It is very evident that the Anglo-Saxon or Caucasion race of people is slowly dying out. In Countries where thi s race of people primarily reside the birthrate is 1.5 babies per female or lower. In order for the population to stay even it needs to be a minimum of 2.1 children born for every woman. The prediction is that both the Anglos in Canada and the European Countries will have ceded the majority to non Caucasion peoples by the middle of the century. The USA will take a little longer depending on the influx of both legal and illegal immigrants over the next ten years but nevertheless it will fall in line by the end of the century. There are many reasons for the decline in the Anglo American and European races but most if not all are directly related to "Social Engineering" and "Special Interest Groups". To start and review this phenomenum one must look at the beginning of the 20th century and the Industrial Revolution. From this point onward we saw a continuous expansion of wealth in the western world and regardless of the bumps and temporary slowdowns of financial depressions and recessions the standard of living improved continuously up to and including the current day. With the prosperity came freedoms not seen or heard of before and everyone wanted their fair share of the pie so groups such as the Suffragets, the ACLU, labor unions and many many more organized to fight for their particular cause. The suffragets for instance formed to seek rights for women which was a just and righteous cause but later became the Women's Liberation movement that demonized men while at the same time ridiculing women that wanted to be family caregivers and raise their children. They also fought successfully for a woman's right to abort a baby for any reason. Now whether you agree with this right or not you have to admit that losing potentially 40 million babies to abortion over the past 40 years has negatively affected the white population in the western world. Labor unions who were originally fighting for basic workers rights grew into large political organizations concerned more with power and wealth. They, along with other leftists have pushed for more entitlement and socialist type programs which are cover terms for the "redistribution of wealth". In order to support this philosophy everyone had to pay more and more taxes which drives up the cost of living for everyone. So in the 60's and 70's it became apparent that women no longer had a choice between staying home and raising a family because two incomes were required to 1) be able to enjoy all of the products coming available in the new age of technology and 2) to cover the high cost of taxation. Mix in some planned parenthood and voila' we have the reduction in childbirth by healthy families to 1 or 2 children because they just can't afford more. Sure there are other factors involved but none with more impact than those I have noted. The United States was the last beacon of hope but with Obama trashing the concept of self reliance and inividual rights and conforming America into a large "Collective" it appears they are heading along the designated path with the others. I worry for my grandchildren and their children because if I'm right we will have not left them as great a Country as our fathers left us.
Margaret Thatcher on Socilaism........There is nothing wrong with socialism until you run out of other people's money.

Two stories leading the news this past week involve policemen and they both illustrate how fragile their on the job safety can be regardless of rules procedures and upgraded equipment. The first article talks about a murderer who is applying for parole after a quarter century in jail for murdering a policeman one day in Toronto. It was a bungled robbery attempt and this idiot shot the first officer on the scene. Not only did he deliver the fatal wound he chose to let the officer bleed out rather than allow him to be released so he could receive medical attention that would have saved his life. He joked and taunted this officer ,his partner and colleagues while watching the life ebb from his body. Years later the officer's partner lost his battle with depression over this incident and committed suicide. Now the justice system will allow him to apply for parole every 6 months until he is free or he expires. Sooner or later he will receive a parole that he doesn't deserve because the system is slanted in his favour. The police officer who was shot, Michael Sweet was a good cop, a father and a husband who was just doing his job trying to protect the public from the kind of useless trash that killed him. The second story involved a young officer who was conducting what he thought was routine stop on the highway when he was shot and killed by a 70+ year old man. The scary thing about this murder were the circumstances, which seemed so normal and not resembling any type of unsafe situation. Here he is, on a back country road preparing to confront an older gentleman in a pickup truck for a minor infraction. As he stepped out of his cruiser the man in the truck jumped out and shot him point blank before he had a chance to react. A young man who had a family and his whole life ahead of him cut down in his prime. Once again just doing his job. Imagine that you were in danger of being shot or attacked in some manner every day you reported for work. This is the possiblity that looms over our police personnel each time they show up for their shift. And yet our lawmakers continue to put them at risk by enforcing rules such as the raft of paperwork that is required everytime an officer unholsters his weapon regardless if he uses it or not. In the USA an officer is trained to approach every vehicle with caution and weapon drawn particularly when his vision of the perp is impaired. Do you think this young officer could have defended himself if he had his weapon out and ready to fire? Why do our socialist politicians constantly want to denigrate our police force in favour of the scumbags roaming the streets? Is it any wonder that the blue wall is alive and well when the police are faced with bias from some of the very public they protect. Instead we should be supporting the men and women in Blue as they are the final thin line of defence between us and the crazies.

