This woman's already mad. So many of them are.

Except when it's a Republican, right?

Muslims do not abort their unborn children, do not believe in birth control, sanction neither young men remaining unmarried nor same sex couplings, and, generally, are more interested in family matters than a life based primarily on the acquisition of material possesions.

How do you expect the West to compete with that on a strictly birth-rate basis?

"My point is: there are things going to happen untill 2050 that we can not forsee that will have a significant influence on population patterns."

Peter, that's merely wishful thinking.

The demographics are pretty well established. No culture or society with a replacement birth rate under 1.5 children per couple has ever been able to survive and almost all of the Western "Democracies" are now below that level while, at the same time, allowing a sizable minority with a birth rate over 5.1 per couple, to immigrate into them.

It's now merely a matter of time barring Divine intervention.

On the other hand, this just might BE Divine Intervention. Read the Book of Jeremiah lately?

Weather forecasting isn't "predictions". Nor are demographic estimates.

They are based on mathematical certainties and population precedents and statistics. They can be accurately calculated based on what is currently happening and unless the Western birthrate increses dramatically, or Muslim immigration into the West is halted AND reversed, these developments are certainties, not predictions.

"Those who support immigration without assimilation claim the West needs more brainy people to run their computers and discover cures for diseases."


These people don't even manufacture toys, for crying out loud, let alone advanced medical or technological developments.

Muslims account for a mere 7 Nobel Prizes as opposed to over 150 by the Jews, and we want to import more of them?

Cal, asks a relevant question concerning them. Since EVERYTHING about Western culture is offensive to Muslims, what are they doing here?

are you acknowledging then that Ayers IS a scumbag and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a position of influencing the next generation?

the title is accurate.

"Not least, the bill is an enabling document that leaves great discretion to the secretary of health and human services to develop guidelines that ultimately could change the character of what seems to be offered. In just one of dozens of examples, the bill leaves it to the secretary to develop "quality measures" on end-of- life care and advanced care planning.

What might such quality measures look like? WHO KNOWS? But other documents floating around hint at what the secretary might consider. "
======================================

Kathleen, that's exactly the point in our opposing this monstrosity.

I don't wnat some unelected beaurocrat deciding what my, or your, medical care should be.

You stole my thunder.

That comment about "fairly and squarely" just screamed for comment. I'm sick and tired of these pundits claiming that nonsense, and in this particular article it is egregious given that the author's main point is their lock on the avenues of information dissemination and their consolidation of power.

I wonder what the author would consider an unfairly promoted, vetted, and elected candidate would look like?