tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post2645712971247055153..comments2024-03-15T20:52:26.967-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: "Americans love a winner!" -- G.S. PattonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69405846726377780542008-07-27T01:48:00.000-07:002008-07-27T01:48:00.000-07:00World War 2 was such a shock that the ruling powe...World War 2 was such a shock that the ruling powers decided that it was the US mission to civilize the world.<BR/><BR/>You know - the white man's burden. <BR/><BR/>Sadly with so many extolling the virtues of white men few here get that such virtues come with responsibilities.<BR/><BR/>And why should the white man be charged with such responsibilities? For one thing a pacified world is good for business.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/12/decline-and-fall.html" REL="nofollow">Decline and Fall</A><BR/><A HREF="http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/01/desolation-row.html" REL="nofollow">Desolation Row</A>M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61298506304178233442008-07-27T01:40:00.000-07:002008-07-27T01:40:00.000-07:00All large scale human institutions are bureaucraci...<I>All large scale human institutions are bureaucracies. Bureaucracy, by its very nature, is inherently dysfunctional. </I><BR/><BR/>Thus cubical land in big companies. And yet things get done. Airplanes do not fall out of the sky and companies make a profit.<BR/><BR/>I don't think 10,000 mom and pop companies united in confederation are going to build a 747-400. Some one has to give orders and they better have the money and power to do so.<BR/><BR/>Every system of organization has its defects.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35470800321590005262008-07-27T01:31:00.000-07:002008-07-27T01:31:00.000-07:00The problem is that many people here believe that ...The problem is that many people here believe that there is such a thing a a perfect or perfectible government.<BR/><BR/>Not going to happen. Anglos or not.<BR/><BR/>BTW the top dog country in the world is always subject to envy or hate. <BR/><BR/>I'd rather be the top dog. Somalia is not an attractive option. Heck, I'd rather be American than French. Or British. Evidently many Euros agree. (see Drain, Brain, Europe)<BR/><BR/>==<BR/><BR/>Many of the Founders thought that a ten or twenty year run was the best they could do. That they got about seventy years until the Civil War was probably more than they could have hoped for.<BR/><BR/>==<BR/><BR/>Things do get righted from time to time - see concealed carry recent history and the Supreme Court's reaction in Heller.<BR/><BR/>==<BR/><BR/>We will never know what bullets we have dodged in history. Speculation about the Rhineland in 1936 to follow.<BR/><BR/>==<BR/><BR/>Currently the American population leans center right. Not bad. Now if we can move it a little farther to the (libertarian) right we will have done good. <BR/><BR/>==<BR/><BR/>The real question is: is the current government conducive to wealth increase? <BR/><BR/>So why aren't Americans rebelling against the depredations of government? Simple. In real world terms the vast majority of us are rich. When life is marginal a 10% tax is a heavy burden. When you are rich a 30% tax is shrugged off.<BR/><BR/>==<BR/><BR/>Jefferson thought the Louisiana Purchase was illegal. He thought the benefits were worth it. He was probably right - in the long run. Now about Mayor Nagin. And so it goes with the Great Experiment.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-84397825726321986032008-07-01T06:50:00.000-07:002008-07-01T06:50:00.000-07:00I see a bunch of people with totally unrealistic, ...<I>I see a bunch of people with totally unrealistic, irresponsible, and frankly, childish notions of how 305 million people are going to govern themselves</I><BR/><BR/>I submit that there is no good way to govern 305 million ethnically and culturally diverse people spread over similarly diverse geographies. <BR/><BR/>Break up the US now while it can still be done peacably.<BR/><BR/>-Senor DougAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23020213341646204452008-06-30T17:44:00.000-07:002008-06-30T17:44:00.000-07:00Never mind - I Googled Testing99's old posts and t...Never mind - I Googled Testing99's old posts and they are pretty hardcore neocon. They tend to be more polite than Evil Neocon's, however; I can't find a record of Testing99 using abusive terms like "Paultards" as his predecessor or previous incarnation (whichever it was) did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-32040129235415879402008-06-30T17:03:00.000-07:002008-06-30T17:03:00.000-07:00I honestly don't remember a time when testing99 ha...I honestly don't remember a time when testing99 has expressed foreign policy views, let alone crazy ones. I generally no longer read threads on those subjects because they descend into unproductive bickering so quickly, but I'm surprised I never caught him doing it even once. His views on other issues usually seem moderate and well-considered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25500268535020738842008-06-30T14:36:00.000-07:002008-06-30T14:36:00.000-07:00Federalists