LTG links to the following stories/testimonies of abortion survivors (see my in-depth posts, here, and here):
Read more at Jihad Watch!
“Under UAE law, rapists can only be convicted if either the perpetrator confesses or if four adult Muslim males witness the crime.” That is pure Sharia, based on Qur’an 24:4 and 24:13. Those verses, according to Islamic tradition, are a result of Muhammad’s exoneration of his favorite wife, Aisha, who was suspected of adultery. Allah gave him a revelation requiring four male witnesses to establish such a crime: “And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony – They indeed are evil-doers” (Qur’an 24:4). The problem with this is that women who accuse men of rape but cannot produce four male witnesses are often accused themselves of zina — unlawful sexual intercourse — and jailed as a result. This is not limited just to Dubai or the UAE. According to Sisters In Islam, a Muslim reform group, there is evidence that most — up to 75% — of the women imprisoned in Pakistan are there because of rape.
(Via Vlad) Not surprisingly the Islamic aspects of this story have been removed [from the RT story below]. Aspects such as the fact that her rapist was a Muslim, it was Islamic law that had her jailed for being raped and her Muslim boss fired her for reporting the rape and she, being Norwegian, is probably pissed off that her world view of Islam being wonderful and enlightened and Jews being the real problem is being challenged by all this reality. Must really get tough after a while.
I thought of the classic ending of the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers when I watched the pointing at the Breitbart crew:
It is worse than a liberal-progressive radical lying… the Media knew that she was separated from the Zimmerman portion of the protest and clearly on the New Black Panther side of the line… yet, they still painted her as with the Zimmerman crowd. Here is the early reporting from the blogs about it, via Gateway Pundit:
That looked incongruent with the other reports from the pro-Zimmerman side. The NY Daily News, based on reporting from The Houston Chronicle, identified her as Renee Vaughan:
One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, “We’re racist & proud.”
Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.
The act to smear the Zimmerman supporters as racists with a leftist plant worked as the photo and comment was picked up and spread worldwide.
Scanning the internet we found that a “Renee Vaughn” from Austin worked for a far left environmental group, the Texas Campaign for the Environment.
Renee even has her photo linked to a far left environmental website.
Breitbart points out all the places where this person was touted as a genuine Zimmerman protestor:
…The Houston Chronicle’s Jayme Fraser wrote of the woman pictured above: “At one point, Renee Vaughan of Austin mocked protesters by chanting, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better ’cause we’re white.” The language of the article was somewhat clumsy, allowing other media outlets to jump to the wrong conclusion.
The New York Daily News’ Philip Caulfield used the following caption for the above photo, from the Associated Press: “A George Zimmerman supporter holds a sign during a counter-demonstration of activist Quanell X’s group march in the River Oaks community in Houston on Sunday.” He also wrote: “One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, ‘We’re racist & proud,'” distorting the Chronicle story significantly.
The UK Daily Mail repeated the error, reporting that the sign was held by members of the pro-Zimmerman group in Houston, portraying it as a form of racist backlash against the New Black Panther Party march.
Democratic strategist Tara Dowdell then took to Fox News’ Hannity to repeat the false accusation, using the “racist and proud” sign story to push back against video evidence of intolerance at pro-Trayvon Martin rallies.
Well, Sean, do some people show up at protests with their own agenda? Absolutely. That happens all the time. There was a pro-Zimmerman rally in Texas where a woman showed up with a sign that said “Racist and Proud.” And that was in the newspaper today. So certainly there are people who show up who behave badly at protests, and that’s not something you can really control for.
[….]
Gateway Pundit concludes she was a “leftist plant” who intended to trick or otherwise deceive the media. As the interview reveals, however, she was quite honest and open about her intentions and what her sign meant. She also located herself quite clearly on the Trayvon Martin/New Black Panther Party-supporting side of the demonstration (this video shows the two sides were clearly separated and distinguished from each other).
[
WHICH THE MEDIA SHOULD HAVE PICKE-UP!]
