ON THE WAY TO CAUCASIANS BECOMING THE MINORITY

According to opponents of the selection of Gov. Palin. “The Palin family's five children would have been unexceptional forty years ago, but today constitute something of a fertility freak show."source: AP News
This is not only a political verbal insult to America's large families, but an unwarranted slam of Gov. Palin's family.
The facts unfortunately are true, however. The USA and Europe are rapidly loosing their individual identity due to low birth rates of the indigenous Caucasian population.

Census reports from France, Spain and Germany show us that Caucasian indigenous growth has steadily declined for the past decade. Only the mass influx of immigrants from Muslim countries, and modern medicine that has kept people living longer, has kept these countries from a negative population growth.

Researchers writing in the Journal of Science said European population growth reached a turning point in the year 2000 when the number of children dropped to a level that statistically assured there will be fewer parents in the next generation than there are in the current generation.

Between now and 2050, the United Nations predicts that while EU population declines,
Muslim Countries like Yemen will grow to 102 million. An increase of 24 times it's 1950 population. During that same time period, Muslim population in the EU will increase by 500,000 immigrants during the same period. source: UN study.

In effect, the authors say, the momentum for population growth in the 15-nation European Union has flipped from positive to negative and the trend could strongly influence population numbers throughout the 21st century.

Unfortunately, despite these statistics, many people in the World, believe that we must slow population growth. Communist China has instituted the "one child for family" dictate. And there are those who claim that people with fewer children are better off economically and are usually more able to save and invest for their retirement than if they had spent their money on raising more children. An example of a purely selfish secularist reasoning!
These people believe and advocate. "That We need to go, for some time period, below the replacement level of two offspring per female. We need to drop world human population down to some Ecocentrically defined "Optimum" size. This is sick, selfish and faulty reasoning if we hope to survive as a Judeo-Christian Nation.

In Europe the deficit in birth rate has been filled by immigration which threatens to be so large that Europe will loose it's European identity to that of an immigrant society, predominantly Muslim.


According to the most recent census data, only 1.1 percent of non-Hispanic white women bear five or six children over the course of their lifetime. By contrast, 22.5 percent of these women never reproduce. The percentage of childlessness among women rises in a straight line with educational attainment."

Fertility, and thus birth rates, in a population can be significantly affected by social trends that encourage women to delay starting a family. Although this has had a major effect on the European population, it has not been a major factor in the United States.
In the 20th century, the average age at first birth of mothers shifted sharply from the low 20s to the late 20s. As the trend toward having the first child continues to advance toward an older age it locks in a decline in natural population growth, said O'Neill.

Were it not for high immigration levels, the United States would be facing population decline in the 21st century, because of low mortality and below-replacement fertility. A nice way of explaining the death rate due to abortion of over a million each year!In 2005 there were 1.25 million abortions in the USA.So while Americans and European Caucasians are concerned with "population explosion". The Blacks, Orientals and Muslim nations are growing their populations at a rapid pace!
The resulting mass immigration has destabilized the entire European continent. The EU, which should more properly be called the anti-European Union. The Eu is facilitating the influx of Muslim immigrants.I believe that every day the EU exists brings Europe one step closer to IT'S DEMISE, and the new Caliphate!

It is a fact that America's face has dramatically changed, as she has become both host and mother to millions of immigrants from Asia, Latin America and Europe during the last several decades. The annual total of foreign-born people immigrating to the United States has climbed from 500,000 in the 1970’s to more than a million at present. The Hispanic population alone has grown from nine million in 1970 to nearly 35 million today.
And only seven years after 9/11, Muslims are pouring into the country in "surprising numbers." Nearly 96,000 Muslims became legal permanent US residents in 2006 — the most in two decades. This only counts legal immigrants — many more are taking advantage of our government's unconscionable refusal to stem illegal immigration. Many Muslims come in "as students and tourists who sometimes overstay their welcome." Others stroll across the border from Mexico.

The largest number of Muslim immigrants come from three main sources: South Asia, Iran, and the Arabic-speaking countries. The single largest group of Muslim immigrants are those from South Asia (meaning Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan), followed by perhaps 500,000 Iranians and 400,000 from the Arab countries. Shi'is, who make up about 10 percent of the worldwide Muslim population, probably comprise about the same percentage of the U.S. Muslim population.source: Wikapedia

All the above verbiage can be summed up in these words; We need to elect some one to the Presidency who will see that our borders are closed to illegals!

