Thursday, August 8, 2013

Boyfriend 'kidnaps and killed girlfriend's baby boy because child was interfering with his relationship'

Boyfriend 'kidnaps and killed girlfriend's baby boy because child was interfering with his relationship'

  • Ummad Rushdi, 30, has been charged with kidnapping and false imprisonment, accused of stealing his girlfriend's 7-month-old baby
  • Police say they think Rushdi killed the child, but no body has been found
  • Rushdi and Hamza's mother have known each other for three weeks
  • Child went missing Sunday but mother didn't report him missing until Tuesday night
By Daily Mail Reporter
Jealous: Police says Ummad Rushdi, 30, was angry because his new girlfriend paid too much attention to her baby
Jealous: Police says Ummad Rushdi, 30, was angry because his new girlfriend paid too much attention to her baby

A Pennsylvania man has been arrested and accused of stealing his girlfriend 7-month-old boy from his crib and killing him because he was 'interfering' with the boyfriend's relationship with the mother.
Police say Ummad Rushdi, 30, killed little Hamza Ali at Rushdi's parents' house in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, on Sunday. He then took the baby's body to a rural road, where he buried it.
Authorities believe Rushdi harmed Hamza because he believed the child was standing in the way of Rushdi's one-month relationship with the baby's mother Zainib Gaal.
Miss Gaal told officers she had known Rushdi for three weeks.
Despite extensive searches outside York and Columbia, Pennsylvania, police have not found the body of little Hamza.
However, they fear the worst.
'We don't know where Hamza Ali is,' Upper Darby police superintendent Michael Chitwood told the Philadelphia Inquirer.
'We hope Hamza is alive. We don't believe Hamza is alive.'
Rushdi was arrested early Wednesday and charged with kidnapping, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, interference with custody of a child and endangering the welfare of a child.
When police apprehended him at his home in York, they found with him with knife, a pair of handcuffs and $800.
Tragic: Police believe Hamza Ali, aged just seven months, was killed by his mother's boyfriend
Tragic: Police believe Hamza Ali, aged just seven months, was killed by his mother's boyfriend. However, the baby's body has not been found

Miss Gaal told officers she demanded to know where her son was when she awoke Sunday and found him missing. 
However, she did not report Hamza missing until Tuesday because Rushdi's brother told her Rushdi had taken the infant boy to visit her parents in Maine. 
For three days she waited for word on her child.
On Tuesday night, Rushdi's brother called said told her, 'Something very bad had happened to the baby,' Chitwood told the Delaware County Daily Times reports.
It was then that she phoned police.
Police believe that Rushdi had beaten the infant just days before. Miss Gaal said she wanted to take Hamza to the hospital to have his shoulder examine, but Rusdhi and his family convinced her to treat the child at home instead.



, , , , , , , , ,
Federal Court Indicts President Obama Will not see end of his second term!
On January 25th, 2013 , Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well respected journalist and political activist received word from his sources within the United States government that President Barack Hussein Obama has been indicted by a Federal Court. Details of the indictment has been omitted by Larouche but he characterized them as probably the greatest indictment he has ever seen placed upon a standing president throughout history.

Hagel Forecasts Massive Cuts to Troop Numbers it is time to arest obama before more people die when will you wake up and see our troops are lambs lead to the saughter