seemed to have been right. would any l...Federalists seemed to have been right. would any looser union of states could have opposed communism or nazism. national states of Europe fell one after another. only those who had been colonialist of federalist enough to form large enough country still exist. England does exist. Wales not so much. they claim it does, but it's basically part of England UK. <BR/><BR/>In the current world order the nation states of europe would be preferable to all european nations in EU. democracy would be more valid. But against federalist superpowers like china and USA (who have erasted most regional differences) EU made of little nations doesn't stand a chance if it doesn't become a single entity itself. <BR/><BR/>Economies of scale control the warfare even if smaller units might bring more innovations. and existence of nations is all about warfare in the end.Paavohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04624742837896581547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81427715027932691062008-06-30T13:21:00.000-07:002008-06-30T13:21:00.000-07:00Art Deco - Hong Kong in its laissez-faire period w...Art Deco - Hong Kong in its laissez-faire period was ruled by Anglo-Saxons, though the population was Chinese.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18052820735430512872008-06-30T11:41:00.000-07:002008-06-30T11:41:00.000-07:00Has Testing99 ever confirmed that he is Evil Neoco...<I>Has Testing99 ever confirmed that he is Evil Neocon? Their areas of concern don't seem very similar to me, and I've never understood why so many posters think they are the same.</I><BR/><BR/>Writing styles VERY similar.<BR/><BR/>Foreign policy views identical: insane, makes Cheney and Guiliani look like paleocons. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, their arguments in support of Israel and neocon policies typically involve an alternate reality not located on this planet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37073769196860576842008-06-30T08:13:00.000-07:002008-06-30T08:13:00.000-07:00"But the overbearing behemoth won the war." While ..."But the overbearing behemoth won the war." <BR/><BR/>While Federalism may be effective form of government for winning wars (in the short term), my original point was that, far from preventing terrorism, Federalism provokes it. On the day he bombed the Murrah Building, Timothy McVeigh was wearing a <A HREF="http://www.fair.org/sp-shirt.html" REL="nofollow">t-shirt</A> he bought from the Southern Partisan -- the insurgency continues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72177453515248555342008-06-30T06:14:00.000-07:002008-06-30T06:14:00.000-07:00There's surely a lot to admire about Switzerland b...<I>There's surely a lot to admire about Switzerland but it's not an example of a libertarian state.</I><BR/><BR/>I think the point was about centralization, not so much about libertarianism.<BR/><BR/>'Sides, I suspect libertarianism is like communism in that its adherents will never accept any given example as "true" (especially when the example is negatively framed); too ideological.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14087052795910087922008-06-30T05:45:00.000-07:002008-06-30T05:45:00.000-07:00Has Testing99 ever confirmed that he is Evil Neoco...<I>Has Testing99 ever confirmed that he is Evil Neocon? Their areas of concern don't seem very similar to me, and I've never understood why so many posters think they are the same.</I><BR/><BR/>I read this site fairly religiously and I've never seen him deny it. That's practically a confirmation in my book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79540622551609553562008-06-30T04:36:00.000-07:002008-06-30T04:36:00.000-07:00Was the Washington government an overbearing behem...<I> Was the Washington government an overbearing behemoth when Charleston's Palmetto Guard militiamen took a notion to bombard Fort Sumter with privately purchased cannon?<BR/><BR/>YES!</I><BR/><BR/>But the overbearing behemoth won the war. <BR/><BR/>You know, the Old South was rather Libertarian: disdain for centralized government, resistance to paying taxes, and maximal personal and private property rights, at least for white men. <BR/><BR/>This is not the best way to organize to fight a big war.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50394575102329193732008-06-29T20:30:00.000-07:002008-06-29T20:30:00.000-07:00A founding document is only as valid as the popula...<I>A founding document is only as valid as the population beholden to it perceives it to be. I suggest that our constitution is an Anglo-American document which can only really be understood and obeyed by an Anglo-American population.