COPS: 19-year-old white student beaten by two separate black gangs...

Anti-White Race Hate Watch:
(Because Whites have rights!)

By Justin Fenton,
May 18, 2012

A 19-year-old student from Baltimore Polytechnic High School told police he was beaten by two separate groups of juveniles from a rival school in downtown Baltimore on Thursday afternoon, an attack that comes amid a pitched debate over downtown safety.

According to police, the student was walking in the 200 block of W. Fayette St., a block north of the First Mariner Arena, before 4:20 p.m. when he said he was attacked from behind by an unknown male. Nine other juveniles joined in as he tried to defend himself, and his phone was taken during the attack, he told police.

Moments later, police say, an MTA bus stopped in the block and a juvenile male wearing a Digital Harbor High School shirt "forced open the door and got off the bus," followed by 19 other juveniles wearing Digital Harbor shirts, who again assaulted the victim, police said.

Anthony Guglielmi, a city police spokesman, said the victim told the police he was attacked because of a rivalry between the two schools. Guglielmi said police were coordinating with school officials to investigate the case.

The Sun reported last week that police dispatch tapes revealed a broader disturbance downtown onSt. Patrick's Daythan police had let on, and some questioned whether police had been forthcoming initially about the scope of the incident. The tapes showed police struggled to contain large groups of young people moving throughout the downtown area.

Also that night, a Virginia man was beaten and stripped of his clothing near the downtown courthouse, an attack that was caught on tape and garnered national attention.

The racial elements of that crime fed much of the outrage - the victim was white, and the attackers were all black. In Thursday's reported assault, Guglielmi said the 19-year-old victim was white and the attackers were all juvenile black males.

The reports of the St. Patrick's Day incidents prompted Baltimore County Del. Pat McDonough, a conservative radio show host, to issue a statement asking the governor to send in the Maryland State Police to control "roving mobs of black youths" at Baltimore's Inner Harbor. He said the Harbor should be declared a "no-travel zone" until safety can be ensured.

His comments were denounced by other politicians, including Gov. Martin O'Malley, and a group of activists to call for an apology. McDonough has declined, saying to do so would be "political correctness on steroids."

Arizona Secretary of State Threatens to Remove Obama from Ballot

by Keith Koffler
May 18, 2012

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett is threatening to keep President Obama’s name off the state’s ballot in November unless he receives confirmation from Hawaii that it has a valid birth certificate on file for him.

Bennett, who spoke to Arizona radio host Mike Broomhead Thursday, said he requested the confirmation eight weeks ago and has not gotten it. Hawaii, he said, does not have to supply a certified copy of the birth certificate, merely send him an email confirming that it has one.

Asked by Broomhead if he would remove Obama’s name from the ballot if Hawaii fails to comply, Bennett said: “That’s possible. Or the other option would be that I would ask all the candidates, including the president, to submit a certified copy of their birth certificate.”

Despite overwhelming evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, the issue of his birth continues to dog him. Thursday, Breitbart Big Government reported on a promotional booklet by Obama’s own literary agency listing him as having been born in Kenya.

[ed. A badly photoshoped copy of a birth certificate, put together by an intern one afternoon, is not "overwhelming evidence"...]

Bennett said Hawaii law permits government officials to request verification of possession of a birth certificate in lieu of a certified copy.

“They could say yes tomorrow and the whole thing goes away,” Bennett said. “If they can’t say yes to that simple question, than it makees we wonder if we have to take it to another level. One way or another, we have to have some simple verification that people are qualified for the office if they’re going to be on the ballot here in Arizona.”

Bennett asserted that he is not a “birther” and denied accusations that he is playing to the birther crowd in Arizona because he wants to run for governor. But Bennett also hedged in stating his belief that Obama was Hawwaii-born.

“I believe the president was born in Hawaii – or at least I hope he was,” Bennett said.

Arizona, with its 11 electoral votes, is an important 2012 presidential battleground state. A Real Clear Politics average of recent polling in the state has Mitt Romney ahead by only four points.

One thing I’d like to make clear. This blog [Whitehousedossier.com] believes Obama was born in Hawaii. But it also believes threats by the Arizona Secretary of State to exclude the president from the ballot are newsworthy.

