Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Supreme Court Ruling Prompts FBI to Turn Off 3,000 Tracking Devices

Supreme Court Ruling Prompts FBI to Turn Off 3,000 Tracking Devices

A Supreme Court decision has caused a "sea change" in law enforcement, prompting the FBI to turn off nearly 3,000 Global Positioning System (GPS) devices used to track suspects, according to the agency's general counsel.
When the decision-U.S. v. Jones-was released at the end of January, agents were ordered to stop using GPS devices immediately and told to await guidance on retrieving the devices, FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann said in a recent talk at a University of San Francisco conference.  Weissmann said the court's ruling lacked clarity and the agency needs new guidance or it risks having cases overturned.
The Jones case stemmed from the conviction of night club owner Antoine Jones on drug charges. Law enforcement had used a variety of techniques to link him to co-conspirators in the case, including information gathered from a GPS device that was placed on a Jeep primarily used by Jones. Law enforcement had no valid warrant to place the device on the car.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a five-member majority, held that the installation and use of the device constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment based on trespass grounds. The ruling overturned Jones' conviction.
"It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case," Scalia wrote. "The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
It was a narrow ruling only directly impacting those devices that were physically placed on vehicles.
Weissmann said it wasn't Scalia's majority opinion that caused such turmoil in the bureau, but a concurring opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. Alito, whose opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, agreed with the Court's conclusion in the case but wrote separately because his legal reasoning differed from the majority.
Alito focused not on the attachment of the device, but the fact that law enforcement monitored Jones for about a month. Alito said "the use of longer-term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy."  He also suggested that Scalia's reliance on laws of trespass, will "provide no protection" for surveillance accomplished without committing a trespass.
"For example," Alito wrote, "suppose that the officers in the present case had followed respondent by surreptitiously activating a stolen vehicle detection system that came with the car when it was purchased?"
In his talk at a University of San Francisco Law Review Symposium, Weissmann suggested that Alito's concurrence means that several members of the court are concerned with long-term surveillance by technologies beyond GPS systems and that the FBI needs new guidance in order to ensure that evidence does not get thrown out.
"I just can't stress enough," Weissmann said, "what a sea change that is perceived to be within the department."
He said that after agents were told to turn off the devices, his office had to issue guidance on how some of the devices that had been used without a warrant could actually be retrieved. "We had to come up with guidance about you could locate [the devices] without violating the law," Weissmann said. "It wasn't obvious that you could turn it back on to locate it because now you needed probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do that."
Weissmann said the FBI is working on two memos for agents in the field. One seeks to give guidance about using GPS devices.  A second one targets other technologies beyond the GPS, because, Weissmann said, "there is no reason to think this is just going to end with GPS."
"I think the court did not wrestle with the problems their decision creates," Weissmann said. "Usually the court tends to be more careful about cabining its decisions" and offering useful guidance. But in the Jones opinion, he said, the court didn't offer much clarity or any bright line rules that would have been helpful to law enforcement.
"Guidance which consist of  'two days might be good, 30 days is too long' is not very helpful," Weissmann said.
Catherine Crump, and attorney with the ACLU, welcomed the court's ruling as a first step toward preserving privacy rights.
"Alito's concurrence concerned the FBI because if tracking someone's movements violates their privacy, that should be true no matter what technology the FBI uses," says Crump. "The FBI now needs to give guidance to agents in the field, and the Alito decision raises serious questions about the constitutionality of other ways of tracking suspects."
As for Antoine Jones, the man whose conviction was thrown out because of the ruling, the government has announced that it wants to retry Jones without using evidence obtained from the GPS device. The trial is expected to start in May. source:

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Maxine Waters: John Boehner and Eric Cantor are 'demons'

Maxine Waters: John Boehner and Eric Cantor are 'demons'

I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens. Don’t ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons. These are legislators who are destroying this country rather than bringing us together, creating jobs, making sure we have a good tax policy, bringing our jobs from back off-shore, incentivizing those who keep the jobs here. They are bringing down this country, destroying this country, because they’d rather do whatever they can do destroy this president rather than for the good of this country.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (AP Photo)
Fiery Congresswoman Maxine Waters called the GOP leadership of the House of Representatives "demons" in an address to California Democrats, which has now gone viral. In an attempt to rally her fellows Dems to "take back the House," she railed against John Boehner and Eric Cantor personally in what is sure to be a controversial clip. The Hill has more:
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), in video surfacing Wednesday, called Republican leaders House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor "demons" who are "destroying this country" last weekend in seeking to rally California Democrats to political action.
"We've got to take back the House," Waters told the crowd in the final moments of her speech to the California Democratic Convention.
She pointed to the display behind her as she continued: "I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens. Don't ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons. These are legislators who are destroying this country rather than bringing us together, creating jobs, making sure we have a good tax policy, bringing our jobs from back off-shore, incentivizing those who keep the jobs here. They are bringing down this country, destroying this country, because they'd rather do whatever they can do destroy this president rather than for the good of this country." source:

