Spindelegger und Fekter mit Hillary Clinton gegen Osterreich und Arizona ?

Spindelegger With Hillary Clinton 

California Woman files Genocide Complaint At UN because government Destroys White Christians

“In the face of Hillary Clinton’s filing a UN Complaint seeking the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights to rule that AZ’s new immigration law violates
“human rights”, I have filed a complaint (registered mail 9/3/10) with that
same High Commissioner charging the US Federal Government with GENOCIDE of
European-American Christians.  I ask you to publicize this in any ways that
you can.  It truly is a powerful response that can be used to bring Clinton,
Obama et al. into at least an interesting dilemma.


The act of GENOCIDE trumps all international and human rights laws (and US
Public Law and the US Constitution (see attached filing), and if the UN
Commissioner Pillay dares to rule favorably on Hillary’s complaint, she must
*MUST* rule that the intentional destruction of Euro-American Christians
preempts and nullifies Clinton’s lesser complaint, and all efforts that
coddle Third World immigration, legal and illegal.  Such a UN ruling also
would stop all challenges to AZ law, and force the Feds to immediately halt
all efforts to maintain open borders, and begin legal reparations to restore
the majority Euro-Am Christian population.  If UN Commissioner Pillay
upholds Clinton’s complaint, but refuses to act on this GENOCIDE complaint,
she is ruling that human rights and international laws, including the 1948
UN Convention on Genocide are no longer binding on the U.S. government or
that European-American Christians, alone, are not protected by those laws.
That said, I ask all of you to publicize this complaint, and ask others to
use it to file their own complaints.  I believe that actions of Clinton, AG
Holder’s DOJ, Congress, the Supreme Court and the entire Obama
Administration — having taken steps to subvert our Constitution and laws,
both of which in fact SUPPORT the UN Convention on Genocide — must be met
with a superseding complaint in the UN.


A California woman has filed a formal complaint with the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights charging the US federal government with
genocide of European-American Christians through its immigration policies.
Terry Graham sent the eight-page complaint to UN High Commissioner
Navanethem Pillay on Sept. 3, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
filed a report with Pillay’s office claiming that the federal government’s
legal challenge to Arizona’s new immigration law will protect “human
rights”.


In July, the US Dept. of Justice filed a lawsuit in federal district court
seeking to nullify and prevent enforcement of Arizona’s immigration law,
asserting the federal government alone has authority over immigration.
Earlier, President Obama attacked Arizona’s law, saying it was “unfair” and
potentially violated the civil rights of Hispanic citizens.


“The US Constitution, and US federal and international laws against genocide
preempt and nullify all laws, policies and procedures – including those
advanced illegally last month by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial
branches of our federal government that result in the destruction of
European-Americans,” says Graham.


Graham’s complaint cites the UN Genocide Convention of 1948, international
and human rights laws, US Public Law 95-435 and the US Constitution, Article
I, Section 8, which gives the US Congress the power to “define and punish…
offences against the Law of Nations.”


The UN Genocide Convention defines genocide” as “deliberately inflicting
upon [a group] conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical
destruction in whole or in part.” Article II further defines genocide as
“causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and
“imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, which can
include job losses and taxation policies that cause stress and lower
birthrates.  Under the Convention, which Congress adopted under US Public
Law 95-435, “group” is defined by nation, race, ethnicity, or religion.
Graham noted that in 1960, Euro-American Christians comprised 89% percent of
the nation’s population, but now are minorities in many parts of the United
States solely due to federal actions that promote massive Third world
immigration.


In 1998, Hillary Clinton’s husband, Pres. Bill Clinton, publicly
acknowledged that the destruction of White Christian Americans was
intentional when he said, “In a little more than 50 years, there will be no
majority race in the United States.”


In her complaint, Graham asks the UN Human Rights Commissioner to promptly
investigate her charges and “make an immediate, formal request of the US
federal government to place a judicial stay on all US laws, policies,
procedures, lawsuits and legal actions that advance this genocide.”  She is
also seeking reparations as defined by the UN Genocide Convention that “must
wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and to re-establish the
situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not
been committed.”


