Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2017)
Internet Articles (2016)
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books





Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

he year of 2011 ended on what should have been viewed as an ominous warning—the theological handwriting on the wall—from a November 19 headline that was seen around the world. It was a "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upsharin" moment that 99% of Christian America failed to see because they were too wrapped up in the day-to-day personal financial survival issues that are destroying the American economy as social progressive fanatics in Washington redistributed our sweat equity-earned wealth to the third world. Or they were myopically focused on which GOP presidential candidate was the frontrunner-of-the-moment in November's presidential race in which the proverbial tortoise doesn't need to worry about "showing" in the early rounds of the race with the hares since the the candidate the princes of industry selected to promulgate the agenda they want implemented has already been picked. That's the beauty of using electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots and #2 pencils. You can vote before anyone else votes, or after everyone else is done. As long as you vote before the votes are tallied, your votes count.

Unlike paper ballots which actually require a voter with a #2 pencil to mark it, electronic votes apparently don't require anything except a good computer programmer with access to the voting machine before, during or after the votes are cast. Their role is to make sure that the suckers who are born every moment think they picked the designated loser in November who will win the GOP nomination when the winner is picked by the princes of industry long before the first absentee ballots in the primaries are cast; and long before the contestants face one another in televised debates that are, once again, staged to make you believe you are participating in the selection of the candidates who will eventually become the standard bearer for one of the two major parties. Isn't it interesting that even before you have absorbed what each candidate has said and weighed the value of their words, the talking heads are telling you who won the debate and the pollsters have already computed their standings based on the views of the talking heads. In other word, your opinion should mean nothing—even to yourself.

On Nov. 14, 2011 the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority outlawed a host of words from being spoken and/or communicated in the Muslim world. The list contained words which the Pakistani government viewed as so obscene they could only be termed as pornographic. In the top tier of the list of 1,695 words which the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority feels are the most obscene and tasteless words in the world, is the name Jesus Christ. The Pakistan government gave the nation's telecommunications companies seven days to install filters in their cell phone and Internet service systems that would successfully block the transmission of all 1,695 banned words. If you recall, Pakistan previously enacted a law that bans the defaming of any recognized religion. But, in practice, the law actually applies only to Islam and the Prophet Mohammad. It is a crime punishable by death to defame Islam or the Prophet Mohammad.

Uttering the name Jesus Christ is forbidden in Pakistan. Cell phone companies and Internet providers are required to block banned words from being transmitted in English and in Pakistan's native Urdu. It is unclear how many other languages, if any, the Pakistani government monitors—and bans. Since the Pakistani ban resulted from Shariah Islamists that include not only the Afghan Taliban but the Muslim Brotherhood, expect the Pakistan ban, if it has not yet swept throughout the Muslim world, to spread to every Muslim-majority nation. Today, in "Christian" America, the name Jesus Christ is banned from use in government buildings and most politically=correct businesses. So is Christian prayer in public buildings—including US military chapels where crosses are banned from rooftops to indicate that building is a House of Worship and, so is praying "in Jesus' name." And, where a Christian child cannot bring a copy of the Christian Bible to school, a Islamic child can bring a copy of the Qu'ran to school and no one says a word—except perhaps the parents of the Christian child who brought her Bible to school and was sent home and/or given detention. The United States government violate the 1st Amendment prohibition against restricting religious liberty somewhere in the country at least a thousand times a day as it violates the 1st Amendment prohibition of promoting a State religion—Islam, at least a hundred times a day.

Pakistan insists their ban against speaking the name of Jesus Christ is legal under a 1996 law that prevented Muslims from sending information through any Muslim telecommunications system that was "false, fabricated, indecent or obscene." This was the first global attempt to eradicate the name of the Son of God from the lips of man in the Muslim-friendly nations of the world with the princes of industry and barons of banking and business aiding them by attempting to completely erase a historic person—Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ—in a barter agreement with Islam in which it appears they have covertly agreed to marginalize Christianity in exchange for the black manna under the desert sands.

One day soon the greedy princes of industry and the secular barons of banking and business are going to understand the price they will be required to pay for that tradeoff. Not in terms of dollars, but in terms of the what happens to them in the hereafter when the full meaning of the parable of the rich man passing through the eye of the needle is explained to them, by Jesus Christ, in eternal terms. When the rich man stands in judgment before the Lord of Lords in the Sheeps & Goats Judgment at the East Gate of Jerusalem, the knees of a man who has bowed to no man will bow, and his haughty arrogance will be replaced with incalculable fear. And, as he bows, he will profess that Jesus Christ is Lord. But, of course at that moment in time, it will be too late. No amount of wealth or human prestige will save him. From that spot, the rich man will be cast into Gehenna's fire (not to be confused with the Lake of Fire which Hell itself will be cast into at the end of the Millennium). (Think of that event as a phrase you grew up with—out of the frying pan into the fire.)

It was not just the princes of industry and barons of banking, working in concert with the social progressives, who wanted an atheistic, Godless world. It is also the petty politicians taking their stipend from the money barons and the social progressive bureaucrats who do their bidding who are erasing Christianity from "White-dominated" America. The seeds of hatred for Christianity were planted in the fertile soil of Utopia two decades ago when the opening salvo of the persecution of Christians in the United States began with a frontal assault on religious freedom by the American Bar Association in May, 1989. That salvo launched a theological war that is now being waged openly worldwide. Today, it is waged against our military by Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief of that military. On Jan. 24, 2012 Obama issued a directive through the Dept. of Defense to all military chaplains instructing them that they may not criticize Obama plans or policies nor advocate against his reelection from the pulpits of any church on any US military reservation anywhere in the world. That, by the way, is a prerogative Obama does not constitutionally possess.