</I><BR/><BR/>Finicky disputes over the proper extent of federal power were a feature of the antebellum period, culminating with the years of unpleasantness from 1861-65. The immigration streams into the country were, up to about 1845, derived from the same loci as the colonial population. Subsequent to that, you had a considerable Irish Catholic and Scandinavian inflow. It is a bit much to attribute the post-bellum accretion of federal power to these groups, in that only a modest minority of the population was or is predominantly of either extraction. You might wish to make an argument that the reconstruction of political economy after 1929 had the eastern and southern European inflow of 1890-1924 as a handmaiden, but one might suggest that immediate economic conditions would be the salient vector here. The erection of mixed economies was characteristic of nearly all occidental countries, including those predominantly Anglo-American. The most resistant was Switzerland, which is not occupied by 'Anglo-Americans'. The last stand for laissez-faire was Hong Kong, whose inhabitants are not Anglo-American either. <BR/><BR/>Some countries with constitutional government have parliamentary systems, some separation-of-powers, some antique local variants; some federal systems, some not. There is nothing terribly refined about the American Constitution; it has had the curious property of being durable but not, as a positive law with a specific text, terribly adaptable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14766129762835950232008-06-29T20:21:00.000-07:002008-06-29T20:21:00.000-07:00Was the Washington government an overbearing behem...<I>Was the Washington government an overbearing behemoth when Charleston's Palmetto Guard militiamen took a notion to bombard Fort Sumter with privately purchased cannon?</I><BR/><BR/><B>YES!</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5897820062148486042008-06-29T16:25:00.000-07:002008-06-29T16:25:00.000-07:00Has Testing99 ever confirmed that he is Evil Neoco...Has Testing99 ever confirmed that he is Evil Neocon? Their areas of concern don't seem very similar to me, and I've never understood why so many posters think they are the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43693612226004262152008-06-29T15:11:00.000-07:002008-06-29T15:11:00.000-07:00I get it. Somebody thinks a Lib Lib Libertarian Am...I get it. <BR/><BR/>Somebody thinks a Lib Lib <B>Libertarian</B> American regime would have a foreign policy and presence similar to Switzerland's.<BR/><BR/>Would that really be the case, however?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51333469410637708492008-06-29T13:36:00.000-07:002008-06-29T13:36:00.000-07:00john markley wrote:You're absolutely right. This i...<B>john markley</B> wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>You're absolutely right. This is driven home to me every morning, when I open the newspaper and shudder at the never-ending stream of horrors and atrocities committed by the eternally feuding warlords of Switzerland.</I><BR/><BR/>There's surely a lot to admire about Switzerland but it's not an example of a libertarian state. For one thing, it doesn't have open borders, which ironically prevents libertarians from moving there. Switzerland also has strong pollution control and lots of public transit, all of which are non-libertarian things which I personally approve of.<BR/><BR/>Libertarianism is a form of cognitave dissonence. The world already operates as a market, and the currency is power, whether its the power of the pulpit/tv, power of the gun, or power of the purse (all three of which buttress one another). How is this market any more or less "free" than the one you would prefer? Your libertarian dream is already realised, but it didn't turn out so well for you personally. <BR/><BR/>Conservatives like me will just muddle along trying to make the best of the real world, but then again I'm being a bit unfair because I understand opportunistic libertarianism, in todays PC climate. It makes sense that one would wish to cripple a government that actively undermines what you yourself believe in. Liberarianism may be a useful falseface to don under such a circumstance, since with its disavowal of all things tribal (Zionism excepted) one may do ones opposing whilst flying under the PC ideological radar, but it doesn't stir hearts and minds, so it fails in market terms, if you understand what I'm saying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10659783242436043632008-06-29T13:03:00.000-07:002008-06-29T13:03:00.000-07:00Lucius,The "Citizens 18 and older" designation is ...Lucius,<BR/><BR/>The "Citizens 18 and older" designation is a profound (if temporary) barrier to minority and immigrant political expression, being that Whites are generally older and generally have citizenship. But perhaps I overstated my thesis.<BR/><BR/>One component of my proposition that America is managing to be far more politically White than it is demographically White is the impact of our "Winner takes all" bipartisan framework. As things remain right now, the politically amplified "swing voters" are still overwhelmingly White, and the government largely reflects that.<BR/><BR/>I wasn't capable of expressing that quantitatively so I left it out.Matt Parrotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00794652979966181081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13775483008042887052008-06-29T12:13:00.000-07:002008-06-29T12:13:00.000-07:00"Steve you are unfair to the Federalists. The long..."Steve you are unfair to the Federalists. The long States-rights drift during the Articles of Confederation left the nation helpless and vulnerable and divided.