live
Benin, West Africa Benin, West Africa

Benin, West Africa

postracialcomments:

aquafir:

postracialcomments:

The young lady that was shot in the head by a police officer is still waiting to be interviewed by the police department

Ferguson Police claimed that 4 to 5 Black males conducted a drive by which resulted in a White woman being shot in the head. (Here, Here, Here)

(they’ve edited the articles to take out the white part and that she was killed hehehe)

Residents knew it was BS. 

Turns out Mya was shot by a police officer. The department forced surgeons to take the bullet out and took the bullet for “Ballistics”

Over a week later, she still has yet to be contacted by the department

Do not let her story go ignored

I’m confused if she was killed how can she be interviewed.

They (the police) were saying she was killed. 

She is very much alive

accradotalt:


STOLEN STATUES RETURN TO NIGERIA AFTER 117 YEARS
 A British citizen has returned two statues taken from the Benin Kingdom 117 years ago during the invasion of Benin by British soldiers, prompting calls for other treasures to be repatriated. The House of Representatives, called on the British Parliament to intervene in Nigeria’s efforts to get stolen artifacts in various museums in the United Kingdom repatriated. The House in adopting a motion calling for the repatriation of the artifacts also took a decision to communicate it to the British parliament

accradotalt:

STOLEN STATUES RETURN TO NIGERIA AFTER 117 YEARS


A British citizen has returned two statues taken from the Benin Kingdom 117 years ago during the invasion of Benin by British soldiers, prompting calls for other treasures to be repatriated. The House of Representatives, called on the British Parliament to intervene in Nigeria’s efforts to get stolen artifacts in various museums in the United Kingdom repatriated. The House in adopting a motion calling for the repatriation of the artifacts also took a decision to communicate it to the British parliament

(via wheresmyfuckingbourbon)

Georgia police were so confident Marshall was the man who killed young Janet Kelly in a state bear preserve, they didn’t investigate other suspects.

I recorded this last night. The volume was mad low because my daughter was sleeping, so that’s my annoying mistake. But the audio is clear, just turn up your volume or use headphones and listen closely to the astonishingly malicious reporting from CNN International (which takes over American CNN every night for some reason).

They have 3 [Black] eyewitnesses, which they completely disregard by framing a false equivalency with— and I’m not making this up, "an anonymous caller who did NOT witness the shooting BUT is a friend of the officers"

Whaaaaaat? You’re rebutting 3 eyewitnesses with  an anonymous caller who did NOT even see the events AND is a friend of the shooter? Really?

Where they do that at?

CNN continues, “"an anonymous caller who did NOT witness the shooting BUT is a friend of the officers says Michael Brown was the aggressor, which CNN has CONFIRMED matches the account officer Wilson gave authorities.”

Oh, you confirmed it did you? Of course it matches, she’s representing the guy who will literally say anything to stay out of jail. She already admitted that she could not possibly know if what she’s saying is true, and CNN broadcasts it around the world. Think about that. They use the word “confirmed” in an attempt to add validity to propoganda, while making it sound like they did some work.  

Then, as if that wasn’t crazy enough, they immediately play the ANONYMOUS person’s call/version of events on TV!! (With captioning to make sure the narrative really burns into your consciousness.) Her version has literally zero merit. They did not play any of the eyewitness accounts and went straight to a play-by-play from someone who WASN’T EVEN THERE??!!

That is a gross violation of journalistic responsibility and public trust.

The question is not “if” but why; why have news networks chosen a side?

(Granted, none of these accounts are given under oath; none are automatically true. But at least ask people who could possibly be of value.)

siphotos:

Thirteen-year-old sensation Mo’ne Davis, who plays for Philadelphia’s Taney Dragons, has become the first Little Leaguer to grace the national cover of Sports Illustrated. The 5-foot-4 inch, 111-pound eighth grader is not only taking the Little League World Series by storm, but also she has captured the nation’s attention. 

SI STAFF: More information on Mo’ne Davis cover 
GALLERY: View all of SI’s 2014 Covers

 

(via odinsblog)

thinksquad:

Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras launched their own news site, The Intercept, to post high-profile leaks without worrying about the hassles that can come with publishing through major media outlets. They don’t have to worry that an outside editor will put the kibosh on an Edward Snowden story due to government pressure, for instance. However, that isn’t precluding officials from doing what they can to limit access. The US military has issued directives that ban staff from reading The Intercept due to the classified material that frequently pops up, particularly from a new reported leak source. Workers caught browsing the content might face “long term security issues,” one such memo warns. And that’s if they can read it at all; people in multiple military branches say the site is blocked altogether.
The move isn’t totally surprising, of course. The government regularly puts strict limits on the sites you’re allowed to visit from its offices, and it has a legal obligation to keep classified content off of devices where it doesn’t belong. Even if higher-ups are sympathetic, they’re required to both scrub computers clean and report any visits. Nonetheless, the Intercept ban highlights a certain absurdity to the government’s data policies — it’s barring access to “secret” surveillance details that you can easily read as soon as you leave for home.
[Image credit: Shutterstock / Everett Collection]http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/20/us-military-bans-intercept/
thinksquad:

Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras launched their own news site, The Intercept, to post high-profile leaks without worrying about the hassles that can come with publishing through major media outlets. They don’t have to worry that an outside editor will put the kibosh on an Edward Snowden story due to government pressure, for instance. However, that isn’t precluding officials from doing what they can to limit access. The US military has issued directives that ban staff from reading The Intercept due to the classified material that frequently pops up, particularly from a new reported leak source. Workers caught browsing the content might face “long term security issues,” one such memo warns. And that’s if they can read it at all; people in multiple military branches say the site is blocked altogether.
The move isn’t totally surprising, of course. The government regularly puts strict limits on the sites you’re allowed to visit from its offices, and it has a legal obligation to keep classified content off of devices where it doesn’t belong. Even if higher-ups are sympathetic, they’re required to both scrub computers clean and report any visits. Nonetheless, the Intercept ban highlights a certain absurdity to the government’s data policies — it’s barring access to “secret” surveillance details that you can easily read as soon as you leave for home.
[Image credit: Shutterstock / Everett Collection]http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/20/us-military-bans-intercept/

thinksquad:

Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras launched their own news site, The Intercept, to post high-profile leaks without worrying about the hassles that can come with publishing through major media outlets. They don’t have to worry that an outside editor will put the kibosh on an Edward Snowden story due to government pressure, for instance. However, that isn’t precluding officials from doing what they can to limit access. The US military has issued directives that ban staff from reading The Intercept due to the classified material that frequently pops up, particularly from a new reported leak source. Workers caught browsing the content might face “long term security issues,” one such memo warns. And that’s if they can read it at all; people in multiple military branches say the site is blocked altogether.

The move isn’t totally surprising, of course. The government regularly puts strict limits on the sites you’re allowed to visit from its offices, and it has a legal obligation to keep classified content off of devices where it doesn’t belong. Even if higher-ups are sympathetic, they’re required to both scrub computers clean and report any visits. Nonetheless, the Intercept ban highlights a certain absurdity to the government’s data policies — it’s barring access to “secret” surveillance details that you can easily read as soon as you leave for home.

[Image credit: Shutterstock / Everett Collection]
http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/20/us-military-bans-intercept/

(via committeetoprotectjournalists)