On Jan. 26, Catholic Archbishop Timothy Broglio emailed every Catholic chaplain in the US military stating "...in so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying [chaplains] our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom—that of religious liberty..." The following day, senior chaplains received an email from the Army's Office of Chief Chaplains advising them that the Archbishop's letter was not coordinated with their office, and instructed chaplains not to read that letter from the pulpit. According to the Archdiocese of the Military Services, Broglio insisted that, based on legal precedent, the Obama directive was a clear violation of military free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, the Army was forced to agree and rescinded their order to prevent Broglio's words from being read in church services—but only after the Archbishop removed the line "...We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law" at the insistence of Army Secretary John McHugh who said the phrase could be construed as "a call to civil disobedience." Wouldn't that be a kick in the rump of America if the second American Revolution began within the Armed Forces of the United States?

In May, 1989 the United States had its first Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upsharin" moment. America just wasn't paying attention. Perhaps it was because there were too many major news stories to divert their attention, like the Tiananmen Square Massacre in Beijing, the Exxon-Valdez oil spill and, of course, the fall of the Berlin Wall. The world was finally safe from communism. Our underground fallout shelters could now be converted into root cellars—or a good place for the inlaws to stay when they came to visit.

In reality, the American people were too preoccupied with themselves and, because they believe the Constitution mandates a separation of Church and State, they chose to ignore the total eradication of the 1st Amendment's religious liberty. In May, 1989 the American Bar Association sent a letter and a brochure to all of its members inviting them to attend a seminar for "...attorneys who want to be on the leading edge of an explosive new area of law—suing churches." The seminar was entitled "Expanding the Use of Tort Law Against Religions." This was the opening shot fired over the bow of the USS First Amendment. It was the beginning of a lethal barrage because the Utopians knew if they could erase the right of free men to speak freely without fear of arrest, or prevent those free men from practicing their God-granted religious beliefs, they would no longer be free, and the globalists who were steering the American Ship of State towards the shoals of Utopia would win. Because the American people struggled hard against impossible odds to gain their freedom from the overlords of Europe, the Founding Fathers understood that, more than anything else, it was their belief in a Supreme Being that kindled the fires of patriotism in the colonial soldiers who froze in Valley Forge and who still crossed the Potomac and defeated the Tories at Trenton.

In 1878, the US Supreme Court, ruling in Reynolds v US (98 US 145) unconstitutionally legislated from the bench to create the separation of Church and State doctrine—which is not part of the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Nor can it be found in the Federalist Papers. The Constitution forbids Congress and the Courts from interfering with, or prohibiting, the free exercise of religion by any American citizen. Yet, today, the federal courts assumes the right to prevent citizens from praying in public places, or even from carrying Bibles into public buildings under the guise of violating the Constitution's hypothetical separation of Church and State when 9 old men decided they had the right to amend the Constitution with a personal letter written by one of the Founding Fathers rather than allowing Congress to propose an amendment for the States to ratify—if they chose to do so. Clearly, seven old men and two women knew the States would disagree.

Yet, while three conservative, one moderate and five liberal justices believe precedent allows them to restrict religious liberty—for Christians—they still don't think the State of California violated the Constitution when the California Board of Education leased two classrooms in the Carden Hall Elementary School in Fountain Valley, CA to Shabbi Mansuri for use by the Council on Islamic Education [CIE] during the Clinton years. It was from within a California taxpayer-funded public school classroom that Mansuri was allowed, by the California state legislature (a constitutional slap-in-the-face to then Republican Gov. Pete Wilson) to publish three Islamic textbooks that would eventually be used not only in California public schools, but in scores of Christian classroom across America in an arrogant, blatant attempt to scrub Christianity out of the minds of Christian school children—without the consent of their parents.

On Feb. 15, 2012, Fox News reported that a Grand Junction, CO high school senior, James Harper complained to the Mesa County School Board when the choir he was part of at the Grand Junction High School chose to do a song written by a Muslim composer from India, A.R. Rahman that was a tribute to Allah. The song was "Zikr" or Dhikr. Zikr, in Islam, is the complete "guide" of obedience to Allah. A homage. In medieval times, the zikr was an obligatory ceremony performed by a vassal servant declaring his loyalty to the feudal lord—in this case, Allah. Harper walked out in protest to Christian students being made to praise Allah. When Mesa School District #51 officials supported the decision of Choir Director Marcia Wieland to use of a religious Islamic praise song, he quit the choir. But Harper was determined not to go quietly into the night. He called KREX-TV and told their reporter that he didn't "...want to come across as a bigot or a racist, but I really don't feel it is appropriate for students in a public high school to be singing an Islamic worship song. This is worshipping another God, and even worshipping another prophet...I think there would be a lot of outrage if we made a Muslim choir say Jesus Christ is the only truth."

As Harper suggested, If the reverse of that incident had happened at any high school in the United States, a whole host of politically-correct anti-Christian groups and/or Islamic advocacy groups like CAIR, not to mention the American Civil Liberties Union and, of course, the US Justice Department would not only hang the choir director out to dry, that person and probably the high school principal would likely be fired. Mesa School District spokesman Jeff Kirtland defended the decision to include the Islamic homage in a statement to Fox News, arguing that "...choral music is often devoted to religious themes. This is not a case where the school is endorsing or promoting any particular religion or other non-educational agenda."

