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

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

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

ebruary 12, 2004 was a red-letter, or rather, a pink-letter day in San Francisco, California. Newly-elected San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom took an unconstitutional step into the history books of the United States by using a newly-enacted ordinance, the Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act to order County Clerk Nancy Alfaro to begin issuing marriage licenses "...without regard to gender or sexual orientation." Alfaro, who is a county rather than city official, immediately responded that she would "...work diligently to implement the mayor's request." San Francisco officials acknowledged that even though the marriages of lesbians and homosexuals which are being performed may not be recognized as valid outside of San Francisco, the licenses issued in San Francisco are legally binding there, and would immediately confer civil benefits for those holding the same sex county-issued marriage certificates even if the State rules them to be not legal.

Word spread through the homosexual and lesbian communities like a wildfire in a balsa wood factory. Acting as though a city mayor actually had the constitutional authority to legally sanction same sex marriages, between 100 and200 homosexual and lesbian couples flocked to City Hall to secure a marriage license, hoping to tie the knot before either a county, State or federal judge blocked the Marraige License Nondiscrimination Act and ruled that a mayor doesn't have the right to amend State law by what can best be described as an act of civil disobedience. Those numbers would swell to thousands by Tuesday, February 18, with over 2,000 illegal civil marriage ceremonies being performed by city officials.

When Newom won the general election in December, 2003, he announced he would defy State law and marry homosexual and lesbian couples in order to "...fight discrimination." Newsom, who took office in January, said he felt part of his duty was to uphold the nondiscrimination sections of the California constitution. Geoffrey Kors, the Executive Director of Equality California, a homosexual rights group, noted that Newsom recognized "...the failure to issue marriage licenses to loving, committed couples is an unjust application of the law" and that Newsom was determined to right that wrong by legalizing gay marriage at least in San Francisco.

The first same sex couple united by Newsom's decree were lesbian rights activists Del Martin, age 79, and Phyllis Lyon, age 82 who became a twosome in 1958 when all same sex relationships remained privately nestled in the closet. (Martin and Lyons are actually not the first lesbians or homosexuals to 'tie the knot" since ministers in the American Anglican movement have been secretly marrying homosexuals in unrecorded ceremon-ies for the last three decades.) This is the first recorded marriage of a same sex couple in the United States by public officials. The ceremony, and those—80 or so—that followed in San Francisco on Feb. 12, were performed by City Assessor Mabel Teng who declared the same sex couples to be "...spouses for life." Why Teng was selected to perform the illegal ceremon-ies is unclear since she is neither the mayor nor a judge (both of whom can legally perform marriage ceremonies) nor is she a licensed minister. By training she is a geneticist who helped develop a dyptheria vaccine at Harvard between 1975-77. By occupation (before being elected County Assessor in December, 2003) Teng was a tenured faculty member at City College of San Francisco. Prior to that she was the Executive Director of the Careers Resources Development Center in San Francisco. When word spread that same sex marriage ceremonies were being performed at City Hall, literally scores of homosexual and lesbian couples showed up hoping to be united in a legal marriage ceremony. The response from the gay community was so overwhelming that Terng's four deputies and Assemblyman Mark Leno who authored the Marraige License Nondiscrimination Act—and who is also not a minister—joined her in performing the ceremonies which legally must, by law, be performed by a licensed minister, a judge or the mayor.

California Governor Arnold Swarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyear avoided commenting on Newsom's actions until Friday, Feb. 20. Lockyear iniitally said that since he had not been asked by anyone at county or State level for a legal opinion on Newsom's same sex marriage schem, he would not comment. Both Lockyear and Swarzenegger visualized the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals chomping at the bit to bite into this one. Neither wanted to give them the opportunity. But on Feb. 20 Swarzenegger weiged into the fray and ordered the attorney general to put an end to the San Francisco's rogue program. Lockyear had already asked his legal experts in California's Civil Rights Enforcement Division to review how the Massachusetts legal debate will affect any action taken in California..