Saturday, February 4, 2012

A-Jad Plans New World Order

A-Jad's Fist of Doom
A-Jad's Fist of Doom

A-Jad Plans New World Order

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on 'like minded nations' to join him in forging the New World Order.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday said that Iran and like-minded nations needed to "define the New World Order system."

Ahmadinejad made his remarks at the inauguration ceremony of the International Conference on 'Hollywoodism and Cinema' in Tehran on Thursday.

"Nations loving justice and affection should define the new world system," he said.

During his speech, Ahmadinejad underlined the necessity for the start of a New World Order, and said the "justice-seeking nations should cooperate with each other to materialize this goal."

Tehran has campaigned to forge alliances not only with the modern plutocrat-dominated Russia, but Fidel Castro's Cuba, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. 

The 2nd international conference on 'Hollywoodism and Cinema' is widely regarded as a propaganda platform for the Islamic Republic to attack Western culture and perpetuate its regime.

The conference is being held as a sideline program of the 2012 Fajr International Film Festival.

The bombastic Ahmadinejad has repeatedly attacked Western nations and culture in the past year – accusing them of a growing and strange laundry list of alleged crimes and debaucheries – amid the ongoing row over Iran’s nuclear program. source:

"Hollywoodism and Cinema"    Sheyla Hershey is a Brazilian model who has enlarged her breasts to 38KKK making hers the biggest boobs in the world. MORE:

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Obama Presidency Challenged In Georgia Court Today: Ineligibility Evidence Submitted In Trial For The First Time ~ State Of Georgia January 26, 2012

Obama Presidency Challenged In Georgia Court Today: Ineligibility Evidence Submitted In Trial For The First Time ~ State Of Georgia January 26, 2012

The mainstream media appears to have been put under a “cone of silence” about the first court proceeding to enter into the record evidence that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president based on the Constitution’s requirement that that office be occupied only by a “natural-born citizen.”

Georgia administrative law judge Michael Malihi on Thursday heard evidence from a variety of witnesses on why the president’s name should not appear on the Georgia state ballot for the 2012 election.

Earlier in the month, the judge had issued a subpoena for the president to appear before his court to answer challenges to his eligibility as a candidate.

Georgia law permits the secretary of state and “any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state to challenge the qualifications of any candidate.

Michael Jablonski, attorney for Obama, attempted to have the subpoena quashed, arguing that taking the time to appear would “interrupt [Obama's] duties as president of the United States.”

While Thursday’s hearing was taking place, Obama was speaking to a group of UPS workers in Las Vegas, one of the states where he hopes to gain a vote advantage in the November election.

Following the judge’s refusal to drop the subpoena, the president’s lawyers stated they would ignore the subpoena and not participate in the proceedings.

Later, appearing on the Rachel Maddow show, Mike Berlon, Georgia Democratic Party chairman, defended the president’s actions, saying the case was much ado about nothing.

“This has been thoroughly and richly litigated for a long time, and every court that has looked at it has determined that the president is a citizen,” he said.

But the facts don’t support Berlon’s statement, as this week’s hearing marks the first time that the evidence against the president’s eligibility has been entered into any court record. The dozens of previous cases that have been brought against the president have been dismissed on technicalities such as “standing.”

It is also the first time arguments have been made that the president is ineligible based on his own statements.

The presidency is unique among all of the constitutionally held offices in that it requires the person holding the position to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a typical citizen of the U.S.

While the Constitution does not define the term “natural-born citizen,” many constitutional experts define it as the offspring of two citizen parents. The argument is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1875, Minor v. Happersett.

The ruling, which is one of the few cases addressing the issue of natural-born citizenship as opposed to a naturalized citizen, states:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Based on this standard, the birth certificate released by Obama proves he is not eligible as his father was a non-citizen who came from Kenya.