Here's the reality: in America's schools today. No Christmas carols which mention Christ—or even the word Christmas (or which contain the name of Jesus Christ)—can be sung; nor can the word "Christmas" be used on posters, etc because of the association of Christ to Christmas. In the public domain, the barons of business eschew the word "Christmas" at the time of the year that Christians (wrongly*) celebrate the birth of the Savior.

(*During the time of Christ's birth, when kings wanted to take a census of their subjects, those subjects were required by decree to return to the city or village of the birth of the head of their clan. Because, many times, extensive travel to return to their city of origin, was required, censuses were always taken during late summer so the vassal citizens would not be forced to travel during inclement weather. The same thing, by the way, will happen when Jesus Christ returns to judge the living in the great White Throne Judgment. All living people on Earth will be required to travel to Jerusalem where they will be judged at the East Gate of Jerusalem where, below them, in the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, the Earth will open, exposing the flames of Hades where those condemned will be cast into the fires of Hell. [Rev. 20:10, 14, 21:8; Jer. 7:32; Isa. 30:33]. For more on this topic, you can still order my 1996 book, The Baffled Christian's Handbook, while copies still exist.)

Bluntly, those bans are a violation of the 1st Amendment which says neither Congress nor the courts can make any law that restricts or prohibits the people of the United States from worshipping God in any way they wish. The federal judiciary "writes new law" when they change written law. The role of the federal judiciary is not to rewrite law, nor even to reinterpret it. It's sole job is to make sure the laws of the land are being enforced as they are written, and to adjudicate disagreements on what the law means and how it is to be applied based on what Congress intended when they wrote it. When a law says you can't do something, the federal judiciary does not have the constitutional authority to write exceptions into it that exempt segments of society from obeying it. The rule of law applies equally to all citizens, or it applies to none of them.

All laws must apply equally to all citizens—including Congressmen, Senators and presidents. (If you recall, written into Obamacare are multiple provisions that exempt several States, companies and individuals, from specific portions of Obamacare. Nebraska was first on the list because Sen. Ben Nelson would not vote for it because of the burdensome 1099 paperwork requirements. Maine also got a waiver for the votes of Maines' two Republican Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. (Which is why Collins chose not to seek reelection in 2012.) Also getting waivers were Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire. Exempted are all members of Congress and their staffers. Exempted also are the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business, and their families. Exempted is SEIU which received a waiver from Obama. Also specifically exempted are scores of key Obama donors and key donors to Democratic candidates—and their companies. Also exempted from Obamacare are all Muslims in the United States under a religious conscience exemption. On the surface of it, what those provisions seem to mean is that, when we pass 70 and take more from the tax system than we pay into it, Obama can legally euthanize us by denying us the right to the procedure[s] that will save our live—but he can't euthanize a Muslim because their religion doesn't allow euthanization. (In reality, Muslims do not collect Social Security benefits nor to they use Medicare. (Simply put, they are not double-dippers. They aren't draining the Social Security system. You are.)

To qualify for exemption, the religious sect has to be adherents of a religion described in section 1402(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (which governs exemptions from the payment of Social Security and Medicare taxes on self-employed incomes). Segments of society which decline social security benefits, and refuse Medicare or Medicaid coverage qualify for this exemption. Rank and file working class American taxpayers (who have paid Social Security and Medicare taxes most of their lives and therefore believe they are entitled to the benefits) are subject to the more punitive aspects of Obamacare since Obamacare is not only a healthcare plan, it is a forced euthanasia plan that gives an Obama-appointed medical board the right to deny benefits to specific elderly people whose remaining life, in the view of the bureaucracy, is not worth the cost to prolong it.

Why? Because the Social Security system is broke, and cannot be fixed until the ratio of those paying into the system once again exceeds by a ratio of 18-to-1 the number of those collecting benefits. Physicians handling post-70 geriatric patients whose incomes come from small pensions and Social Security benefits are already advising them that the life-prolonging treatments they currently receive will not be available to them after Jan. 1, 2013. The elderly who championed the notion of Obamacare in 2009 were unaware that the Death Board that would deny them benefits in 2013 was created a year was before Obamacare enacted. The elderly were also not aware that, historically, around the world, when any nation created an old age government pension system they also created a medical care system to make sure the recipients of the pensions did not live to collect more than they paid into the system.

Whomever files suit in the US Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare needs to sue on the grounds that the law does not apply equally to all Americans. To enact Obamacare, a corrupt waiver system was created not because they were just or equitable , but because they were bribes needed to guarantee the passage of a very bad piece of legislation. Those who fought the hardest to enact Obamacare all applied for waivers and exemptions to exclude themselves and their families from the need to participate in it. No where in the Constitution of the United States does Congress have the right to cannot break the law to make law. That's how banana republics make law. In the case of Obamacare, lawmakers simply made it up as they went along.

In the case was Reynolds v United States [98 US (8 Otto.) 145] the United States government did just that—they made it up as they went along. The court decided that the Territory of Utah—the nation's only land area where polygamy, a religious obligation under the religious tenets of the Church of Latter Day Saints, was legal—it had the right to deprive the people in that Territory the right to multiple wives under the Morriill Anti-Bigamy Act of July 8, 1862, signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. (Not only did the law sponsored by the social progressive Jacobin Senator Justin Smith Morrill [R-VT] outlaw polygamous marriages, it also limited the amount of wealth any church—Christian, Jewish, Mormon or Catholic (with emphasis on Catholic), or any nonprofit organization (charity) in the United States to an amount not to exceed $50,000.

