Researcher Claims G-Spot discovery because of an 83 year old woman's dead twat

gross... and last I heard they said it didn't exist. I guess it exists after menopause.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Women have long debated whether or not there is such a thing as a G-spot.
Now, a researcher says he found has scientific proof that it does in fact exist.
Dr. Adam Ostrzenski, a Florida Gynocologist, claims it's real and that he's found it.
He carried out a postmortem exam of an 83-year old woman, inspecting the layers of tissue that make up a women's vaginal wall.
He says, he found a small, grape-like cluster of erectile tissue housed in a sac.
The announcement, as you can imagine opened the floodgates.
Dr. Judy Kuriansky is a sex therapist, and unlike others who called these new findings baloney, says the research reignites the discussion and exploration of the female anatomy.
"The tissue it, it's very hard to dissect tissue and find the exact G-spot, in fact, it's not really a spot, it's a G-area or G-zone," she said.
The findings are in the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
But urologist, Dr. Jed Kaminetsky, feels the research simplifies what is a very complex sexual system.
He also worries many ladies will now feel inadequate, since studies show up to 43 percent of women have some form of sexual dysfunction.
"I think we need to have a better understanding of female sexual function but not get to focused on the presence of lock of this one little are of the anatomy," he adds.

More stupidity from the courts concerning #CyberStalking

As (Volokh) noted last year, a federal prosecutor indicted a man for his campaign of insulting Twitter messages about a Buddhist religious leader, and a federal judge then dismissed the indictment on First Amendment grounds.
Some of the Twitter posts might have been seen as threatening, but the government’s theory wasn’t that they were threatening, but that they where posted “with the intent to harass and cause substantial emotional distress to” the religious leader, and actual caused such distress, in violation of the federal antistalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. The district court correctly held that the statute was unconstitutional as applied, and left open the possibility that it might be unconstitutional on its face as well. The government appealed, but earlier this month decided to drop the appeal.
Now the Senate, rather than tightening the law to prevent its being applied to constitutionally protected speech, is considering expanding it. Section 107 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (which (Volokh) blogged about below, as to a different constitutionally troublesome provision) would take the existing statute and have it cover not just speech that causes substantial emotional distress, but also speech that “attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress,” so long as the speaker is intending to (among other things) “harass” the target. Anyone who

with the intent to … harass … uses the … any interactive computer service … to engage in a course of conduct that … causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to [the person or the person's family member]

would now be committing a federal crime. If the statute were just limited to conduct and speech intended to threaten someone — which the rest of the statute does cover — there would be no constitutional problem. But trying to outlaw speech that is made “with the intent to … harass” and “would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress” often violates the First Amendment, as the federal judge rightly held in the Twitter case. It seems to me that Congress should be fixing this constitutional problem rather than expanding it.

This is fascism. plain and simple. proving a person has intent to upset another person is no reason to take their free expression away. I have experience with this kind of legal abuse. I'm not allowed to tell you about it apparently... or rather I'd rather not find out how stupid the legal system is again.

