2011 Financial Crisis: End of America? (created NOV 2010)

In 2011, A single event will likely change your way of life forever. Is this the End of America? Are you ready?

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION IS CONTROVERSIAL AND MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME AUDIENCES.





Thanks Jody

Libyan adventure' for Canadian racists

Stewart Bell, National Post · May 28, 2011 | Last Updated: May 28, 2011 9:18 AM ET

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has been a lot of things during his more than four decades in power: coup leader, revolutionary, nuclear proliferator, dictator -and friend of the Canadian racist movement.

Libyan agents began forging ties with the leaders of Canada's extreme right in the late 1980s. Twice, the Gaddafi regime brought delegations of Canadian "white nationalists" to Tripoli, where they were feted and given cash.

"The common ground was the hatred of Jews," said Grant Bristow, who went on one of the trips in his capacity as an undercover Canadian Security Intelligence Service agent. "That was the basis of the relationship."

The Libyan support for Canada's racist right is a reminder that long before Col. Gaddafi began his brutal crackdown on the Libyan opposition, triggering a NATO military intervention, he had been an international menace, fomenting violence and unrest.

Even in Canada. In 1987, the Libyans invited the Nationalist Party of Canada to send a delegation to an event marking the first anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Tripoli, said the Toronto-based party's longtime leader, Don Andrews.

President Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Col. Gaddafi's compound after Libyan agents bombed a German nightclub, killing American servicemen. The dictator survived but his adopted daughter died.

"I knew they needed the white faces for Libya's one-year celebration of the Reagan bombing," Mr. Andrews said in a recent interview. "I knew we'd be used as propaganda but I thought, 'Sure, why not. We don't mind that."

Based out of a house in east Toronto, the Nationalist Party was Mr. Andrews's latest far right group. Before that he had headed the Western Guard. "White People," read one of his flyers, "Canada belongs to us."

He said the Libya trip was mostly just a free vacation in the desert but the Nationalist Party also opposed "foreign aggression," such as the U.S. air strikes. He sent a delegation of 13 to Tripoli. The Libyans paid for the trip and gave the group US$700.

Two years later, Mr. Andrews was invited to send another delegation, this time to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the coup that brought Col. Gaddafi to power. Mr. Andrews sent Wolfgang Droege, the co-founder of the Canadian Ku Klux Klan. He had just been released from a California prison. Also on the trip was Mr. Bristow, who was posing as a racist while he spied on Mr. Droege. "We sent 17 the second time," Mr. Andrews said.

In an interview, Mr. Bristow called it "the great Libyan adventure." The Libyan government paid for everything. He said Mr. Droege saw the trip as a chance to lobby Col. Gaddafi's regime to fund the Canadian racist movement.

"Droege was hoping to set up a long-term relationship with the Libyans," recalled Mr. Bristow, who now lives in Alberta under the name Nathan Black. "He was looking at maybe there could be some stable, substantial movement funding from the Libyans."

As documented in Warren Kinsella's 1996 book Web of Hate, the delegates flew to Rome and then to Malta, where they boarded a ship to Libya. "We got taken off the boat and moved to a place that we jokingly referred to as Camp Gaddafi, which looked like it was a foreign worker type compound for oil workers or something," Mr. Bristow said. "It had a swimming pool, almost like guest villas."

The Nationalist Party delegates visited the Tripoli market and the ancient Phoenician trading post at Subratha. They toured the house bombed by U.S. warplanes, which had been converted into a museum.


Yes it does revive history for sure....BUT WHY NOW??...VERY VERY SUSPICIOUS THEY GETTING A LIST READY FOR LOCKUPS OF SYMPATHIZERS HERE, IF THEY KEEP GOING TO WARS WITH ARABIA ??

thank you BPL

The Government's War on Cameras!

Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that's not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.

In 2009, police arrested blogger and freelance photographer Antonio Musumeci on the steps of a New York federal courthouse. His alleged crime? Unauthorized photography on federal property.

Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.

Although the legal right to film on federal property now seems to be firmly established, many other questions about public photography still remain and place journalists and citizens in harm's way. Can you record a police encounter? Can you film on city or state property? What are a photographer's rights in so-called public spaces?

These questions will remain unanswered until a case reaches the Supreme Court, says UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, founder of the popular law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Until then, it's up to people to know their rights and test the limits of free speech, even at the risk of harassment and arrest.

Who will watch the watchers? All of us, it turns out, but only if we're willing to fight for our rights.More at Source

New in NYC Classes: "Babies Don't Belong in Dumpsters 101?"

After two young moms recently abandoned their newborn babies -- one of whom did not survive -- New York officials are proposing that high school curriculum include lessons on what mothers can do if they give birth to a baby they don't want.

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, State Sen. Eric Adams and State Assemblyman Hakim Jeffries are proposing state legislation requiring the change to high school health curriculum.

The officials envision students being taught in public school about so-called "safe haven laws," which allow a parent to leave a newborn anonymously without prosecution as long as the newborn is abandoned in a safe way.more

View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.thank you Chris

While I think the acts of these two black women is criminal I also don't think that schools should be the place to broadcast this, what happened to the parents.  I think both should be charged with a crime and the mother sterlized.    While doing a little research on the story that was submitted I was surprised to learn where the idea came from and it just might surprise you too.

Japan, not without some controversy, has joined a growing list of countries offering so-called "baby drops" -- safe havens where parents can anonymously drop off their unwanted infants.

The Catholic-run Jikei Hospital on the island of Kumamoto, 550 miles southwest of Tokyo, has just been given permission to install what hospital administrators call the "Cradle of the White Stork."  