THE JUDICIAL ROAD TO LOSS OF THE REPUBLIC

The Supreme Court was established in 1789, at which time it had no home building of it own.By 1836 during the Marshall Courts tenure(1801-1836) SCOTUS had declared it to be the arbiter of the Constitution in the Marbury vs. Madison decision.

It is the first case read by virtually every first-year law student and is generally considered the greatest of all landmark cases. Marshall strained to reach his result. The plain words of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act indicate that Marbury went to the wrong court or invoked the wrong statute (or both), but Marshall proceeded as if the suit were authorized by Section 13 and then declared the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it purported to expand the Court's original jurisdiction in violation of Article III. Marbury's suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Marshall's decision--brilliant in its conception--allowed the Court to brand Jefferson a violator of civil rights without issuing an order that the President could have ignored. source: Exploring Constitutional Conflicts
The concept was also laid out by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
“ If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were authoritydesigned to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their . The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Although the previous paragraph is lengthy it illustrates the need to have strict Constitutional thinkers on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately we have not had them as history will illustrate.

The Warren Court mandated busing of school children and placement of children in schools, not in their home neighborhoods, to satisfy racial preferences and further integration. This has resulted in great costs to the taxpayer, especially now when gas costs $4.00 a gallon, and the destruction of primary education as the test scores have showed.

The Burger Court is infamous for It's Roe vs. Wade decision that has allowed the American genocide of tens of millions of unborn and partially born babies!!

No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy.

Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law was said to have been an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, unconstitionally vague (the ground used in Blackmun's first draft of his opinion), a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people).

The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives). Deciding HOW to protect the right to an abortion proved as difficult.

Justice Blackmun's approach, one clerk at the time said, "As a practical matter, was not a bad decision--but as a constitutional matter it was absurd." Roe's trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.
For those who say "Women have a right to choose." I ask you, choose what? Their choice to have an abortion is not a right one can find anywhere in the Constitution. It is license, plain and simple.
The Due Process Clause:United States Constitution states he following:

"No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law."

Even former leaders of Planned Parenthood admit that the "fetus" is a living being! When a pregnant woman is murdered, the law requires that the perpetrator be charged not only with the murder of the woman, but also the murder of the baby in the womb! Go figure!!
If the right to choose is really a constitutional right, why go on to ask whether the regulation unduly burdens that right? Do we ask whether a modest tax on public speaking would unduly burden speech?

Ask yourselves these questions: Is there a state interest in preserving respect for life that is weakened by allowing abortions? If abortions are not immoral, would you call them morally dubious? Why is infanticide morally wrong (if you believe that to be the case) and abortion not immoral?
On the other hand, why is aborting a first-trimester fetus (before the fetus has significant neurological development, emotions, or any other critical attributes of humanness) any more more immoral than killing, for example, pigs that do have thoughts and emotional lives? Could you argue, in fact, that killing a pig is the more immoral act? Until we can stop the degrading of the moral values of this once great Republic, we shall continue to slide down the slimy slope to perdition and demise as did the Romans, Soviets and all Nations that debauched themselves out of existence!

COLD WAR II IS BEGINNING !!

The London Daily Telegraph has disclosed that Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, reacted with fury when Mr Miliband and he spoke on the telephone. Mr Lavrov objected to being lectured by the British.

"Such was the repeated use of the "F-word" according to one insider who has seen the transcript, it was difficult to draft a readable note of the conversation.

One unconfirmed report suggested that Mr Lavrov said: "Who are you to f------ lecture me?"

He also asked Mr Miliband in equally blunt terms whether he knew anything of Russia's history.

One Whitehall insider said: "It was effing this and effing that. It was not what you would call diplomatic language. It was rather shocking."

The Foreign Secretary had been putting forward Britain and Europe's objections to the actions of Russia, which began when their tanks rolled into the breakaway region of South Ossetia last month. Mr Miliband has said that Europe should reassess its ties with Russia after its "aggressive" behaviour.

It is also reported that Mr Miliband was asked by Lavrov, about Britain and America's invasion of Iraq, when Russian actions in Georgia were questioned, during the tense conversation that took place recently.

Sources at the British Foreign Office confirmed there was swearing "but only from one side". source: London Times

At the same time that this conversation, or should I call it confrontation, was taking place two Russian, "BlackJack", jet bombers ,capable of carrying nuclear weapons was flying to Venezuela.