According to the Constitution, neither Congress nor the courts can amend the Constitution by fiat. Which is what the US Supreme Court did in 1878 when they chose to incorporate a Jan., 1802 letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, CT Baptist Association to reassure them that he would not follow John Adam's path of promoting Congregationalism as a national religion. Jefferson assured them that no State legislature could enact any law to interfere with man's right to to worship God, since those rights are inherent and, Jefferson noted assuredly, the Constitution places a wall of separation between the State and the church, preventing government from creating a "State church." Jefferson's words were in a personal letter. No law. No Presidential Proclamation. No Executive Order. No congressional action that could be construed as Jefferson attempting to carve his words into law. The Supreme Court, in order to restrict religious liberty in the United States made it up. They used a phrase from a personal letter from Jefferson to a group of worried ministers in which Jefferson was assuring worried Americans that their right to religious freedom was an inherent right that could not be abridged, and did the opposite—using a nine-word phrase in a personal letter as law to abrogate that inherent right. In 1802 that would have been enough to rekindle the American Revolution. Only this time, not against the British throne.

The United States Supreme Court manipulated that private conversation between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association specifically to give themselves the right to limit religious liberty whenever "free exercise of religion" interferes with the agenda of government—as it does today with the rise of Islam around the world and a theological quagmire known as Christianity and Judaism.

That provision was placed in the law so that the Union Army carpetbaggers could seize the assets of any church, church, or political advocacy group speaking out against Lincoln's war policies. When Brigham Young protested the Anti-Bigamy Law, Lincoln agreed not to enforce the law in Utah if Young agreed not to side with the South in the Civil War. Young agreed and Lincoln instructed Gen. Patrick Henry Connor who commanded the Union Army garrisons in Utah not to confront any Mormon who violated the law. President Ulysses S. Grant was not as broad-minded as Lincoln. Unlike Lincoln who ordered Gen. Connor not to enforce the anti-bigamy law, Grant did.

George Reynolds was charged with being simultaneously married to Amelia Jane Schofield and Mary Ann Tuddenham in violation of Sec.5352 of the Anti-Bigamy Law of Oct. 23, 1874. He was found guilty of the crime of bigamy in 1875. Reynolds was sentenced to two years in prison, and ordered to pay a fine of $500. He appealed. The Utah Supreme Court upheld the sentence.

It was not until US Attorney William Carey arrested a Latter Days Saint "apostle," George Q. Cannon, the second most powerful Mormon in the Church, and charged him with bigamy that LDS church leaders appealed the Reynolds case to the US Supreme Court. (Cannon, who did not follow Reynolds to prison, became a member of Congress for the Territory of Utah in 1880—two years after the US Supreme Court ruled on Reynolds.

Hidden in the dusty pages of history is the deliberate manipulation of the US Constitution by the United States Supreme Court because they found one aspect of religious freedom "personally distasteful." And, while the First Amendment makes it clear that "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." the high court did so anyway.

In coupling the Danbury Letter into codified law, the Justices changed the First Amendment of the Constitution, making it easy to justify their ruling that the government can enact laws regulating national uniformity even if those laws conflict with religious liberty. The court defended its erasing a good portion of the First Amendment by saying "...permitting a certain class of people to willfully defy the nation's laws without repercussions in the name of religious liberty would permit citizens to become a law unto themselves, and lead to the existence of a government in name only."

If the federal courts have the legal authority to abrogate your right—and mine—to worship God and pray in Jesus name as we see fit, then they can also forbid us from speaking out politically. And, they could also ban radio and TV newscasters from revealing the sins of elected officials and most of all, they can ban bloggers from revealing what the licensed broadcast medias are afraid to report (over fears that the FCC will not renew their broadcast licenses). The "free" press was taken over by the free enterprise system in the early 20th century when the barons of banking felt the need to conceal their efforts to remove the States from the equation of power in the federal government in order to create a privately-owned central bank—owned by them—and remove the voice of the States in the management of the nation (although the States created the central government as their agent before the courts of the world).

Today, the Danbury Letter is used to prevent students—not teachers—from bringing a Bible to school, wearing a crucifix in an American school, wearing T-Shirts emblazoned with pictures of Jesus Christ, His name or, acknowledging any Christian holiday or feast day. At Christmas, most schools in America are now forbidden to have Christmas displays—particularly those with signs that say "Merry Christmas." Menorrahs are verboten. If a Christian girl came to class wearing a nun's habit, she would be sent home. Yet, if a Muslim girl comes to school wearing a burqa and al-hijab, she would never be sent home. Nor would a Muslim male student coming to class carrying a Qu'ran and a prayer rug. The only religion in the United States that it's government is determined to discriminate against is Christianity. And, strangely, no one is asking why.

One reason could be that Christianity is pro-life. It is vehemently opposed to abortion and it is vehemently opposed to homosexuality. In other words, Christianity favors the promulgation of mankind. The princes of industry do not. They believe people are the biggest problem Earth faces because, in their view, people cause global warming and people consume all of the world's natural resources—particularly oil. Get rid of half of the people, they think, and the world will be a better place. That way, they wouldn't waste the world's diminishing oil supply—or so the oil barons say, believing the world is well past peak oil. Most important, Christian faith is the substance that builds and bonds patriotism. Without Christian faith and patriotic fervor 145 Texicans would never had attempted to hold off 2,000 Mexican soldiers under General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna from February 23 to March 6, 1936.

