Are these cops lying or could they really be this stupid? Soliciting has a specific definition, and preaching or leafleting isn’t solicitation. The municipal code they read doesn’t apply at all either, even though they read it out loud, and keep insisting that it does. They’re liars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPbemaOD4AQ
Tell me this doesn’t make your blood boil. This cop is being paid to protect the right to free speech. If the police aren’t capable of doing their job, they should be removed.
If the U.S. government convinces people they’re the only real option, they can more easily abuse us without fear of us leaving. They have a vested interest in believing that no or at least few countries which are safe or viable options–certainly not the warm, beautiful option to the immediate south.
The people making this video make videos solely for money. They aren’t into political commentary. They want to make the point that their experience living in Mexico doesn’t match up with what we see on T.V.
We all love the U.S., but we need to be ready to vote with our feet by moving out of the country. If leaving America is unthinkable, maybe check if you have an unhealthy idolatry of our country as I have been guilty of in the past.
The verdict was announced for Robert Dodd today. Follow that link to find out more about the case. There are a couple of interesting points.
Not 1 officer stood up for truth and justice but 10 stood around Dodd as the verdict was read like the line guarding the quarterback yet Dodd was found guilty. How many will now come forward and stand up for truth and justice? NOT 1! Not Beicker, not 1 other officer. You ALL proved today where you ALL stand and it is NOT for truth and justice.
There are only two possible explanations for Dodd’s actions. He’s involved in the murder/covering for the person who is or is some kind of pervert getting off on bloody socks.
My theory is that at some point since Ronald Reagan, restricting immigration switched from being a liberal position to the conservative position. How should we test that theory?
There have been countries in the past, and the present, that are a liberal dream come true, and countries that have been a conservative dream come true.
Did the liberal dream countries have open borders or closed borders? The USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and the Eastern European satellite countries, all had closed borders.
The conservative dream countries, the U.S.A. at its founding (not minimizing the shameful history of slavery) had completely open borders until 1882.
So there you have it. Consistent liberalism means closed borders. Consistent conservatism means open borders. 
Of course, not every conservative believes all these things, but as a whole, the arguments conservatives make against open borders reveal their false presuppositions–the beliefs behind the arguments.
This argument presupposes that the government owns the entire country. That philosophy is known as socialism. A conservative who uses that argument reveals that they’re actually socialists. No wonder this country is such a mess when even the conservatives are socialists.
This argument presupposes that the free market is incapable of inducing people to solve problems (more socialist presuppositions). Housing will be built. Solutions to municipal water shortages will be found. People will move away from expensive places to cheaper places. If Mexico loses too many people, prices for real estate will go down, and wages will increase, and people will stay there or move back. The governments of countries that are losing people will have to straighten up and actually serve the people, or reduce taxes and regulation (gasp…freedom).
And besides that, have you ever driven across the country? There are certainly big cities, and even long stretches of places that are densely populated like LA to San Diego or Washington D.C. to Boston, but the vast majority of the country is uninhabited. There are places in the southwest that may not have enough water to support a large expansion of the population. But many places, like the Midwest have a lot of water, and are very sparsely populated. Entire states could support a many-fold population increase.
Also, if conservatives want to use this argument, they’re using the same argument as population control and abortion advocates.
The false presupposition is that our culture shouldn’t change. We’ve murdered 60 million babies, and millions of innocent people through the warfare state. Our taxes are outrageous. The vast majority of people send their kids to the government for their education. There are a lot of good things about America, but an unbiblical border policy isn’t one of them. How is God going to bless a country that is so fearful and hateful towards outsiders, when we were all once outsiders?
Most hispanics who come here are Catholic, and I think Catholics have a false gospel, but they have a generally Christian worldview. They value children, family, thrift and hard work. They are more American than Americans. They have some shortcomings, but I have found them to be great people.
Muslims who come here from the middle east are leaving the Muslim world–not because it’s so great, but because they prefer something else. Most Muslims are nominal Muslims, and I think if a concerted effort were made, Islam would be defeated by the superior Christian worldview through evangelism. I think most Muslims who come here would have no problem complying with Old Testament restrictions on idolatry.
This argument just reveals idolatry. Government cannot make whatever laws it wants. God is our lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22). The government’s only job is to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4). Crossing a border isn’t a sin, and therefore, no government permission is required to do something that isn’t a sin.
This bears out historically. America’s borders were completely open until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (Which was obviously stupid. Chinese-Americans are usually high-achieving and contribute to society. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a homeless Chinese person).
There is no power in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. And before you quote anything about naturalization, look up what that word means, it’s not the same as immigration.
Only a true socialist–like the government-educated American conservative–could make such a communist argument. The first obvious error is that when people move into an area is that more services are demanded, which means more jobs. The second obvious error is that jobs aren’t owned by the commune (communism) but by the employer. Way to show a complete disrespect to free market economics!
As you’ve already seen, the “conservative” arguments for restricting immigration are socialist, unamerican and anti-Christian, in other words, liberal. This also bears out in recent American history.
So my FB friend who is a cop posted a story about how a guy fell for a trick from the cops to bring his illegal drugs to them to have them tested. The cops then stole his drugs and took him to jail, i.e. they kidnapped the guy, which is a death penalty crime for the cops. Ha Ha Ha, death penalty crimes are so funny. Here’s the conversation.
This guy posts on theological topics several times per day. He’s more than happy to discuss theology; he just doesn’t have any idea how to answer my questions, yet he kidnaps people for a living. I could see how that would cause some coping problems and some inconsistencies in thinking. He’s only a few years from retiring from his government job in his 40s, so that kind of incentive makes it hard to turn your back on the antichrist system.