Russia downplayed the two strategic long-range bombers that flew to Venezuela in the first such flight since the Cold War, saying the bombers carried no live weapons — nuclear or otherwise — and would return to Russia next week.

The bombers arrived in South America ahead of planned joint military maneuvers between Russia and Venezuela — maneuvers that appear to be a tit-for-tat retort to the United States for sending warships to deliver aid to U.S.-allied Georgia following last month's war.

Russian analysts said it was the first time strategic bombers have landed in the Western Hemisphere since the Cold War. The foray, and the coming military exercises with an avowed U.S. enemy, are likely to strain the already tense relationship between Moscow and Washington.

Russian air force Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov said in televised comments that the Tu-160bombers were carrying only test missiles. Yes and I am seven foot -two, also!!!He said the jets would conduct several test flights over neutral waters then return to Russia on Monday. That indicates that the jets would not participate in military exercises that Venezuela and Russia plan to hold in the Caribbean Sea sometime this year.

The deployment — which will include a naval squadron and long-range patrol planes — is expected to be the largest Russian naval maneuvers in the Caribbean and perhaps the Western Hemisphere since the Cold War.

Despite the protests from Russia, it would appear that Putin and company is establishing a potential military base of operations similar to that of Nikita Khruschev back in the Kennedy years. When the Soviet Union Put nuclear missiles in Cuba.
The so called "military exercise" is far more threatening than our Country's sending a few ships with aid to Georgia to aid a besieged nation, that was invaded by Russian tanks and bombed by Russian planes!

Russia has the Baltic Sea, North Atlantic and the Pacific oceans to carry out naval exercises. They do not need to come into the south Atlantic off Venezuela to conduct naval maneuvers unless they are trying to show the Us their ability to establish a military threat within the Western Hemisphere, well in range of their nuclear missiles!

CHANGING THE SUBJECT IS NO WAY TO DEFEND YOURSELF

Sorry, Barrack but you cannot compare quoting what you said, to "swiftboating", and lies!

The Associated Press is reporting that, "Obama began a discussion of education at a Norfolk high school on Wednesday by assailing McCain's campaign.
Obama responded to the Republicans' charge that he was referring to Palin when he used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" at a campaign stop Tuesday.
"I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics. Enough is enough," he said".

Only guilty and desperate people protest when the record shows that the words quoted have been uttered by the protester!

Barack Obama used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" to describe his opponents' mantra of change.His actual words were:" “...You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig".
The Republican campaign called Obama's analogy a “disgusting” and sexist comment clearly aimed at vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. These are the facts!
At the Republican convention Gov. Palin uttered this;" that the only difference between a hockey mom like herself and a pitbull was “lipstick.”

Former Governor Jane Swift of Massachusetts had this to say about Obama's comments.“I can only deem to be disgusting comments, comparing our vice presidential nominee, Governor Palin, to a pig,” she said in a conference call with reporters. Swift, chair of the newly-formed Palin Truth Squad, demanded Obama apologize for the comment which she likened to childish name-calling. source:The New Media Journal

For those of you who cannot make the connection between Gov. Palin and Obmaa's "lip stick" comment. Think for a moment how many of the four nominees for the high offices of President and Vice-President, wear lipstick!

If the Democrats tried they could not alienate the average American more than what they are trying to do in tearing down VP nominee Pali. Keep it up, and you will be able to watch her move into Blair House next January!!

THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS BAIL OUT?

President Bush once again gave a talking point to the Democrats with his decision to bail out Freddie Mack and Freddie Mae.
The whole world gave a sigh of relief while thinking Americans cursed under their collective breath, "not again:!

Our government will guarantee the debt held by foreign creditors but for the American worker who paid into Social Security for forty years will have to take "reductions" in benefits, and face an already insolvent program that will only get worse if the recipients are not culled! This is insane!

The bail out appears to be for the benefit of two Countries that are if not enemies, at least a threat to our way of life. China and Russia. Japan and of all places, the Cayman Islands. Home to more bank laundering than the Swiss!

Since 1994 when the Chinese had 197 million invested in our mortgage giants. They have increased their investment to 1.3 TRILLION dollars. They practically own the "FREDDIES"!

Being a life long hater of Communism, I have the inclination to let the chips fall where they will, and if the Chinese Communists and the quasi- Communist Russians take a financial bath. So be it!
And without efforts to keep up with China and India, some countries, including the USA, may see further erosion of their export shares and high-tech manufacturing sectors.Why help their quest for world power?