Since 1962 the princes of industry, led by financier David Rockefeller, the scion of the Rockefeller dynasty, has been waging an increasingly aggressive war against humankind since he became convinced by the projections of geologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert who, in the late 1950s speculated that, based on known oil reserves, the oil wells in the non-OPEC countries would be dry sometime between 2010 and 2015. Rockefeller was convinced that it was imperative to shut down every oil field in the United States and buy all of their oil from the OPEC nations for the next half century, until at least 2050 when he surmised the Arabs would be out of oil. When the Muslims ran out of oil, the Seven Sisters, in partnerships with the Soviets and communist China, would then control the flow of oil in the entire world. There was only one problem with Rockefeller's grand scheme. Oil may be a carbon-based fuel, but it's not a fossil fuel.

Oil is generated in the core of the Earth, and seeps upwards to the surface. The oil barons, who still insist we are past peak oil to protect high prices through the law of supply and demand, now know the oil reserves in the continental United States dwarf the combined oil reserves in the rest of the world. Not because OPEC is running out of oil, because the geologists who claimed peal oil was real were wrong. They are wrong simply because there is more oil in North America and in the Pacific Ocean than there is anywhere else (as yet discovered) in the world. But, the oil barons are okay with the myth of who controls the most oil, and with deal they made with the devil. And the devil remains content with the deal they made with the oil barons. Oil for access to the Western world and, most of all, access to the courts of the United States and the European Union where Shariah law can ben implemented in the Christian world. When Shariah becomes law that means at least 45% or more of the population is Muslim. Shariah makes that nation Islamic even if the Muslim population is a clear minority. The courts become the equalizer that makes the god of Islam superior to the God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses..

The Muslims have learned it's easier to conquer a nation with babies than with bombs. As the population replenishment levels in Europe dropped dramatically from 1970 to 2005 due to the universal legalization of abortion, the live birth rate dropped from 2.4-2.7 to 0.5-1.8. And Europe was faced with a dilemma they never imagined they would face. They needed to import people or witness the collapse of their society from a "people implosion." The lack of new taxpayers being born to replace those who were dying or retiring. The United States had a birth replenishment level of 3.6 in the 1960s (1.6 babies per married couples). In 2002, it was 2.1—we were just barely replacing those who died; but there were not enough new live births to grow the economy—and certainly not enough new workers coming into the system to fund the pensions of those leaving the work force. But, sadly today, the increase in the US population is not coming from new births, but from new legal immigrants. America's birth replenishment level in 2002 was 0.9. For there to be any real population growth in the United States, the replenishment level must be at least 3.5 (three and a half new live births for every death. 2.0 is static population growth).

Today the United States is facing the same problem as Europe—a "people crisis" (not too many people, too few)—thanks to 39 years of uncontrolled baby killing through abortion. This nation has allowed the killing just under 50 million unborn babies (which means when you consider the loss of birth replenishment of those aborted babies when they grew up and married, we have eliminated between 65- to 85.5 million people from the US work force. Add that many new taxpayers and we discover that Social Security—even with politicians regularly stealing the trust fund—would be solvent. The treasuries of every State would be solvent, and taxpayers would be paying less taxes. Our jobs would not have fled to foreign soil because there would be enough customers for the princes of industry and the barons of business in the United States. You now have an accurate picture of what could have and, would have, been—without legalized baby killing (which, by the way, the Muslims don't do. Nor do the Catholic Hispanics.

The princes of industry, the barons of banking and business were blinded by their own greed and saw the human capital of the third world as a commodity to solve Europe's underpopulation problem by using the same type of population replenishment practiced by the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires to rebuild the populations of the countries they conquered when they slaughtered the male populations or took them into slavery—Muslims are now replacing the lost Europeans. In the United States, from 1900 to 1999 the bulk of America's immigration came from Mexico. Some of it was legal. Most of it was illegal since that was the fastest path to citizenship. Increasingly, because they easily pass for Hispanic, many of today's illegals who cross our Southern border are radical Mideast Muslims who could never get a Visa from the US State Department.

Europe welcomed their Muslim immigrants after World War II because its economy was exploding and Europe had not yet replenished its war dead. They needed immigrants to build railroads, roads, clear away eight years of war rubble and rebuild Europe's cities, and work in the coal mines, or do the jobs that middle class Europe did not want to do. Muslim migration worked in the beginning because when Islamic populations are less than 5% of the general population, they blend in well with their Christian, Jewish and nonsectarian neighbors. At 10% of the population, they are still accommodating, but more vocal of their Islamic beliefs and customs. At 15% of the population, they expect their host country to accommodate them by adopting Islamic law.

At 25% of the population, Muslim radicals begin to take to the street. They wear their ancient prejudices defiantly as badges of honor. They become more secretive around their non-Muslim neighbors. They have major problems adjusting to modernity, preferring the bromides of conspiracy schemes and intrigues to adapting to the laws and customs of their adopted lands since their Qu'ramic upbringing is one of conquest, not submission. At 30% to 35% of the population, unless restricted by the laws of their adopted land, they will attempt to seize, through election, the government of their adopted land in order to influence the legal system and implement Shariah law. When the Muslim population of any nation reaches 40 to 45%, expect violent demonstrations aimed at forcing the government to make theological concessions to the Muslim community. At 51% of the population, that nation will lose its Christian mooring. It will become part of a Muslim world led by the Muslim Brotherhood which is currently reconstructing the Ottoman Empire—with the help of all of its enemies, which it plans eventually to destroy.