[ed. That a newspaper has to justify itself in this way is indicative of the hold the Obama crime family have on the media...]

JFK on Secrecy and Censorship (Video)

Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'

[ed. WOW!]


by Joel B. Pollak
17th May, 2012

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

It also promotes Obama's anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White--which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (image and text below):

The booklet, which is thirty-six pages long, is printed in blue ink (and, on the cover, silver/grey ink), using offset lithography. It purports to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of Acton & Dystel, which was founded in 1976.

Jay Acton no longer represents Obama. However, Jane Dystel still lists Obama as a client on her agency's website.

According to the booklet itself, the text was edited by Miriam Goderich, who has since become Dystel's partner at Dystel & Goderich, an agency founded in 1994. Breitbart News attempted to reach Goderich by telephone several times over several days. Her calls are screened by an automated service that requires callers to state their name and company, which we did. She never answered.

The design of the booklet was undertaken by Richard Bellsey, who has since closed his business. Bellsey, reached by telephone, could not recall the exact details of the booklet, but told Breitbart News that it "sounds like one of our jobs, like I did for [Acton & Dystel] twenty years ago or more."

The parade of authors alongside Obama in the booklet includes politicians, such as former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill; sports legends, such as Joe Montana and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; and numerous Hollywood celebrities.

The reverse side of the page that features Barack Obama includes former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and early-1990s "boy band" pop sensation New Kids On the Block.

Acton, who spoke to Breitbart News by telephone, confirmed precise details of the booklet and said that it cost the agency tens of thousands of dollars to produce.

He indicated that while "almost nobody" wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom "the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis," were "probably" approached to approve the text as presented.

Dystel did not respond to numerous requests for comment, via email and telephone. Her assistant told Breitbart News that Dystel "does not answer questions about Obama."

The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Moreover, several contemporaneous accounts of Obama’s background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.

The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama--or the people representing and supporting him--manipulate his public persona.

David Maraniss's forthcoming biography of Obama has reportedly confirmed, for example, that a girlfriend Obama described in Dreams from My Father was, in fact, an amalgam of several separate individuals.

In addition, Obama and his handlers have a history of redefining his identity when expedient. In March 2008, for example, he famously declared: "I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother."

Several weeks later, Obama left Wright's church--and, according to Edward Klein's new biography, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, allegedly attempted to persuade Wright not to "do any more public speaking until after the November [2008] election" (51).

Obama has been known frequently to fictionalize aspects of his own life. During his 2008 campaign, for instance, Obama claimed that his dying mother had fought with insurance companies over coverage for her cancer treatments.

That turned out to be untrue, but Obama has repeated the story--which even the Washington Post called "misleading"--in a campaign video for the 2012 election.

The Acton & Dystel biography could also reflect how Obama was seen by his associates, or transitions in his own identity. He is said, for instance, to have cultivated an "international" identity until well into his adulthood, according to Maraniss.

Regardless of the reason for Obama's odd biography, the Acton & Dystel booklet raises new questions as part of ongoing efforts to understand Barack Obama--who, despite four years in office remains a mystery to many Americans, thanks to the mainstream media.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

It must be every Englishman's right to call Prezza a chimp

By Quentin Letts
16 May 2012

Should a parliamentary sketchwriter be allowed to describe Lord Prescott (as I fear I may have done on more than one occasion) as ‘a chimp’?

Or should the bottom-pinching former Deputy Prime Minister (or, for that matter, the chimpanzee) be able to report the matter to the police on the grounds that it is ‘insulting’?

Should it be illegal to say of former Tory MP-turned-ballroom-artiste Ann Widdecombe that she has ‘the body of a 20-year-old — a 20-year-old Skoda’?

Should it be punishable by law to refer to the reproductive equipment of that fine figure of a man Nicholas Soames MP and to say that being made love to by him is like being crushed by a wardrobe with the key sticking out?

Or should the forces of law and order be able to barge down the door and make an arrest, citing the Public Order Act 1986 and marching one off to the local nick to cool one’s fountain pen?
Cowardly

I ask these questions not just out of naked and cowardly self-interest, although that is naturally on my radar. We sketchwriters are not known for our mortal bravery. Heaven knows, the way things are going with other parts of the media, it is no longer impossible to imagine a Fleet Street journalist being charged by a TV-hogging, glammed-up public prosecutor.