The reason the media simply picked this up as true is that it has a narrative it believes to be true — that is, the Zimmerman case was over race… and Republicans are racist. Ergo, ad hoc — and all that jazz — the sign must be true… PLUS, it is in Texas! Double-Jeopardy, it must be true. Renee Vaughan has since apologized:
From video description:
“How Food Regulations Make Us Less Healthy” by @LearnLiberty
► Get Learn Liberty updates in your inbox!
http://LearnLiberty.org/subscribe
Why do we consume so much high fructose corn syrup? Why does America suffer from an obesity epidemic? And why are fruits and vegetables so expensive? Professor Dan D’Amico of Loyola University argues that special interests and government policy are at least partly to blame. According to Professor D’Amico, rent seeking and regulations — such as “organic” certification — results in lower costs for less healthy foods and higher costs for nutritional foods. When corn farmers dedicate their time and money to extracting exorbitant government subsidies, corn becomes cheaper, and more people demand it. When regulations mandate special certification in order to vend organic foods, smaller farmers cannot afford to cut through the red tape, putting them out of business, decreasing competition, and raising prices on healthy foods.
So why don’t we stop this madness? Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs of course! The cost to the individual consumer of these subsidies is so small and the price impact so marginal, that it isn’t worth it for people to organize and petition government. Until we can solve this collective action problem, we’re going to be consuming a lot more high fructose corn syrup.
► Like us on Facebook! http://facebook.com/LearnLiberty
► Follow us on Twitter! http://twitter.com/LearnLiberty
► Follow us again on Google+! http://bit.ly/10RJuDA
► Watch more videos: http://LearnLiberty.org
From video description:
Coke is made with corn syrup, not real sugar. Why is this? According to Professor Diana Thomas, part of the reason is because government policies artificially raise the price of sugar.
Although these government policies actually cost Americans approximately $3 billion each year, the laws remain. The law benefits one group of people (farmers) at the expense of another group (consumers). But because the cost to each American is so small, average Americans don’t have an incentive to combat the lobbying groups who fight to keep the laws in place.
This phenomenon is known as “dispersed costs and concentrated benefits,” and it applies in many cases when laws are passed that benefit a small group of citizens. Prof. Thomas says the only way to prevent or end this practice is to limit what government can do.
Learn More:
A defense of farm subsidies, by the Alabama Cooperative Extension System: http://lrnlbty.co/TdO6iS
Introduction to public choice, including the concept of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs: http://lrnlbty.co/SbNc57
An article focusing on the health and environmental impacts of American corn/sugar policies: http://lrnlbty.co/UFHUNA
A detailed piece on the allocation of agricultural subsidies to various plants: http://lrnlbty.co/TO0RNt
A timeline of the economic controls put on sugar from 1789 to 2011: http://lrnlbty.co/WtaHep
Find LearnLiberty on…
Twitter: http://bit.ly/RBl3Wv
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/WziHpR
Our Website: http://bit.ly/RBl3FH
PARODY ALERT:
Via The Blaze, and as usual, the liberal press (above) only gives you half the story in order to stir up emotions:
You’ll remember that at the Texas capitol earlier this month police confiscated many items from female protestors, which reportedly included “bricks, tampons, pads and condoms protestors planned to throw at pro-life lawmakers…before a final vote on legislation banning abortions past five months,” Townhall reported.
KETK had even more details, including reports of jars of feces and urine being confiscated from demonstrators:
During these inspections, DPS officers have thus far discovered one jar suspected to contain urine, 18 jars suspected to contain feces, and three bottles suspected to contain paint. All of these items – as well as significant quantities of feminine hygiene products, glitter and confetti possessed by individuals – were required to be discarded; otherwise those individuals were denied entry into the gallery.
I have blogged and been active in political forums for a long time (16-years), and just when you think you have posted on it all, something new comes out… tampon earrings? Really?