After two days of intensive legislative gridlock, the Bay State's ultra-liberal lawmakers refused to budge from their lopsided "all-or-everything" position on dealing with the ultimatum given them by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In doings so, they effectively killed any hope of a compromise amendment to the State's constitution that would have defined marriage as a traditional union between a man and a woman but would also have established a legally-binding civil union covenant for same sex partners that would guarantee them the same rights, responsibilities and benefits received by heterosexual married couples. Conservative lawmakers sought a compromise that would stay the high court's decision ordering the State to begin issuing same sex marriage licenses in Massachu-setts on May 17 if the State had not enacted a law guaranteeing homosexual and lesbians the right to marry. The Bay State's high court. The argument of the liberals—and the argument of homosexual community—is that the justices did not order the State to provide the gay community with a facsimile of marriage. Rather, the State high court ordered Massachusetts lawmakers to provide homosexual and lesbians with access to matrimony, not a parallel partnership program.

Vermont was the first State whose high court ordered the legislature to address the issue of providing homosexuals and lesbians with the means of legally conjoining. Vermont Governor Howard Dean engineered the nation's first civil union law. Lawsuits by homosexual and lesbian have been filed in most of the 50 States. On February 13, as the Virginia House of Delegates voted 79-18 to enact a bill affirming the State's ban on homosexual marriage, eight same sex couples organized by Robin Gorsline, the pastor of Richmond's Metropolitan Community Church, went to the County Clerk's office and applied for marriage licenses. Because Virginia law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the gay rights activists were denied marriage licenses. (Clearly this action will lead to the filing of a lawsuit in the State of Virginia that will demand equal marital rights for homsexuals and lesbians. Homosexual and lesbian groups planned marriage rallies in Atlanta, Georgia; West Palm Beach, Floria; Seattle, Washington, Charleston, West Virginia; Hartford, Connecticut; Dallas, Texas' Clinton, Iowa; Denver, Colorado; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to coincide with the granting the marriage licenses in San Francisco. Meanwhile, the Liberty Counsel, representing the Campaign for California Families, and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit to block the issuance of marriage licenses and the performing of marriage ceremonies to same sex same couples. Cicuit Court Judge James Warren delayed his ruling until Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2004 keeping the door open for same sex marriages to continue through the President's Day holiday during which City Hall in San Francisco remained open. Proposition 22's request was a simple cease and desist order which the judge should have summarily issued. Warren, with one eye on a higher court position and the other eye closed so he wouldn't have to look at the law, rejected the petition because, he told the lawyers for Proposition 22, "...it has a semicolon where it should have the word 'or.' I don't have the authority," he continued, "to issue [a cease and desist order] under these circumstances." Warren told the attorneys present that he had reviewed all of the relevant statutes it wsa his conclusion that the conservatives were entitled to get their stay. But, he added, they would not get it until they rewrote their proposed court order correctly and resubmitted it to the court.

On Monday, a legal holiday, the San Francisco City Hall issued 2,300 marriage licenses and performed almost as many marraige ceremonies. As the legal fiasco took place in Judge Warren's court on Tuesday, the marriage charade continued at City Hall at an even greater level. It is believed that had San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked the court for an order halting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Warren or Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay would likely have issued it. But Herrera defended Newsom's actions, insisting that even though California law made it clear that marriage licenses could only be issued to heterosexual couples, Herrera held the view that it was illegal, under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Liberty Counsel's petition was heard by Judge Warren. Warren used a delaying tactic to avoid the only ruling he could legally make as well. He informed the Campaign for California Families that they did not properly inform the city or the court on the details of their lawsuit and, for that reason, they had to go back to "square one" and file an action against the city before they could request a court order to bring a halt to the same-sex marriages being performed by city officials. When they did so, and resubmitted their petition on February 20, Warren denied the petition, allowing the illegal marriage ceremonies to continue. On February 25 a Florida attorney, Ellis Rubin, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 175 homosexual and lesbian plaintiffs seeking to change Florida's law prohibiting homosexual and lesbian marriages.