<BR/><BR/>Thus the need at a time when America was weak and vulnerable to outside enemies, particularly Britain, to construct a strong central government."<BR/><BR/>The flaw in this argument is the belief in the efficacy of bureaucracy. <BR/><BR/>All large scale human institutions are bureaucracies. Bureaucracy, by its very nature, is inherently dysfunctional. All bureaucracy is dysfunction because of innate human nature.<BR/><BR/>It is this reality of human nature that both the non-libertarian right and liberal-left seem intent to ignore at all costs. It is my recognition of this reality of human nature that is the reason why I am even more of a libertarian at age 45 than I was at age 20 (when I was "into" Ayn Rand).<BR/><BR/>It is precisely the bureaucratic nature of large scale human institutions (not to mention their tendency to suppress individual liberty) that is the reason why they are worthless and should not be accepted.<BR/><BR/>The Anti-Federalists were right.kurt9https://www.blogger.com/profile/02101147267959016924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26844728557533690162008-06-29T09:53:00.000-07:002008-06-29T09:53:00.000-07:00Also, it is thanks to them that we have a bill of ...<I>Also, it is thanks to them that we have a bill of rights, which the generally more authoritarian authors of The Federalist were initially against.</I><BR/><BR/>Not necessarily. One of the arguments against a Bill of Rights was that the enumeration of specific rights would create the suggestion that the federal government had unlimited power to do anything it wanted unless specifically prohibited by an enumerated right.<BR/><BR/>That prediction turned out to be true. The 9th and 10th amendments were added just for the purpose of preventing that from happening, but today those two amendments are laughed at. People who talk about the 10th Amendment are considered nutty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63975582281961832652008-06-29T09:13:00.000-07:002008-06-29T09:13:00.000-07:00Was the Washington government an overbearing behem...Was the Washington government an overbearing behemoth when Charleston's Palmetto Guard militiamen bombarded an American ship with privately purchased cannon?<BR/><BR/><I> “…On December 26, 1860, five days after South Carolina declared its secession </I> <I>( a very Libertarian thing to do, n’est ce pas? --DD )</I> <I>, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie and secretly relocated his two companies (127 men, 13 of them musicians) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter without official authorization or obedience to orders from Washington[1][2][3][4]. He thought that providing a stronger defense would delay a Rebel attack. The Fort was not yet complete at the time and fewer than half of the cannons that should have been there were unavailable due to military downsizing by James Buchanan. Over the next few months, repeated calls for the United States evacuation of Fort Sumter[5] from the government of South Carolina and later Confederate Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard were ignored. United States attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war </I><I>( fired by the Palmetto Guard militia --DD )</I> <I>prevented the steamer Star of the West, a ship hired by the United States to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task. After realizing that Anderson's command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt a forced entry into Charleston Harbor to reinforce Fort Sumter. The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reenforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.), armed screw steamer USS Pochaontas, Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats.[6][7] By April 6, 1861 the first ships began to set sail for their rendezvous off the Charleston Bar. The first to arrive, the Harriet Lane, arriving before midnight of April 11, 1861.[8] 1861, inside the fort flying the Confederate Flag. <BR/><BR/>On April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire, firing for 33 straight hours, on the fort. Edmund Ruffin, noted Virginian agronomist and secessionist, claimed that he fired the first shot on Fort Sumter. His story has been widely believed, but Lieutenant Henry S. Farley, commanding a battery of two mortars on James Island fired the first shot at 4:30 A.M. (Detzer 2001, pp. 269–71). The garrison returned fire, but it was ineffective, in part because Major Anderson did not use the guns mounted on the highest tier, the barbette tier, where the gun detachments would be more exposed to Confederate fire. On April 13, the fort was surrendered and evacuated. During the attack, the Union colors fell. Lt. Norman J. Hall risked life and limb to put them back up, burning off his eyebrows permanently. No Union soldiers died in the actual battle though a Confederate soldier bled to death having been wounded by a misfiring cannon. One Union soldier died and another was mortally wounded during the 27th shot of a 100 shot salute, allowed by the Confederacy. Afterwards the salute was shortened to 50 shots. Accounts, such as in the famous diary of Mary Chesnut, describe Charleston residents along what is now known as The Battery, sitting on balconies and drinking salutes to the start of the hostilities. … </I><BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_SumterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52935416810680906092008-06-29T08:55:00.000-07:002008-06-29T08:55:00.000-07:00If the US federal government wasn't such a behemot...