After watching this amazing woman since she came onto the political scene a couple of years ago I have developed some opinions of which I will now share. She is not an intellectual as defined by the political elite around the world. She verifies this fact everytime she tries to be like one of them and usually fails. Knowing all kinds of facts and figures of which most are insignificant, is not the talent that should define the President of the USA, or for that matter any strong leader. The main stream media are going to try and crucify her ( and have done so) regardless of what gaffes she makes or doesn't make. Her strength is in her passion for Conservative values and the belief in the USA Constitution and everything it stands for in the lives of every American citizen. Because of these things she is a magnet for the "everyday" American who thinks as she does about a small Government with less intrusion into their lives. People can understand her positions because they are straight forward and simplistic without any political spin or beltway jargon and this makes her a dangerous foe of the elitists in Washington. Ronald Reagan faced this same sort of animosity from the left when he ran for the top office as they painted him out to be some "dumb" actor stumbling outside of his comfort zone. He faced these attacks with several skills that Palin must attain if she is going to be succesful. First she must recognize the fact that this will happen and understand that being humble and not taking yourself too seriously strengthens your profile with the folks that count, not the other way around. Concentrate more on how to communicate what you believe rather than what you know. This doesn't mean you don't have to be intelligent it just means that people will never know who you are unless you can clearly define yourself through words. Last and probably the most difficult is to possess a quick wit and an ability to think quickly on your feet, as they say. This comes with practice, experience and an ability to be comfortable with who you are. If you feel inferior to your opponent this will become apparent to everyone in short time and this is not the place to be when running for office. If she can garner these three skills and retain her core beliefs she will become a force to be reckoned with over the next 3 years and possibly a candidate for the "Comander in Chief's" job in 2012. Somewhere between now and the next 12 months she will have to decide because the process is long and arduous and will require a lot of energy and fortitude to make it to the finish line. Among the talents that make good candidates in this techo-age is the ability to look good and she does have this one sewn up. Personally I hope she gets her ducks in a row and makes a run for the top. I'd love to see her set a few of these Liberal elitists on their rear end.

Before I get into a lot of trouble let me say that I know many many teachers and some are very good friends so please don't take my following comments personally. Let me start by stating a few facts; first, teachers in the public sector are members of a union. I realize they don't have a choice but never the less they have to live and act according to a collective mentality. Second teachers work 10 months out of 12 every year. Third they are government employees who work for the people that pay the taxes that pay their salary. I want you to remember these facts as I point out some things that I believe are negatively affecting the education of our children. First of all anytime the teachers union want more benefits, higher wages and less work they hold our children's education as ransom (strike) in order to secure these things. The union makes it almost impossible to remove ineffective teachers from the job because their focus is on their members not on the kids. The union dictates that teacher evaluations are unfair and therefore will fight to the death to keep the taxpayers from finding out if the people who teach their children are qualified to do so. This honoured profession has become another collective union group and they operate no differently than the auto employees union, the truckers union or any other brotherhood of employees. Their purpose in life has nothing to do with improving children's education and all to do with extractiing more and more from their employers (taxpayers). Large unions are a part of the socialist system of government and in the private sector there is a balance between the reasonable sharing of thebusiness's success in good times and taking less in hard times. In fact when they press to hard they sometimes become a major reason why businesses fail vis a vis GM, Chrysler etc. But what balance do the teachers unions face? In fact what balance do any public sector unions face when the press their demands regardless of the current economic situation. There are none and added to that they are bargaining with people that have nothing to lose...(politicians). So on one side you have unions that can use your children as a ransom to achieve their goals and on the other side you have politicians that put up a good front but the reality is, they won't lose anything if they cave in to the union's demands. Who always loses is the taxpayer and their children. Seems a little unfair to me that these two groups, who are immune from any negative impact have the ability to continously gouge the ordinary citizens by dipping into the that deep black hole that is known as government funding (tax revenue). Realistically the unions aren't going away but at least the government should take away the right to strike and this would even the playing field a little. The private sector creates the wealth in any Country but today who in the hell wants to work in the private sector with all of the uncertainty and the fact that the public sector earns 20% more in wages on average. Diminishing private sector , growing public sector.....you tell me is this sustainable? I think not. Unfortunately no politician wants to take them on because the big unions, the Liberal Media and the socialist members in the government will attack them mercilessly. What is really sad, is that they attack people on a personal level rather than arguing the issues. This the favorite tactic of anyone on the left when they can't argue with logic and common sense they go for the throat and demonize the person who is debating them. Anyway I got that off my chest so its off to the scotch and soda.

