Friday, February 21, 2014

Arrested in America for no-id and Jay-Walking ?? WTF ??

She Allegedly Went on a Simple Jog in Her Toe Shoes. So Why Did She End Up Screaming and in Handcuffs? ‘I Didn’t F**king Do Anything Wrong!’

It allegedly started with her jogging in her toe shoes and sporting headphones. It ended in video of her screaming and being led away in handcuffs. What happened in between is a matter of debate, but video showing parts of the incident is certainly gaining traction online.

“I was doing nothing wrong,” she said at first to a nearby witness while sitting on the sidewalk with her hands behind her and one officer standing over her. “I was just crossing the street.”
But as police escorted her away while pedestrians passed by, things got ugly.

Whatever the woman did to get the attention of Austin, Texas police, a witness’ video of cops detaining her on a city sidewalk Thursday morning then escorting her to a nearby squad car indicate she was not happy with their actions.

“I didn’t f**king do anything wrong! I didn’t do anything wrong!” she yelled before being placed in a nearby squad car. She then began crying as she pleaded, “I f**king crossed the street.”

The Daily Texan, the student newspaper for the University of Texas at Austin, reported that police arrested the woman for failing to provide identification.
Student Chris Quintero, who the Daily Texan reported witnessed the arrest, said he saw the woman jogging with headphones on when police ran after her. When the woman failed to stop, the officer grabbed her by the arm and handcuffed her, Quintero said.
“She repeatedly pleaded with them, saying that she was just exercising and to let her go,” said Quintero, who also shot the video and took photographs of the incident.
The woman can be seen in the full video attempting to get up from the sidewalk and being kept down by police officers.
Austin police did not return phone calls from TheBlaze about why the woman was detained.
According to a statement to The Daily Texan from police spokeswoman Lisa Cortinas: “[In this case], the call is titled failure to identify.”

And the LiveLeak poster’s description:

Sitting at Starbucks, on the corner of 24th and San Antonio, I noticed a particularly odd situation.Two Austin Police Officers standing outside the Castilian just lingering. Every time I looked back there was a different student holding a carbon copy of what looked to be a jay walking citation. Suddenly one of the cops shouts at an innocent girl jogging with her headphones on through West Campus. He wobbled after her and grabbed her by the arm. Startled and not knowing it was a cop, she jerked her arm away. The cop viewed this as resisting arrest and proceeded to grab both arms tightly, placing her in handcuffs. She repeatedly pleaded with them saying that she was just exercising and to let her go. She repeatedly cried out, “I did not do anything wrong…just give me the ticket.” The other officer strolled over and not they where making a scene. She tried to get up. I doubt she was running away, as she was in handcuffs, but the second cop pushed her back down to the ground. Because of the commotion, they walked her to the cop car in the alleyway next to the Big Bite, where she, overcome with frustration, yelled loudly to gain attention. Because of that, the cops tightened their grip causing her to squirm and kick. Then came two bike cops from down the alley. Now we have four cops and one small, helpless girl in the back of a cop car, because she was just going for a run.

UPDATE: As TheBlaze pointed out earlier this year, citizens have a variety of rights when it comes to interacting with police, including whether or not you have to show ID, and laws vary from state to state.
According to the infogrpahic in TheBlaze story from January and other sources, in Texas you only have to show ID once you’ve been arrested, not before. If you’re lawfully detained in Texas, you do not have to provide ID. However, you cannot give false information about who you are.
It’s still unclear if the woman in the video was arrested or detained or if she had ID to show or provided information of any sort to police. TheBlaze will update this story when police provide the information.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Greatest Genocides Ranked in Order of the 20th and 21st Century

You must understand when Obama and his regime use names of former leaders. Here is a list of those leaders they respect most in history.

The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries

Here is a tentative list of modern mass murderers and the estimated number of people killed by their orders (excluding enemy armies). In many cases (notably Stalin's and Mao's cases) one has to decide how to consider the millions who died indirectly because of their political decisions. The Chinese cultural revolution caused the death of 30 million people (according to the current Chinese government), but many died of hunger. Stalin is held responsible for the death of millions by Ukrainians, but "only" half a million people were killed by his order. Khomeini sent children to die in the war against Iraq, but it was a war.
Read the bottom of this page for frequently asked questions on controversial actions such as the atomic bombs, the Iraqi war, etc (that always involve the current superpower and usually the current president of that superpower).
I welcome feedback if i forgot anything or posted the wrong data, but please always provide reliable sources: webpages are gossips, not sources (and the worst one is Wikipedia, edited by anonymous people). Reliable sources are books written by professional historians who spent decades researching the event.
An impressive number of readers don't seem to know what "20th century" means and keep sending me emails about the Atlantic slave trade, the Native Americans, the Irish famine, etc.