Thirty-eight States—and the federal government—currently have encted laws that ban the recognition of same-sex marriages. Lawmakers in 15 States—and the federal government—are weighing constitutional amendments to clarify that marriage is, and will always be—without exception—a union between a man and a woman. Although an overwhelming number of Americans—liberals as well as conservatives—are vehemently opposed to same sex marriages, and although the legislatures of 76% of the States have enacted either laws or resolutions banning the practice and refusing to recognize any such union occurring elsewhere, same sex marriages will a commonplace reality by the end of this decade.

Changing Judicial Views

The view of the world's courts on the need to legalize homosexual and lesbian marriages is centered on an evolving perception in the international arena that the basic concepts of equality under the law demand that same sex marriages—not just civil unions—be legalized. This decision in the invisible emprey of internationalism parallels the move in the mid- to late-1960s and early 70s to legalize abortion even though over two-thirds of the people in the industrialized world believed abortion was murder. The view of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court was that buried somewhere between the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments was a heretofore undiscovered right to privacy that was so sacrosanct that a women could legally kill her own unborn children for intruding on that right.

The provocateurs of "choice" have sadly been forced to come to grips with the reality that the pendulum of public opinion is swinging against them in the debate on whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life, or whether it is merely the surgical removal of unwanted fetal matter. Today, the pro-abortion crowd is rapidly losing the debate. There is a growing fear that if another Roe v. Wade-Doe v Bolton challenge hits the U.S. Supreme Court--even with its current make-up, the high court will overturn the 1973 decision that opened the floodgate to the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. The doorway to that decision may have already been opened. On March 2 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans will hear oral arguments from The Justice Foundation on behalf of Norma McCorvey ("Roe" in Roe v Wade) and Sandra Cano ("Doe" in Doe v Bolton). On June 17, 2003, Norma McCorvey filed a motion in federal court (McCorvey v Hill) seeking relief from the original Roe v Wade judgment. If the 5th Circuit, which is construed to be a conservative court, finds for McCorvey, the Supreme Court will be forced to address the subject again. This time around, the high court will be hard-pressed to justify its 1973 position.. Neonatal photography has verified that fetuses are perfectly formed little humans—with hearts, brains and nervous systems like ours that feel pain—even as minimal as a pin prick.

Knowing they have lost the corrosive battle of the saline bath, the population control crowd is frantically searching for a new way, in lieu of war, to stem the population tide before the doomsday prophecies of 18th century botanist Thomas Malthus come true and the world self-destructs as glutonous hordes of people consume the earthÕs bountiful supply of natural resources and the world overheats due to human caused global warming.

Mankind, according to Malthus, will then perish from starvation, gasping for its last feeble breath on a dying world. The advocates of a womanÕs right to kill her unborn child blame the shift in public opinion on abortion to breakthrough medical technology that has provided doctors and their patients with eyes that can see into the womb at the Òfetal massÓ that is, in reality, a very real living little person who is eagerly waiting to be born. Medical advances in neonatal care, including microscopic fetal surgery to correct anomalities in the developing fetus have not only greatly improved the survival rate of new born babies with complicated disorders but has also allowed surgeons to perform virtual miracles within the womb to correct fetal malformations such as spina bifida and heart or lung problems beginning at around 20 weeks.

