User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory


Member Since: September 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [9] July 25, 2014 at 9:53am


    Your very premiss is wrong. No matter what the situation, an officer who commits a battery without one committed on him or another, or in defense is ILLEGAL. Once the officer crossed that threshold he has lost the public’s trust. We, the community, expect our officers to follow the law, and especially while engaging with the public in uniform. This was not “being assertive”, nor “taking charge”, I see an officer that EXPECTS a “perp” to follow his every whim, regardless of legal standing. Sorry, you commit a battery against me and I will be in fear of my life,m because you have already broken one law, how do I know that you will not break more, including murder?

    Guy might be drunk, however, he was withing the law, the officer was not. Can’t trust a liar, how about you? In this case, the officer is the liar because he gave an oath to uphold the laws, including the supreme law of the land, he did not. If he would do this in public, on camera, I have to wonder that he has done at night, off camera.

  • [2] July 23, 2014 at 12:05pm

    It goes beyond “today’s readers”. There are way to many factors to just “jazz-up” the Bible. The problem is translation between languages from Hebrew/Greek to English. For instance, the Greek language has 11 words for “love” and the new Testament uses 3 of them. So, if you look at the exchange between Peter and Jesus in the book of John 21:15-17. In this example, Jesus is using one form of the word “love” (agape – unconditional) and Peter is using a different word for “love” in response (philia – friendship) until the last question, Jesus then uses the word “philia” in his question, to which Peter breaks down, still using the word “philia” in response.

    In short, if you want to make the Bible “correct” in it’s translation, it will be considerable larger than it is today, or learn Hebrew and Greek. I have found that learning Greek really helps and changes much – As an intermediary, try the “Key Word Study Bible”.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] July 17, 2014 at 1:46pm

    TWA 800 had just taken off and was still ascending.

    Many lies where told during that “disaster”, cough, cough.

  • [2] July 17, 2014 at 1:28pm

    I saw the kid having a problem at around the 5 second mark. The lifeguard waited about the extreme tail end of where I would have gone in after the kid, however, I was Navy Search and Rescue (before the rate requirement) – get in, get out, don’t wait until it’s too late. Once someone aspirates they may do permanent damage to their lungs or worse.

  • [12] July 14, 2014 at 6:12pm

    Another person cannot condemn the soul, but by the very heart of the individual by not uphold the precepts of Christ. It is the individuals choice to either follow God or not. You cannot pick and choose what sexual sin is sin, God does. Either you believe God says that homosexuality is a sin or you do not. In any case, you do not get to pick and choose what God calls a abomination.

  • [15] July 14, 2014 at 5:56pm

    Regardless of how you view this individual, his words are true about the “churches” that do not subscribe to the word of God.

  • [2] July 11, 2014 at 10:28am

    I thought it common sense that you do not spray anything onto a child’s face, or where they could breath fumes into their lungs. All of my children have their face, ears, and neck covered by traditional cream type sun screen. Then we use spray for arms, legs, and feet. Trunk is taken care of by way of rash guard swim shirts. In case of high wind, my wife and I resort to traditional sun screen.

  • [35] July 9, 2014 at 12:55pm

    I’m retrying to figure out what authority does the Border Patrol Commissioner have over an elected representative? Where in the constitution allows for that act? Where is the outrage from the press? Where is the outrage from ALL the representatives?

    If it where me, I would say “Try and stop me.” I would take my own video. A representative can share said video with other representatives without “infringing” upon the “privacy of the children”, or be used in closed congressional hearings.

  • [39] July 2, 2014 at 6:56pm

    Re: interim CEO John Mulligan “Target Addresses Firearms in Stores” press release.

    As a father of three small children, their safety is paramount to me. As no person nor entity can or will be held responsible nor accountable for their safety, it falls upon me to do the absolute best I can in order to keep them safe and secure. I take that responsibility seriously. My wife and I have become
    proficient in handling multiple types of firearms and have obtain state conceal carry permits where we carry everyday.

    We have spent tens of thousands of dollars on good products in enjoyable clean stores, with nice staff, where we also obtain our medicine in your pharmacy. However, due to your choice, in preventing me from legally carrying my tool of choice to ensure my family’s safety my family can no longer shop at any of your stores.

    Because of the way the press release was written, it is clear that you have asked ALL people not to carry their firearms – this would include military, law enforcement, conceal carry, as well as open carry. If this was not your intent, then this press release was not well thought out. Coupled with the release of credit card information (where I had to go through the hassle to obtain a new credit card), this would be another reason to stop shopping at Target.

    We will respect your request and no longer carry firearms in your store and shop elsewhere.