I raise the subject mainly because Members of Parliament and campaigners are calling for that Public Order Act to be changed so that such teasing can no longer be deemed a crime — and the Government may well be tempted to agree with them.

A remarkable alliance has been formed in favour of this change, one that unites souls as disparate as gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and the (so far as I know, solidly heterosexual) Tory grandee David Davis.

It includes Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and others, it embraces the so-called God-botherers of the Christian Institute and the hot-to-trot God deniers of the National Secular Society. This is, indeed, a ‘broad church’.

The alliance has noticed that the police have started to take it upon themselves to investigate people under the Act’s previously little-noticed Section 5, which makes it illegal to behave in a way which is deemed likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress’.

To quote from that law: ‘A person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.’

If you have insulted someone, and that person notices, you may be for the legal high jump — no matter what your intentions were. Gulp. We may not be talking about a judge donning the black cap, but police charges and the stress of legal proceedings may well follow, along with lawyers’ costs running to thousands of pounds.

All this in a country which supposedly has ‘freedom of speech’.

Mr Tatchell is greatly to be praised. He himself, in the course of a lively career of public protest, has often been called rude names. Yet here he is defending the right of his fellow citizens to call him precisely those names. The man is a good ’un.

He describes Section 5 as ‘a menace to free speech and the right to protest’. When you consider some recent examples of what has been done, it is hard to disagree.

As the Mail noted yesterday, City of London police swooped on a teenager who was protesting outside the HQ of the Church of Scientology, holding a banner that said ‘cult’. And yes, he really did spell it that way.

A street preacher was fined £700 after proclaiming Biblical teaching which, he felt, condemned homosexuality. Away he was led by the boys in blue, for ‘insulting’ gay folk. An undergraduate in Oxford was hurled into a police cell for a night for saying to a mounted copper: ‘Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?’ I do love the ‘excuse me’ part of that story, but the rest of it is Orwellian — an example of the once-sensible British constabulary over-reacting and, I suspect, using a bad law to gratify officers’ own sense of importance.

Most of us, surely, can agree that such examples are absurd, although perhaps not everyone. Mr Tatchell tried to make his case yesterday on Radio 4’s Today programme and was given a torrid time, facing repeated interruptions from the interviewer. For a broadcaster, the BBC is surprisingly eager to apply the bellows to the intolerant grievance industry.

It is surely also the case that the ‘insulting’ part of Section 5 devalues more serious issues of incitement to violence, racism and blasphemy.

I would never argue the libertarian case that you should be allowed to say and write whatever you like. To advocate the murder of another citizen should naturally be illegal. To whip up aggro against Jews or Muslims or Christians or other faiths is obviously horrible.

But what about a wider principle here: should Britain be a country where personal insults are avoided? Or are insults a telling part of our culture? Do insults coarsen us? Do they keep us sane?
Merciless

In my day job as a sketchwriter, I am occasionally assailed by minority nutters and by my victims’ chums for being ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘xenophobic’ and so forth. What they actually mean is ‘disobliging’, to which I plead guilty. I mock. I tease. I take the rise out of politicians and society’s glad-handers.

I try, in words, to do what political cartoonists do with their drawings. The cartoon has a long and sparky history in British politics. Think of Hogarth with his merciless, rightly indignant depictions of Gin Lane. Think of Gillray with his satirical art in the 18th century which tweaked the snouts of the rich and powerful. Think, today, of Steve Bell in The Guardian, who loves to depict David Cameron wearing a condom over his head and who often drew poor John Major with his underpants outside his trousers.

Vicious? Of course. That is the whole point, just as it was with TV’s Spitting Image. But sometimes it can be funny. Sometimes it can be necessary.

Caricature may be unfair — it is, by definition, an exaggeration — but it gives vent to widely-felt irritation with or contempt for certain public figures.

Repression

Prevent that insulting art from being drawn and you may get what often happens when a vent is blocked: an explosion. Suppression of ad hominem attacks will not stop people thinking such thoughts. It will merely fuel anger at the authorities.

