortly following the procedure, Fan’s wife sneaked into the hospital, located her husband, and once again separating his manhood from his body – this time throwing the appendage out the window.
As one could imagine, Fan didn’t take the assault too lightly and acted out. According to a hospital spokesman, “The first we were aware of what happened was when someone came into the reception area to say a naked man was beating up a woman outside the hospital.”
“Staff rushed out to see what was happening and found the patient with blood streaming down his legs hitting the woman,” he continued. “He was stopped and the woman was taken in for treatment, and then we discovered she had chopped his penis off again.”
Both doctors and police thoroughly searched the area for the man’s missing body part, but they came up empty. Those involved speculate it may have been taken by a stray dog or cat.
“The man had lost a lot of blood and was taken in for emergency surgery. He is now in a stable condition but is extremely emotionally distraught,” the hospital spokesman said.
Fan’s lover has since shown up to the hospital and is said to be caring for the injured man. Explaining that she plans to marry Fan as soon as they’re able to do so, she said, “It doesn’t matter that he’s lost his fertility, he has five children already.”
Upon being discharged from the hospital, Feng was arrested and charged with grievous bodily harm.
Also, the allegations against Acker certainly don’t constitute the first sordid teacher-sex tale to come out of the state of Alabama. The Yellowhammer State — with just under five million residents (a little over half the population of New York City) — seems to produce teacher-sex stories like so much kudzu. (PROOF: Alabama is the teacher-student sex capital of the USA)