The history of what many throughout the world have been led by the left-wing media to believe was a student-inspired, student-orchestrated freedom movement in the Muslim world, was actually planned and orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood beginning on Feb. 26, 2009—almost two years before the first Arab Spring "student freedom demonstrations."

On Feb. 26, 2009, then CNN commentator Lou Dobbs reported that in the United States there was a concerted effort underway by the Obama Administration to curb free speech "...Irrespective of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights." Dobbs said that "...free speech advocates say the United Nations has come down precisely on the wrong side. The United Nations," he continued, "has adopted what it calls a Resolution Combating Defamation of Religion. The United Nations now wants to enact an anti-blasphemy resolution that is binding on member nations—including our own—that would make it crime in the United States, if the UN has its way, to criticize religion. In particular, Islam."

Please understand that had that binding resolution passed, it would have made it a crime to criticize Islam regardless what the 1st Amendment says about free speech. (Theoretically, the Resolution would have criminalized defaming Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but the realty is, the measure—pushed by 57 Muslim nations [remember Obama's 57 States], was proposed for only one reason—to stop any person in any nation of the world from speaking out against the violent nature and history of Islam..)

Constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams said what the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, [Agenda Item 70(b)], wanted to pass was a binding resolution that "...would make it a crime to put out a movie, write a book, or a poem, which someone could say was defamatory of Islam."

Dobbs reported that the UN Anti-Blasphemy Resolution, which was enacted in 2008 as a non-binding resolution, without any legal teeth to prosecute anyone outside the Muslim world, would urge that member States enact their own laws to determine what can be said about religion in public. The resolution would "...also urge States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions." According to CNN's Kitty Pilgrim, "...a binding UN resolution would obligate countries to pass laws which would be unconstitutional in the United States. Agenda 70(b) would violate the spirit of many western legal systems."

Dobbs noted there were 57 nations (all Islamic, or with substantial Islam populations) supporting the anti-blasphemy resolution. He asked Pilgrim how many of the supporting nations were democracies. She replied: "I couldn't tell you," adding, "but many of them are Islamic countries. Pakistan has led the charge to pass the resolution." (Note there are 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, and 12 Muslim minority nations in which Islam is practiced by at least 25% t0 35% of the population, bringing Islamic-influenced nations to 58.) Clearly the nations attempting to enact this resolution want to make it a crime to speak out against Islam. You can also safely bet that if such a measure was passed here, it would harder than pulling hen's teeth to prosecute anyone for criticizing Christianity, or for banning Nativity scenes at Christmas.

Pilgrim told Dobbs that the United States position was that the concept of defamation of religion has another meaning. "While appearing in name to promote tolerance," the US response said, "the implementation of this concept (Sec. 62/154) actually fosters intolerance and has served to justify restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms...Even talking about the influence of Islam on terrorism could be called criminal under this resolution if adopted by an individual country."

Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy said "...You are entitled to say that in America. But not if the UN has its way. They would criminalize that kind of practice; and they are trying to do it elsewhere around the world." Fifty-seven Muslim nations—the largest bloc in the UN—has been pushing it over, it said, "anti-Islamic behavior. This resolution is a major step towards sensitizing the international community on the serious impact of defamation of religions."

In reality, Islam hopes is to use political correctness and terror—to silence dissent of Islam by the international community as the Muslim world embarks on its grandest crusade since the victories of Suleiman the Magnificent in the mid-16th century. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to recreate a Muslim Super State that will cover all of the lands conquered by all of the Arab Caliphs from Umayyad to Suilemain and their Islamic dynasties from Auyubid to the Ottoman Empire.

Arab Spring began on Dec. 17, 2010 with the "student-inspired" (i.e., Muslim Brotherhood instigated) overthrow of Tunisian strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.. Twenty-eight days later on Jan. 14, 2011 Ben Ali, was granted sanctuary by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia before the King's death. He is now living in Jeddah. With the tyrant gone, a new, moderate government was installed of which the Muslim Brotherhood shares power. Not in the lest surprising, a new student revolt, demanding Shariah Law, is now taking place in Tunisia as the Muslim Brotherhood—which the Tunisian people fear—is pushing for absolute control of the government they failed to win in last October's national election.

Arab Spring morphed into Jihad Winter and the "student" protests moved to Egypt. As the Muslim Brotherhood covertly orchestrated Jihad Winter, billionaire Egyptian businessman Naguib Sawiris, surrendered the use of his newspaper and TV station to those the "students' he thought were the organizers of the protest: Sawiris told Fox News in Egypt that "...there was a real danger that the Muslim Brotherhood will hijack these (protests). What is the problem with these people? They will say if you want a democracy. Fine. You get elected in a democracy. Then you get the Iranian version of democracy where they shoot their own people and deprive them from electing, and so on." Sawiris told Fox News that he believes radical Islamic nations like Iran, Qatar and Syria were behind the plot to destabilize Egypt and turn it into another radical Islamic state. He was wrong. Syria, Qatar, Iran, Yemen and eventually Iraq and Kuwait are the objectives.