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it." -Ronald Reagan

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'

- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'-Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

-Ronald Reagan

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'- Ronald Reagan

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' -Ronald Reagan

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'- Ronald Reagan

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'- Ronald Reagan

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'- Ronald Reagan

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it'

- Ronald Reagan

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'- Ronald Reagan

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.'-Ronald Reagan

In simple terms Capitalism is about individualism whereby most other systems are about groups, collectives, large government control etc. It is about allowing people to attain success in an environment that provides the opportunity for everyone to make their own choices on how they want to live their lives. Some government intervention is necessary within Capitalism to perform tasks that facilitate the ability of people to live and co-habit in a society. The enforcement of"common sense" rules and laws, the protection of the state, and the care of those in society that truly (mentally or physically) can't look after themselves. Beyond that it is up to the individual to forge his/her future. Entrepeneurs can start businesses and these can grow into Corporations that bring wealth to everyone. It is not only the owners that gain but it is every person that works in the organization and usually thousands that just interact with the business. The degree of wealth is determined by many things, ingenuity, risk taking, intelligence, and hard work. Where a person ends up on this scale is determined any one or all of these things. For instance ask yourself why the CEO of General Motors is in his position and you are in yours. Somewhere during your life you made choices and these most certainly effected your outcome. Perhaps you decided to drop out of school and go work in a factory which is fine if it is the choice you made. But to denegrate the CEO because he makes two million a year and you make $50,000 is wrong. He stayed in school went to college and earned a MBA and then worked his way up in management to achieve his status. That doesn't mean he is more intelligent than you it just means he chose education and a different path for his career. Maybe you are part of a union which is a collective and you have turned over your individual decision making to this body. How much you make and how much leeway you have is now predicated on what a group decides for you.I'll get back to this but for now lets jump back in history and look at the USA who embraced Capitalism in its purest sense decades ago. They have grown into the richest Nation in the world and with that comes the highest standard of living in the world. If you compare poverty in the USA to poverty in any third world Country the differences are striking. If you are under the poverty line according to the USA standard, you will still have a car, a roof over your head, emergency medical care, a TV, food for your table etc etc. Furthermore I would venture a guess that those in this category made their own choices to get there and are probably continuing to make them today. The folks in third world poverty do not even have food and water much less anything else so this reflects the plight of the poor in a non- Capitalistic Society. The point is that punishing Corporations or entrepeneurs because they are successful does nothing but hurt everyone in the food chain. Also everytime the Government takes over some part of the free market economy it negatively affects the Capitalist model which in turn has a negative domino effect on the economic system. In Europe and Canada these Countries chose to stray from the Capitalist model and move towards socialism, which they could, because they were thriving through trade with the USA and its burgeoning market. Essentially people signed up for a type of "union" which requires you to pay dues (taxes) and decisions are made for you. Now the USA is being pounded by debt and a large Government monster that is growing by the minute under the left wing ideology and these other Countries have to sit by and wring their hands because they do not have a true Capitalist system as a base from which they can rebuild their own economies. They have to rely on the USA and I believe in the end the American people will choose to remain within the Capitalist system. If not hold on.