King County GOP leader boots caucus outside after Ron Paul backers take over

(Seattle) Over the weekend, Republicans in the 37th Legislative District gathered to choose delegates to the state GOP convention.
The caucus started out Saturday morning inside Dimmitt Middle School. But it didn't end inside the building.
After supporters of Texas Congressman Ron Paul elected one of their own to chair of the meeting, the gathering was booted to an outside basketball court by King County Republican Party Chairman Lori Sotelo.
The move came after attendees irritated Sotelo by rejecting her choice to run the caucus - former King County Councilman David Irons.
Instead, the group voted for Tamara Smilanich, a Paul supporter.
That prompted Sotelo to declare the meeting was no longer a Republican Party event - but a Ron Paul campaign event.
Sotelo says she asked the group to continue its meeting outside because the King County Republican Party -- not the Paul campaign -- had paid for the facility and for the insurance. She added that Smilanich stopped her from addressing the group.
"I said, 'I am going to have to step away from responsibility and have to ask you to take your caucus elsewhere,' " Sotelo said in an interview.
Sotelo called Smilanich a Paul campaign "operative" who did not have the experience to run the caucus. She said there was no reason for the Paul supporters to "take over" the meeting -- they had numbers and were going to elect their favored delegates no matter who chaired the caucus.
"There is no other campaign that feels the need to poke the party in the eye like the Ron Paul campaign," said Sotelo. "For heaven's sake stop hitting us with a firehose."
But Smilanich said she saw nothing wrong with what happened at the caucus.
"There was a vote and the vote went to elect [the chairman] who the body wanted. Everything was legitimate," Smilanich said.
Even though the GOP had reserved the room until 2 p.m., the meeting was pushed outside to the basketball court at about 12:30 p.m. The caucus finished its business outside in the sun, and elected 11 Ron Paul supporters to the state convention, which begins May 31 in Tacoma.
Despite asserting the caucus had ceased to be a Republican Party function once Smilanich was elected chair, Sotelo said she had no plans to challenge the legitimacy of those delegates.
One caucus attendee, Michael Brubaker, was so upset by Sotelo's actions he's suing her in small claims court. That's because each caucus-goer paid $10 to participate - money Sotelo said was to help pay for the party's expenses for using the school. But Sotelo refused to refund the money after the group was moved outside.
"She shouldn't have taken our money and kicked us out," Brubaker said.
The dust-up is the latest in a series of disputes between Paul supporters and local GOP officials.
Paul's supporters have repeatedly accused GOP leaders of conspiring against his campaign.
Republican leaders, meanwhile, have been irritated at what they see as rude, disruptive and paranoid behavior by the Paul supporters.
They're also concerned that many Paul supporters have refused to say they'll back the Republican Party's presidential nominee, now all but certain to be Mitt Romney.
Indeed, Smilanich said she would have considered backing Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator who recently suspended his presidential campaign.
But, she said, "I don't care for Mitt Romney."

ah Seattle... how I don't miss it.

Hajj Malcolm Shabazz, Grandson of Malcolm X, Accuses the US of Carrying Out 9/11 and States: Hundreds of Black Men Are Murdered Every Year in the US with Impunity.

pathetic

(other) Malcolm Shabazz : I don't believe in the presidency. I believe that the presidency post in the United States is nothing more than a puppet post. When we see movements like the Occupy movement where you have the 99% fighting against that 1% - it's not about color. It's about that minority, which keeps control of the majority. When Bill Clinton became president, many black people considered Bill Clinton to be the first black president. Why? Because he smoked a little weed, he played the saxophone, he had an oral sex situation in the White House with Monica Lewinsky – many things that they feel appeal to black people. […]
Interviewer : Mr. Shabazz, you are a Muslim yourself, and you speak about minorities. Religious minorities, especially Muslims in America, are bearing the brunt of the post-9/11 policies, at home at least. Muslims in particular are depicted as foreigners and home-grown terrorists, and they are being spied upon solely on the basis of their religion. How difficult is it to be a Muslim in America?
Malcolm Shabazz : The thing is that when many people started burning the Koran, people from all over the country said: "Wow, they are burning the Koran. Why are they burning the Koran? What's in the Koran?" So many people who didn't know too much about the Koran… When they started this Koran-burning day, it compelled a lot of people to open it up and see what was within it. All praise to God, because of this, many people became Muslims. Just like 9/11 – Muslims didn't do 9/11, Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11. If you even research it, you see that everything that was utilized in order for 9/11 to take place pointed right back at the United States. Even the flight training – they received it here in the United States. The visas – from the United States. Everything – the airplanes they used – came from the United States. We Muslims don't take actions like this. Anybody to take such an action against civilians, as we already know, is not a Muslim. Many of the people who were involved in 9/11 itself were actually agents for the United States, whether it be CIA or whatever three-letter organization that exists within this country.
There are hundreds of black men who are being murdered all over the United States of America every year with impunity.  It's a continuation of institutionalized racism. What happens is that they didn't have so many prisons here, in the United States, during slavery. When they so-called abolished slavery, that's when they came up with this prison industrial complex. The United States has more people incarcerated than anywhere else in the world. It has more people incarcerated than China, and China has the most people in the world. As a matter of fact, if you were to take the prison population of all the other countries of the world, and you were to combine them together, I don't think it would equal the amount of people who are incarcerated here in the USA. That's correct. The so-called African Americans make up less than 12% of the population of the US, yet no matter what state you go to, you see that the majority of the prisoners within the prison population are black and Hispanic. In these institutions, people are forced to work for pennies on a dollar. If you look at the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, it says that slavery is abolished, except for those who serve within these penal institutions. So technically, by the book, those who are in prison are considered to be slaves. This is why they can be forced to work for a minimal minimum wage, which is less than the minimum wage here in the United States.Source: Memri.

