Immigration Demographics

15 Jan

Too Many Gumballs? [courtesy Google Images]

Too Many Gumballs?
[courtesy Google Images]

The following video claims that, of the world’s 7 billion people,  over 3 billion are so impoverished that they earn less than $2 per day.  That’s over 40% of the world earning less than $2 per day.

Another 2.6 billion live in countries whose average annual income is less than Mexico’s.  These nation’s earn, on average more than $2 per day, but they still earn less than the average Mexican.

Thus, 5 billion (over 70%) of the earth’s 7 billion people are so desperate to escape their poverty that emmigrating into the US or Europe has to be a great and powerful dream.  These people are too desperate to give a damn about political ideology, religion or values. They live at the edge of starvation and will immigrate, if they can, simply to survive.

The video explain that the US allows 1 million legal immigrants to enter the US each year.  In addition to the 5 billion who are already on this planet and impoverished, 80 million more are being born into poverty each year.  Thus, the idea that taking 1 million legal immigrants into the US will make a meaningful contribution to eliminating world poverty is mathematically absurd.

The speaker concludes that we should find ways to eliminate poverty in people’s countries of origine rather than allow them to immigrate into the US.   His conclusion is rational, reasonable and compassionate–but probably too idealistic to work.  There’s no way to make a meaningful increase in the the standard of living of over 5 billion people who are living in poverty and breeding like rabbits.  They can be exploited, but they can’t be helped to a significant degree.

The speaker does not address the problem of illegal immigration–and, for me, that’s the real problem. I guarantee that if I were one of the world’s impoverished, I’d use every means at my disposal (legal or illegal) to escape that poverty and break into the US or Europe.  If I could escape a world where I made only $2 a day to come to the US and earn $10 a day, I’d consider myself blessed–at least for a while.

I assume that most of the world’s 5 billion impoverished think like me and would therefore do anything to get into the US or Europe.  I don’t blame them.  They are trying to emmigrate for their lives.

But I also recognize that if something isn’t done to control our borders, the US will be swamped, submerged and destroyed by the influx of illegal aliens.  Not just from Mexico, but from around the world.   As these illegals flood into this country, desperate to make just $10 a day, they will collapse the wage structure currently enjoyed by people born here in the US.  As bad as our economy is, it’s like paradise to 70% or more of the world.

If we’re going to allow the poor from third world countries to immigrate illegally, we will cease to exist as a nation.  The people who were born here will become a minority in their own country.  The forces, resources and values that made America great will be overwhelmed, and we will also become a third world nation.

I’m not predicting this sort of tribulation will strike in 100 years or 50 years. I’m suggesting that, without adequate immigration control, even the illusion of America could be lost in 20 years.

I watch to the following video and I see incredible demographic dangers.  Poverty is not a “problem” in this world.  Poverty is the rule for at least 70% of the world’s population. I’m sympathetic to their plight, but I also recognize that letting them to immigrate into the US is like allowing a swarm of locusts to feed on your wheat field.  In the end, the locusts will eat all of your wheat, leave your field and nation barren, and drive you, too, into poverty and starvation.

The over-population problem is too big to be resolved by means of technology or charity.  I doubt that there are enough natural resources in the world to feed and provide a decent standard of living for the 5 billion impoverished.   If there’s going to be a solution, it will be based on a massive death toll due to war, disease or famine.

Christian charity and human compassion may cause us to try to save the poor.  But reason tells us that our efforts will be both futile and suicidal.  What’s the sense in trying to save the world’s poor, if that effort will not only fail but will cause the poverty and early deaths of ourselves and our children?

We are coming to a moment (another one) when we must face some hard choices. We’re like people sitting in a lifeboat (America) that will hold 20 people while there are 200 more in the ocean screaming to climb into our life boat. If we allow even a significant part of those in the water to just hang on to our lifeboat, all 220 of us will drown.  If we prevent the 200 in the water from boarding our lifeboat, the 200 will die–but we 20 will survive.  If we choose one way, we die.  If we choose another way, we cause or at least allow 200 others to die. These aren’t easy choices.