Because of the technological advances in neonatal healthcare, the human fetus is viable much earlier than it was when the Warren Court made its landmark abortion ruling on January 22, 1973. Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v Wade-Doe v Bolton, declared that since the medical community was at a loss to define when a fetus became a person, it was the courtÕs view that it was not a human being until it could live outside the womb without external life support. Of course, neither Blackmun nor any of the other Justices asked the medical community for their opinion at the time. If they had, the medical community would likely have responded that life begins at conception. An article appearing in the Sept., 1970 issue of The Journal of California Medicine noted: ÒIn defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has yet net been fully displaced it has been ncessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been an avoidance of scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extrauterine until death.Ó [The Baffled Christians Handbook; Jon Christian Ryter; R. James Bender Publishing; @1996; pg. 254]

Blackmun, who insisted in his majority opinion that since the medical community could not define when life began the court would do so, apparently had not read the The Journal of California Medicine article which appeared two years before the infamous Roe v Wade-Doe v Bolton decision. Nor did the high court seek the opinions of the medical staffs any of the prominent Washington, DC area hospitals which would also have very likely confirmed what everyone in the medical community already knew: life begins at conception.

Roe v Wade was a political decision designed to deal with the perceived threat that a population bubble of catastrophic proportions was destined to occur within 3 or 4 decades. The 20th century population bubble was theorized by Thomas Malthus around 1800 and, without any genuine scientific evidence to support the theory, was rubber-stamped as fact by the Rockefeller Foundation in 1962. David Rockefeller, the godfather of the money mafia, fanned the population explosion hysteria between 1962 and 1972. Rockfeller, like his grandfather, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. believed that people were the scourge that would ultimately destroy humanity by destroying the world in which they lived. It was his efforts–and his personal belief in the need for the legalization of abortion–that resulted in Roe v Wade

The Population "Bomb"

in 1973. MalthusÕ scientifically unsupportable views of population overgrowth were revisited by Stanford University economics instructor Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 Club of Rome promoted book, The Population Bomb that became a modest liberal best seller as the Rockefeller Foundation-financed ecoalarmists fanned the Chicken Little Òsky is fallingÓ hysteria to such a pandemic level that it gave legs to the equally flawed global warming movement. Malthus estimated the population of Europe, factored the average birth rates and longevity of that day and began to generationally grow the population from 1800 to 2000. He then meticulously calculated crop yields, first expanding the amount of farmland that would necessarily have to be used to feed the people by 1800 agricultural standards. He then contracted the amount of available farmland as the mushrooming population he envisioned sprawled over into the countryside and consumed the farmland. Malthus predicted that as the skyrocketing population demanded land upon which to build homes, man would be forced to destroy the forests and other natural resources as civilization encroached on the virgin timberlands like swarms of hungry locusts devouring everything in its path.

When Malthus wrote his book, the industrial revolution was still two decades away. Crop yields (based on todayÕs standards) were mediocre in 1800 because the agricultural revolution was still a half century away. A five or six story building was an anomoly that could be seen only in the worldÕs largest cities, so the concept of a high-rise apartment building would have been completely alien to MalthusÕ thinking. (If anyone in Christian Europe contemplated a 100-story building in 1800 he would likely have been burned at the stake for trying to build another Tower of Babel. And, of course, the architectural acumen did not exist in 1800 to build a skyscraper.) Without an inkling of the scientific and technological advances that lay ahead in the 20th century, Malthus could not have predicted what would happen in a universe that could not even be imagined in 1800.

Ehrlich, on the other hand, had no excuse since he was born and raised in the 20th century. Ehrlich used the flawed 18th century science of Malthus to write The Population Bomb. Because it served their economic interests to frighten people into believing that, by the year 2000, the decaying world at the gateway of the 21st century would be ravaged by disease, starvation and war due to over-population, the Rockefeller Foundation used the Club of Rome to exploit the fear that by 2000 half the world would be starving. The Population Bomb was touted as a frighteningly accurate prophetic tome whose dire predictions would materialize during our lifetime unless drastic measures were taken to curb the worldÕs population and the exploitation of its natural resources.

Unfortunately for the utopians, the only nations that actually reduced their populations were those in which population was not a problem--the industrialized nations. Third world nations like China, India, Pakistan, and Bangledesh which created the problem remained the problem.