The hearing Thursday produced a wide range of evidence from experts testifying that the president’s birth certificate was a forgery to issues with his Social Security number, which does not match the president’s name in e-verify.

Regardless of political persuasion, a sitting U.S. president openly defying a court subpoena for a hearing at which evidence indicating he’s a usurper is entered into the record is newsworthy.

However, a look at mainstream media websites shows an almost total blackout.

CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC did not run any coverage on Thursday’s hearing, with the exception of some local affiliates in Atlanta. The Fox News Channel’s report was a day later.

WND contacted the news organizations asking for comment on why they did not believe the story was newsworthy, considering the precedents set in the hearing. At the time of this article’s publication, none chose to respond.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution was one of the few newspapers to cover the event; however, its coverage did not discuss the ramifications if the judge were to rule Obama ineligible to appear on the ballot.

The media blackout of the Georgia case is part of a continuing pattern of covering up serious discussion of the birth certificate issue.

During the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who refused to obey orders over concerns about the president’s eligibility, the media for the most part refused to cover the issue.

Stars and Stripes,, WND and a local reporter from Lakin’s home town were at the proceedings, however there was almost no representation by major media outlets.

Many retired officers who come out against the president’s eligibility, such as Maj. Gens. Jerry Curry and Paul Vallely, have also been ignored by media.

Media have also refused to report polls showing many Americans still have doubts about the president’s eligibility.

Just last month, a Democratic polling company’s survey indicated that a majority of Iowa caucus goers still did not believe the president was born in the United States.

Public Polling Policy released the results of a poll conducted Dec. 18, which showed that 52 percent of self-identified caucus goers either did not believe or were not sure the president was born in the U.S.

WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah also has been the subject of a media blackout over the issue.

Farah used to be a frequent guest on cable news shows, however once he made the decision to cover the constitutional issues of a president of the United States possibly being ineligible for the office, he became “persona non grata” on many of the same media outlets. source:

Friday, January 27, 2012

Poles protest Internet treaty Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA.

Poles protest Internet treaty

TO THE STREETS: Hundreds of people waged a street protest in Warsaw to oppose the Polish government's plan to sign an international copyright treaty known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA.

ONLINE COMPONENT: Several popular websites also shut down for an hour. Normal content was replaced with a statement about ACTA.

THE BACKDROP: Poland's support for the ACTA has sparked days of protest, including attacks on government sites, by groups that fear it could lead to online censorship. ACTA is aimed at protecting intellectual property and has wide support from producers of music, movies and goods enjoying copyright protections.

Conservative Beliefs, Low IQ, Linked to Racism

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

A new study finds that stupidity is the one constant factor behind racism. The report from Brock University in Ontario also said that people with low intelligence tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies.

Conservative Beliefs, Low IQ, Linked to Racism

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario.
- intergroup relations, prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination- personality and individual differences- immigration and intergroup threat- intergroup contact, intergroup friendships, and emotions (e.g., disgust, anxiety, empathy)My primary research interests examine intergroup processes related to prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. This overall focus can be broken down into several key areas of investigation. First, how has contemporary prejudice transformed itself from overt and direct bias to more subtle and indicrect forms? How can these subtle biases be detected and combated among otherwise well-meaning individuals? Second, to what extent do personality constructs such as authoritarianism and social dominance predict and shape the expression of prejudice and discrimination? Third, how does the perception of intergroup threat posed by immigrants, refugees, and outgroups generally exacerbate negative intergroup outcomes? What social and personal factors trigger intergroup anxiety, and what are its consequences?

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.
Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.
"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]
"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias
Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.
People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages
Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.
"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence.

"Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."
In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Simple viewpoints
Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts. source:

Gordon Hodson, the lead researcher, said that children with low intelligence demonstrated the same prejudiced attitudes as low intelligence adults. This causes a vicious cycle where hatred literally breeds hatred.
Hodson said that his research is attempting to find out why people are racist. Hodson said:
“Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood.”
The study, of course, will cause some controversy. Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia, told Live Science:
“They’ve pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics. When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it’s bound to upset somebody.”
Nosek says that several studies have connected right-wing ideals with racism, but why the relationship exists is still a bit of a mystery. Hodson believes that the question of intelligence could connect all three together.
Hodson did say, however, that his study does not conclude that all conservatives are ignorant racists. Hodson said:
“There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals.”
According to the study, people with low IQs may be drawn toward conservative beliefs because they offer structure. Hodson said that people who have a hard time understanding the the complexities of the world find comfort in a simple believe system. Hodson said:
“Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order. Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice.”
What do you think? Is racism tied to intelligence? Are conservative people more likely to be prejudiced?