The issue is that doing drugs is a sin, but not a crime. Lex Talionis is the principle of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth–the teaching that the punishment fits the crime. There is no victim for doing drugs, so no one to sue for justice. He rejects that biblical principle for the lawlessness of man’s law.
Does he heave the ability to tell whether a law is just or unjust? He rejects the biblical system that would allow Scripture to speak on such an important topic, and he can’t turn from that inadequate system because he loves money and comfort.
I realize he’s in a difficult situation. The solution isn’t to expect guys like him to repent, but to help prevent young guys from choosing an unjust career. Stop the America worship and get pastors to teach the whole counsel of God.
You can fast forward to the 3:18 mark. The action is only about 1:30 long. Of course, cops are supposed to uphold our rights as our employees, but they are used to getting their way by bluster, intimidation and utter falsehoods. Thankfully, this lady didn’t just wilt.
*I keep wanting to name these posts “Another Lying Cop”, but then I’ll have so many posts with the same name. I doubt I’ve actually documented 1000 cops on this blog that have lied, but since it’s perfectly legal for cops to lie to the public, there is no doubt well over 1000 lying cops. Just as when you open a checking account, you can choose the number of your first check, I’ll just start naming these at 1001.
Abortions are not safe. They are a serious medical procedure which has serious consequences for the mother. Of course, far and away the most serious issue is that the baby dies by being murdered in the womb.
Jesus said there is no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend. What greater selfless act of love could there be than for a woman to carry a baby she may not want for nine months and give birth? What more heinous act of selfishness could there be than for a woman to hire an assassin to rip a baby apart?
First of all, truth is an absolute. The definition of truth is that which conforms to the mind of God. There is no way to account for truth apart from the God of the Bible. Repentance leads you to the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). That is, you first submit to God, and then you have access to truth. So, this post is mostly for people who are already Christians.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of disagreement on various topics among Christians. How do you determine the truth when two or more Christians disagree on something? The best way to find the truth I have found is to engage in debate. Watching or reading other people debate is good, but it is only a useful way to learn good arguments to apply in your own debates. I have had a lot of success in learning new things by learning a little about a topic, debating someone else, which will require you to learn more to win a debate. This will be the blessing of Facebook and other social media. We complain that Facebook sometimes censors Christians and conservatives, but the real benefit is that iron sharpening iron in a massive way through social media will cause the truth to triumph among Christians.
My first tip is that you have to not debate a moron. You have to debate someone knowledgeable. You may not be able to debate a famous person, but there are people who are pretty knowledgeable about every topic that are accessible online. They’re not famous in society at large, but if it’s a specific-enough topic, they are famous in that small circle. Those types of people are usually open to discussion whether it’s on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube or whatever. I would be more than willing to debate the CEO of Planned Parenthood on abortion or a philosophy professor atheist on the existence of God. They may be smarter than me, but their beliefs are false.
That being said, I enjoy talking to morons who like to shoot off their mouth, but have almost no capability to defend what they believe. I don’t do this to test my ideas to find the truth but more to spread the truths I’ve already proven. Other people read those conversations, and learn about your position, or maybe the moron will eventually change their mind. But I can only think of three times out of hundreds where someone has changed their minds or admitted that they were not arguing properly. Twice on a Youtube comment thread, and once through e-mail (I can’t remember how I was introduced to the Jehovah’s Witness I was emailing, but he lived in the Caribbean somewhere.)
This may be the most important part: How do you know whether you’ve won or lost a debate? A lot of people in a written debate can bluster enough so that it can be hard to tell whether you’ve won. As I’ve said, it is extremely rare when someone admits they were wrong. Here are a few guidelines to help discern whether you’ve won or lost.
1. Whose questions are going unanswered or ignored?
2. Whose answers are logically fallacious?
3. An indicator can be: who is calling more names? Though, sometimes the person who is right is just a jerk.
Item 2 took me several years to hone my skills. I intend to teach my children what logical fallacies are so that maybe they’ll have a leg up on me.
I’ve used this method for more than ten years on various topics, such as evangelism methods, the Trinity, what it means to be born again and how it applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, Calvinism, theonomy, open borders, abolishing police, socialism, abolishing public school/the value of homeschooling, creationism, and a few others.
A lot of those topics are related, but rest assured, Scripture always wins. I might be personally lacking knowledge that causes me to lose a debate, but when I go find the answer for the next debate from Scripture, I win. I would like to get started debating postmillennialism with premillennialists. I think that is an important topic.
Have I ever lost a debate? Yes, not necessarily because I was wrong, but because I didn’t have the answer to a question, and by the time I figured out the answer, the debate was stale and I didn’t go back. I’ve lost that way to a guy who was saying that only ordained elders/evangelists/pastors should proclaim the gospel. I’ve lost on the street to the first JW I ever spoke to. I’ve lost to an atheist when he asked why atheism can’t account for why 1+1=2.
The danger is in not knowing when you’ve lost, or being too proud to not admit that you’ve lost or that your beliefs are wrong, or being unwilling to change your mind. I haven’t won the majority of my debates because I’m so smart, but because I was defending what most Christians already believed, or because I happened to choose a belief among Christians that seemed to fit the best with Scripture, even if it was unpopular among other Christians. Sometimes, I have observed debates, and have seen one side win handily. That is a good indication of what the truth is, but you have to be able to defend it yourself.
The reason I write this is because the thought popped into my head that while I’m middle-aged and healthy, anyone could drop dead at anytime. I’m glad I have been writing and debating online for 10 years so that my young children will have a record of my beliefs. I want to put in writing the important things so that even if I died today my children who are too young to understand this now will be able to read this someday.