To start a war, adversaries in any conflict only need the illusion of hostilities to justify a revolution. That's what the European Union did in Serbia and Kosovo. And that's what the Muslim Brotherhood did in Tunisia. For some reason that I can't wholly grasp, as America watched Arab Spring unfold in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Syria and Libya, they were media-led into believing what their eyes did not see—that these were student-inspired freedom protests to overthrow despotic Muslim leaders in order to create American-styple democracies in the Mideast. Absolutely nothing could have been farther from the truth. They were simply exchanging one dictator for another one. The secular societies in the Mideast were now dying.

Arab Spring purportedly began the Mideast freedom movement because an out-of-work college graduate in Tunisia named Mohamed Bouazizi was selling vegetables along the roadside when police seized his cart and arrested him because he lacked a police-issued permit. At the police station in Sidi Bouzid, on the morning of Dec. 17, 2010, a police woman named Faida Hamdy allegedly spit on Bouazizi and then slapped his face and insulted his dead father over a slur Bouazizi hurled at her after paying his fine. Bouazizi went outside and doused himself with an inflammable liquid and set himself on fire, starting—the media claimed—the Mideast freedom movement. In reality, Bouazizi more likely killed himself because he was insulted, slapped and spit on by a woman wearing a badge and he was not able to retaliate. In reality, the Muslim Brotherhood seized the moment and used Bouazizi's suicide as the catalyst to overthrow Zine El Abidine. Bouazizi became a martyr and the flames of revolution were ignited throughout the Mideast.

As I watched Arab Spring become Jihad Summer, I wondered how the American people, who were watching the same riots I was watching on TV, could fall for the social progressive media's "student protest" fable. Those first in the street, organizing demonstrations may have been students, but they were the Muslim Brotherhood's best student organizers. Ahmed Maher and Mohamed Abbas were the Muslim Brotherhood youth movement leaders who were identified as they stoked the Facebook and Twitter fires in Egypt that brought hundreds of Egyptian college students out into the streets after Zine El Abidine fell in Tunisia Caught on Al Jazeera TV during the initial protest in Cairo, 26-year old Abbas berated one student protester who flashed a Muslim Brotherhood fist insignia to the TV cameraman, telling him that "...Egyptians do not want to make this revolution into a Muslim brotherhood show...Don't show the ideology to the press because it's bad for the revolution."

What I find amazing is America's inability to see the Muslim Brotherhood's hand in April Spring, and how quickly the Muslim Brotherhood seized control of both Tunisia and Egypt—and how they will do the same in Yemen, Qatar, Libya, and when Bashir Assad is overthrown, Syria. Even more amazing is the fact that the American people haven't seen the Muslim Brotherhood's hand in the Occupy Movement in the United States since the protests here, and around the world, are replicating what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing in the Mideast. Can you say "Independence Day" in Farsi?

Follow the dots. Or rather, follow the riots. For the moment we aren't talking about the Muslim Brotherhood riots that toppled Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya and are succeeding in Yemen and Syria. We're talking about the hypothetical "leaderless" resistance movement taking place in cities all over the United States and Europe by what the social progressives want to appear to be radical societal misfits who appear to have no agenda other than "gimme, gimmie everything."

On Thanksgiving Day, 2011, as traditional American families sat down to a traditional turkey dinner, it was a safe bet that few of them wondered how the Occupy misfits were faring for dinner. It's also safe to say that none of us thought someone might be catering a Thanksgiving dinner to them. Yet, that's what happened. Who paid for their feast? Take your pick. SEIU. The AFL-CIO. Or the left-wing socialists who think these radicals, working to overthrow our Republican form of government and establish a communist paradise in the United States and around the world, are patriots?

Make no bones about it, the social progressive (i.e, communist) members of the House and Senate that favorably compared Occupy to the Tea Party, clearly and succinctly understand the communist-Islamofascist mission of the protesters—to create enough chaos that it will be easy to overthrow the free enterprise system worldwide and replace it with an Islamofascist government that will shortly tie together every nation on Earth—whether or not the peoples of those nations want to be included in a world union controlled in some part by—you guessed it—the Muslim Brotherhood.

Not even George Orwell , although he predicted it in "1984," never really imagined it would end this way—with a new Muslim Empire leading the United Nations—and the world, into what promises to be a pre-Magna Carta New World Order controlled not by Brother Bartholomew but a Caliph that the Muslim world will acknowledge as the 12th Iman, and the Christian world will recognize as Antichrist.

If you think Occupy is a leaderless ragtail ban of frustrated people looking for jobs, lower mortgage payments, fighting for the right to stay in their home after it's been foreclosed, think again. Or that Congress is going to take a bunch of super rich guys' money and give it to you, you're wrong again. You are going to be the youngest victims of Obama's euthanasia program because when you suck more out of the system than you put in, the system can't afford you. If you ever read all the way through George Orwell's "1984," you know protest of any type will be illegal once the social progressives with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood win. So, enjoy your protest while you can. When it ends, so do you because they will no longer need your voice.

When Occupy's "spontaneous protesters" carry signs denouncing the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business for earning a thousand times more than them, most of those protesters are being paid to protest by SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and political advocacy groups funded—you guessed it—the social progressive rich guys who earn a thousand times more than you. Nothing is ever what it seems to be. The social progressives, led by George Soros and by Barack Obama's rich union friends believe this is their time to shine.

Dig deep enough into the Occupy movement, and you will find the Muslim Brotherhood. Contrary to left-wing media reports that Occupy, like Arab Spring, was a spontaneous, leaderless protest, someone spent what amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars to organize these faceless student protests and rapefests not only in the United States, but Europe as well.