I lost a considerable amount of money in the 2002 stock market "mini"-crash, caused by a bear market correction and the accounting manipulation scandals, and no one in the government made good on my loses.
My children are all paying into the social security fund(it is not a trust fund). and they will probably never see any benefits from it, because their are too many free loaders and illegals dipping into it via medicaid and other corrupt welfare programs.

In a news conference today, Secretary Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the government has three objectives: "market stability, mortgage availability and taxpayer protection." That's another signal that the government wants mortgages to remain available, at good rates, to borrowers with a low risk of default.

Tell me how he is protecting the taxpayer, please. The federal government is not a revenue producing machine. It is a profligate spending machine that has been out of control far too long. The taxpayers will get the bill for this bail out in some manner. All so we protect foreign investments in a mortgage scheme that continues to lend to people who want something beyond their ability to pay for it!

A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

"In one of the most astonishing gaffes in American political history, in a national televised interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulus, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama referred to "my muslim faith," confirming what researchers and political opponents have been claiming". source: IsraelInsider

The following is a verbatim quote of an excerpt from the ABC television program during which Obama's slip of his tongue or his heart speaking the truth, is printed for all that have proclaimed that Obama is not a Muslim. I ask this question? If he is not a Muslim at heart, who may or may not be a foreign born Muslim masquerading as a Christian, why did he utter the following?


STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said the same thing about questioning your faith.

OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

Let's not play games. What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: -- my Christian faith. Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested-- and following

So far there has been no follow up coverage of this statement by the Obama campaign staff or the Media. More to follow you can be sure!
And there is still a controversy brewing over the authenticity of the Obama birth certificate that both the Daily Kos and Obama's campaign has released. Is it authentic?

Enemies Become Friends and Friends Become Enemies

Only the twisted logic of a KGB operative could utter such a statement and not expect a adverse response from the USA. The Cold War has begun again!!
The sabre rattling of Putin last week remind me of the vitriolic rhetoric of Soviet dictators like Nikita Khrushchev.

The Sunday issue of the London Times has this to say about Putin's threats toward the USA, because of our aid to still occupied Georgia.
From The Sunday Times September 7, 2008
"Vladimir Putin set to bait US with nuclear aid for Tehran. Russia is considering increasing its assistance to Iran’s nuclear programme in response to America’s calls for Nato expansion eastwards and the presence of US Navy vessels in the Black Sea delivering aid to Georgia.
The Kremlin is discussing sending teams of Russian nuclear experts to Tehran and inviting Iranian nuclear scientists to Moscow for training, according to sources close to the Russian military.
Moscow has been angered by Washington’s promise to give Georgia aid following the Russian invasion of parts of the country last month after Tbilisi’s military offensive. Kremlin officials are angered because of U.S. renewed support for attempts by Georgia and Ukraine to join Nato.
Last week a third US Navy ship entered the Black Sea with aid bound for Georgia. Moscow has accused the Americans of using the vessels to deliver weapons but has failed to provide any evidence.

“Everything has changed since the war in Georgia,” said one source. “What seemed impossible before, is more than possible now when our friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends. What are American ships doing off our coast? Do you see Russian warships off the coast of America? My comment is there are most probably Russian nuclear subs consantly in or near American waters!
“Russia will respond. A number of possibilities are being considered, including hitting America there where it hurts most – Iran.”

Russia has already agreed to supply Syria with missiles, so this is not anything new. Russia and France were supplying weapons and nuclear scientists to the regime of Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war began.

As much as career diplomats attempt to convince the American people that Russia is a friend, Putin and his puppet President have demonstrated they are anything but friends! With apologies to Winston Churchill; The Russians are either at your feet or at your throat. Why do they have such a chip on their shoulder? All they have to do to get along is to leave their neighbors alone. Stop acting like Stalin!

Putin justified his invasion of Georgia's sovereign territory because South Ossetia had broken away from Georgia, and Georgia was attacking the rebellious province.Russia's aggression marked the Kremlin's first military assault on foreign soil since the Soviet Union's Afghanistan intervention, which ended in 1989.
This contrasted with the attempt of the Chechens to break away from the Soviet Union during the dictatorship of Boris Yeltsin, and the war that ensued in 1991. Russia bombed and rolled tanks into Grozny, when Chechnia attempted Independence by declaring it was a Sovereign State, independent of Russia.
I guess that is what he meant by "friends who become enemies and enemies become friends. There is no way Russia was ever a friend of our Republic as history has shown. Berlin Wall anyone??