And yet, I’m not sure we even have a choice in this matter.  Given the ease of global transportation, is it even possible to prevent illegal aliens from entering this country en masse?  We’ll never be able to prevent all illegal immigrants from entering this country–but we could prevent most of them from coming if we beefed up our illegal immigration defenses.

However, while our government has had plenty of money to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, assault Libya, and perhaps attack Iran or Syria, it claims that it’s helpless to adequately protect our own borders.  Worse, treasonous whores like G.W. Bush and B.H. Obama have openly encouraged illegals to enter this country and Congress is about to grant another “amnesty” to illegal aliens rather than throw them out.  And what will that “amnesty” do?  Stop further illegal immigration–or encourage even more aggressive illegal immigration?

I understand that there’s a requirement for Christian charity.  I understand that there’s a need for human compassion.  But I doubt that we can be expected to engage in Christian charity if that charity will: 1) destroy our nation; 2) shorten our own lives; 3) drive us into poverty; and 4) give the world’s poor nothing more than a brief respite before they are (and we) are wiped out by some sort of pandemic.

I find this video to be frightening.  It tells me that if we would survive, we’d better learn to value whatever land and resources we have and do all we can to prevent immigration by illegal aliens and treason by our elected officials.

Lastly, my fundamental complaint is not with the illegal aliens.  If I were in their shoes, I’d also try to break into this country.  My fundamental complaint is with the treasonous whores in the cathouse on the Potomac who, rather than defend the American people and our nation, seek to betray us by encouraging an invasion by illegal aliens and the destruction of The United States of America.

Immigration is a life and death issue for both the would-be immigrants and also for the people of The United States of America.

video    00:06:08


Posted by on January 15, 2014 in Illegal Aliens, Population, Video


Tags: ,

47 responses to “Immigration Demographics

  1. palani

    January 15, 2014 at 10:19 AM

    Back in the day we had a two holer to squat at when the temps were 20 below. The house was not insulated and the only heat was a grate in the kitchen floor so at least three quilts were needed to stay warm overnight. The parents went 20 years without paying any income taxes because everything earned got plowed back into the farm. We lived out of the garden and slaughtered one cow and several pigs each year. I’m sure we were considered poor yet didn’t know it so much because that was the life that we knew. The lender didn’t have a clue how we could even survive yet in many ways we were in better condition then to weather these economic situations than we are now. The war on poverty is nothing more than a way to get people dependent upon the government’s economy to the detriment of our survival in tough times.

    These foreigners who make less than $2 a day … who is to say they need more? Or even that they need $2 to survive.

    • J.M.

      January 18, 2014 at 6:51 PM

      Some questions say so much, especially when they come from sharp minds like “yours” I am trying to develop the ability you have. Don’t respond, I know you have bigger fish to fry. Just letting you know you lift my spirit up.

  2. Jetlag

    January 15, 2014 at 11:20 AM

    The only way We the People are going to re-establish control of our borders is by re-establishing control of our hired help in government.

    If we fail in this responsibility of citizenship, the criminals who hijacked our government will continue to aid and abet immigration until America is an impoverished Babel under their police state.


    Whatever a decline to mere survival may have going for it, the average American would prefer to keep the prosperity he has now.

    • palani

      January 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM

      @ Jetlag “the average American would prefer to keep the prosperity he has now.”

      The Scarecrow, Tinman and Cowardly Lion would prefer to stay in Oz. Dorothy wanted to go home.

  3. tom

    January 15, 2014 at 11:26 AM

    Your column is not christian and furthermore a lie if you really believe the Scriptures. The earth is bountiful beyond your understanding and the Father has made it so that all mankind alive upon the face of earth may prosper.

    You have fallen for the ruse of proud n evil men that always use those type of arguements to control others and the plentiful resources on earth. Darwinists, commies, socialists, bankers, climatechange hoaxters, corporations, government, etc…

    They always think someone is going to get a bigger piece of the pie than them so use any means possible (let them drown) rather than acknowledging the way out of poverty is a people that is free to work and keep the fruits of thier labor which the groups mentioned above despise because it threatens power structure eventhough it makes everyone overall poorer as a result.

    Think of the pharisees during The Christ’s ministry. Why would they be against someone healing the sick, blind to see, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, preaching peace. You know they could have used some of his blessings to heal themselves, thier children, and thier nation but it would have required ceding authority to true government rather than keeping it for themselves even with detriment to the nation.