It is not such a long journey from that sort of repression to the scene of the dictator (think Ceausescu in Romania) being taken out and killed by the lynch mob.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act ignores the reality of the public square — the fact that human beings will always express their views, will always gossip, will always complain. Welcome to politics. The governed will gripe. That is the way of the world.

The doubts of Messrs Tatchell and Davis and others about the Public Order Act is of a piece with the debate about Press standards. Lawmakers need to ask themselves: to what extent can Canute stop the tide? If they write bad laws, might those laws not bring the whole legal system into disrepute?

[ed. They are not "Laws" but acts of parliament which require the consent of the governed under Common Law...it is VERY important that the public realises this distinction...]

Anyway, it is nowadays almost impossible to prevent vehement comment. The internet, from blogs to Twitter, has democratised the media to a degree little imagined even four years ago. And the internet is a place of raw vituperation.

Regrettable though that may be, it is simply not practical to offer anyone who has ever been the target of a few unkind words the prospect of legal redress.

Let natural justice prevail. Let the truth of the insult, or otherwise, be weighed in the balance by public opinion. That is the court where such matters should be decided.

Merkel's real fear is that an exit from the Euro will be good for Greece

By Daniel Hannan
17 May 2012

Francois Hollande, the Euro-fanatical new French president, must have wondered whether, like some unfortunate mortal in Greek mythology, he had angered the gods. His inauguration parade was drenched in unseasonal rain and, when he flew to an emergency summit with Germany’s Angela Merkel on how to keep the euro together, his plane was struck by lightning.

Like other EU leaders, he is learning how puny he is in the face of events. Again and again, the Euro-elites have declared the crisis to be over, only to find that the markets had other ideas.

The French and German leaders insist that they’re sticking to the original plan: Greece will implement its austerity programme, repay a portion of its original debt, and remain in the euro. Privately, though, finance ministers across Europe are reconciled to a default.

Even Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, who has always been more interested in the survival of the euro than in doing her day-job, now says she is ‘technically prepared’ for Greece to welsh on its remaining debts.

Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, cut Britain’s growth forecasts and warned of higher inflation, saying the euro area was ‘tearing itself apart’ and there was a ‘risk of a storm heading our way from the Continent’. David Cameron stated bluntly that it was time for for the eurozone either ‘to make up or break up’.

The question all this raises is whether a Greek default will be a controlled explosion – Greece, after all, represents only two per cent of the eurozone economy – or a blast that will set off a chain reaction across Europe and bring the entire financial system down.

Eurocrats are especially concerned that Greece might leave the euro – but not for the reason you might think. Their worry is not that Greece will sink into a state of Levantine poverty: that has already happened. No, their true fear is that, after a few wretched months, Greece would bounce back, using its newly competitive currency to price its way into the markets and export its way to growth.

If that were to happen, other countries on the periphery of the eurozone, also struggling with an over-valued exchange rate, might try something similar. The whole euro project would unravel faster than you could say ‘Jacques Delors’.

Eurocrats often liken the EU to a bicycle that has to keep moving forward or topple over. A ravenous shark that has to keep swimming or die might be a better simile, but never mind: the point holds.

Any rolling back of the single most important integrationist project would call the whole enterprise into question.

Greek politicians are banking – if that’s the right word – on this fear.

At first blush, their attitude seems incomprehensible. They insist that they want to remain in the euro, yet they won’t pretend to obey its rules. Greek politicians seem to be threatening from a position of weakness, insulting their benefactors while simultaneously expecting them to offer better terms. Yet such a strategy has so far worked beautifully.

No one in Brussels seriously expects Greece to make the budgetary reforms it has promised. Yet, again and again, they have ponied up. Greek politicians have calculated that they will do the same again. And, although the bookies have stopped taking bets on Greece leaving the single currency, they might just be right.

Commentators often talk of Greece being ‘kicked out’ of the euro, but this is to misunderstand the nature of a currency. A government can proclaim any money it wants to be legal tender.

For example, Ecuador didn’t need to ask the United States when it adopted the dollar as its currency. Montenegro and Kosovo have adopted the euro without being members of the EU.

The question of a Greek exit from the euro – or ‘Grexit’ as market analysts, with their addiction to jargon, call it – is for the Greeks, not the other 16 eurozone states.