Graham is urging others to file their own complaints with the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights via mail or email as soon as possible.  She
also asks that lawsuits be filed charging the US federal government with
genocide of European-American Christians in US and courts in nations who are
signatories to the UN Convention on Genocide.


“If the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights refuses or fails to
investigate and rule on my complaint that the U.S. federal government’s
laws, policies, procedures and other actions are an act of genocide against
U.S. European-American Christians, we must conclude that ”human rights and
international law are no longer binding on the U.S. government or that
European-American Christians, alone, are not protected by those laws, Graham
said.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was kann Spindelegger nach USA 2010 Wahl sagen  ? Hillary wird kein Arbeit haben. LOL

 

"Environment Only" Theory of Human Behaviour Destroyed by Discovery of “Liberal Gene”

"Environment Only" Theory of Human Behaviour Destroyed by Discovery of “Liberal Gene”


Thu, 28/10/2010 - 14:32
BNP News

The environmental theory of human development — which holds that all humans are born blank slates and are shaped solely by their environments — has received a death blow with the news that scientists have discovered a genetic link to liberalism.



The announcement of the existence of a “liberal gene” which predisposes individuals to being liberal even in the face of the most incontrovertible evidence that their world view is wrong, was made in the reputable Cambridge University Press' Journal of Politics.



The lengthy study, based on research carried out on more than 2,000 test subjects (and which can be seen in full here), proves that genetics plays a substantial role in behaviour.



This means that people with certain genetic make-ups behave in a predetermined way, irrelevant of their place of birth.



The environmental “blank slate” world view has, from the time of the infamous Frankfurt School and the anthropological standard set by Karl Mannheim and Franz Boas at the beginning of the 20th Century, held that hereditary plays no part in predetermining human behaviour.



For decades, this leftist argument has been used to stifle any suggestion that individuals, both within and between racial groups, have different inherent abilities, intelligence levels or behavioural and psychological make-ups.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/environment-only-theory-human-behaviour-destroyed-discovery-%E2%80%9Cliberal-gene%E2%80%9D

The advent of the science of genetics has however completely undermined this leftist delusion, and the discovery of a “liberal gene” must come as the most shocking of all developments to proponents of the now-disproven environmental theory.



According to the new study’s lead researcher, James H. Fowler of the University of California in San Diego, people with a variant of what is known as the “dopamine receptor gene” (called DRD4-7R) are more liberal in their political outlook than those people without it.



The gene, which has previously been associated with novelty-seeking behaviour, means that individuals carrying it are exposed “to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles would make them more liberal than average,” his study paper said.



“Studies of animals indicate that DRD4 is involved in cortical excitability and behavioral sensitisation,” the paper said.



“These alterations in cortical arousal affect ‘‘approach traits’’ such as novelty seeking and sensation seeking, which in turn affect personality and behaviour.



“The relationship between openness to experience and ideology holds when ideology is measured either as support for ideological political parties or as ideological self-placement.”



The paper was extremely scientific and fair in its overview, stressing that it did not “claim that this evidence proves a causal relationship between DRD4 and political ideology. However, the association is consistent with a causal theory that we develop about the way genes and environments combine to affect political ideology.



“It is important to note that the 7R allele by itself does not make a person liberal and neither does simply having a greater number of friends as a teenager,” it stated.



“Rather, it is the crucial interaction of two factors—the genetic predisposition of having a greater number of 7R alleles and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence—that is associated with being more liberal.”



As a result, the study said, it can be concluded that “genetic effects take place in complex interaction with other genes and environments, and it is likely the combination of hundreds if not thousands of genes interacting with each other and with external stimuli that influence political attitudes and behaviour.



“In light of these and other findings, political scientists can no longer afford to view ideology as a strictly social construct, perfectly malleable and completely subject to historically changing circumstances.