Thursday, January 26, 2012

CNN Crescent News Network. "God's curse on them for generations."

"And then I think Obama is going to beat him like a runaway sister wife. "
As if having an hour a week to bash Republicans on national television isn't enough, vulgarian comedian Bill Maher is regularly asked to appear on cable news networks to offer his perilously biased opinions.
Such was the case Wednesday when he told CNN's Anderson Cooper if Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney wins the nomination, "Obama is going to beat him like a runaway sister wife" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: So you are optimistic for this election? You think, no matter who the Republican candidates are, you think Obama is going to win?
BILL MAHER: Oh, definitely. My money is still on Mitt Romney. And I think he's going to get the nomination. And then I think Obama is going to beat him like a runaway sister wife. Yes, I do.
COOPER: Oh geez.
Oh geez is right.
Not catching the reference, I Googled "runaway sister wife" and found that Billy Hallowell over at the Blaze had written about this earlier:
[T]here’s a popular television show on TLC called “Sister Wives.” The program, which documents a polygamous family’s lifestyle, is controversial to say the least. Maher’s mention, which is particularly striking considering that polygamy is forbidden by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (in fact, the practice would cost one his or her membership in the church), seemed to be a dig at Romney’s faith.
At the very least.
Now contrast this purposeful obtuseness to this:
A sister wife is an obscure reference to Mormon polygamy. So Cooper knows all about Mormons when it comes to slandering Romney, but apparently not a thing about Islam. when it comes to a triple murder. Hmmm
"May the devil shit on their graves. Is that what a daughter should be? Would a daughter be such a whore?" --Muslim dad who honor killed his three daughters and wife.
"I would do it again 100 times," said Mohammad Shafia, who murdered his THREE daughters in honour killing for dating the wrong boys.
Sahar shafia
CNN just did an entire report on the Shafia honor killings, noting that "interrogations of the family never uncovered a motive." Mohammad Shafia, however, declared that his daughters' betrayal of Islam was his motive.
These are the lengths the dhimmedia will go to in its self-enforcement of sharia. CNN, the  Crescent New Network.
AFDI/SIOA will be hosting the first-ever human rights conference dedicated to exposing the plight of women under Islamic law in Dearborn, Michigan on the anniversary of the honor murder of Jessica Mokdad: the Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference. We’ve named the Conference after her as part of our ongoing campaign to raise awareness and bring a stop to the phenomenon of Islamic honor killing. These girls have rights, too, they’re human beings, and yet they’re completely forgotten in our politically correct culture, in which speech that is offensive to Islam is increasingly forbidden. We’re standing for the human rights of girls like Jessica Mokdad. Join us, fight the islamization of America and fight the dehumanizaton and diminishment of women.
CNN's deceit on the motive of the Shafia is a crime against women and humanity.
CNN Conceals Motive Behind Canadian Honor Killings David Wood
On June 30, 2009, Mohammad Shafia, with the help of his wife Tuba and his son Hamed, murdered his three daughters and his other wife in Ontario, Canada. The wealthy Shafia family worked quickly to conceal their actions, staging a car accident and weeping for their daughters. The media rushed to support the grieving family, until evidence showed that the girls' deaths were no accident.

Yesterday, CNN posted a video about the murders, noting that "interrogations of the family never uncovered a motive." Indeed, the closest CNN comes to identifying a motive in the killings is when the reporter says that the Shafia family comes "from a very conservative Afghan background."

Yes, it's the family's Afghan background, rather than some other background, that is most relevant to this case. At no point in the video does CNN use the words "Islam" or "Muslim."

This is all the more disturbing when we consider that Mohammad Shafia himself, in a recorded conversation, identifies his daughters' betrayal of Islam as his motive for the killings. He declares:

"They betrayed kindness. They betrayed Islam. They betrayed our religion and creed. They betrayed our tradition. They betrayed everything."

Shafia was so confident that his actions were justified, he had absolutely no remorse for killing his daughters:
"God curse their generation, they were filthy and rotten children."

"To hell with them and their boyfriends, may the devil shit on their grave."

