~ Children crossing the boarder without parents. ~
I have suspicions about a hypothetical question that was posted by "Tiebreaker" at Yahoo! Answers on May 23, 2008. I was researching "enforced vaccinations" in 2009 when I found it. I was interested in the possibility of enforced vaccinations being used to depopulate unsuspecting groups of people. We now have "immigrants flooding into the land," as Tiebreaker envisioned. He predicted that people [Americans] should watch out next for food shortages followed by enforced vaccines - the depop kind. I saved the question, believing that we have entered the End Times. Although I work for progress as a human rights advocate, as a Christian I expect "the worst is yet to come." It appears that America is nonexistent at the Battle of Armageddon, when nations of the world will encamp around Israel to destroy her, so I look for the USA's destruction sometime prior to that. The Bible indicates there will be none at Armageddon to save Israel except her Messiah, so He returns.
YAHOO! ANSWERS
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmRl5awFrZ8Dyr0ZSODlVcYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080523180155AAkrOyb
Undecided Question
Show me another »
Morality issue?
hypothetical situation, might help me in smaller matters
say your the leader of a country. it flourished for awhile but its fallen into desperate times. the population is growing very rapidly. the amout of babies being born is at the highest rate its ever been and immigrants are flooding into the land. the food is extremely scarce and if it keeps up you'll go bankrupt. the people would literally have to eat each other to survive. you have the option of enforcing a vaccine that would ultimately weed out the weak and leave the strong ill, but alive. this is your only option to survive....what choice do you make? is it more morally correct to ensure a few some survival, or to not cross the line of inhumanity at the cost of everything...
1 year ago
(Tiebreaker)
Additional Details
in this instance the strong will get better, life will go on but with a dramatically reduced populace. the question remains ....
In 2009, I answered at Yahoo Answers: To the writer of that question, please learn your place. You are not God, and He who made the world is well capable of sustaining life and providing for all of our needs. No one should justify genocide by pretending to believe it is best for humanity. The world is not running out of space or resources. Most of the earth is uninhabited, and the ground still yields her bounty. It is only man's artificial systems that create shortages, and sometimes it is in man's labs that diseases are created. Resist the temptation to play God or to excuse great evil by self-delusion.
Should Americans be concerned about "immigrants flooding the land," as the writer wrote in 2008, and food shortages followed by enforced depopulation vaccinations? Probably not. It is not as though the government would ever hurt U.S. citizens.
President Barack Obama asked Congress Tuesday for $3.73 billion in emergency appropriations to address the influx of child migrants crossing the Southwest border and Rio Grande from Central America.
2. Amnesty for illegals to obliterate economic opportunities for African Americans
http://www.naturalnews.com/045979_illegal_immigrants_amnesty_African_Americans.html
"A SHORT HISTORY OF US GOVERNMENT RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE"
Further reading at four(4) sites:
1. Obama Requests $3.7 Billion for Child Migrants (notice the name change: not "illegals" or "undocumented")President Barack Obama asked Congress Tuesday for $3.73 billion in emergency appropriations to address the influx of child migrants crossing the Southwest border and Rio Grande from Central America.
2. Amnesty for illegals to obliterate economic opportunities for African Americans
(NaturalNews) An issue boiling beneath the surface of the issue regarding amnesty for illegal aliens just happens to be so inconvenient that immigration "reform" supporters are avoiding it like the plague, and that's how negatively providing legal status to millions of non-citizens will affect African Americans. In fact, writes A. J. Delgado for National Review Online, those who are most neglectful of African Americans in this debate are members of the party that blacks traditionally vote for en masse -- Democrats.
3. Globalist Think Tank: North American Community Will Be Forged in the Heat of Conflict
3. Globalist Think Tank: North American Community Will Be Forged in the Heat of Conflict
http://www.infowars.com/globalist-think-tank-north-american-community-will-be-forged-in-the-heat-of-conflict/
4. Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC) Project - NCBSI
http://ncbsi.utep.edu/documents/UAC_Project_Site_Visits/UTEP_NCBSI_Final_Report_March_20_2014.pdf
Note: If the link above to the "National Center for Border Security and Immigration" document fails to operate, then copy and search for this sentence through Google:
4. Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC) Project - NCBSI
http://ncbsi.utep.edu/documents/UAC_Project_Site_Visits/UTEP_NCBSI_Final_Report_March_20_2014.pdf
Note: If the link above to the "National Center for Border Security and Immigration" document fails to operate, then copy and search for this sentence through Google:
The Health and Human Services Department, Office of Refugee and Resettlement (HHS ORR), is the agency responsible for long-term placement of UACs in contracted shelters while UACs await their immigration hearings.