Hagel Forecasts Massive Cuts to Troop Numbers

Aug 01, 2013
Hagel speaking 600x400
The Army would shrink to 380,000 troops, the Marines Corps to 150,000. The Navy would lose three carriers, and the Air Force would begin mothballing its B-52 bomber fleet under a worst-case budget scenario outlined Wednesday by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
In addition, Tricare fees would go up, housing allowances would be slashed, pay raises would be scaled back, and commissary subsidies would be reduced, Hagel said -- unless Congress and the White House can agree to lift the sequestration deficit-reduction process that is projected to take $500 billion out of defense budgets over the next 10 years.
The re-balance of forces to the Pacific under the national defense strategy introduced by Preident Obama would also come under renewed scrutiny from the budget planners.
"We are committed to sustaining that effort in a significant way," a senior Pentagon official said of the so-called "Pacific pivot" to counter the rise of China. However, "it would be very challenging to implement that as conceived," he said.
Hagel and Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed at press briefing the findings of the Pentagon's Strategic Choices and Management Review after first consulting with Congressional leaders.
A guiding principle in the review was "maximizing the military's combat power by looking to reduce every other category of spending first," Hagel said. To that end, the review led by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter sought to make a "basic tradeoff" between the military's "capacity and capability," Hagel said.
The choice under the automatic budget cuts of sequestration came down to one between troops and new weapons systems, Hagel said. Defense leaders who led the review favored funding cyberwarfare, and such weapons systems as the F35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship over personnel.
"We did not find any particular capability that we could do away with" and still maintain overall combat power, a senior Pentagon official said at a later background briefing of the proposed new weapons systems.
Winnefeld said the review was the result of a "deep and very painful look into every corner of our institution."
"Nobody was very happy" with the outcome, he said.
Under sequestration, "we don't know how much money we're going to have," and "{we don't know what the rules are going to be when we do know."
Both Hagel and Winnefeld called on Congress to give the Pentagon more flexibility in implementing the cuts by pushing the more drastic reductions to the end of the 10-year cycle of cost-cutting that went into effect on March 1.
"Unless we can backload, all we can do is grab money wherever we can," Winnefeld said.
Hagel and Winnefeld also noted that the sequestration cuts were doubly painful, since they were coming on top of $487 billion in defense spending cuts that were already in place under the Budget Control Act.
In discussing the review, Hagel stressed that he was presenting "a menu of options and not a set of decisions." However, the menu appeared to fall particularly hard on the Army.
For more than a year, as the Iraq war ended and Afghanistan was winding down, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, has been warning that sequester might force him to cut troop strength below the cut from 570,00 soldiers to 490,000, which was already underway.
The review said that the number of soldiers in the Army could fall as low as 380,000, but a senior Pentagon official said later that the troop strength would more likely fall in the range of about 450,00.
The Marine Corps, which now has slightly more than 200,000 troops, had been projected to come down to about 182,000, but the defense leaders outlining the review said the number could be as low as 150,000
Hagel said the number of aircraft carriers in the Navy might have to drop from the current 11 to eight, and he also said that the Air Force would have to retire older bombers and slash the number of tactical squadrons.
Even with the proposed cutbacks, the savings projected by the review would not be generated quickly enough to meet the demands of sequester, and "we will be forced to take even more draconian steps in the future," Hagel said.
Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the review was shortsighted, but "what it does make clear is what I've been cautioning all along -- further cuts will cause catastrophic readiness shortfalls."
"We will lose our workforce and ability to recruit and retain the all volunteer force and our influence around the world will diminish," McKeon said in a statement.
Hagel concluded his briefing with another plea to Congress to lift the burden of sequestration on the military.
"It is the responsibility of our nation's leadership to work together to replace the mindless and irresponsible policy of sequestration," Hagel said.
"It is unworthy of the service and sacrifice of our nation's men and women in uniform and their families," Hagel said. "Even as we confront tough fiscal realities, our decisions must always be worthy of the sacrifices we ask America's sons and daughters to make for our country."

Related Topics

Richard Sisk Sequestration and the Military Chuck Hagel

Breaking News – U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office

The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

Breaking News – U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office

19 Votes

Official photographic portrait of US President...
ts Official: Obama Impeachment Starts Here…

 U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office. The charges present…ed are detailed and damning. The indictments assert that President Obama “acted as a dictator” to exceed his powers of office to appoint officials behind the back of Congress during a recess period.
Via: Diana Nottingham In a staggering announcement an Associated Press report declared: “President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.”
Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well-connected journalist and political activist characterized the court’s assessment as “probably the greatest indictment ever seen on a standing president throughout history.” White House press secretary Jay Carney reacted strongly against the charges declaring, “we believe that the president’s recess appointments are constitutionally sound.” However, the federal court seems to disagree having put in place ” a list of charges presented as conclusions” according to Larouche.
The court appears to take the view that no such recess was in place. As such, the president was in violation of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution that stipulates that a president cannot make appointments without the consent of the Senate. The failed Obama gambit had hoped to apply the section of the Constitution that reads: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
The Washington Post reports on the seriousness of this abuse of office, “is more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role. It is a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers and the duty of comity that the executive owes to Congress.” Crucially, no other president in history has ever tried to force through such alleged “ recess appointments” while Congress is still in session.
The offenses occurred last year when President Obama opted to bypass Congress and unilaterally appoint three people to seats on the National Labor Relations Board . He also made Richard Cordray (pictured with Obama) head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (after the Senate blocked action on his nomination). Cordray’s appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate court case.
Lyndon Larouche has characterized the events as probably the worst violation by any sitting president trying to use a “procedural loophole.” Jubilant Republicans are already looking to set in motion impeachment proceedings. Larouche, who studied the court indictments, believes Obama’s offenses are “far graver” than those that led to the impeachment and removal from office of disgraced Republican president, Richard Nixon, after the Watergate scandal.