So far, almost all the politicians, as well as the Greek central bank, are committed to continued membership. And, bewilderingly, 77 per cent of Greek voters say they want to remain in the euro at whatever cost.

Why do they cling so fiercely to the currency that is pulling them under? For two reasons. First, the euro is a talisman, proof of Greece’s European rather than Ottoman status. Second, Greek politicians are now so distrusted that there is a genuine horror at the idea of letting them control a national coinage again.

Greeks will therefore do what they can to resist a return to the world’s oldest currency, the drachma.

The assumption in the markets is that Greece would have no option but to start printing a new drachma currency following a default. This is because, in the aftermath of a debt repudiation, no one lends you money. The Athens government wouldn’t be able to pay its basic costs: pensions, police wages and so on. It would, runs the reasoning, have no option but to devalue and print extra notes.

Yet, once you strip out the debt interest payments, Greece’s primary deficit is small. It is just conceivable that Greece might hang on to the euro while, as bankrupt governments have done in the past, failing to pay its public-sector workers on time. This would, of course, be the worst of all worlds: to take the hit of a default without the compensating gain of a currency devaluation. Then again, if the euro had been about economics, Greece wouldn’t have joined in the first place.

The likelier scenario is that Greece makes a virtue of necessity and goes, sooner or later, for the default leave the euro and devalue strategy. There would be a short-term shock, as people rushed to put their savings abroad. There might need to be temporary capital controls to regulate the amount of money leaving the country.

Soon, though, the effect of cheaper exports would start to tell. That is what has just happened in Iceland which, following a banking crash four years ago, is now comfortably outgrowing the eurozone.

Imagine, as you book your summer holiday, that the new exchange rate suddenly makes Greek resorts 40 or 50 per cent cheaper than their competitors. Now imagine every business making a similar calculation when it comes to sourcing goods.

The blood-curdling threats being issued by Eurocrats should sound familiar to British readers. We went through precisely the same experience 20 years ago, when we were stuck with an over-valued exchange rate in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

As in Greece, our leaders – all the main parties, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England – assured us that leaving the ERM would be disastrous. On September 11, 1992, John Major solemnly told us that withdrawal was ‘the soft option, the inflationary option, the devaluer’s option, a betrayal of our country’s future’.

Four days later, we left the system, and our recovery began immediately. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment started falling, and we enjoyed 15 years of unbroken growth – until Gordon Brown came along and blew it away.

That, deep down, is what the Euro-apparatchiks fear. Greece would recover from leaving the euro. Their credibility wouldn’t.

Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.

By SABRINA TAVERNISE
May 17, 2012

WASHINGTON — After years of speculation, estimates and projections, the Census Bureau has made it official: White births are no longer a majority in the United States.

Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 49.6 percent of all births in the 12-month period that ended last July, according to Census Bureau data made public on Thursday, while minorities — including Hispanics, blacks, Asians and those of mixed race — reached 50.4 percent, representing a majority for the first time in the country’s history.

Such a turn has been long expected, but no one was certain when the moment would arrive — signaling a milestone for a nation whose government was founded by white Europeans and has wrestled mightily with issues of race, from the days of slavery, through a civil war, bitter civil rights battles and, most recently, highly charged debates over efforts to restrict immigration.

While over all, whites will remain a majority for some time, the fact that a younger generation is being born in which minorities are the majority has broad implications for the country’s economy, its political life and its identity. “This is an important tipping point,” said William H. Frey, the senior demographer at the Brookings Institution, describing the shift as a “transformation from a mostly white baby boomer culture to the more globalized multiethnic country that we are becoming.”

Signs that the country is evolving this way start with the Oval Office, and have swept hundreds of counties in recent years, with 348 in which whites are no longer in the majority. That number doubles when it comes to the toddler population, Mr. Frey said. Whites are no longer the majority in four states and the District of Columbia, and have slipped below half in many major metro areas, including New York, Las Vegas and Memphis.

A more diverse young population forms the basis of a generational divide with the country’s elderly, a group that is largely white and grew up in a world that was too.

The contrast raises important policy questions. The United States has a spotty record educating minority youth; will older Americans balk at paying to educate a younger generation that looks less like themselves? And while the increasingly diverse young population is a potential engine of growth, will it become a burden if it is not properly educated?