    This is plain old w

    • tom

      January 15, 2014 at 11:53 AM

      Even with the harm, poverty, and death their meglomania causes, thier wicked perversions will not allow them to repent and seek His Authority. That is the major reason for poor people on earth.

      How many inventors, healing doctors and herbalists, cheap energy creators; etc. have to languish doing mundane tasks such as fetching water 5miles away just to survive because this government started a war, imposed IMF usury, sent in government sponsored organizations to redirect thier energies, started a coup to overthrow popular rulers just to set up puppets.

      If you truly are a christian then it is your duty to bless and take care of the downtrodden regardless of your amatuerish philoshophical ponderings and maybe look inside and see if its maybe some of your beliefs or actions that caused people to become poor. Im not talking about typical liberal cries you hear from media but meddling in other nations affairs in order to economically subdue. Its basically neocolonialism but it sounds bad because thats a phrase soiled by communists and catholics.

      • J.M.

        January 30, 2014 at 5:00 PM

        @ If you truly are a christian then it is your duty to bless and take care of the downtrodden….

        Not necessarily. It depends. Why is anyone downtrodden? Remember the give a man a fish v. teach a man to fish example? If people are downtrodden because of their reprobate ways, why would you want to help them prolong the same thing? If the “gang” makes you downtrodden, & because you are trying to Put “God” # 1 in your life, YES, we should band together to help you.

    • Adask

      January 15, 2014 at 4:25 PM

      I’m not arguing that the earth is over-populated. I’m arguing that there’s not enough access to food, fuel, shelter, and jobs to provide a decent standard of living for most of the world’s people. Why that shortage exists is unclear. But I see no way that it’s likely to be overcome any time soon.

      Which means that starving hoards are and will be desperate to leave poor countries and immigrate into comparatively rich companies. More, the numbers are such that it won’t be a few million who seek to immigrate each year–it could be tens of millions, hundreds of millions and possibly billions. I don’t believe the seemingly rich nations can absorb the resulting demographic pressures without also collapsing into abject poverty.

      So, while it may be that there is “no greater love” than that of a man who lays down his life for another, I presume that such sacrifice by one man causes the other to survive. But if the one man’s sacrifice does little more than cause both men to perish, I’m not sure that such sacrifice can be described as “Christian” so much as suicidal. The Bible advocates self-sacrifice, but it does not advocate suicide. Thus, I see hard choices headed our way.

      More, while Christians might be obligated to sacrifice their lives or fortunes for other Christians, what is my biblical duty to save non-Christians? Muslims? Atheists? Satanists? There may be an obligation to save those who are not Christians, but the extent of that obligation is unclear.

      But whatever that obligation may be, again, I see hard choices headed our way.

      • J.M.

        January 18, 2014 at 8:53 PM

        IF these “starving hoards” were obeying the Laws of “The Eternal God” the laws that some people say were NAILED TO THE CROSS, those poor people would not be poor. What will happen is, they will bring their godless ways into at least a partly Christian Nation & make what problems we do have even worse.The REASON these impoverished people are impoverished is because of their perverted ways. And I believe it’s true that ONE rotten apple allowed to stay in with good apples will eventually spoil the whole barrel. Same thing applies to people.

      • Julie

        January 19, 2014 at 9:54 AM

        @ JM: If we ourselves are following the eternal laws of God, then we would have NO CAUSE cause for dismay, would we?

    • J.M.

      January 18, 2014 at 7:08 PM

      @Your column is not christian and furthermore a lie if you really believe the Scriptures.

      Torn it’s tearing at my heart to understand what you are saying. What is a column? Are you saying that EVERYONE commenting on this blog is the column? & not a christian or trying to be Christ like, i.e., a chip off the block?
      If you understand EVERYTHING in the scriptures, presuming you mean The Holy Bible, then there are 3 more on this blog who do too. I am not one of you 4 so, all four of you are out of my little ol ballpark. what does w mean, as you use it? Thanks in advance for your response

  4. Peter

    January 15, 2014 at 11:35 AM

    If we get rid of the FEDERAL RESERVE this will solve our problem. The illegal immigration problem is more of a problem created by the bankers to continue debt creation to prop up their fraudulent scheme. The illegals will borrow money into existence when they arrive here and to will borrow money into existence to issue welfare benefits, this benefits the bankers. If money is not borrowed into existence at a more increased rate there is no money in supply to service debt. There may not be much one can do besides parking in S&G and getting out of the way. The bankers are desperate to maintain this fraud at all cost..