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)	49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945)	12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)	8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)	7,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)	5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Ottoman Turkey, 1915-20)	1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)	1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)	1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)	1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)	1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)	900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)	800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88)	600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1980)	570,000
Suharto/Soeharto (Indonesian communists 1965-66)	500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39)	500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi - but disputed by recent studies (Angola, 1975-2002)	400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001)	400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979)	300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71)	300,000 (Bangladesh)
Ante Pavelic (Croatia, 1941-45)	359,000 (30,000 Jews, 29,000 Gipsies, 300,000 Serbs)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII)	300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97)	?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996)	220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000)	200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98)	200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56)	200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972)	150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99)	100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999)	100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79)	?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974)	70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt - but disputed by recent studies (Guatemala, 1982-83)	70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71)	60,000
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61)	50,000
Bashir Assad (Syria, 2012-13)	50,000
Francisco Macias Nguema (Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79)	50,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990)	40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947)	30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20)	30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain)	30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999)	30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968)	30,000
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (El Salvador, 1932)	30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000)	25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89)	20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority)	20,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83)	13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957)	10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion)	10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997)	6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001)	3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973)	3,000

For a list of casualties in wars, see this page.

Main sources:

Charny (1988) Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review

Stephane Courtois: Black Book on Communism (1995)

Matthews: Guiness Book of Records (2000)

Clodfelter: Warfare and Armed Conflicts (1992)

Elliot: Twentieth Century Book of the Dead (1972)

Bouthoul : A List of the 366 Major Armed Conflicts of the period 1740-1974, Peace Research (1978)

R.J. Rummel: Death by Government - Genocide and Mass Murder (1994)

Notes:

Note: this website has been banned in China and Turkey since 2006. Please help boycott these countries.
The crimes committed by right-wing dictators have always been easier to track down than the crimes against humanity committed by communist leaders, so the figures for communist leaders like Stalin and Mao increase almost yearly as new secret documents become available. (to be fair, the numbers for Stalin have decreased in recent years by admission of the Ukrainian authorities). To this day, the Chinese government has not yet disclosed how many people were executed by Mao's red guards during the Cultural Revolution and how many people were killed in Tibet during the Chinese invasion of 1950. We also don't know how many dissidents have been killed by order of Kim Il Sung in North Korea, although presumably many thousands.
I often get asked if Hiroshima/Nagasaki qualify as a genocide. I disagree. First of all, why only nuclear weapons? The carpet bombing of German cities and of Tokyo killed the same number of people. Second, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman did not start that war: they ended it. It is even debatable if these bombings killed or saved lives: Hiroshima probably saved a lot of Japanese lives, because a long protracted invasion like the one that took place in Germany would have killed a lot more people (Germany lost 2 million people, Japan only 300,000, because Japan was never invaded, while Germany was invaded from all sides). Actually more Japanese died in two weeks of battles with the Soviet Union in Manchuria than in the two nuclear bombings. I suspect a nuclear bomb on Berlin would have killed 100,000 people but caused Germany to surrender right away, thus saving many German lives. (I know, it is gruesome to count dead bodies like this; but, again, i didn't start that war, the Germans and the Japanese started it). The USA had a casualty rate of 35% in the battle of Okinawa: they expected to lose one million soldiers in a land invasion of Japan, and the estimates were that Japan would lose the same number of soldiers and many more civilians. Most historians believe that it was the atomic bomb to convince Japan to surrender, and it was the second one: after the first one, there were still members of the Japanese cabinet that were opposed to surrender (the cabinet had to be unanimous in order for the emperor to surrender). The dissenters who wanted to continue the war even tried a coup to overthrow the emperor rather than obey the order to surrender. After the first bomb, Nishina (head of the Japanese nuclear program) was asked if it was possible that the USA could build another atomic bomb within six months: obviously the people who asked him the question were not going to surrender unless a second bomb was possible. Koichi Kido, advisor to emperor Hirohito, said: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief secretary of Cabinet, said that the atomic bombs were a "golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." Thus the Japanese themselves (those who wanted to surrender) seem to indicate that the two atomic bombs were indispensable to end a war that was killing hundreds of thousands of people per battle (the battle of Okinawa killed more Japanese than the atomic bomb on Nagasaki). It is also estimated that throughout Japan-occupied Asia about 200,000 civilians were dying every month (of disease, hunger, etc): if the atomic bombs helped Japan surrender even just six months earlier, that saved the lives of one million Indonesians, Indochinese, Philipinos, Chinese, etc. (Notable dissenting voices were the two most powerful USA generals, Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, who both felt that the atomic bombs were unnecessary to finish Japan).
People die in wars. During the previous world-war, millions died of everything from guns to chemical weapons. The fact that a more or less efficient weapon is used to fight a war does not constitute genocide, per se.
It is not the weapon, but the intent. Churchill's and Truman's intent was to end the war, not to exterminate the peoples (which they could have done easily, had they wanted to). In fact, i think that Churchill and Truman are exemplary of how to treat a defeated enemy: instead of annihilating the enemies, they helped Germany and Japan to rebuild themselves and become stronger wealthier than they had been before the war. It may have been the first time in history.
Furthermore, we know that Werner Heisenberg in Germany and Yoshio Nishina in Japan were working on an atomic bomb: what if they had had the time to complete one? Heisenberg in Germany had failed to correctly calculate the critical mass of uranium required to sustain a chain reaction, but Nishina in Japan had just done that in 1944. It was a matter of time before German and Japanese scientists would find out the right recipe. Thus the first bomb saved a lot of lives, probably millions of lives (not just Japanese lives, but lives of all the nations that were being massacred by the Japanese). Last but not least, the USA dropped 720,000 leaflets on Hiroshima and other cities two days earlier, warning of the impending destruction of the city.
It is certainly debatable, instead, if the second atomic bomb was necessary. The USA only waited three days to see the effect of the first atomic bomb and of its leaflets. Today sitting in our living rooms we can calmly debate this issue forever. Of course, it was a different kind of decision for the man sitting in the White House in the middle of a world war that had been raging for four years.
I've been asked why i blame the USA only for part of the civilian deaths in Vietnam while i blame the Soviet Union for all of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The USA "invasion" of Vietnam is not as clearcut as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:
1. Even today many in Vietnam think that the aggressor was North Vietnam, not the USA, at least at the beginning, whereas everybody in Afghanistan blames the Soviet Union for that invasion. Nobody welcomed the Soviet Union, whereas about half of Vietnam welcomed the USA.
2. When the Soviet Union withdrew, almost no Afghani followed them, whereas, when the USA withdrew, about eight million Vietnamese left with them and about three million ran away from Vietnam in the following decades risking their lives (the "boat people").
3. There are documented large-scale atrocities by the North Vietnamese against their own population (read the Black Book of Communism) while i haven't seen evidence of any large-scale atrocity by the Afghani fighters against their own population
4. The Soviet Union tried to invade the WHOLE of Afghanistan. The USA never tried to invade the northern part of Vietnam: it simply fought the Vietcong that wanted to annex south Vietnam to north Vietnam (if you read the history of the country, north and south Vietnam have fought wars for more than 1,000 years: go to the Timeline of Indochina and look for Annam and Champa. the ancient names of the two kingdoms). When the USA bombed civilians in North Vietnam, then i consider it a war crime.
The most frequently asked questions are always about current unpopular USA presidents: Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II... The moment the USA elects a new president, i start receiving emails asking to add him to the list of "genociders". The moment the president leaves office the same people forget about him and jump on the next one. Can we consider President Bush a genocider due to all of the civilians killed in Iraq under his watch? I don't think so, because the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were NOT killed by US troops. It is genocide, but the "genociders" are others, and the situation is still too murky to decide who exactly killed those 100,000 civilians. (If Bush is indirectly guilty of it, then certainly Islam is too). The USA bears some clear responsibilities for the chaos, but ineptitude, miscalculation, ignorance, etc do not qualify as genocide. Otherwse the United Nations and France would be responsible for the genocide in Rwanda (900,000 people). Even if one wanted to count all the civilians killed in that civil war as Bush's and Blair's responsibility, it would be (as of 2013, long after the USA and Britain withdrew) 120,000 people in ten years, i.e. 12,000 a year. In 20 years Saddam Hussein was responsible for the killing of 600,000 people (that he personally ordered), an average of 30,000 a year. Therefore, technically speaking one could argue that the war, by removing Saddam, saved and is still saving 18,000 lives a year. Putin would be a better candidate for "genocider", since the vast majority of Chechen civilians killed under his watch were killed by Russian troops. However, i have never received a single email nominating Putin...
Specifically about Bush II (the hot topic between 2003 and 2008). I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he or anybody working for him or the British prime minister or the Australian prime minister wanted to kill Iraqi civilians. And even less evidence that Iraqi civilians were killed in any large number by US soldiers. The Iraqi civilians killed by US soldiers are estimated at about 4% of all deaths, which is a little over 5,000. With all due respect for those families, a seven-year war that kills only 5,000 people (less than 1,000 a year) does not register anywhere in the history of the world. All the other civilians were killed by militias, suicide bombers, etc. and almost always in the name of Islam (so it would be more appropriate to vent your anger at that religion than at the USA). In fact, all the documents show that some caution was taken by the US and Britain to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with Vietnam, when the US bombed densely populated areas knowing that thousands of civilians would die. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be the first large-scale wars in which the winners went out of their way to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with any other war. Future generations (who will face other crises and will be more concerned with their presidents than with Bush II) may see more clearly who is responsible for those killings. Most of them were killed by fellow Iraqis or at least fellow Muslims, not by US soldiers. Once we remove all the personal emotions against this or that politician, it is self-evident who/what killed those Iraqi civilians. If you simply scream hysterically against the president of the USA, you are not helping solve the real problem of those places.
Coming to more serious issues, Lothar von Trotha massacred the Herero and Namaqua in Namibia in 1904-1907. That episode is not listed here (despite the large number of victims) because the German government never ordered those massacres. Once the facts became known, outrage in Germany among the political class forced the Kaiser to fire Von Trotha. So i consider this event the folly of one overzealous and racist man rather than a real genocide.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Ret. Marine Absolutely Owns CNN Anchor On 2nd Amendment - "Unconstitutional Laws Aren't Laws"

