User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [2] May 22, 2016 at 7:41pm


    That doesn’t sound good.

  • [-3] May 22, 2016 at 7:38pm


    RE: “they are shooting you and me!” – Do not presume to control what others should feel or think. We have nothing to go on other than the officer was shot and killed. There could be a great many reasons why this happened that are ligament. The only facts we have is that “no details have been released”.

    I do pray for his family and friends for their loss.

    RE: “racist president is largely to blame” – Again, presumptuous considering we have no information other than the officer is dead.

    Why would you give preference to one group of people over the average citizen when it comes to the use of lethal force?

  • [15] May 22, 2016 at 7:23pm

    There are easily many other laws that could be utilized in this case (child endangerment, assault, attempted murder, etc.). The prosecutor and LEO should be out of a job right now.

  • [3] May 20, 2016 at 11:56am

    Coming from psychology that has no intelligence means nothing to people who are Mensa.

  • [6] May 20, 2016 at 11:54am

    RE: “morally right.” – Where do you obtain your morals from? What person can you point to and say “there is my example of the perfect person”?

    Responses (2) +
  • May 20, 2016 at 9:32am


    RE: “stop and id” – So, I gather that you believe that LEO can stop every car on the road “just to check you out”.

    You should start reading some SCOTUS rulings before making such stupid claims.

    Oh, and the whole “fishing license” argument is flawed. Fishing is not a recognized inalienable right codified within the Bill of Rights, the right to BEAR (carry) a firearm is, and “shall not be infringed”.

  • May 20, 2016 at 9:16am

    In my area as well as PA, LEO CANNOT charge an obstruction charge because a citizen does not provide ID. Only upon arrest can ID be compelled.

    You perform that kind of action in my area and you will get, at minimum, a lawsuit.

    Your policy does not trump my rights. I would suggest you ACTUALLY read Terry vs. Ohio ruling instead of reading your department memo.

  • May 20, 2016 at 9:02am

    @Kevin The Elder,

    Thank you for your comments.

    Re: “instructed on procedures” – Yes, I’m aware that policy trumps law in the eyes of many LEO. To this I point out that the Sadducees in the Holy Bible held to the prevailing wind instead of the law and spirit of God’s word as well. This type of “dance” is a clear attempt to circumvent law and accountability (personal and corporate). You must admit that these “policies” are just another stumbling block in the way of the Bill of Rights so that the Judge, if they care, will tell “management” to update the offending policy.

    Those of us that took an oath in the military understand that unlawful orders are just that, unlawful and should not be followed. Why? Because if you follow an unlawful order (LEO calls it “policy”), then the person is still held accountable for their illegal action. That’s the difference between those that are willing to give their life for the protection of the Bill of Rights and those that assert that their greatest duty is “to get home safely at the end of the shift”.

    RE: “defend” – Defend what? They have no lawful duty to defend anyone nor the law. They may have a “policy” that can be used to fire said employee, however, no legal requirements exists. Most people would be shocked to find out that LEO have no lawful requirement to respond to an active shooter at a stadium full of children much less “to serve and protect” (which is misleading for no requirement exists in law).

  • [5] May 19, 2016 at 6:42pm

    I have no problem with supporting Sheriff’s offices (the only Constitutional police force). However, what I cannot support is LEO who consider it “good police work” to lie to citizens. I cannot endorse LEO as long as the laws that makes it a crime to lie to LEO, yet allows LEO to lie to citizens. Further, LEO who perform “asset forfeiture” or who promote that position should be held accountable as criminals (7th amendment “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”). Finally, I can no longer support LEO who commit crimes against the Bill of Rights by using illegal laws against the citizens for which they serve.

    I get lam-blasted over my position of LEO, however, this saddens me to know that so many people who claim to adhere to the constitution take the position that it’s ok for their employees to lie to those that place their trust in those that should be the best of us.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] May 18, 2016 at 4:11pm

    Why is a UK sponsored “research” (government funded) paper carry any validity inside the US?

  • May 18, 2016 at 3:59pm


    Wait, wait, wait. Are you asserting that LEO CANNOT determine if a law is a clear violation of the supreme law of the land? That would equate to an order given by the president to have the military kill all children. It’s an UNLAWFUL order for which each person that follows such order shall be held accountable (yes, the courts have already ruled that a person that follows an order that causes harm like infringing upon the supreme law of the land, then that person shall be held accountable for their ILLEGAL acts).

    The largest problem is that, currently, LEO enjoy a position that their peers will not uphold the supreme law of the land. However, that refusal to perform ones duty does not go unnoticed by the population. Keep pushing, please.

    Tell us, what is the difference between your legal view and April 1775?

  • May 18, 2016 at 3:37pm


    RE: “A tranny who wants to use the opposite facilities isn’t molesting anyone.” – How do you know for a FACT that this assertion is true?

    Here are the facts;

    - A person is born with a specific set of chromosomes that dictate a persons sexual organs
    - A person CHOOSES to believe that they are of a sex that does not match their DNA
    - This gender confusion is a choice that is abnormal (as a comparison, only .3% of the population are transgender, however >2% engage in some form of bestiality)
    - Having a person that is confused as to their biological gender force others to accept the confused persons “identify” is immature and vile

    So, educate us as to what moral guidelines you follow and point us your example as to what is considered the perfect person.

  • May 17, 2016 at 5:44pm


    Re: “Have you read a newspaper in the last 50 years?” – Are you referring to the poorly written, left leaning, trash that is great for starting fires? Yep, disgusted at their childish “reporting”, poorly written garbage.

    So, again, tell me your actual source that supports the position, or reveal yourself as a person who is ignorant.

  • [4] May 17, 2016 at 5:32pm

    You do not care what perversion actually is. So, tell us, Maggiesway, what is your measure of right vs. wrong. To what yardstick to you use? What is your example of being perfect?

  • [1] May 17, 2016 at 5:23pm

    RE: “The politically incorrect truth is that you have a Better chance of getting molested in a Catholic Church/school then by a transgender person in a restroom!” – I’m SURE you have evidence to backup your claim……..

    Responses (4) +
  • May 17, 2016 at 5:22pm

    Not casting dispersions, but is she actually a she, or is this, as we have seen repeatedly, another attempt by the LGBT community to cast Christians in a negative light?

    Responses (2) +
  • [19] May 17, 2016 at 8:59am

    No, the biggest issue is the governments involvement in all our lives to which they have no authority. From business, to schools, to restrictions of inalienable rights, to outright infringement of many of the Bill of Rights. I still hold to my oath to the constitution and will defend it against any that would attempt to destroy it, no matter what “position” or “title” one holds.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] May 17, 2016 at 8:53am

    Yes, LEO does this and get people killed quite often but are not held accountable. So, I guess it’s just a matter of “intent” even though that has no bearing in law. Hmmmm.

  • May 17, 2016 at 8:50am


    Good thing the courts don’t agree with your idea that the state has every right to infringe upon the 4th amendment. I did notice that you could care less about inalienable rights (cannot be taken or given up), the Bill of Rights, our country and the countries very foundation. I’m sure that you have never given any oath to protect it’s liberties and freedoms. However, I’m almost sure that you provide an oath in which you lied in upholding the law (which includes the supreme law of the land). I’m also sure that you believe lying to citizens is considered “good police work”.

  • May 13, 2016 at 9:23pm

    Try following the law, specifically the supreme law of the land.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love