  5. pop de adam

    January 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM

    If we were to take heed of scripture, How about the portions that warn people of accepting kings and probably by default the concept of nations.

    I read an article about a woman who was in some South American country and was relieved of her wallet, passport, etc, the local police could not or would not assist her as she had no documentation. Their recompense might be dependant on official documents? So these documents seem like the ear tags we see on cattle or in a previous era a cattle brand.

    While those formerly undocumented would be free to go where the work is, those of us who might rather experience the world would also be free to go where the mobs are not. While not outright obvious the idea that someone isn’t someone without proper documentation should be repugnant. These “walking papers” seem to mean “freedom” to many, this is not so when they are withheld, expired or revoked. At such a point the mechanisms are all in place at airports, river crossings, imaginary borders that are but lines in the sand. You are captive and are not free. I can empathize with those who percieve to have been victimized by those that are undocumented. There are those who speculate on issues of terrorism or contraband. Some risks and burdens must be borne. The remedies that consist of concrete walls, razor wires and checkpoints should be disavowed these are not the things free people do. Those who agitate for more of this sort of security do it often from a place of fear(sometimes profit) let them take up residence as an innmate, with all the security they could ever wish for.

    • palani

      January 15, 2014 at 12:34 PM

      @ pop de adam ” the local police could not or would not assist her as she had no documentation”

      Anyone with a birth certificate or passport would do well to make a copy of them and apply a signature below on the copy to the effect that ‘the above information is certified to be true and correct under penalty of perjury’. Then sign and notarize the doc(s). Then take them to the Sec of State and have both an apostille and legalization doc attached. Then keep them in a safe place when traveling so that accidents, when they happen, will be less severe.

      • Pat Fields

        January 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM

        Palani, that’s SUPERB advise!

    • pop de adam

      January 15, 2014 at 12:48 PM

      If not relevant, still a good article:

  6. Adrian

    January 15, 2014 at 2:43 PM

    Immigration is the Globalist agenda to denationalized the Planet.
    A Global plantation.One race of people,a mud race.
    America is a good example.
    By the way,the guy in the video was talking about some government.
    What government,America is without a government.

    • J.M.

      January 22, 2014 at 10:46 PM

      Immigration is the Globalist agenda to denationalized the Planet.
      A Global plantation.One race of people,a mud race.
      Good comment Adrian.


        January 30, 2014 at 5:45 PM

        J.M. repeating my post and asked, …”Was it before or after 70 A.D?”… E.T. says “READ IT”

        What happened to having a conversation at “The war od A.D. 1812?”


        January 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM

        Revelation 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

        Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
        Jetlag, when did this take place? Was it before or after 70 A.D?

      • Jetlag

        January 30, 2014 at 11:58 PM

        @EDOMS THORN

        Revelation 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

        This happened in 70 AD. It obviously could not have been too long after the prophesy about it was given, because only a few verses on we read:

        6 The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”

        7 “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll.”

        8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me.

        9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”

        10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near.”

  7. Pat Fields

    January 15, 2014 at 5:00 PM

    The cornucopia of God’s Bounty that Tom asserted above, and the sufficiency Palani spoke of in his childhood, comes from accommodating ourselves within rationality. God has provided measures of the things around us. If all those things are kept ‘valued’ in relation to those measures, then aspiration for plenty or contentment with sustenance will be appropriately rewarded by earnest effort yielding injustice to none. It’s when aspiration is sought to be achieved through irrational effort, or in other words by little endeavor for excessive reward, that humble contentments are made cruelly burdensome of achievement.

  8. Adask

    January 15, 2014 at 11:35 PM

    Some readers think my article is “unchristian” and even a “lie–if your believe the Bible”.

    But it’s not that simple nor is the obligation help others are clear as some suppose.

    According to Mark 7:25-29,

    “For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.”

    These verses are a metaphor that does not truly speak of feeding food to people who are gentiles rather than Hebrews. The “bread” in these verses are blessings and/or healing rather than food.

    Nevertheless, the point is apparent that even the Christ, Himself, has supported the idea that you take care of your own “children” (and your own nation) before you worry about taking care of “foreigners”. You make sure your children are–and will be–provided with sufficient “food” before you start to share that “food” with others.

    The Christ, himself, recognized a distinction between faiths and nationalities that was sufficient to justify not providing blessings and healings to “foreigners”.

    Therefore, insofar as the Christ did not necessarily recognized that the distribution of blessings/healings that he could provide should go preferentially to the Jews and/or Israelites, it’s arguable that modern Christians are not obligated to feed the world—especially, the non-Christian world, and especially if doing so may cause the children of Christians to be deprived or impoverished.

    I understand that my interpretation of Mark 7:25-29 may not be correct. But I also understand that my interpretation is at least possibly correct.

    Hard choices are coming. None of these choices will be made without risk to our physical and spiritual survival.

    One other point:

    It may well be that Christians have an obligation to help the poor of any faith in the sense of voluntarily providing charity to the unfortunate. But does that obligation to voluntarily help all others include a willingness to be involuntarily robbed by foreign invaders?

    As I pointed out in the article, I read the demographics as evidence of the rising population of poor people who will do ANYTHING to survive. By “anything,” I included theft, robbery and murder. It’s one thing for me to voluntarily share my wealth with the poor. It’s another thing for me to be compelled to share my wealth by threats or acts of violence perpetrated by the poor.

    If I have a Christian obligation to help the unfortunate, they also have a Christian obligation to wait patiently until I voluntarily provide that assistance. I recognize no established Christian obligation to help those who engage in crime or violence acquire any part of my wealth. Insofar as aliens enter this country illegally, it seems that they are not predisposed to wait on my voluntary charity but are instead will to do ANYTHING to get whatever I (or America) have got.

    It may be more blessed to “give” than to “receive,” but my warning is that the future flood of illegal aliens won’t be coming here to “receive” so much as to “take”–by violence, if necessary. I recognize no Christian obligation to accept being robbed–even by a person or nation that is poor.

    • Jetlag

      January 16, 2014 at 12:25 AM

      Good point, professor.

      I suspect this pandering “Christian charity” argument is yet another instance of the propaganda besieging We the People on all fronts to sell Americans the idea of national suicide.

      Charity begins at home.

      • J.M.

        January 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM

        Revelation 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

        Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
        Jetlag, when did this take place? Was it before or after 70 A.D?

  9. Julie

    January 16, 2014 at 10:00 AM

    You will forgive my frankness when I say that you do err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God. There never has been and never will be any such thing as private property. You are either a tenant/slave in Satan’s Kingdom or a bond servant/slave and child of God in His. Which will you serve? That’s the only question that exists for you. Whichever you choose, both sides require evidence of you as to your fidelity. Will you SUR-render unto Caesar what is his property–like the first Christians did in obedience to God–and enter into the Kingdom of God–or will you refuse the gift of God that is Jesus, your surety, and enter into Satan’s Kingdom forever? Will you stand at the entrance to keep others out while refusing to go yourselves?

    There are no nations in God’s Kingdom, so yes, the US will be de-nationalized. Even now it is a failed enterprise. It has evidently escaped your attention that EVERY US citizen is an illegal alien. Every citizen is a documented enemy of the state. Before the laws of this nation, you are LIEN-able persons only. Your positions are not higher in law than the positions of those who cross your borders to sojourn here. The pestilence you are referring to, the SWARM of locusts you fear, are permitted to come here by your government BECAUSE they are also LIEN-able persons. Welcome to the American nightmare. “The People” as contemplated in the preamble of the constitution of this shit-hole you’ve mistaken for the promised LAND have USED UP all of the debt that they pledged themselves to be surety for, demanding more than their part of it, demanding their “rights”, demanding a justice that favors themselves only and pissing it away upon their lustful natures, NEVER SATISFIED–instead of accepting the surety of Jesus that was freely offered to them at great expense. Therefore, it is obviously shrewd economic sense that MORE surety MUST be pledged by others not privy to your coveted citizenship. If you can’t SEE that these people for whom Christ also died are being used to PROP YOU UP–to prop up YOUR DEBT, and that every person who was ever killed in any war that you have voluntarily supported DIED TO PROP UP YOUR DEBT, then excuse me, but you have a telephone pole in your eye. Having your cake and eating it to has never been presented to you as an option by either side. Whichever side you choose, it is all or nothing and “twas ever thus. Grace and peace to you in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Love, Julie