The "stork's cradle" is a small incubator bed accessible through a small window in the hospital wall. An alarm bell rings within minutes after a baby is anonymously left in the incubator, signaling nurses to retrieve the infant.

The idea is patterned after programs in Italy as well as Germany's "baby box," initiated by a Christian organization in Hamburg in 2000. Today, more than 90 such drop-offs are located throughout Germany.
"We want to save both the children and the mothers," Jikei Hospital director Taiji Hasuda told the Asahi Shimbun newspaper. "The children are not the ones responsible for their birth."


The plan came about after a series of high-profile cases in which parents reportedly abandoned newborn babies in parks, shopping centers, supermarkets and even in bicycle baskets.  

Baby safe havens are in wide use in the United States, although rather than windows, states with the program often let parents leave babies at police stations or hospitals with no questions asked.

In Europe, the drop-off windows have names like "babyklappe" (baby slot) in Austria and Germany; "babyfenster" (baby window) in Switzerland; "babybox" in the Czech Republic; and "culle per vite" (cradles for life) in Italy.more from abc

Home Insecurity,Two privacy rulings hit us where we live.

Jacob Sullum | May 25, 2011

A few years ago, two police officers were chasing a crack dealer at a Lexington, Kentucky, apartment complex when they lost sight of him as he ducked into one of two units at the end of a breezeway. Detecting "a very strong odor of burnt marijuana" coming from the apartment on the left, they figured that must be the one, so they banged on the door and shouted, "Police!" Hearing "the sound of persons moving," the officers later reported, they feared evidence was being destroyed, so they kicked in the door.

It turned out to be the wrong apartment, but inside the cops discovered a guest smoking pot and, during a "protective sweep" of the apartment, saw marijuana and cocaine powder "in plain view." A more thorough search turned up crack, cash, and drug paraphernalia.

So much for the alleged destruction of evidence. So much, too, for the doctrine that a man's home is his castle, not to be forcibly entered by government agents on a whim or a hunch. Last week the U.S. Supreme Court said the "exigent circumstances" that exist when someone might be flushing drugs down a toilet allow police to enter a home without a warrant, even if their own actions create those circumstances.

As the lone dissenting justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted, this decision "arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases." Instead of "presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate," they can retroactively validate their decision to break into someone's home by claiming they smelled something funny and heard something suspicious.

While the U.S. Supreme Court said police may force their way into a home to prevent the destruction of evidence, the Indiana Supreme Court, in a less noticed decision issued the week before, said police may force their way into a home for any reason or no reason at all. Although the victim of an illegal search can challenge it in court after the fact, three of the five justices agreed, "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." They thereby nullified a principle of common law that is centuries old, arguably dating back to the Magna Carta.

The case involved Richard Barnes, whose wife called 911 in November 2007 to report that he was throwing things around their apartment. When police encountered Barnes outside, he shouted that they were not needed because he was in the process of moving out. His wife emerged, threw a duffle bag in his direction, and told him to collect the rest of his belongings. When two officers tried to follow the couple back into the apartment, Barnes blocked the way, while his wife said "don't do this" and "just let them in." Barnes shoved one officer against a wall, and a scuffle ensued.

After he was convicted of battery on a police officer, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct, Barnes appealed, arguing that the jury should have been instructed about "the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen's home." The Indiana Supreme Court could have ruled that the officers' entry into the apartment was lawful given the possibility of violence, especially since Barnes' wife had called 911 and arguably invited them in. The majority suggested as much but inexplicably decided a far broader question. "Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry," the court said, "we need not decide the legality of the officers' entry into Barnes's apartment."

This backward approach suggests the justices were eager to repudiate a straightforward extension of self-defense that struck them as an outmoded impediment to law enforcement.more

thank you szteve

High Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Employers Over Illegal Immigrant Workers

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

he decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday's decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general

Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.

Employers "will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States," he said.

Business interests and civil liberties groups challenged the law, backed by the Obama administration.

The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration's Homeland Security secretary.

The employer sanctions law has been only infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona's role as the nation's hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. more

thank you Kev

Bloomberg Makes Case for Gay Marriage

This is complete crap that Mayor Bloomberg is threatening , basically blackmailing the Senate, with the you don’t want to have the rep of being called racist when you don’t vote for something you see as unnatural, and that is exactly what I intend on doing if you don’t vote the Gay way. I’m also a little ashamed of the Senate who is more powerful then a ‘Mayor’ if they 
stoop down to this

Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned state lawmakers Thursday that if they oppose legalizing gay marriage they may be remembered as civil rights obstructionists similar to those who opposed the abolition of slavery and fought against giving women the right to vote. "The question for every New York state lawmaker is: Do you want to be remembered as a leader on civil rights? Or an obstructionist? On matters of freedom and equality, history has not remembered obstructionists kindly," Bloomberg said in his speech at Manhattan's The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art.

Bloomberg argued that failing to legalize gay marriage in New York, which he called the birthplace of the gay-rights movement, would have economic consequences as well as human ones. "As other states recognize the rights of same-sex couples to marry, we cannot stand by and watch. To do so would be to betray our civic values and history — and it would harm our competitive edge in the global economy," he said. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been pushing the Legislature to make gay marriage legal, but has said he wouldn't bring the issue to a vote unless he felt it would pass. The mayor argued that the state's residents deserve to see where their legislators stand, whatever the outcome. Senate Republicans, who are key to the effort, also are closely watching polls, which for the first time in months are showing an apparent slight erosion of public support for gay marriage after months of steady gains. State Sen. Ruben Diaz, a Democrat from the Bronx, has been arguing against the measure. He said Thursday that legislators, rather than residents, imposed gay marriage in states where it is legal. "When people have been given the chance to vote, they have rejected it," Diaz said.more