Here are the locations of some of the spontaneous, leaderless protests in the United States: Anchorage, AK; Huntsville, AL; Phoenix, AZ; Tucson, AZ; Berkeley, CA; Fresno, CA; Los Angeles (City Council), CA; Oakland, CA; Riverside, CA; Sacramento, CA; San Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; Santa Barbara, CA; Ventura, CA; Denver, CO; New Haven, CT; Washington, DC; Fort Meyers, FL; Gainesville, FL; Jacksonville, FL; Miami, FL; Orlando, FL; Tampa, FL; Atlanta, GA; Hilo, HI; Chicago, IL; Elkhart, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; Indianapolis, IN; Richmond, IN; South Bend, IN; Des Moines, IA; Louisville, KY; New Orleans, LA; Asheville, NC; Las Vegas, NV; Cincinnati, OH; Cleveland, OH; Columbus, OH; Oklahoma City, OK; Erie, PA; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Boston, MA; Baltimore, MD; Detroit, MI; Flint, MI; St. Louis, MO; Kansas City, MO; Raleigh, NC; Albuquerque, NM; Trenton, NJ; Buffalo, NY; New York, NY; Rochester, NY; Eugene, OR; Portland, OR; Providence, RI; Columbia, SC; Knoxville, TN; Memphis, TN; Nashville, TN; Austin, TX; Dallas, TX; Larado, TX; San Antonio, TX; Houston, TX; Salt Lake City, UT; Seattle, WA; and Tacoma, WA.

In addition, Occupy—that spontaneous, leaderless protest—also spontaneously broke out at various times in various cities in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, England, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. In Switzerland, OWS protesters gathered in the major Swiss cities of Zurich, Geneva Bern and Basel. There, like everywhere else, the protesters railed against excessive corporate salaries and financial unaccountability. In Switzerland, like many parts of Europe, the richest 1% owns as much wealth as the other 99%—hence the 99% phrase used by OWS in the United States. And, of course, there's the 99% sign they carry when they protest. Upside down, they mean something else. Try it. It becomes 666.

Switzerland is a country of about 8 million people. A wealthy Swiss lawyer, Peter Andreas Zahn-Burckhardt, told the Swiss media that the protesters in Switzerland amount to a mere handful scattered in the country's financial centers, totaling only a few thousand, are students from the socialist universities. What is happening, Zahn-Burckhardt said, is not representative of the Swiss people. The media, however, disagrees, insisting that what is going on in Europe and the United States is more than a socialist or fascist student rebellion or just protests by malcontents. The left-wing media of Europe is convinced it's a popular uprising like what happened in the Mideast—or by the Tea Party in the United States. The only genuine spontaneous protest anywhere in the world was the Tea Party protests in the United States. That fact is borne out by the Election results of 2010 when Tea Party candidates won election and disgruntled voters took control of the US House of Representatives and greatly cut down the left's control of the US Senate. By no stretch of the imagination were the protests in Muslimland spontaneous protests by democracy-minded students. No doubt many those protesting in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya dreamed of freedom, but liberty is the impossible dream in the Muslim world. Those who orchestrated Arab Spring knew the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrowing secular dictatorship to impose a more harsh, Shariah one.

To create a totalitarian global government by decree it is first necessary to create enough chaos that military force is needed to put it down. The Occupy movement has followers in every age segment and from every social class in every industrialist nation in the world—simultaneously protesting everything. What Occupy is not doing is anything that can reasonably be construed as spontaneous. Not here. Not anywhere.

As you flick through the channel selector on the mainstream TV media in the United States or read the media blogs on the Internet—including conservative voices condemning Bashir Assad of Syria and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad—you will hear politically-correct journalists glorifying the "spontaneous revolutions" in the Mideast as an attempt by the common people to wrest control of their countries from corrupt Muslim dictators, just as American patriots in Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts in 1775 fired the shot heard around the world, and began a 22 year struggle to win the freedom of what became the United States of America. Op-ed journalists (as opposed to hard-fact reporters) like to compare Arab Spring with the American Revolution because that's the only way they can drum up support from the American people to send even more US troops to die helping the Muslim Brotherhood create a Muslim Super State spread across the globe that can crush any adversary—particularly when those 57 Muslim States are armed with nuclear weapons that are aimed at the heart of the United States, Israel, Australia and England.

The "students" who triggered the Arab Spring freedom call weren't students. The "students" who triggered Occupy Wall Street which morphed into a global anti-free enterprise economy movement that was designed to destabilize not only the US dollar but the Euro as well, were not students, either. Many of them are SEIU and AFL-CIO paid organizers and professional protesters. Some of them are Muslim protest organizers from the Muslim Brotherhood Youth Movement. By no means was any of it spontaneous—either in the Muslim world or the world of the free enterprise system. This was an extremely structured dichotomy of events coordinated in such a way as to appear totally random when the same group-thought strategized both—Occupy and Arab Spring. When you properly arrange the jigsaw puzzle pieces of these two purportedly separate and supposedly unrelated popular student rebellions, the first thing you discover is that all of the jigsaw puzzle pieces are interchangeable; and when they are assembled, there are not two puzzles, there's only one. And neither of them were spontaneous, student-;led events. Neither effort will free anyone. Instead, when they merge, somewhere farther down the road to Utopia, they will shackle everyone.


Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved