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

he birth rate in Europe has been declining steadily since abortion was legalized on the continent. The same is true in the United States, but not to the extremes seen on the continent where the average population replenishment levels are anywhere from 0.5 to 0.8. The United States, which had a replenishment rate of 0.9 two decades ago, now has one comparable to France—a somewhat static replenishment birthrate at 0.7 live births for every death. Like the rest of Europe, the French government is encouraging their historic European citizens to procreate before the Caucasian race vanishes off the face of the Earth.

To encourage the French middle class—not the poor—to have more children, the French government announced a plan to financially compensate native middle class French families with three or more children with a monthly stipend of up to $1,250 per month (based on the income of the working mom). Even with the government of France encouraging middle class families to have more children, the decline has continued not only in France but throughout Europe where liberated women, at the urging of the socialist feminists who fought for most of the 20th century to legalize abortion, have resisted the efforts of government to reshackle them to the kitchen sink.

Like the rest of Europe, Catholic France remains below population replenishment levels. France, like Protestant Germany, England, Belgium and the Netherlands has been forced to import "citizen consumers and taxpayers" from other parts of the world. Those applying for work visas in Europe are coming predominantly from the Muslim nations in the Mideast and the African continent. They have brought with them theological ethnic and cultural distinctions that put them at odds with the natives of those countries.

The United States, with a 0.7 population replenishment level, has exactly the same problem as Europe, and is facing its own "people crisis"—thanks to 32 years of uncontrolled unborn baby killing during which time the abortionists slaughtered approximately 49.5 unborn babies in America, eliminating over 94 million potential Americans consumer-taxpayers since January 22, 1973. Today, in the United States, the Caucasian replenishment level is at 0.7. This means for every ten white Americans who die, we replace 7 of them. With a replenishment level of 1.8, African Americans produce almost two new births for each black American who dies. It's the same with Asian-Americans. Hispanic-Americans, on the other hand, produce almost three new children for each Hispanic American who passes on. If the Caucasian population in the United States—and in Europe—does not change those statistics by 2020, by 2050 Anglo-Saxon Europeans and Americans will be the minority races within their own countries. In Europe, Muslims are the fastest growing ethnic group, multiplying at about the same rate as Hispanics in the United States.

Had those aborted babies and the offspring they would likely have sired not been eliminated from the population equation, the United States would have had a sufficient amount of consumers paying taxes to have kept Social Security solvent for another 50 years. And, by providing an adequate consumer base for America's factories, it is very likely those additional consumers would have kept the majority of America's factories in the United States for another century.

What is now happening with the jobs drain from the United States to the emerging nations is the consequence of abortion-on-demand. Nothing else. Our penchant for "morning after" solutions to the previous evening's pleasure has weakened what was, for all of the 20th century, the strongest economic and military power in the world. We, as a people, are about to pay the piper for our permissiveness as the merchants of the world seek out the new population centers in the third world countries where tomorrow's consumers reside, offering them our factories and our jobs, and selfishly turning their backs on those whose sweat equity made them the barons of business and giants of industry.

The American government under President George W. Bush decided to turn a blind eye to our southern border in order to magically reverse 32 years of baby-killing by providing this nation with enough "legal" citizens to keep its economy moving forward—and to keep Social Security and Medicare from collapsing.

The US government is obligated, by law, to limit those applying for citizenship to the United States from Mexico to 52,866 people per year. There are between 12 to 18 million illegal aliens from Mexico residing in the United States at this time. Using the quota system under existing immigration law to transition only the illegal aliens from that country, it would take from 226 to 339 years to legally make them citizens of the United States.

Bush and the Fed bankers know that the Social Security system and the US Treasury will be bankrupt long before that happens. That's the reason Bush is asking Congress to pass a blanket amnesty that would allow all of the illegals in the country—not just the illegal Mexicans—amnesty from deportation and a valid green card for six years. At the end of that time, the alien would then be returnrf to his or her native country where they would be required to apply for an entry visa. Theoretically the visa would be issued on demand and citizenship would be granted the following year.

Unlike Europe which has historically been suspicious of its neighbors, the United States is a nation of immigrants. America "worked" simply because those who emigrated here wanted to be assimilated into the greatest nation on Earth. While they privately maintained their cultural heritage and ethnic identities, America's first generation citizens struggled to become part of Americana knowing it is "sameness of heart" that fuses ethnically distinct peoples into one nation. It was the socialist liberalism of the last 40 years who used those ethnic distinctions as a wedge to divide the people of this nation. Why would they do something so stupid? Because a people divided cannot unite against a common enemy.

One would think that a nation of immigrants would have no problem assimilating more immigrants, but new problems—not unique to this nation—are associated with this assimilation not only in the United States, but in Europe as well. And Europe, like the United States, is resisting this assimilation because it will forever alter the complexion of both Caucasian Europe and Caucasian America. Change the demography of the immigrants, and you will discover that Europe is facing precisely the same problem as America—for precisely the same reason.