    • Adask

      January 16, 2014 at 12:29 PM

      Perhaps you will also forgive my frankness when I say, “If there’s no such thing as “private property,’ how do you explain ‘Thou shalt not steal” in the Ten Commandments?” It seems to me that “stealing” presupposes each man’s right to private property. How can you “steal” a car, or a computer, or $10,000 if no one owns any of those items in the sense of private property?

      If there is no private property, then the Jewish and Christian faiths are collectivist/communistic.

      If there were no private property, “Thou shalt not steal” would appear to be a meaningless, superfluous Commandment. If one of the Commandments can be shown to be meaningless and superfluous, does that evidence also tend to case doubt on the validity of the other nine Commandments?

      I understand that God owns all things that he’s created and in relation to God, I own nothing buy my lies and artificial entities. But I also understand that there are wheels within wheels, and while I may own nothing in relation to God, I can own something in relation to other men and women and secular institutions.

      Why does God hate “unjust weights and measures” unless those phony weights are used to deprive the unsuspecting of their “private property”? If you don’t actually own your wheat or gold, what difference does it make is someone else defrauds you out of that property?

      The idea of private property is not confined to men and women. Most males of most species of animals will claim and fight for the “private property” of a distinct territory. They believe they own their nests, their land, their families and they’ll fight for them.

      The Middle East has been unstable and near to war for most of my lifetime because the nation called “Israel” claims to own a certain portion of land that was given to that “nation” by God, Himself, as an “inheritance”. Although Israel’s claim to “own” that land is a national (rather than individual) claim, that claim is also very similar to the concept of private property.

      “Render unto Caesar” presupposes that Caesar “owns” some property to the exclusion of all others. Thus, Caesar would seem to own some property in a “private” capacity.

      When, on the 6th day, God gave Adam “dominion” over all of the animals, He effectively reduced animals to the status of property to be owned by mankind and laid the foundation for treating animals as “private property”. Thus, we see evidence of “private property” even before God took the First Sabbath.

      What is the purpose of money if not to exchange title to “private property”? If there’s no such thing as private property, what is the purpose for money? While God condemns the love of money, He recognizes and allows the use of money. In doing so, he seems to approve of the concept of private property.

      The Bible appears to be rich with evidence that God recognizes and approves of mankind’s claims to own private property in relation to of the secular, physical earth. To say otherwise, strikes me as error.

      • J.M.

        January 19, 2014 at 4:26 PM

        @ >The Bible appears to be rich with evidence that God recognizes and approves of mankind’s claims to own private property in relation to of the secular, physical earth. To say otherwise, strikes me as error.
        Yes indeed. Abraham purchased land & the purchase price was not given to the Good Lord,at least directly.

    • J.M.

      January 18, 2014 at 7:33 PM

      WOW!!! I hope I’m not a part of the you & your.

      • Julie

        January 20, 2014 at 8:57 AM

        J. M. – I pray that I am not either, friend.


      January 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM


      You said, …”There are no nations in God’s Kingdom”…

      You may want to do a little more study, and an examination of what you think you Know.

      Revelation 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

      Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

  10. palani

    January 16, 2014 at 5:26 PM

    It would be in vain to claim the keeping a thing which was lawful to be kept without any claim.

    • J.M.

      January 30, 2014 at 4:48 PM

      I@ t would be in vain to claim the keeping a thing which was lawful to be kept without any claim.
      Is the Court of Claims where we do the claiming? If so, I see a Who’s on first game from the court or a quick dismissal.


    January 16, 2014 at 6:00 PM

    This is a far more important issue than people give credit for. Your article reminded of a book I had read some years back entitled, ” The Camp of the Saints”. It is a fictional story of the Third World, in this case India with its billions of citizens, placing the poorest of the poor on ships and sending them with only enough fuel for a one way trip to the shores of the Western countries. Of course any and all thoughts of repelling these ships was viewed as racist, uncaring and God forbid (!) Un-Christian! Meanwhile when these foreign multitudes began hitting the Western shores, the immediately situated Westerners were overwhelmed beyond capability and murdered forthwith for not having enough to sha-a-a-re!
    A great read and here is a link to a free perusal of the book. Definitely a classic for anyone with eyes to see.

  12. Yartap

    January 17, 2014 at 9:10 PM

    Get READY!!! With differing birth rates between races, alien cultures and beliefs, adherence to foreign national prides, intolerant religious beliefs, while mixed with a belief in democracy, your God-given unalienable rights will be voted out of existence.

    • Yartap

      January 17, 2014 at 9:30 PM

      People of different beliefs must submit to your beliefs and authority before you should help them. Brothers of belief, with true needs, should be helped freely.

      “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs (different), neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Matthew 7:6.

      All our modern wars are with people we have helped, created and set up.

      • donmako

        January 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM

        Greetings to yall in the name of Christ jesus. I am slowly comming to that realization… i am someone who has been in 3 different conflicts. Ive done some stuff for uncle sam. Things that will be with me for life. I want to use my experience to try to help ppl. Ive been trying hard for a few years now to deprogram myself from being a killer… praise Jesus im a long way down the path and loath the idea of hurting another… but now i am in the delemma of should i defend myself or loved ones and other innocent lives? Ive been leaning on just turn rhe other cheeck and being as harmless as a dove and all that… but i wonder… why would the good lord give me that

      • J.M.

        January 30, 2014 at 5:21 PM

        @ “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs (different), neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Matthew 7:6.
        I have had 3 people on this blog to turn & rend me.

  13. donmako

    January 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM

    …..cont…… why would our Good Lord give me that specific skillset and great abillity for such… im serious. I think back to rhe days of Nehemiah about how they had to rebuild the wall with bricks in one hand and swords in the other… id like to think i dont have these skills as a test or temptation… but i am conflicted. I pray to never be in a situation where i might have to hurt somebody. Please give me yer thoughts on that. Thankyou in advance

    • Adask

      January 18, 2014 at 11:34 AM

      No easy answer for your question. I’ve never killed anyone and I’m not inclined to do so. But I have to admit that the way this country is going, I won’t be surprised if I’m faced with that choice. Then what? Do I defend my life? My freedom? My country? By killing someone else? Or do I protect my soul by obeying the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”? And is that commandment properly written “Thou shalt not kill”? Or is it “Thou shalt not murder”? Does the Good LORD expect us to fight or turn the other cheek and surrender even if that surrender costs us our own life? At what point does our right and even duty of self-defense become a sin?

      I consider those questions regularly, but I have no answers.

      Worse, I don’t expect to find an answer I can rely on in this life.

      • Yartap

        January 20, 2014 at 12:52 AM

        Greetings, donmako,

        I don’t know if my thoughts and words will help, but I can remove one of your’s and others’ misconception about “turn the other cheek.”

        But, first, allow me to answer your dilemma: YES! – you should defend and protect yourself, your loved ones, and the innocent, with your life if required. You know this in your heart! Read 1 Timothy 5:8.

        Now, with that said, allow me to bring you good news about the belief in “turning the other cheek (Matt. 5:38-39).” This is a verse regularly misused, and mostly by Pacifist. Their intent is well meaning, but it causes great conflict among believers. To understand Christ and his meaning, one must read both verses for the full context of its meaning. Matthew 5: 38-39….

        38 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: ….
        39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not EVIL (punishment): but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

        Basically, the verses, first, describe the old Testament equal punishment back to an offender, i.e. “Eye for an eye;” So, the first verse is talking about punishments for harms one does. But, Jesus tells us to give back double for the harm we commit, i.e. two eyes for an eye; if the punishment is a slap, then turn the other cheek, also, for your harm. Followers give out double. Continue to read verses 40-42.