  • [7] June 27, 2014 at 7:32pm


    Unless LEO had credible evidence or facts that the child was indeed in that specific back yard, then they cannot go into the back yard without permission from the owner of a warrant. SCOTUS is quite clear on this issue. Just because a child is missing does not give officers cart blanche authority to access everyone’s yard. If that where the case, officers could say that they lost their own child in an area that they thought had drugs (or as a way to harass), gaining access to the said property.

  • [115] June 26, 2014 at 10:22pm


    “The Fourth Amendment prohibits generalized searches, unless extraordinary circumstances place the general public in danger.” – illegal search, therefore the officer should loose immunity as it was an illegal act to begin with.

    Responses (2) +
  • June 25, 2014 at 7:22pm

    Well put

  • June 21, 2014 at 8:54pm


    So you believe that the founders where criminals and this country should not have been started. OK, got it.

    Might want to read the scriptures Jesus words and of his actions a little more clearly, as he was NOT meek, nor against self defense or the defense of others.

    “We are still in the early….”, NO, we have been at this for 100 years, you just haven’t seen it. FOLLOW THE MONEY

  • [1] June 20, 2014 at 11:13am

    I do believe that “ethical journalism” is an oxymoron.

    Same as saying that just because of a bad apple that Bundy was evil and wrong.

  • [12] June 18, 2014 at 8:07am

    As I have seen time and time again, the banks are not their for people, they are not there to provide a service; the banks are there to make money, by hook or by crook.

    Follow the money.

  • June 17, 2014 at 4:23pm

    It is interesting to note that the story about George Washington cutting down the cherry tree, is, in fact, a lie. So, the “educators” and “researchers” tell a lie to promote honesty.

    Mmmmm, maybe that is partially what is wrong with people today?

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] June 17, 2014 at 10:44am


    A person that is a little “off” does not authorize and is NOT PC for a stop / detainment / arrest. No law that states that if a person is a little “off” that police can arrest, nor detain. Just imagine LEO using that measure; “we stopped / detained 3/4 of the population because they where a little off”

  • [2] June 17, 2014 at 9:44am


    Be vary careful in your thought, words, and deeds. Please think about the words you just used, as I will now use your own words and apply them to a different amendment:

    “Quiet and casual religious talk that is politically correct while fueling one’s car or standing on a riverbank fishing with the kids in plain sight of cars driving by is more positive than marching around like a escaped mental patient in the manner that this guy did.” or “Quiet and casual speech that cannot be heard by anyone around while fueling…”

    Look, there are many people that I would like nothing better to do than tape their mouth shut, however, it is an inalienable right that a person can voice their position. So too, I must support the open carry of a firearm as it is an equal inalienable right to any of the other rights within the Bill of Rights, no matter if the person is an idiot or a person that is protecting their family. I must support the right, to include those that are idiots, to disparage a persons right is the same as disparaging the constitution.

  • [1] June 17, 2014 at 9:11am


    Just so that you know, it is legal for LEO to lie to citizens (since the 60′s SCOTUS ruling), and is now considered “good police work” to do so. Yes, police lie all the time, or use misdirection, i.e. “I need to look through you’re car”, or “You have nothing to hide, right? So you shouldn’t have a problem with me just looking.”, or, “we got a call so we MUST check things out, you know?”, or “we have to have your name for our logs.”, or “the gun could be stolen or modified so we need to check”, or “we are allowed to stop EVERYONE to check for DUI.” Each of the above quotes are an attempt to manipulate a person to give up their inalienable rights – which usually works quite will. You might be surprised at how many people give up their rights because of these tactics.

  • [2] June 17, 2014 at 9:02am


    I assume nothing, however, I use the totality of evidence to gleam the probable actions to the event. The statement “You’re walking around here scaring people, man.” is telling as to the initial reason for the stop, further evidence is based on further statements of shooting the citizen, language, demeanor, stance, tone, and action.

    No, I was not there, however, after review of dozens of video, statements, testimony, and rulings of these types of cases, I have found time and time again that the state invariable use the default stance that a citizen is illegal in possession of a firearm. Where open carry is legal, the state may not use the default stance that a person is illegal in possession, without more as it would infringe upon the 4th amendment rights of the citizen. Imagine this, both the twin towers and the Oklahoma bombings used a Ryder truck (specific size and type where the same) – so the state stop / detained ALL Ryder trucks “just to check things out”. Some people might call that “reasonable”, however, now lets keep going; A dozen red cars in the entire country where used is drunk driving incidents, so the state decides to stop / detain ALL red cars “just to make sure everything is alright”.

    It is a slipper slope and illegal to allow the stop / detainment of a person that is open carrying for the open carry (in of itself) as it would allow the state to stop / detain any and all “just to check you out”.

123 To page: Go