China, which limits family growth to one child and punishes those who exceed their quota, nevertheless has the most rampant population growth in the world followed by India, Banglegesh and the poverty nations in the Asian subcontinent. Twenty years after Roe v Wade the utopians realized theyÕd set into a motion an economic domino affect they could not undo. Almost 51million pregnancies in the United States ended in a saline bath or under the abortionist's scalpel.

Its Affect on the Economy

Had the doomsday prophets been right, and had there been a catastrophic population bubble growing in the United States and the other industiralized nations of the world that required the slaughter of the unborn to protect humanity, the consequences on the economy of the United States and the other industrialized nations would not have been so tragic. The economies of those nations would have continued to grow at an acceptable level of 3.0% to 4.5% per year as new consumers filled the void created by the exodus of the aged. While the populations in the third world continue to grow at a pandemic rate, the industrialized nations are now below replenishment levels. We are no longer replacing the consumers who die of old age since we, as a society, killed our children before they were born. Tragically, as we age and retire from the work force, there are no longer enough workers to provide the tax base we need to survive in our old age.

What goes around, unfortunately, comes around.

As workers—as well as consumers—we provided the tax base that kept Social Security solvent for our parents and grandparents. But the children who perished under the abortionistsÕ knife because we didnÕt want them would have become the wage earners who would have earned the money to pay the taxes needed to keep Social Security solvent e for us. Since there are two generations of taxpayers missing, the Social Security fudn we paid into during our wage-earning years or so is now bankrupt..

Taking that scenario a step farther, because 51 million babies were aborted over the past 30 years in the United States alone, there are now approximately 117.3 million fewer consumers in this country because those babies never had a chance to grow up. They never married and never had any children of their own. As a result, there is now a drastic shortfall of both workers and consumers in the United States. What does that mean in real economic numbers?

America produces goods at 68% of capacity largely because [a] there are not enough workers to produce them, and [b] there arenÕt enough consumers to buy the goods we could produce if our industrial plants were working at capacity. We have created an annual industrial shortfall of some $4,600 per person. What that means is, based on the wages and fringe benefits paid to the rapidly shrinking American workforce, there is a gap of $12 trillion in consumer goods between what those plants could have produced against what they actually produced for the manpower hours expended if those plants were running at or near capacity. In other words, these industries actually paid for the productivity to create over $12 trillion more in consumer goods than their labor actually created simply because there were not enough consumers to buy what could have been produced. Economists have been watching the economic growth of the industrialized nations with growing trepidation for the past two decades. The slowdown of the world's economies began in 1973 and continues unabated today.

While not obvious to most of us who may enjoy a better standard of living than we had a decade ago, it is persistently obvious to the industrial and banking communities who view economic patterns not from one year to the next, but from one or two decades to the next. Despite the economic expansion of the 1990s, the core economic problems remain. The problem resides, as I said, in a $12 trillion shortfall between the production and consumption of capital goods.

Historically, the United States has experienced an average annual growth of 3.4% per year since the Civil War. Since 1973—the year Roe v. Wade was legislated by the U.S. Supreme Court, our economic growth rate has plummeted. From 1973 to 1993, our economic growth averaged only 2.3%, resulting in a net production loss (those goods not produced because there was no consumer demand due to a reduced number of consumers available to consume them) of $4,600 for every man, woman and child in America. This loss occurred even though the global workforce was expanding. If our economy continues to grow at the current rate without improving, the production shortfall by 2010 will reach $30 trillion.

Human Capital Shortfall

While America has the capacity to produce the goods, we do not have a sufficient amount of human capital to cover the shortfall. Counting the children who were not born because those who would have been their parents were aborted, since January 22, 1973 America has produced 171.3 million fewer consumers who should have been available to buy the products our industries didn't produce. Likewise those same consumers do not exist to pay the taxes needed to keep the Social Security fund liquid. Every industrialized nation in the world is now well below population replenishment levels. Because of that, it is easy to see from where the consumers of tomorrow must comeÑfrom the underdeveloped, overpopulated second and third world nations. All they require are jobs. We are now supplying them to the detriment of their own citizens. The jobs that will elevate the economies of the emerging nations are American jobsÑour jobs. (Whatever Happened To America? (revised version, not yet in release); Jon Christian Ryter, pg. 453-54.)