        How do I know that the verses are speaking of punishment? Strong’s Concordance has many definitions for the word, “Evil.” The word, evil, used in Matt. 5:39 is Greek # 4190 which means: hurtful; from #4192 which means toil, anguish pain; and is not like/related to #2556 which means: depraved and wicked character; and is not like/related to #4550 which means: degeneracy, no virtue, very bad, malicious. So, we are not to “resist” the anguish and pain of punishment.

        Blessings, Yartap.

    • J.M.

      January 18, 2014 at 8:02 PM

      Try to remember,”God” is also a “Man of WAR.” King David went to war & killed the enemy & he was a man after God’s own heart. Of course David was not perfect & committed horrible sins too AND he was punished SEVERELY for this.If in my heart, and I was in a branch of the armed forces also, but if in my heart I had no doubt the enemy was Godless, it would be no problem for me to do my best to wipe as many out as I possibly could. IF i followed orders & later found out I did the wrong thing, I would ask forgiveness & I would be forgiven. The life blood sacrifice of Jesus THE Christ covers that too !!! I hope you have read this far.If so, Psalm 51 WILL bring you comfort. I guarantee it. Later, hit me up with yer thoughts. Read Psalm 51.

  14. J.M.

    January 19, 2014 at 3:58 PM

    @ JM: If we ourselves are following the eternal laws of God, then we would have NO CAUSE cause for dismay, would we?
    John 11:35, >Jesus wept.
    Sometimes people become so dismayed they start to cry. Are you inclined to believe Jesus was dismayed because of your question,i.e..e.g. he was not following those laws that are holy just and good and had as you say, NO CAUSE for dismay? What about his disciples who fell asleep because of the heaviness of the sorrow they were overwhelmed with? Does your question apply to them too? Why don’t you, Julie,say the REAL REASON,you don’t like me? I ask this question sincerely. If you do, it will help me to see at least to some degree what I am doing wrong. You know what? There are some people on this blog who ARE on your side. When they saw your question, they said, attaway Julie Go getem. There are some people on this blog who despise me. If there was a traitor among the chosen 12. there will be traitors in every worthwhile group,church,etc.
    Thanks for thinking of me anyway. Lay something else on me.

    • J.M.

      January 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM

      I may owe you an apology. I took your question to be a question. I see too late it could have been a statement. Would we,with a downward tone is saying something. Would we with an upward tone is asking something I thought you, Julie were asking, not saying, hence my message being sent to you as it was.

    • Julie

      January 20, 2014 at 9:01 AM

      I like you very much, J. M. If I have made you feel otherwise, I am sorry. I hope you will forgive me. Peace to you, Julie

  15. J.M.

    January 20, 2014 at 2:30 PM

    Re: your message on. > January 20, 2014 at 9:01 AM

    There are times I make mistakes & sometimes I make super dooper mistakes/errors. I need your forgiveness. But I know I don’t even have to ask you if you will forgive me. I was so wrong in asking you,> why don’t you like me? I had no cause to ask you that. I had been hammered by some others on another thread & took it out on you. I am so sorry. I had been asked questions with a sarcastic slant & I thought yours was another one.See, when I saw your question,I WAS dismayed, from what had transpired on the other thread, 501(c) 3. SO,when I saw your question, it was as tho you could see me & knew I was dismayed & I took your question to say I would not be dismayed IF I was following The Eternal God’s laws. This is why I started my response to you by saying, Jesus wept. There is an old song that says, we always hurt the ones we love. Julie, I truly am sorry for answering you as I did. AND THANK YOU for liking me. I sure need someone like you, to like me.
    P.S. don’t take the time & effort to respond to this message. I have cut & pasted your words,> I like you very much, from Julie. I will read it every day. I do have a short fuse problem I am trying HARD to overcome & that in itself is in itself a full plate. Shalom, dear one.

  16. J.M.

    January 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM

    To who it “may” concern
    This is what I mean when I say, Shalom.
    Hebrew words go beyond their spoken pronunciation. Each Hebrew word conveys feeling, intent and emotion. Shalom is more then just simply peace; it is a complete peace. It is a feeling of contentment, completeness, wholeness, well being and harmony.
    I do not apologize to anyone for saying, Shalom


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s