“Finally, the results here suggest that, contrary to Mannheim’s assertion and the body of work that followed him, the social and institutional environment cannot entirely explain a person’s political attitudes and beliefs.



“We must take into account the role of genes and gene-environment interactions in the formation and maintenance of political beliefs,” the paper said in its conclusion.



Further recommended reading: Race, Evolution and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective, 2nd Special Abridged Edition, by Professor J. Philippe Rushton.



Using evidence from psychology, anthropology, sociology and other scientific disciplines, this book shows that there are at least three biological races (subspecies) of man: Orientals (i.e., Mongoloids or Asians); Blacks (i.e., Negroids or Africans), and Whites (i.e., Caucasoids or Europeans).



There are recognisable profiles for the three major racial groups on brain size; intelligence; personality and temperament; sexual behaviour, and rates of fertility, maturation, and longevity. The profiles reveal that, ON AVERAGE that Orientals and their descendants around the world fall at one end of the continuum, Blacks and their descendants around the world fall at the other end of the continuum and Whites regularly fall in between. This worldwide pattern implies evolutionary and genetic, rather than purely social, political, economic, or cultural, causes. Softcover, small format, 106 pp. £4.78 including postage and packaging.

 
It seems a certain politician is hopelessly corrupt or has this gene ? LOL Maybe the evidence I present arguing against immigration is in vain, but I hope not. But then again my theories would still be proven true either way.

The Clock is Ticking in Austria.....

Recently Austria, the last homogenous Western European nation, has been plunged into a state of debate over the issue of mass immigration. Key Officials in the Austrian government have called immigration into Austria of 100,000 thousand foreigners. This immigration will take place within a period of 10-20 years. The country will be transformed from a homogenous small nation to a multi-cultural nation within a rapid period. The supporters of mass immigration say that it is necessary, because Austrian birth-rate is too low and more skilled people are needed. As a young American man who has studied Austrian culture and politics and American politics and has lived a diverse, multi-cultural community all of his life, I will attempt to offer an opinion against mass immigration and convince you that the path advocated by Maria Fekter and others is a horrible mistake.

First off, regardless of wether someone is for, or against mass immigration, we would all agree that it will change Austria dramatically. Every Austrian institution would be affected: justice, healthcare, education, culture, politics etc.. Therefore, we should study mass immigration and the arguments both for and against it carefully. No one would argue with studying the issue. If the politicians are honest and truly beleive in immigration and want to help Austrians, they will allow studies. There is also no hurry to pass legislation aimed at increasing mass immigration. The reasons for supposedly increasing it are not so urgent as the problems claimed to be solved by mass immigration are over a long period of time anyway.


One thing that should be looked at is the effect of mass immigration in other countries. The United states, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France, Israel, Denamark etc.. all have their own experiences with immigration and issues. Generally speaking many experiences have been negative. Crime has increased, society has become divided, diseases have multiplied, health care and natural resouces have become strained etc...I am generally unsure that mass immigration of foreigners has been a sucess in any nation, and if it has been a sucess, to what extent. It also seems ALL of these nations are attempting to end or further limit immigration.


We should also look at the political controversies surrounding mass immigration in other countries. Here in the united states immigration is a controversial issue in politics. When one turns on Republican radio stations such as Rush limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage etc... You will hear harsh words towards immigration which is a reflection of much of American society and the GOP. The Republican party in particular has taken a stance against immigration. Even recently Senator Mitch Mcconell called for the repeal of the 14th ammendmant and the state of Arizona is in a state of upheaval due to mass immigration. Steve King R-Iowa, a leading Republican leader adressed the immigration situation in Europe and offered advice not to pursue mass immigration.


And America is not a "nation of immigrants" BS. We had clearly defined immigration laws that favored Europeans until 1965. The Tea Party movement currently is a reaction to the failed social policies since the 1960's and many people wish to turn back the clock. Our politicians also decieved us in much the same way the politicians in Europe have/are decieving their people.