Anyone who is interested in learning a little bit about socialist economics should keep abreast of what is happening in Greece. This Country like many in Europe have lived well beyond their means by allowing their government to spend monies they didn't have and then borrow to meet their financial obligations. Their bloated government payrolls and the extravagant entitlement programs have driven them to the edge of bankruptcy. As part of the European Economic Union they are now obliged to lower their debt levels or face the collapse of their economy. No one will lend them any money if they don't take immediate actions to address the problems. In order to do this they now have to cut government jobs and reduce spending in all levels of government which is upsetting people all over the Country. The folks want the Government to stand by the commitments they made to them that 1) their jobs were untouchable and 2) their benefits would never end. There are riots in the street as well as many other examples of civil unrest because of the results spurred on by the Socialist style management of the Country's economy. High taxes and the redistribution of wealth has driven the businesses and entrepreneurs out of the Country and with them go much of the revenue that supported the government largesse. In the year 2000 they dumped a lot of their debt through a deal with one of the large Wall St banks that helped their current situation but also put them in a position where many of their revenue streams (such as speeding ticket revenue, highway tolls etc.) would be paid to the Wall St bank long into the future. The problem of course with letting Greece default is the fact that the EEU holds much of the debt paper and if Greece goes down the domino effect will begin. Think now about the USA and Canada who are also living beyond their means and the similarities between Greece and them. Canada, of course, is much smaller than the USA but the same rules apply in that if these deficits continue we will all face the same result. China has begun to sell off some of its USA debt holdings which is a sign that they are beginning to question the financial management of the Obama White House. Trillions of dollars of debt is an unsustainable amount for the USA and yet they continue to spend like drunken sailors. At some point the economy will have to suffer and it appears that California will be the first to reap the results of their financial mismanagement. Let's hope the unions and the folks that drove them into this position don't turn on the government and riot just as the Greek people are doing. We must swallow and accept some cuts and hard times if we in the Americas are to get our house in order. My advice is to get your personal fiscal house in order, your root cellar filled and then hunker down and get ready to live through some tough times. It must get worse before it gets better , BUT it will get better if we stick with sound conservative fiscal policies.

Yesterday in Florida the execution of a convicted murderer took place and the process surrounding the event was, as usual focused on saving this man from the deadly needle. Of course, little if any time was spent on the victim and her family because they were old news as the murder took place 25 years ago. In fact there was a considerable amount of animus directed at the relatives of the victim who was a young woman put to death by the murderer for no other reason than to keep him out of jail due to a parole violation. She was shot in the head so this guy could stay out of jail for a few months imagine that. He was 19 and she was in her early twenties. He was a bum and she was a Park Ranger doing a job she loved. Now 25 years after being convicted and sentenced he was finally going to receive the ultimate penalty for committing the ultimate crime and yet the same bunch of folks that cry out every time there is an execution were out in full force trying to reverse the legal system. I believe in the “Death Penalty” with one small change to the criteria for this sentence. Instead of “found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” I would change it to “found guilty beyond any doubt” in order to obtain this sentence for murder. In all other cases “life’ (meaning actual life) not 25 years etc. would be appropriate. And let’s not get all mushy about the criminal’s conversion to religion or “what a good person he has become”. Of course he has changed after sitting around on death row for 25 years with nothing other to do than try and rehabilitate himself in order to try and get his sentence reduced. Would he have taken this same route if he had escaped capture for his crime? I would wager “not a chance”. Keeping these cold blooded murderers out of society is necessary for the safety of all law abiding citizens and any consideration for the criminal comes after this objective has been achieved. As for the plea for mercy I would suggest that if these self righteous folks can find a way to provide the victim with her life back then I say why waste your sympathies on the wrong side of the ledger. Sure it is a popular thing to do in the Liberal world since they always have more concern for the perpetrator than the victim because they believe everyone can be saved and become as compassionate as they are. Unfortunately there are elements in our society that are what they are and will never change their stripes. This is a fact that has been known through out history and yet is disregarded by those that cry to forgive these poor souls. Forgiveness on a personal level is fine but it should not alter the course of the legal process. Even if it is a deterrent in only 25% of potential killings it is still important, particularly for those 25% of those potential victims. Thankfully the Governor stood his ground and would not interfere with the legal process. Good for him.