“The question is, how do we reimagine the social contract when the generations don’t look like one another?” said Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, co-director of Immigration studies at New York University.

The trend toward greater minority births has been building for years, the result of the large wave of immigration here over the past three decades. Hispanics make up the majority of immigrants, and they tend to be younger — and to have more children — than non-Hispanic whites. (Of the total births in the year that ended last July, about 26 percent were Hispanic, about 15 percent black, and about 4 percent Asian.)

Whites still represent the single largest share of all births, at 49.6 percent, and are an overwhelming majority in the population as a whole, at 63.4 percent. But they are aging, causing a tectonic shift in American demographics. The median age for non-Hispanic whites is 42 — meaning the bulk of women are moving out of their prime childbearing years.

Latinos, on the other hand, are squarely within their peak fertility, with a median age of 27, said Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center. Between 2000 and 2010, there were more Hispanic births in the United States than there were arriving Hispanic immigrants, he said.

The result is striking: Minorities accounted for 92 percent of the nation’s population growth in the decade that ended in 2010, Mr. Frey calculated, a surge that has created a very different looking America from the one of the 1950s, when the TV characters Ozzie and Harriet were a national archetype.

The change is playing out across states with large differences in ethnic and racial makeup between the elderly and the young. Some of the largest gaps are in Arizona, Nevada, Texas and California, states that have had flare-ups over immigration, school textbooks and priorities in spending. The nonrural county with the largest gap is Yuma County, Ariz., where just 18 percent of people under 20 are white, compared with 73 percent of people over 65, Mr. Frey said.

Perhaps the most urgent aspect of the change is education. A college degree has become the most important building block of success in today’s economy, but blacks and Latinos lag far behind whites in getting one. According to Mr. Frey, just 13 percent of Hispanics and 18 percent of blacks have a college degree, compared with 31 percent of whites.

Those stark statistics are made more troubling by the fact that young Americans will soon be faced with caring for the bulging population of baby boomers as they age into retirement, said William O’Hare, a senior consultant to the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, on top of inheriting trillions of dollars of government debt.

“The forces coming together here are very clear, but I don’t see our political leaders putting them together in any coherent way,” he said, adding that educating young minorities was of critical importance to the future of the country and the economy.

Immigrants took several generations to assimilate through education in the last large wave of immigration at the turn of the 20th century, Mr. Suarez-Orozco said, but mobility was less dependent on education then, and Americans today cannot afford to wait, as they struggle to compete with countries like China.

“This is a polite knock on the door to tell us to get ready,” said Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “We do a pretty lousy job of educating the younger generation of minorities. Basically, we are not ready for this.”

But there are bright spots. Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said the immigration debate of recent years has raised the political consciousness of young Latinos and he is hopeful that more will become politically active as a result. Only half of eligible Latino voters cast ballots in 2008, he said, compared with 65 percent of eligible non-Hispanic voters. “We have an opportunity here with this current generation,” Mr. Vargas said. About 50,000 Latinos turn 18 every month, he said.

And the fact that the country is getting a burst of births from nonwhites is a huge advantage, argues Dowell Myers, professor of policy, planning and demography at the University of Southern California. European societies with low levels of immigration now have young populations that are too small to support larger aging ones, exacerbating problems with the economy.

“If the U.S. depended on white births alone, we’d be dead,” Mr. Myers said. “Without the contributions from all these other groups, we would become too top-heavy with old people.”

[ed. The story of third world colonisation of the western world continues in a town near you...]

Metro Squad seeks suspects who gunned down Raytown jogger

Anti-White Race Hate Watch:
(Because racism crimes against whites is not ok!)

By Chris Oberholtz, Alice Barr & DeAnn Smith
May 14, 2012

RAYTOWN, MO (KCTV) - A gunman who killed a 60-year-old Raytown man is still on the run, and police believe a gang initiation could be to blame.

Police in the Kansas City suburb say they are exploring new details. In addition, they are examining whether Harry Stone was killed as part of a gang initiation or a dare.

The Metro Squad convened at a Raytown fire station Monday, making it their headquarters while they try to find out as quickly as possible who gunned down Harry Stone outside a gas station.