Furthermore, the massive social changes which occured in the 1960's in the USA were done primarily by unelected leftist judges in a process known as judicial activism, in which laws are legislated illegaly by judges. Americans NEVER had a choice in the issue of imigration. Just as recently as last week "Judge" Bolton invalidated the Arizona immigration for example. Yet shockingly Austrian politicians tout our immigration laws and situation as something to aspire to and emulate and deceptively attempt to tell their citizens what Americans believe.


As far as immigration in Australia is concerned, both parties have pledged to cut back on immigration numbers in the future, but Tony Abbott has gone a step further in committing to process all refugee's offshore and even use the army to turn back boats full of asylum seekers. Annual immigration would be cut from 300,000 to just 170,000 to reduce the growing population, yet in an ironic twist Mr Abbott has also stated that he wants to see the country's birth rate rise as it was "significantly below replacement level". A strange thing to say when criticising a growing population that is apparently unsustainable.


Let us also not forget the immigration laws in israel. Israel recently deported their non-Jewish foreign workers and children. Isreal also has strict immigration laws which favor jews. Intermarriage between non-Jews and Jews is frowned upon. The only way one could be a jew is if one has a Jewish mother. I could go on all day about the experiences and policies of other nations, but these few are enough.


And of course we must evaluate the effects of immigration into Austria itself already. Already we find massive problems related to crime, unemployment, housing, welfare, block voting, terrorism, lower quality of life etc.. They can not even fix the problems from immigrants already, but yet they demand more ? Why not give the immigrants who already live in Austria and have massive unemployment jobs, before you bring afew million more in.


I don't think birth rates is an issue. The Austrian birth rate is approximately 1.7 or something. It could not be so hard to raise a birth rate less than half of a percentage point. They raised the birth rate in Denmark, Japan and Ierland when it was necessary. The recent "decline" in birth rates from 2008-2010 is nothing to worry about, because there was a financial crisis and birth rates often fall in a financial crisis. There is also the issue of Austrians who do want to have children, but can't because it is not convenient, lack of good housing, fast paced life, high taxes, lack of financial or cultural confidence, etc... One could easily adress these issues and raise the birth rate. All of these problems will increase with the population expansion and social effects of immigration and immigration will decrease the birth rate even more.


Even if birth rates were the reason for promoting mass immigration, would one not agree that brining in 100,000 foreigners into a small nation with 8 million people is a last resort or drastic solution ? Immigration of so many is irreversible. It is also much more difficult and risky than simply attempting to raise the national birth rate by half a percentage point. Offices of immigration may have to be established, things may not go according to plan and language barriers to be overcome. In addition the usual problems such as crime and others would apear. All the problems cost millions at a minimum. The recession may also unexpectedly return. Furthermore what if you bring in all the immigrants, then problems appear and you think you made a mistake ? then what ?


We must also consider the numbers and do the math. Austria also already has immigration. Thousands of Asylum seekers come illegaly and what not. Not only will you have "active" legal immigration, but also illegal immigration. Furthermore these 100,000 immigrants will inevitably bring their familes. They could also have a higher birth rate than whatever is left of the native austrians. 100,000 immigrants will easily turn into 100,000,000 immigrants. And won't the same circumstances which cause the low birth rate in Austria still exist after you bring the immigrants in ? Therefore we can conclude that 100,000 will not be enough, but you will have to bring in more and more and more and more....


I also question the "skilled immigrants" argument. The educational standards in other nations are far below western nations. A medical degree from india is NOT the same as an Austrian degree. This loophole is readily open to abuse. And just because an immigrant is "skilled" it does not mean there will be no problems. Having a "Skill" does not translate into a job. There are plenty of unemployed people with skills, because the skills might not in be demand. How do you contemplate that you will bring in 100,000 doctors and engineers in 20 years and give them work in their career field at good wages ? And your definition of "skills" is questionable, you think that a waiter or carpenter is a skilled professional. In reality that is a menial job that any austrian could be trained to do. The "skilled" immigration idea is nothing new and has been a failure in other nations. Furthermore, so what if they are "skilled" they are still foreigners and it is 100,000 + of them.