This is the reason that the transnational industrialists, manufacturers, retail conglomerates and bankers pushed hard between 1988 and 1993 to get the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] through Congress. TomorrowÕs consumers do not reside in the United States. Nor do they reside in England, France, Belgium, Germany or Japan. They reside in the heavily populated countries in the bloated underbelly of civilization. They live in Mexico, Guatamala, Haiti, China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, North Korea, and the emerging ÒdemocraciesÓ in Eastern Europe. All these future consumers require to be productive members of the new global economy are jobs--your jobs.

And, to make sure that the transnational industrialists had a market in which to sell the wares those new jobs are creating, NAFTA provided a tariff-free swinging door that allowed American-branded good, made by dollar-a-hour laborers in second and third world nations, back into the United States without stiff tariffs that would penalize those manufacturers who sent their American jobs to Central and South America and now, through the Mexican gateway, to communist China. (It should be noted that of the 1,600 industrial plants that closed in the United States and moved to Mexico after Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, 500 of those plants have already closed their doors in Mexico and have moved to communist China, Pakistan, India, the Phillippines or some other Asian third world nation that utilizes near slave labor.

In 1995 the World Bank redefined the nature of wealth from capital assets to human capital. People are now viewed as the most valuable commodity of the 21st century. Mankind can no longer afford to indiscriminately kill its unborn since no industrialized nation has enough people to sustain their populations for more than three or four more decades. France, Germany and England are rapidly running out of people and have to import workers to sustain their economies.

However, to the liberal elite who still believe that people are the worldÕs greatest calamity, abortion remains an inherent right of all women. The pendulum however, is now swinging back--very hard to the right. The American people, by a large majority, want to terminate abortion-on-demand in the United States. In the United States, there were 1.6 million abortions in 1990. In 2000 there were 1.3 million. In 2001 there were 1,114,000 abortions. In 2002, the number dipped below a million for the first time since 1979. We are now witnessing an average annual decline in abortions in the United States of around 22%. Today, only about 23% of the population is staunchly pro-abortion. (In the House of Representatives, the pro-abortion crowd numbers about 47%. In the U.S. Senate, it is just about 50%. Those numbers clearly suggest that the pro-abortion views of those who represent us are not represntative of the electorate. They remain indicative of the special interest groups who fill their campaign war chests.) Seventy-seven percent of the American people want abortion curtailed or limited to instances where an abortion is performed only when it is necessary to physically save the life of the mother, or to erase the unwanted consequences of rape or incest.

While the feminist organizations that champion the killing of the unborn would like America to believe that the anti-abortion crowd is comprised of hate-filled religious bigots, only 19% of the pro-lifers are Christian Òzealots.Ó The balance are simply moral people who have come to realize that legalized abortion is not only the murder of the unborn, it is the murder of society as they know it.

Abortion is bringing about the extinction.of the caucasian race in the United States and Europe. The newest and most effective form of birth control—homosexual and lesbian marital arrangements—was birthed in the international arena and eagerly agendized here by the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 2000.

Hillary ClintonÕs feminist and homosexual political allies, under the guise of promoting HIV prevention (with the willing complicity of the National Education Association) welcomed gay rights activists into the classrooms of AmericaÕs schools not to warn our children that promiscuity is the leading cause of AIDS, but to invite the children to experiment with the incestuous lifestyle of the homosexual. In most instances, the homosexual and lesbian Òhealth counsellorsÓ actively recruited inductees—while the teachers were in the classrooms.