<I>If the US federal government wasn't such a behemoth, perhaps an Osama or a Blink Sheik would have nothing to gain by bombing an American city ... </I><BR/><BR/>Was the Washington government an overbearing behemoth when Charleston's Palmetto Guard militiamen took a notion to bombard Fort Sumter with privately purchased cannon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89642169096890074692008-06-29T08:46:00.000-07:002008-06-29T08:46:00.000-07:00Matt Parrott I've been pondering on this and belie...Matt Parrott <I>I've been pondering on this and believe that age, citizenship, voting patterns, and representational disparities have assured that the American government is still over 80% White-influenced While the nation is less than 67% White. My suggestion is that we have several factors which have allowed us to carry on as a White nation after we've stopped being one. The things we're seeing are just the tip of the iceberg to come. <A HREF="http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pX2sQv9ovdwouUoWoardiDQ" REL="nofollow">When the Levee Breaks</A></I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you mean here: You indicate that, for "Citizens 18 and Older", the figures are 75.5% white and 24.5% non-white, whereas for "Power", the figures are 80.1% white and 19.9% non-white.<BR/><BR/>That's a lag of only 4.6 points in either direction.<BR/><BR/>Our problem [really, our looming, catastrophic apocalypse] is that <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901841.html" REL="nofollow">45% of the children in this country under the age of five</A> are now non-white, and the figure of "45%" is increasing with no upper bound in sight.<BR/><BR/>I.e. the United States is within 5 points of becoming effectively a third-world nation.<BR/><BR/>Of course, these dynamics are utterly unsustainable, and, circa 2020, when these third-world children come of age, and when the great zenith of the caucasian baby boomer bubble begins to move into the retirement years, the United States as we knew it will cease to exist, and will implode into something akin to Zimbabwe, or there will be a secession movement where a handful of Red States try to go their own way, or else there will be chaos on the streets and complete social disfunction and a lack of any unifying civic order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90276805301154916242008-06-29T08:33:00.000-07:002008-06-29T08:33:00.000-07:00John Markley: This is driven home to me every morn...<B>John Markley:</B> <I>This is driven home to me every morning, when I open the newspaper and shudder at the never-ending stream of horrors and atrocities committed by the eternally feuding warlords of Switzerland.</I><BR/><BR/>Sadly, Ayn Randian libertarianism is no more fecund a philosophy than is any other form of nihilism.<BR/><BR/>The Swiss people, with a TFR down around 1.4, will be effectively extinct within another decade or two [if they're not effectively exinct already].<BR/><BR/>Here are the fertility rates of the top 14 nations in Cato's rankings of economic freedom.<BR/><BR/>[Sorry, but the blogspot.com software package won't allow me to format this.]<BR/><BR/>EFR = Cato Institute Economic Freedom Rating<BR/>TFR = Total Fertility Rate [CIA and UN estimates, with the Caucasian number from the USA census bureau]<BR/><BR/>NATION EFR TFR<BR/><BR/>Hong Kong 8.9 1.00 CIA, 0.97 UN<BR/>Singapore 8.8 1.08 CIA, 1.26 UN<BR/>New Zealand 8.5 2.11 CIA, 1.99 UN<BR/>Switzerland 8.3 1.44 CIA, 1.42 UN<BR/>United States 8.1 1.864 [Caucasian]<BR/>United Kingdom 8.1 1.85 CIA*, 1.82 UN*<BR/>Canada 8.1 1.57/1.53, 1.53 UN<BR/>Estonia 8.0 1.41 CIA, 1.49 UN<BR/>Ireland 7.9 1.85 CIA, 1.96 UN<BR/>Australia 7.9 1.76/1.81 CIA, 1.79 UN<BR/>Finland 7.8 1.73/1.83 CIA, 1.83 UN<BR/>Luxembourg 7.8 1.78 CIA, 1.66 UN<BR/>Iceland 7.8 1.91/2.07 CIA, 2.05 UN<BR/>Chile 7.8 1.95 CIA, 1.94 UN<BR/><BR/>*Note: Includes Muslims immigrants, which almost certainly adds at least 0.2 [and possibly a great deal more than that] to the UK TFR.<BR/><BR/>Source: <A HREF="http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2007/efw2007-1.pdf" REL="nofollow">PDF DOCUMENT: Summary Economic Freedom Ratings, 2005</A><BR/>Source: <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate" REL="nofollow">List of countries and territories by fertility rate</A><BR/>Source: <A HREF="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmE0ZGZiNjExNDQwNDY2YzQ2NTE3NDQ0NDliNWYxNzc=" REL="nofollow">US Fertility</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com