I also do not see a deficit of talent in the Austrian population. Austria has a very high number of college graduates, which is almost above average in number. According to wikioedia, it even says Austrian college grads are so numerous that they have trouble finding jobs in their field. The average Austrian IQ is also higher than most nations in the world, including other European nations. Some of the most famous inventors and musicians have come from Austria, such as Gaston Glock. Austrians have also become celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenneger. I sincerely doubt the imported foreigners could be better than the Austrians and that there is anything Austrians can't do.


I personally wonder why a center right party like the OVP would take such an extreme left wing position on immigration. I would imagine the sister parties of the OVP are the Republicans and conservatives in the UK--BOTH parties fundamentally opposed to mass immigration. David Cameron recently ended mass immigration, which was established by the left labour party in the UK to build up the leftist vote. And The Republicans have just gone wild on the immigrant issue lately. can we not learn from this situation ?


When you study the politics and voting trends of nations affected by mass immigration such as the USA and UK, you generally find that it disadvantages a right leaning or free market political party. In the USA the democratic party is almost entirely ethnic and religious minority, with the exception of afew white liberal zealot marxists like hillary clinton. In contrast the Republican party is almost entirely White and christian, despite massive outreach to minority communities and having a Black chairman once. The reason for this is not racism or bias, but rather the fact that only certain issues resonate with them and diferent groups have different interests. Those immigrant people tend to support socialist policies and governemnt benefits more and want resources, not for the entire community but only for their ethnic group/self interest. Thus social/political cohesion is destroyed by a diverse society and political affiliation is based on ethnicity, religion or race by coincidence.


If we were to transalte block voting into Austria, we would find a gain in Green votes and some SPO, but not OVP, and possibly some gains for FPO beause the remaining Austrians would probably be upset if the immigration produces negative results. From what I understand, Green is already dispraportionately immigrant and will grow with the new arrivals. I doubt the new arrivals would the OVP support.


There is no moral foundation for this mass immigration. Austria has NO colonial history in the third world. Austria is far too small to accomodate large numbers of people, And using thousands of foreign immigrants to replace the indigenous Austrian people is an act of genocide of the worst kind. If hundreds of thousands of Austrians were coming into Africa and native Africans were dissapearing and losing their way of life, what would you say ? Would you say these Austrians could just learn Zulu and would be exactly the same ? If Austria was humanitarian, they would preserve their people culture and way of life for other people and be the best they could be and others would follow. A person with hatred for their own people can have no love for other peoples. Furthermore, EVERY nation has immigration policies which favor themselves. Also the immigration itself will inevitably and unintentionally destroy the host nation, leaving nothing for anyone in time. In the end neither the Austrian, or the imigrant would benefit.


One may also view the immigrants as being discriminated against, but in reality the Austrian will be discriminated against. In every nation that has accepted immigration the immigrant population is often unkind to host citizens. In schools immigrants often bully and abuse other students. The native culture is generally not respected or appreciated. Their politicians when participating in democracy also often advocate active discrimination under law against native people. In the United states this discrimination takes the form of "Affirmative Action" where immigrants and people of color are favored for hiring, promotion, college admissions, loans and housing. In Germany Affirmative Action also exists-- recently in berlin leftist parties upported by ethnic minority voters introduced affimative action to the Berlin area.


I think personally Austria is perfectly fine and does not need 100,000 immigrants. I have talked to many Austrians and find them very intelligent (although a bit naive at times) The women are very atractive looking. The culture of the people and history is also very interesing. I don't know why one would wish to change it into something completely different. When I travel, or my family travels, I want them to see it the way it was and be able to experience the people. The country will never be the same with 100,000, 000 immigrants and I know from expereince it won't change for the better. These great people will just destoy themselves and it is very difficult to watch.History is repeating itself . One may also say that there will be no problems and non of the issues mentioned will appear, but in reality as soon as you let them in, you will have no control over what happens and the warning signs are as clear as day.