In America, 10.2% of all those in poverty are Mexican. Twelve and a half percent of those without health insurance are Mexican. And, 25% of all Mexican-Americans receive some form of welfare. And all of the above are either citizens or they are here with valid green cards. There are another 12 to 18 million illegal aliens from Mexico who do not contribute to the tax base of the county, State or federal government but who, nevertheless, drain benefits from all levels of the bureaucracy. Making them "legal" won't solve the problem since the illegal aliens here and in Europe are the bottom-feeders of society who contribute little and take much. As Bush legalizes the Mexican illegals he is going to discover they will no consume no more products than they do today and they will withdraw more in social and medical services than they contribute in taxes. Bush will have to look elsewhere for his new taxpayers as he struggles to find new tax dollars to offset the added drain on the healthcare system.

The French, who are not quite in as dire straits as the United States, may have stumbled on the right idea. The French, like the rest of us, need more taxpayers—and more consumers to help keep transnational factories in France rather than moving them to Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. In addition, the French like the rest of Europe, have discovered that due to a religion of hate that condemns anyone who is not Islamic, the least desirable people who are flocking to Europe are the Muslims. It is slowly dawning on Europe that the Muslims plan to overcome Europe by simply overwhelming it with people. The Muslims, like the Mexicans, have an extraordinary capacity to procreate. Throughout Europe, Muslims are the fastest growing segment of the population.

In France, discussions of class, race and ethnic issues have been carefully avoided when the socialists raise questions why the ruling right-of-center party of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin—who himself has three children—take steps to alter the existing "welfare" system that favors those with the worst work ethics who are most prolific in creating new life since the stipend from the State grows with each new mouth to feed. "The current level of compensation [for having children] appeals only to those on lower incomes," Hubert Brin, president of France's National Union of Family Associations noted. "This is not just a French problem. It affects Europe in general. In Germany as many as 40% of professional women turn their backs on maternity. Ask a professional woman these days to make a definitive choice between having a career and having babies, and she'll choose the former."

Dr. Corrinne Baconnet, a 36-year old vascular surgeon who is expecting her third child told the London Daily Telegraph that she didn't think the French government did enough to encourage women who want to have larger families. "I came from a family with three children," she said, "and I always wanted three of my own. But I am also from a generation of women from whom staying at home was never an option."

A 2004 Pew Research Center study on European population trends that keeps tabs on demographic shifts noted that close to a million Muslims a year move to Europe—most of them to France. At the same time, the study noted, those Muslims living on the continent are having three times as many children as their white European neighbors. London Daily Telegraph columnist Barbara Amiel addressed this issue in a 2004 column. "France," she wrote, "is facing a problem that it dare not speak its name. Though French law prohibits its census from any reference to ethnic background or religion, many demographers estimate that as much as 20% to 30% of the population now under 25 is now Muslim. Given current birthrates," she speculated, "it is not impossible that in 25 years France will have a Muslim majority. Is it possible that secular France might become a Muslim state?" Is it possible that Catholic France will become a Muslim state? Could France become Europe's Lebanon?

This is a question being posed by government throughout Europe, and Europe is worried about the answer ever since the transit bombings in London. Are the Muslims repopulating Europe with malevolent intent? The leaders in Europe know the consequences of such a contemplation are dynamic. Muslim majorities in the Parliaments of Europe—or even those which favor strong local Muslim minorities—can, and will, have a devastating impact not only on Europe, but upon the world. Is it too late for the French to offset the population gains made by the Muslims? Only if France—now part of the "open border society" of the European Union—and the other EU nations—bans any further immigration from any Muslim nation and expels from within its borders any radical Islamics who preach any form of sedition against that nation. The United States would be wise to do the same.

And, before President George W. Bush grants amnesty to people who are in the United States illegally, the Congress of the United States needs to be very specific who is entitled to amnesty and who is not. No person with a criminal record of any type (excluding the criminal act of entering this country illegally), or any person who entered this country with the intent to commit kill or otherwise harm the people or the infrastructure of this nation, is entitled to enjoy the privileges of this nation. Further, by law, the US Congress needs to very specifically remove the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights from any alien residing in this country on either a visitor's or worker's permit. Legal and illegal aliens should be amply protected by the UN Declaration of Human Right until such time as they become lawful citizens of the United States. This will allow the Justice Department and the FBI to intrusively investigate those who are guests in the United States, and have no legal claims to be here other than the good graces of the this nation. By restricting the legal rights of visitors it becomes unnecessary for the Congress of the United States and/or the President to usurp their authority under the Constitution by restricting or otherwise abrogating the inherent rights of its own people to monitor those who are simply visitors.


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