Shelby Steele via The Wall Street Journal
The verdict that declared George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin was a traumatic event for America’s civil-rights establishment, and for many black elites across the media, government and academia. When you have grown used to American institutions being so intimidated by the prospect of black wrath that they invent mushy ideas like “diversity” and “inclusiveness” simply to escape that wrath, then the crisp reading of the law that the Zimmerman jury displayed comes as a shock.
On television in recent weeks you could see black leaders from every background congealing into a chorus of umbrage and complaint. But they weren’t so much outraged at a horrible injustice as they were affronted by the disregard of their own authority. The jury effectively said to them, “You won’t call the tune here. We will work within the law.”
Today’s black leadership pretty much lives off the fumes of moral authority that linger from its glory days in the 1950s and ’60s. The Zimmerman verdict lets us see this and feel a little embarrassed for them. Consider the pathos of a leadership that once transformed the nation now lusting for the conviction of the contrite and mortified George Zimmerman, as if a stint in prison for him would somehow assure more peace and security for black teenagers everywhere. This, despite the fact that nearly one black teenager a day is shot dead on the South Side of Chicago—to name only one city—by another black teenager.
This would not be the first time that a movement begun in profound moral clarity, and that achieved greatness, waned away into a parody of itself—not because it was wrong but because it was successful. Today’s civil-rights leaders have missed the obvious: The success of their forbearers in achieving social transformation denied to them the heroism that was inescapable for a Martin Luther King Jr. or a James Farmer or a Nelson Mandela. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cannot write a timeless letter to us from a Birmingham jail or walk, as John Lewis did in 1965, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., into a maelstrom of police dogs and billy clubs. That America is no longer here (which is not to say that every trace of it is gone).
The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been consigned to a hard fate: They can never be more than redundancies, echoes of the great men they emulate because America has changed. Hard to be a King or Mandela today when your monstrous enemy is no more than the cherubic George Zimmerman.
[….]
[….]
In the Zimmerman/Martin case the civil-rights establishment is fighting for the poetic truth that white animus toward blacks is still such that a black teenager—Skittles and ice tea in hand—can be shot dead simply for walking home. But actually this establishment is fighting to maintain its authority to wield poetic truth—the authority to tell the larger society how it must think about blacks, how it must respond to them, what it owes them and, then, to brook no argument.
The Zimmerman/Martin tragedy has been explosive because it triggered a fight over authority. Who gets to say what things mean—the supporters of George Zimmerman, who say he acted in self-defense, or the civil-rights establishment that says he profiled and murdered a black child? Here we are. And where is the authority to resolve this? The six-person Florida jury, looking carefully at the evidence, decided that Mr. Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense and not in a fury of racial hatred.
[….]
One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family? Today’s civil-rights leaders swat at mosquitoes like Zimmerman when they have gorillas on their back. Seventy-three percent of all black children are born without fathers married to their mothers. And you want to bring the nation to a standstill over George Zimmerman?
There are vast career opportunities, money and political power to be gleaned from the specter of Mr. Zimmerman as a racial profiler/murderer; but there is only hard and selfless work to be done in tackling an illegitimacy rate that threatens to consign blacks to something like permanent inferiority. If there is anything good to be drawn from the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, it is only the further revelation of the corruption and irrelevance of today’s civil-rights leadership.
Moonbat bring us this example of the mental stresses of Liberal thinking combined with the mental stresses of an ex-Black Panther.
Mental Retardation Is No Laughing Matter…
…especially when those who suffer from it have power over you, like former Black Panther militant Bobby Rush, who despite having an IQ in the median range for invertebrates is a member of Congress.
From video description:
Bobby Rush was on Hannity tonight with Steven King to discuss the DOJ going after George Zimmerman, however I’m not sure that Bobby Rush ever commented on it. He kept making arguments about the case that weren’t remotely tied to the facts and then at one point had the audacity to accuse Hannity of conjecture. What’s funny is that Steve King summed up Bobby Rush’s position quite well at the very end of the interview: What happened was a young Hispanic man shot a black man in self defense, was tried by a jury of women and somehow Bobby Rush thinks it’s a white man’s fault.
Yep, that’s pretty much dead on.