By 1996 the UN was agendizing the platforms that would bring about the legalization of homosexual and lesbian marriages. Covertly, the homosexual, lesbian and feminist activists that joined the Clinton Administration in 1993 were busy defining what constituted a hate crime, and what penalties could be extracted from those who discriminated against this new protected class of Americans. However, what they did not count on was that even with the PC police repeatedly telling the people—beginning with impressionable elementary school-age children—that homosexuality was a perfectly acceptable, normal alternative to heterosexuality, everyone knew better. Homosexuality is an unnatural, aberrant perverted lifestyle practiced by dysfunctional people either with no moral ethics or with psychological problems—or both. But can they, or the acts they perform in same sex relationships, be considered normal? And, being told that same sex relationships are normal flies in the face of decency, and against common sense. The sole purpose of sex, while pleasurable, is procreation. Clearly, and specifically, when homosexuals and lesbians engage in sex they cannot procreate. Thus, in the minds of the ecoalarmists who believe that people are the cause of everything that is wrong with the world, homosexual and lesbian relationships—and marriages—are the best solution to the population bomb.

In the ideal Orwellian utopian world, people would be required to apply for a permit in order to have a baby. Through arbitrary population control, the State could then maintain current population levels at zero growth (with no gains or losses), or at whatever levels the societal planners felt were needed to maintain adequate productivity—and profit levels—for the overseers of the world's human capital pool. The UN and the World Bank's societal planners could then accurately gauge the comsumption needs of humankind over the next two or three decades and plan production cycles to coincide with human need. The human capital of the world—people—are now being utilized more profitably as the transnational industrialists move their factories—and our jobs—from the sparsely populated, consumer product-saturated industiralized nations to the over-populated impoverished nations where the demand for all types of consumer products exists, but the means to buy them do not.

When the UN, urged to do so by the Rockfeller Foundation in 1968, championed abortion rights as a means of population control, it was believed that abortion would be a tool used primarily by the societal planners in the World Health Organization to curb the alarming birth rate in Southeast Asia and to help stem the joblessness in the third world countries in Africa, Eurasia and Central America. However, in the industrialized nations, access to abortion encouraged promiscuity, and abortion became a convenient birth control devise for the affluent. Further, it solved problems for social engineers faced with rising birth rates among unwed teenage girls whose children would become burdens on the States and the taxpayers within those States. Thus, while abortion may have appeared to be the best solution to the population dilemma in 1962, the societal planners who engineered the abortion-on-demand scheme now realize they must redefine the role abortion will play in the overall scheme of population control—and precisely where it can safely be used without affecting the generational tax base of the nations which utilize abortion as a means of birth control. By the end of this decade, Roe v. Wade, Doe v Bolton will be recast by the U.S. Supreme Court and by the legislatures of the other industrialized nations which are currently suffering from below-replenishment population levels. Abortion will still be allowed for medical (health of the mother) or pyschological reasons (i.e., rape or incest), but it will be greatly restricted in the industrialized nations and will, very likely, be limited women whose pregnancies are in the first trimester. Abortion will still be a tool used by the UN and WHO in grossly overpopulated nations where starvation, war and disease remains a catastrophic threat.

In the underpopulated industrialized nations, homosexuality and lesbiansim will be encouraged by the societal planners in the industrialized nations as a simplier and much more benign—and totally undiscernable—form of population control. And, while same sex couples cannot procreate, they can [a] adopt children from impoverished third world nations, and [b] they can use some form of artificial insemination of the genetic codes of both partners to give birth to a true genetic offpspring. But, the process is controlled—as are the number of new live births. In the long and the short of it, human capital is a commodity like any other commodity. When you have too much in one place—or perhaps not enough—it's not profitable for the company.

What it all boils down to is this. The overseers of the New World Order have inventoried the global supply of human capital and, just like a department store chain does when it discovers an imbalance of goods in its inventory, it is realigning that inventory to make it more profitable for the company. In some instances, whether there is ample human capital or not, a retail store simply isn't profitable. When that happens, the company shuts it down and moves to a new location. Only, in this case, the new location is in a different country—or on a different continent.


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