Jordan and the 'Arab spring'

Missing Peace (h/tDoc)report about the situation in Jordan since the beginning of the uprisings in the Arab world Jerusalem, April 25, 2012 Jordan’s ‘Arab Spring’ protests started as a peaceful small-scale demo against corruption in the town of Theeban in January 2011. Since then the protests have spread out to the outlying governorates, along with the rise of so-called popular movements. However, the unrest never reached the magnitude of the uprisings in countries such as Yemen, Egypt and Libya. As in other Arab countries, protests in Jordan were being led by the Islamist movement, which dominates the political opposition, as well as by the popular protest movement which includes numerous pro-reform organizations. Protests The Jordanians mainly protested against corruption and favoritism. Demonstrators called for investigations into regime corruption at almost all the protests. Later the protests were directed against the worsening economic situation in the country. The deterioration of the economic situation is alarming as it could lead to a full-blown revolution as happened earlier in Tunis and Egypt. Jordanian demonstrators demanded reform and change general in a peaceful way. Lately however, some protests have turned violent. Last week dozens of people were injured during clashes between Salafists and pro-government demonstrators in the city of Zarqa. Compared to the protests in other countries across the region, those in Jordan have been relatively few. This situation can be explained by a lack of organizational skills among the few political parties and an effective security system. In addition, from the outset of the protests consensus existed that political and economic reform – not regime change – were the solution. Palestinians The fact that the Palestinians, who make up almost two thirds of the population, have not joined the protests may explain why there hasn’t been a full-blown revolution in Jordan. However, the Palestinian Arabs in Jordan have good reasons to be angry at King Abdullah and his government. Although the majority of Jordan’s population is Palestinian, they have been discriminated against for decades. This is something which King Abdullah in fact admitted when back in 1999 he called upon his Jordanian (non-Palestinian) subjects to “end class divisions that have marginalized Palestinian citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom”. He also said at the time that “discrimination must end”. This discrimination includes the refusal of the Jordanian Government to let Palestinians actively take part in the governing of the country. For example, the Palestinian majority in Jordan holds only 6 seats in a 120 member Parliament, while in Israel the 20 % Arab minority holds 14 out of 120 seats in the Israeli Parliament. In addition the UN Higher Commission for Refugees confirms that Jordan’s government still treats the majority of its Palestinian citizens as refugees. Human Rights Watch reported in 2010 that King Abdullah’s government has randomly been cancelling passports of numerous Palestinians throughout Jordan, thereby destroying livelihoods and breaking up families. Recently Jordan even revoked citizenship of PLO and PA officials. At the same time a new electoral law sought to limit Palestinian representation in the Jordanian parliament even further. Instead of taking responsibility for his government’s discriminatory actions, King Abdullah has accused Israel of being an ‘apartheid’ state. He made this accusation in an interview with the Washington Post about the failed peace negotiations between Israel and the PA which were conducted in Amman. The king said that “Israel will have to choose between democracy and apartheid”. Reforms From the outset of the revolts in other Arab countries it has been clear that King Abdullah was concerned that a similar revolt could threaten his regime. Therefore he was quick to announce reforms. He has also been trying to divert the attention towards Israel by blaming the Jewish state for the shortcomings and failures of the Jordanian government, just like other Arab leaders have been doing for years. Abdullah also tries to hide his opposition to the Syrian regime because he fears Assad’s repercussions and because the Jordanian economy largely depends on Syria. The majority of Jordanian-produced goods are imported by Syria and Syria also serves as Jordan’s gateway to Lebanon, Turkey and Eastern Europe. If the trade relations between both countries were to come to an end, the already weak Jordan economy would receive a massive blow, which in turn could spark more protests and demands to topple the King and the Jordanian government. One of the reform measures which Abdullah installed included firing the government and replacing it with a new one. Similar actions were undertaken by Saudi Arabia, which uses its oil wealth to keep its citizens quiet. However, the reform measures were not enough to satisfy the protesters and they demanded more extensive changes. Their demands included serious efforts to fight the regime’s corruption, a demand for an elected prime minister (instead of a prime minister appointed by the king), abolishment of the senate (also appointed by the king) or its transformation into a body elected by the people, and a demand to pass a new elections law. In short, the protest and reform movement demand a decrease in the king’s powers and more influence and freedom of action for the parliament. Aggressive The protests continued, becoming more aggressive over time. Some protestors even publicly demanded that King Abdullah step down (there is a law in Jordan which forbids direct criticism of the Royal Family). The tone of the demonstrations changed when the protesters saw that their situation was not really changing for the good. Demonstrators started to display signs with slogans such as “there can be no reform under the current security grip” and “the people want freedom, justice and an end to corruption”. More recently various opposition members and groups have been accusing the King of being an “occupier”. They also accused Queen Rania of ruling the country instead of her husband. In response to the radicalization of the protests, the regime has taken several measures to satisfy the Islamic movement and Bedouin tribes in Jordan. This included attempts to buy them off with money and positions of power. The regime started to show flexibility on several issues which were previously considered sacred. For example, the king now said that he would be willing to curtail his own powers and that there might be talks about a constitutional monarchy. Islamists The regime also tried to pacify the Islamists by starting a dialogue. This move came after it became clear that the Islamic parties were the driving force behind the protests which are taking place in cities all over Jordan almost every Friday. In addition, the regime gave in to demands of the Islamic movement to free prisoners, including the release of 150 Salafi-Jihadist prisoners who were imprisoned for attacking security officers with swords during a rally in the city of Al-Zarqa which took place in April 2011. Furthermore, the regime also announced that it would renew its contacts with Hamas. The relations between Jordan and Hamas were suspended in 1999 because of Hamas’s terrorist activities. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal was expelled from Jordan subsequently, after which he moved to Damascus. In 2006 Jordan blacklisted the organization after an alleged weapons cache was discovered in the country. Now the regime is trying to patch up things with Hamas, in order to satisfy the Islamists in Jordan. Khaled Mashal visited Jordan at the end of January 2012, allegedly to find a new home for Hamas’s headquarters which until then had been located in Damascus. The US government however, immediately made clear that it would not tolerate the establishment of Hamas’s headquarters on Jordanian soil and warned that there would be serious repercussions if the regime did not prevent this from happening. Shortly afterwards the Jordanian regime hurried to make it clear that Mashal’s visit had no “political implications and does not signal a change in Jordan’s political agenda”. Israel In Israel pundits are worried that the Jordanian regime will not be able to hold off the Islamists in the long run. New concessions to keep the Islamists at bay will probably be necessary but could further destabilize the region. These concessions will no doubt include a review of the relations with Israel. Already at this moment it is apparent that Israeli-Jordanian relations are deteriorating. The (failed) Global March to liberate al Quds/Jerusalem (an anti-Israel manifestation that took place at the end of March) was, for instance, prepared at a conference in Amman last January. In the same month Jordanian MP’s called for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. Recently a spokesman for the Jordanian government called Israeli actions against the continuing rocket fire from Gaza ‘barbaric aggression’. In the beginning of April Jordanian state TV broadcasted an inciting sermon by imam Khaleb Rabab’a. He told worshippers that “Jordan’s army will destroy Israel and will regain Jerusalem from the killers of prophets”. The survival of the Israeli Jordanian peace treaty is to a large extent dependent upon developments in the relationship between Egypt and Israel. If the new regime in Egypt moves to change or annul the peace treaty with Israel, pressure in Jordan to do the same will follow suit.

The cracks are already showing. when the flood comes from Egypt, Jordan will follow. Now is no time for Bibi to flirt with a Contiguous state when Israel is surrounded by killers. Surrounded by killers and cut in two is stupid.