Stone was standing on the sidewalk just after 7 a.m. Sunday in front of a gas station near 67th Street and Blue Ridge Boulevard.

Detectives say Stone was just out for a morning jog, on his normal route, when a dark-colored, four-door sedan pulled by, slowed down, fired several shots at him, then pulled off, without ever stopping.

That car was caught on surveillance video at the gas station, and detectives are planning to release that video for help to track down the shooter.

Police say they weren't able to get much information from Stone before he was rushed to the hospital where he later died.

Authorities say there is even more urgency to track down the shooter because of the random nature of this crime.

"It was just such a random act of violence. There was no confrontation beforehand. It was just someone who was shot randomly walking down the street, it could have happened to anybody, it could have been anyone," Metro Squad detective Tom Prudden said.

Stone was the husband of assistant pastor at St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Raytown.

Police ask anyone with information about this or anyone driving by at the time call the TIPS Hotline at 816-474-TIPS.

Free speech 'strangled by law that bans insults' and is abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors

By James Chapman
16 May 2012

Theresa May is being urged to reform a controversial law which bans ‘insulting words or behaviour’ amid mounting evidence that it is strangling free speech.

Campaigners say the Public Order Act is being abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors to arrest Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology, gay rights campaigners and even students making jokes.

Currently, Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws ‘insulting words or behaviour’, but what constitutes ‘insulting’ is unclear and has resulted in a string of controversial arrests.

Human rights campaigners, MPs, faith groups and secular organisations have joined forces to have the ‘insulting words or behaviour’ phrase removed from the legislation, arguing that it restricts freedom of speech and penalises campaigners, protesters and even preachers.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis, a leading campaigner for civil liberties, said reform was ‘vital to protecting freedom of expression in Britain today’.

‘There is a growing list of examples where the law against using “insulting” language has led to heavy-handed action by police and prosecutors. It is not only distressing for the individuals concerned, it constitutes a threat to Britain’s tradition of free speech,’ he said.

‘Of course nobody likes to be insulted, particularly in public, but nor does anyone have a right not to be insulted. Freedom of speech includes the right to criticise, to ridicule and to offend. It is not the job of the police and the courts to prevent us from having our feelings hurt.

‘The solution is simple: The law needs to change. The word “insulting” should be removed from section 5 of the Public Order Act. This would provide proportionate protection to individuals’ right to free speech, while continuing to protect people from threatening or abusive speech.’

A poll by ComRes, commissioned by campaigners, found 62 per cent of MPs believe it should not be the business of Government to outlaw ‘insults’. Only 17 per cent of MPs believe removing the ‘insult’ clause would undermine the ability of the police to protect the public.

In an unlikely alliance, the Christian Institute is joining forces with the National Secular Society to back the campaign, because both organisations are committed to free speech and open debate.

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: ‘Britain’s historic civil liberties were often hammered out amid controversy over freedom to preach without state interference. Christians know first hand why free speech is precious and this is why the Christian Institute is pleased to join people across the political and philosophical spectrum to help bring about this simple but important change.’

Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said: ‘Secularists, in defending free expression, must ensure that the law is fair to everybody and argue equally for the right of religious and non-religious people to freely criticise and exchange opinions without fear of the law, unless they are inciting violence. Free speech is not free if it is available only to some and not others.’

Others backing the campaign include Big Brother Watch, the Freedom Association and the Peter Tatchell Foundation. Mr Tatchell, a prominent gay rights advocate, said Section 5 was a ‘menace to free speech and the right to protest’. He added: ‘The open exchange of ideas – including unpalatable, even offensive, ideas – is a hallmark of a free and democratic society.’

In October, Home Secretary Mrs May launched a consultation on the Public Order Act, including whether the word ‘insulting’ in Section 5 strikes the right balance between freedom of expression and the right not to be harassed, alarmed or distressed. The consultation closed four months ago, but the Government has yet to set out its views.

[ed. Common LAW (which guarantees Freedom of speech) cannot be superceded by Acts of Parliament, which are not laws but statues that require the consent of the governed...]

Massive HSBC fraud ignored (Video)

Child sex grooming case WAS about race

Anti-White Race Hate Watch:
(White people have rights!)