“Even if they come back to life a hundred times, if I have a cleaver in my hand, I will cut (them) in pieces.”
Yet CNN remains puzzled about Shafia's motive. I assume CNN is also puzzled about whyMuslims commit 91 percent of the world's honor killings. But there's a difference between (a) being puzzled due to ignorance of Islamic teachings, and (b) willfully concealing the stated motive of a group of murderers. By deliberately leaving Islam out of the equation, CNN has joined in the cover up.
Much thanks to Kamala for scanning these pages from one of the most important English-language sources for the content of Islamic law: Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law:

Reliance of the   Traveler - Revuse

It is certified by Al-Azhar University as a translation that "corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community...":

Reliance of the Traveler - Revuse

Here is the certification in Arabic:

Reliance of the Traveler -  Revuse

Note that this Sharia manual also garners respect in the USA. Dr. Alan Godlas, Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia, calls it a "carefully translated manual of the proper practice of Islam (shari'a) according to the Shafi'i madh'hab. It has been an essential book in the library of any serious English speaking Muslim or scholar of Islam since its publication in 1991."

In Book O, titled "Justice," in section 1, "Who is Subject to Retaliation for Injurious Crimes," section o1.1 reads, "Retaliation is obligatory ... against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right...":

Reliance of the Traveler - Revuse

However, o1.2 clarifies (above) that "The following are not subject to retaliation" and then lists — after the lovely, egalitarian "Muslim for killing a non-Muslim" and "Jewish or Christian subject ... for killing an apostate" — "(4) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring":

Reliance  of the Traveler - Revuse

Read more:

Monday, January 23, 2012

Fema Camp Coffins Investigated (update)

Fema Camp Coffins Investigated

Why Are There Thousands of Plastic Burial Vaults Stacked in a Field Near Madison, Georgia?

Well 3 bodies per box easily would = 1.5 million.

Where are they?

They are in a field near Madison, Georgia, just off of Lions Club Road and next to (as far as I can tell) a Fowler Flemister Concrete plant. See coordinates: +33° 33′ 57.36″, -83° 29′ 6.26″.

           Preparation for something Big.

NEW FEMA Coffins in INDIANA (Kingsbury) Youtube Keeps removing this.

Uploaded by: perrrfection
Video Description:
FEMA Coffins in Kingsbury Indiana and NEW Underground FEMA Bunkers on a Closed Military Base. 
New FEMA Coffins in Kingsbury 
Location: 41°31'08.48"N 86°41'24.36"W 
New FEMA Underground Bunkers: 
Location: 41°30'20.58"N 86°36'34.79"W 
OLD Kingsbury Bunkers 
Location: 41°31'22.54"N 86°39'56.15"W 
Known FEMA Coffins in Georgia 
Location: 33°33'57.36"N 83°29'6.26"W 
Look it up!!! 
WARNING: Youtube keeps removing this video use or and repost 
this video as many times as you can. 
THESE ARE COFFINS SEE HERE: &feature=related
Google FEMA CAMPS and FEMA COFFINS you will find a ton about it! 

A Word From B.A. Brooks
We have to look at all of the evidence and try to see the big picture. Could ALL of this information be real and true, or are these just more conspiracy theories? Yes and No! There are many truths weaved in between lies and misconceptions. Many things that people believe are simply not true, and many things people do not want to believe are very true, look into (HR 645)FM 3-19.40Rex 84Operation GardenplotCILFs (Civilian Inmate Labor Facilities). I have been accused of trying to scare the mass population with this page, but in reality I am only presenting news that I have researched, in one place for the world to see. Nothing more, nothing less. Now I will say that these red/blue list stories have been circulating for well over twenty years now and most of these train cars I have seen are simply car haulers with ramps for the cars to sit on, and the chains are to keep them tied down in place. Many videos circulating on YouTube have been debunked. So try and be objective and look at what is real. There is a lot of mis and dis information out, and it is easy to get confused or misled by things that simply are not real. We do know that our government likes to make lists though, and the TSA's no fly list has over 1 million people now listed and marked. So is it possible that there is a Red List? Absolutely! My suggestions are to worry more about stocking up on food, water, guns and ammo, because it is a total illusion that the USA will continue on, business as usual.  Knowledge is power! Learn, look, watch, listen, share, train, prepare, wait, stock your food and water supplies. Check at The UAFF website for daily updates from within America and around the world.