"Unconstitutional Laws Aren't Laws"

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals^[1]^[2] to keep and bear arms.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.^[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.^[8]
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.^[10]^[11]
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.^[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms.^[12]^[13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.^[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.^[15]

Sochi Olympics Pussy Riot members WHIPPED by Cossacks as they performed protest underneath a Sochi Olympics sign

Sochi Six group members - five women and one man - donned their signature ski masks and were pulling out a guitar and microphone as at least 10 Cossacks and other security officials moved in. One Cossack appeared to use pepper spray, another whipped several group members while others ripped off their masks and threw the guitar in a rubbish bin.

Police arrived and questioned witnesses, but no-one was arrested.
The Cossacks violently pulled masks from women's heads, beating group member Nadezhda Tolokonnikova with a whip as she lay on the ground.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

EPIC - Blind and Mentally Disabled Man Hits 3 Pointer for FREE McDonald's

Michael Quinn hits a 3 pointer from center court of a College of the Ozarks basketball game and the crowd erupts screaming. Enjoy. Free McDonald's

http://www.SickBias.com - Restoring your faith in finding Good Inspiring Videos on Youtube. Michael Quinn 54 year old blind and mentally challenged man hit this three pointer to win a year long supply of McDonald's, not sure if thats the best reward but oh well. College of the Ozarks.

Monday, February 17, 2014

20 Obvious Truths That Will Shock Liberals

Written By : John Hawkins
March 2, 2012

1) The Founding Fathers were generally religious, gun-toting small government fanatics who were so far to the Right that they’d make Ann Coulter look like Jimmy Carter.

2) The greatest evil this country has ever committed isn’t slavery; it’s killing more than 50 million innocent children via abortion.

3) Conservatives are much more compassionate than liberals and all you have to do to prove it is look at all the studies showing that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals do.

4) When the Founding Fathers were actually around, there were official state religions and the Bible was used as a textbook in schools. The so-called “wall of separation between church and state” has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with liberal hostility to Christianity.

5) The biggest problem with our economy today is Barack Obama. His demonization of successful people, his driving up gas prices, his regulatory overload and threats to increase taxes have terrified businesses into hunkering down, refusing to spend money, and declining to hire new people. Replacing him would do more than any government policy to spur economic growth.

6) Not only are conservatives more patriotic than liberals, but most American liberals “love” America in about the same way that a wife-beater loves his wife.

7) Out of every 100 cries of “Racism” you hear these days, 99 are motivated by nothing other than politics.