...and it would be a 'national scandal' if political correctness meant it was not stopped sooner, says equality chief Trevor Phillips

By Daniel Martin
14 May 2012

Equalities chief Trevor Phillips has described as ‘fatuous’ the idea that there was no racial link in the Rochdale child sex grooming case.

Last week, nine men – eight of Pakistani origin and one from Afghanistan – were jailed after being found guilty of running a sexual exploitation ring involving girls as young as 13.

Yesterday, Mr Phillips, the chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said it would be a ‘national scandal’ if it emerged that social services and schools had not acted on reports of abuse for fear of ‘demonising’ minority communities.

He was asked on BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show whether the case illustrated a cultural problem in part of the Pakistani Muslim community about the way men regard white women as ‘fair game’.

Mr Phillips replied: ‘Let’s remember the most important thing about this is that these men are criminals; these children are street kids.

‘However, I think anybody who says that the fact that most of the men are Asian and most of the children are white is not relevant, I mean that’s just fatuous.’

He said he was looking forward to an inquiry by the Children’s Commissioner to find out whether others in the Asian communities of Rochdale knew about the abuse, but did not speak out.

‘These are closed communities and I worry that in those communities there are people who knew what was going on and didn’t say anything either because they’re frightened or because they’re so separated from the rest of the communities that they think, “Oh that’s just how white people let their children carry on; we don’t need to do anything”,’ he said.

Mr Phillips went on to say it would be wrong if action had not been taken to protect children in care for fear of inflaming racial tensions.

He said: ‘The other issue would be if anybody in any of the agencies that are supposed to be caring for these children – schools, social services and so on – took the view that being aggressively interventionist to save these children would lead to the demonisation of some group because of the ethnicity.’

'If it is true that people in Asian communities had not spoken out about abuse, or if social services had underplayed it, ‘then it is a national scandal and something that we would need to deal with urgently’.

Nazir Afzal, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the North West of England, has said the authorities should have acted sooner to protect girls in care. Speaking on Radio 4’s Broadcasting House, he said he had offered to apologise to a 15-year-old girl whose complaints were not acted upon in 2008, as reported by the Daily Mail last week.

‘We are on a journey of improvement,’ said Mr Asfal, himself a Muslim. ‘We have come across victims who deserve better. She deserved better.

‘I think women suffer enough without being let down by the criminal justice system.’

He said part of the problem was that some immigrants bring ‘cultural baggage’ with them from misogynistic societies.

‘What some communities believe is there is a right of self-determination for men but not women. Women are seen as lesser beings.’

But he added: ‘By focusing on race, you are diverting from the reality which is men. Most of them were taxi drivers but no one is talking about this as an issue for the taxi drivers’ community.’

[ed. Now that IS fatuous...]

Why have the media blanked out Iceland when it should be Prime News?

By Geoffrey Bulmer-
11/05/2012

The on-going revolution taking place in Iceland is a stunning example of the bias shown by our media for its total absence of Icelandic news. Since the financial crisis of 2008, when Iceland literally went bankrupt, little or no mention of Iceland ever occurs anymore.

As one European country after another fails or risks failing or endangering the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the “powers that be” want is for Iceland to become a success story.

Here's why:In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered low-cost banking offering relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors.

Five years of a pure neo-liberal politics made Iceland into one of the richest countries in the world. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debts.

In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 percent of its GNP, but by 2007, it had grown to 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the breaking point. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Unexpectedly, the crisis has resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that will eventually lead to a new Constitution.

The Prime Minister of the Social Democratic coalition government, Geir Haarde, negotiated a two billion dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half billion. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures.

The IMF and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way that the country could pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots followed, which eventually forced the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half billion Euros.

This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros per month for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred purely by private parties. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents.

The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF.

The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and cheque accounts.

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis.

Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn't stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that will free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland have elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but each recommended by at least thirty citizens.

This document will not be the work of a handful of politicians, but is being written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and the citizens can send their comments and suggestions and witness the document as it takes shape.

The constitution that will eventually emerged from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Today, Iceland is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed recently by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria.

The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland and refuse to bow to foreign interests, by stating loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

But that’s why Iceland is not in the news anymore.