About the news story at link no. 1 above, I wrote:
Noble to want to help children, but $3.7 BILLION would help many children who were born here and are already citizens. For instance, Fulton Co. Commission plans to close a homeless shelter for women and children in Atlanta and another one for homeless men. This would save Fulton Co. $1.8 million. And how much money does Detroit need to supply water for everyone? How much would a jobs program cost for black youths, whose unemployment rate is over 90 percent? Altruism is a good thing, but it looks ridiculous to spend billions on others while your own are suffering and dying from lack of necessities like shelter and water. God says:
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
~1 Tim. 5:8
Once upon a time, pre-Bush and pre-War on Terror, America had a sizable treasury. Now there is talk about social security running out of funds, there are food stamp cuts, and some people are resorting to stealing water. No matter how much we care about others, only infidels neglect their own to provide for the needs of others. I'm not saying we cannot help until all Americans are millionaires, but we should not continue to try to save the world while people here lack jobs, housing, water and suitable provisions for their old age. Thanks.
About the news story at link no. 1 above, I wrote:
Noble to want to help children, but $3.7 BILLION would help many children who were born here and are already citizens. For instance, Fulton Co. Commission plans to close a homeless shelter for women and children in Atlanta and another one for homeless men. This would save Fulton Co. $1.8 million. And how much money does Detroit need to supply water for everyone? How much would a jobs program cost for black youths, whose unemployment rate is over 90 percent? Altruism is a good thing, but it looks ridiculous to spend billions on others while your own are suffering and dying from lack of necessities like shelter and water. God says:
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
~1 Tim. 5:8
Once upon a time, pre-Bush and pre-War on Terror, America had a sizable treasury. Now there is talk about social security running out of funds, there are food stamp cuts, and some people are resorting to stealing water. No matter how much we care about others, only infidels neglect their own to provide for the needs of others. I'm not saying we cannot help until all Americans are millionaires, but we should not continue to try to save the world while people here lack jobs, housing, water and suitable provisions for their old age. Thanks.
Repeated text:
I have suspicions about a hypothetical question that was posted by "Tiebreaker" at Yahoo! Answers on May 23, 2008. I was researching "enforced vaccinations" in 2009 when I found it. I was interested in the possibility of enforced vaccinations being used to depopulate unsuspecting groups of people. We now have "immigrants flooding into the land," as Tiebreaker envisioned. He predicted that people [Americans] should watch out next for food shortages followed by enforced vaccines - the depop kind. I saved the question, believing that we have entered the End Times. Although I work for progress as a human rights advocate, as a Christian I expect "the worst is yet to come." It appears that America is nonexistent at the Battle of Armageddon, when nations of the world will encamp around Israel to destroy her, so I look for the USA's destruction sometime prior to that. The Bible indicates there will be none at Armageddon to save Israel except her Messiah, so He returns.
YAHOO! ANSWERS
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmRl5awFrZ8Dyr0ZSODlVcYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080523180155AAkrOyb
Undecided Question
Show me another »
Morality issue?
hypothetical situation, might help me in smaller matters
say your the leader of a country. it flourished for awhile but its fallen into desperate times. the population is growing very rapidly. the amout of babies being born is at the highest rate its ever been and immigrants are flooding into the land. the food is extremely scarce and if it keeps up you'll go bankrupt. the people would literally have to eat each other to survive. you have the option of enforcing a vaccine that would ultimately weed out the weak and leave the strong ill, but alive. this is your only option to survive....what choice do you make? is it more morally correct to ensure a few some survival, or to not cross the line of inhumanity at the cost of everything...
1 year ago
(Tiebreaker)
Additional Details
in this instance the strong will get better, life will go on but with a dramatically reduced populace. the question remains ....
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmRl5awFrZ8Dyr0ZSODlVcYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080523180155AAkrOyb
Undecided Question
Show me another »
Morality issue?
hypothetical situation, might help me in smaller matters
say your the leader of a country. it flourished for awhile but its fallen into desperate times. the population is growing very rapidly. the amout of babies being born is at the highest rate its ever been and immigrants are flooding into the land. the food is extremely scarce and if it keeps up you'll go bankrupt. the people would literally have to eat each other to survive. you have the option of enforcing a vaccine that would ultimately weed out the weak and leave the strong ill, but alive. this is your only option to survive....what choice do you make? is it more morally correct to ensure a few some survival, or to not cross the line of inhumanity at the cost of everything...
1 year ago
(Tiebreaker)
Additional Details
in this instance the strong will get better, life will go on but with a dramatically reduced populace. the question remains ....
This article contains eight(8) links, including the email address below.