8) Anyone paying income taxes is certainly paying his “fair share” — and then some — compared to the people who pay nothing.

9) You don’t have a “right” to anything that other people have to pay to provide for you.

10) If we can ask people to present an ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, or get on an airplane, then asking them to present identification to vote is a no-brainer.

11) There’s absolutely nothing that the government does smarter, better, or more efficiently than the private market with roughly equivalent resources.

12) The biggest problem with education in this country is liberals. They fight vouchers, oppose merit pay, refuse to get rid of terrible teachers, and bend over backwards to keep poor kids trapped in failing schools.

13) Fascism, socialism, and communism are all left-wing movements that
have considerably more in common with modern liberalism than modern conservatism.

14) The Democratic Party was behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. It was also the party of Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, and Bull Connor. It has ALWAYS been a racist party. Even today, white liberals support Affirmative Action and racial set-asides because they still believe black Americans are too inferior to go up against whites on an even playing field.

15) A man with good morals who falls short and becomes a hypocrite is still a far better man than a liberal who can never be called a hypocrite because he has no morals at all.

16) The most dire threat to America’s future and prosperity in the last 150 years hasn’t been the Nazis, the Soviets, or Al-Qaeda;, it’s the spending and overreach of our own government.

17) Greed isn’t someone wanting to keep more of what he earns; it’s people demanding a greater share of money that someone else earns.

18) Most of the time in American politics, the liberal “victim” is really a bad guy who is absolutely delighted by the opportunity to pretend to be “offended.”

19) Jesus Christ was not a conservative, a liberal, or a politician. He was also not a capitalist or a socialist. Still, you can say this: Jesus drew sharp lines about what’s right and wrong, He wasn’t tolerant of what the Bible categorizes as sinful behavior, and there’s absolutely no question that He would adamantly oppose abortion and gay marriage.

20) When you demand that other people fund your sexual escapades by buying your contraception, your sex life becomes their business.

Christian Professor Who Had Both Hands Chopped Off by Muslim Mob for Blasphemy Accusation Found ‘Not Guilty’

Posted By Pamela Geller On February 16, 2014 @ 3:16 pm In India: Fighting the Jihad | 33 Comments

More moderates in action, peace, tolerance, interfaith “dialogue”

There. are. no. words. The Christian professor falsely accused of insulting Islam was acquitted of the vicious charge — vicious because in a Muslim country, such a charge will get you killed or your hands chopped off. Which is exactly what happened to this professor. When the accusation was made, a group of Muslims chopped off his hands. He was acquitted of the charge in November 2013; I am just seeing it. One of the accused Muslims in the savage case of chopping off the hand of Thodupuzha Newman college lecturer TJ Joseph won his race in the civic body elections ^[2].
Backstory here at Atlas: Muslims chop off hands of Christian professor who put “defamatory” question on exam… ^[3]Sharia (Islamic Law): Jihadis chopped hand of Christian Professor … ^[4]

Christian Professor Who Had Both Hands Chopped-off for Blasphemy Accusation Found ‘Not Guilty’ (thanks to Sharia Unveiled ^[5])

Sick Bias - Where is the Report ???

Professor TJ Joseph -”behanded” by Muslims

Kerala Court hands down acquittal on appeal. In 2010, Islamic extremists accused the teacher of having offended Muhammad. While denying any responsibility, a group of strangers cut off his hand and part of his right arm. After being suspended and then fired by the school authorities, today the teacher was offered his job again.

by Nirmala Carvalho | Asia News ^[7]
Mumbai, India: TJ Joseph, a Christian teacher accused of blasphemy ^[8] in 2010, following which a group of strangers cut off his right hand and part of the arm, has finally been acquitted. The court of Thodupuzha in Kerala today heard the appeal filed by the teacher and acquitted him of all charges. A ruling , Sajan George, president of the Global Council of Indian Christians ( GCIC ) told AsiaNews, “for which we must thank the Indian judicial system. The case of Professor Joseph was one of the darkest pages in Kerala’s recent history.”

COMMENT VIA FACEBOOK:

Robert Short via Jamie Glazov

He was found not guilty AFTER they chopped his hands off. This is what happens when full Shari'ah is respected and implemented in any country where Muslims demand Shari'ah. Think it can not happen in America??? Guess again folks. Obama is already helping it along with his 2012 statement "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." THAT statement alone shows Obama supports anti-blasphemy laws against those who dare speak negatively about Islam or Muslims.