While shopping the other day I saw a woman with the biggest derriere I have ever seen. To top it off her chest was as big as her posterior and I’m sure this was required in order to create some sort of balance so she could maneuver through the aisle ways albeit at a very slow pace. I can’t understand how these folks can live with themselves having to carry this type of poundage around 24/7. In fact as I looked around the rest of the store it was evident that she was not the only extremely overweight person in the store although she was by far the biggest. There is no question that obesity is a problem in the USA and sure enough I open the paper this morning and there is Michele Obama with her cohorts in Education, Agriculture and Labor working on the newest Government fad “The Control of Obesity”. Just what is needed, another government exercise in trying to exert control over its citizenry by telling them what they can eat and can’t eat. Did they ever consider that self control may be a factor? Of course not... They want to look, as they always do, on these people as victims of society and the government needs to race to the rescue to save them all. They have all sorts of wonderful ideas such as removing vending machines from the schools or at least limiting them to hold only the items they believe are healthy. Let’s say that 30% of the population at schools is overweight and the rest of the kids are average weight and many of them are athletes toned and healthy. Even though they control their food intake and keep themselves in good condition they will of course still lose the opportunity to grab a snack from time to time from the vending machine. This is the fallacy of these Liberal infringements on our rights. Those that are self reliant lose their freedoms right along with the gluttons. There is nothing wrong in teaching or informing kids about the perils of gluttony but why tailor the entire school environment to help them deal with their lack of self control. What happened to the parent’s responsibility to teach their children about health and diet? Aren’t there enough problems in the Country that the politicians could tackle rather than dictating what people eat? Who gave the government the right to be the food police anyway? The Federal Government is supposed to have limited powers according to the Constitution but every time a Liberal hits office they toss the book out the window and strive for more control. Why? Because they know better. Just like taxes those that do the right thing must give up money and their rights on behalf of those that can’t control themselves and have no desire to do so. These people must change their behavior and putting up small bumps in the road to slow them down will have little or no effect at the end of the day. In fact, what if they enjoy being fat? What right does the government have to change their diets? Oh well pretty soon parents will become a thing of the past as we all rely on our Nanny State to take our hand and tell us what we should do to be good little boys and girls.

I recently flew south from Toronto to Florida via Newark New Jersey and I am confused as to our Government’s strategy regarding security against terrorism. I traveled extensively during my career going back to the mid 70’s and spanning those years I have seen many changes in the security measures before and after 9/11 that make no sense at all. Now obviously some do and in particular the “no passenger no bags” policy is the most common sense change made during the 70’s. Metal detectors are another reasonable measure that is effective in preventing weapons getting on board a plane. However there are many other rules, regulations and procedures that make no sense at all and if eliminated could speed up the process without sacrificing security. First of all is the insane amount of paperwork required when purchasing a ticket. Why do they need all of the information at the point of sale? Why do the name on the ticket and the name on your ID (passport) need to be identical and if not you won’t be allowed on the plane? What danger do you represent if you spelled your middle name incorrectly. Why do you have to provide your name, address and destination address? Why do you have to fill out a customs check sheet indicating (almost always answered no) what you aren’t bringing into the country? A person could submit incorrect information (lie) on these sheets and no one would ever know or care and yet tons of paperwork is generated and time wasted every day capturing this data. Then you hit the scanning station and besides the metal detector you have to put your bags on a belt to be x-rayed and viewed to be sure you are not bringing anything dangerous on board. Along with your carryon bags you must also have your coat, sweater and shoes viewed on the x-ray screen. If you have liquid in your bags over 4 oz (?) it is immediately confiscated. These last two checks were brought on because of failed attempts by would be terrorists who used these tactics. It seems that most of our so-called security improvements are driven by the terrorists and their various methods that hopefully we learn about because of failure (unlike 9/11). On this particular trip after I had just passed through the metal detector and got my shoes back I had to walk 30 yards or so and then round a corner. Lo and behold there were 6 more security personnel and several tables whereby they proceeded to search my bag again and test me for gun powder. How they suspected I could have obtained something illicit in that short 30 yards I have no idea. They do this idiotic search in Toronto and yet once I landed in Newark I could walk around inside the gated area with several stores and restaurants that sell gadgets and use utensils including knives but no check when you get on the plane to leave NJ. Nor do they match ID with the boarding pass so I could switch with anyone and head on to a new destination without anyone knowing. The problem with almost all of our security system
is that it is reactive instead of proactive. If we followed a proven security system model like the Israeli’s use I’m sure we could be more efficient and ten times safer. But the people that make these rules never have to ride on commercial airways in economy so they will never understand the problems of us “everyday folks”. Perhaps we should insist that all politicians be prohibited from using military transport and first class seating on commercial airlines. Bet you it wouldn’t take long before some common sense laws saw the light of day.