The 2012 Apocalypse Virgin Hunt

Twistianity Today is looking for 70 virgins for The End of the Age Human Sacrifice Extravaganza

How do I become a 2012 Human Sacrifice® Model?

Friday, January 20, 2012

John King's CNN Character..and loyalty, and honesty

And the official CNN response regarding Roesgen's comments in 08, from spokesperson Christa Robinson:

"She was doing her job, and called it like she saw it."

CNN's John King Should Have Ripped Gingrich In Tonight's Debate

CNN PRODUCER NOTE     Liberty1955 watched last night's CNN GOP debate in South Carolina, and believes that Newt Gingrich was hypocritical to slam moderator John King's question about Gingrich's ex-wife when Gingrich himself was one of the lead voices denouncing Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski. 'Not a snowball's chance in hell will this stuff play well,' he said. 'I'm glad CNN gave these guys the opportunity to talk so voters can see what they would do as President.'
jmsaba, CNN iReport producer
Newt Gingrich said it was wrong for questions about his infidelity to be raised during tonight's debate. He ripped into John King, CNN's debate host.

King showed his class by not giving it back to Gingrich who apparently doesn't believe that being President of the United States is entirely about character..and loyalty, and honesty.

Maybe Newt Gingrich has asked for God's forgiveness for his hypocrisy, lying, and cheating. But American's aren't as forgiving for what Gingrich tried to do to Clinton during his second term.

Trust and loyalty are two important traits I want to see in my country's President. Gingrich has neither of these.


"Character..and loyalty, and honesty?"

Susan Roesgen, CNN, the Chicago Tea Party
UPDATE: Chicago Tea Party Crowd Confronts CNN Reporter After Hostile Interview 


Susan Roesgen is an alleged reporter for alleged news channel CNN.

Roesgen flipped out at the Chicago Tea Party during a live interview with a gentleman attending the rally.  


Roesgen flipped out at the Chicago Tea Party during a live interview with a gentleman attending the rally.  (Found on Founding Bloggers)

SUSAN ROESGEN: (Reading some of the signs held by protesters) Uh, let's see... 'Drop the taxes,' 'Drop socialism.' OK. Let's see. You're here with your two-year-old and you're already in debt. Why are you here today, sir?

MAN: Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed that people had the right to liberty, and had the right...

ROESGEN: Sir, what does this have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes? Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit...?

MAN: Let me finish my point. Lincoln, Lincoln believed that people had the right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it. And we have clearly gotten to that point.

ROESGEN: Wait, wait... Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of the stimulus? That's $50 billion for this state, sir.

MAN: Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, I...I...I...

TVNewser reports that Roesgen wrapped up the interview "over shouts of, 'You're not a reporter.'" 

MAN #2: Sir, sir, sir...

MAN: Can you stop this, sir? Hold on, hold on.

ROESGEN: OK, well, Kyra, we'll move on over here. I think you get the general tenor of this. Uh, it's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the Right-wing conservative network, FOX. And since I can't really hear much more, and I think this is not really family viewing. Toss it back to you, Kyra.

KYRA PHILLIPS: I know Susan Roesgen is having a hard time hearing me, but wow. That is the prime example of what we're following across the country there. Susan pointed out everything plain and clear of what she's dealing with.

Roesgen was debating the man, not doing an interview. She was spewing the Dems' talking points. Roesgen obviously came armed with her lines about tax credits and $50 billion in stimulus money for Illinois.

CNN was definitely out to advance the Obama party line.

According to TVNewser, a FOX spokesperson said in response, "Judging by their lack of ratings, everyone seems to be anti-CNN."

TVNewser reports that Shepard Smith referred to the incident.

"I've just learned it's Anti-CNN day. I know, right? I had no freakin' clue." Later: "Just a minute ago, that Susan Roesgen, from that CNN, that people used to watch a long time ago..." And still later: "Anti-CNN? Who's anti-CNN, settle down Susan! Come on girl." And even later: "Poor Susan Roesgen, nobody hates you, everybody ... we love the CNN. Relax everybody. Don't get your hate on."

And the official CNN response regarding Roesgen's comments, from spokesperson Christa Robinson:

"She was doing her job, and called it like she saw it."

I suppose she was doing her job, CNN-style: Roesgen bashed FOX and hard-working Americans.

Read the Left's reaction to Roesgen's segment, from Democratic Underground

Contacts at CNN:
Philip Kent, the Chairman & CEO of

CNN Executive Vice President Ken

Susan Roesgen, CNN