From One Man’s Journey from “Rule of Law” to Golden Rule, it appears as if
Robb Pearson himself has joined our conversation. Welcome Robb.

He writes, in part the following:

Greetings to everyone.

It was a colleague who informed me about this article, so I took a visit, read a number of the comments, and decided to offer my own.

The author of this article made mention that “what was clear to me, was that Robb Pearson expressed the feeling that he wasn’t even sure how he had been caught up in this anti immigrant frenzy initially.”

In many ways that’s quite true. At certain moments in our lives I think we all get caught up in something (sometimes benign, sometimes not) without realizing how we got there in the first place. But in retrospect, I can identify two factors which seminally contributed to the “seduction” which had captured me: (1) my own decision back in early 2005 to examine, experience, and participate in “politics” and (2) my close association with certain people whom I’d encountered as a result of my entry into “politics”.

149 Thoughts to “Previous Anti-Illegal Activist Joins the Conversation”

  1. DiversityGal


    I love what you said…

    “There is no such thing as “sending them back with love” as we call them “invaders” and “vermin” and persecute them. That isn’t love. That is using love profanely.”

    That “sending them back with love” comment has continually irked me. It is amazing to me that there are people out there who whole-heartedly subscribe to that belief.

  2. Moon-howler

    Ah SA, you are taking me back to 10th grade, many years ago. We studied what amounted to being a short story plucked from Les Miserables. I cannot remember the name if it even had one. However the discussion that ensued in Mr. Turner’s class obviously stuck with me.

    Jean Valjean presents a dilemma because he stole bread. He had to reclaim his life and return to being an honorable man. I can remember the discussion about when theft is excusable and when it is not. I believe amongst us 16 year olds we decided that stealing bread and peanut butter if your family is starving is excusable. Stealing Delmonico steaks is not.

    If 16 year olds can figure this out, it seems to me that governments can. There are few absolutes. That is how come we have judges and juries. Otherwise we could save a lot of money and just hire cops to shoot people in the streets. We apply morals and ethics to legal situations to maintain our humanity.

  3. Robb Pearson

    Some have asked if F.A.I.R. ever reached out to me last year. I did get a call from a woman named Joyce Mucci from F.A.I.R. a couple weeks before the day of the rally. She’s a F.A.I.R. “field representative” for certain states down in the South. If I recall correctly she was given my number by one of the people who spoke at my rally. As I look at my notes here it’s interesting that she actually made direct reference to things going on in Prince William County, though I didn’t jot down any specific details.

    She and I spoke twice, and I remember her as a very energetic woman who was rather passionate for her cause. My notes indicate she was speaking to Dan Stein about my rally. I remember her mentioning something about maybe having someone from F.A.I.R. speak at my rally. I kindly declined the offer.

    I was completely uninterested in any involvement from F.A.I.R. I already had two speakers from You Don’t Speak For Me, which is an offspring of F.A.I.R. What I was trying to do was make sure that the message was the focus, not the people presenting the message. And F.A.I.R.’s primary goal is to promote itself vigorously and dominate the anti-illegal immigration conversation. And I had no desire to have my rally’s focus and message overtaken by a motivated and self-interested national organization which totally missed the point of the issue, at least as far as I was concerned last year.

  4. Lucky Duck

    Mackie, I can’t help but notice that your last four posts in this thread are all about trashing law enforcement, even though that issue has nothing to do with this thread content. You seem fixated on the topic.

    I am not sure where your personal bias against LE arises from, but as I wrote before, there are bad examples in all professions and people. I can’t and won’t defend those individuals who use the system they are entrusted with for personal gain or for injustice against anyone else.

    But you have to remember that there are people who don’t do the right thing in all groups, these include doctors (one local ER Doctor was just arrested Saturday), bad priests (did you see the Pope’s apology last week?) as well as bad illegal immigrants (did you know that the majority of homicides in Prince William last year were committed by people in this country illegally?) and in general, there are bad people – hence we have crime. So Mackie, do we generalize all of these groups based upon the actions of a few as you seem to do?
    I thought this blog was against such generalizations.

    Mackie, if you rail against a particular part of our democratic system, work to change it. What are you doing to impact what you apparently percieve to be a problem besides complaining about it? You maybe doing something, but all I see is complaining. Why not volunteer on a citizen’s review board if your Community offers one? Why not participate in a Citizen’s Police Academy, if offered, so you can see for yourself what your local department does? Why not contact your BOCS member to share your concerns about the police?

    The PWCPD has enjoyed a hard earned Citizen’s rating in excess of 90% for a number of consecutive years. Think of that number, 90% plus, even though the vast majority of people with whom they have negative contacts with (tickets, arrests, calls for service) are themselves County residents who get to give an opinion on the performance of the police who deal with them. Think of that, those that get the tickets and are arrested or call the police are the same ones who get to share an opinion on their performance.

    Come on Mackie, you seem like a smart person from some of your writings, if you have a better solution than the having police to stand between us and anarchy, please share it with the rest of us. If not, support or working for a better change is always better than just complaining.

  5. “(did you know that the majority of homicides in Prince William last year were committed by people in this country illegally?)”

    Source? Link?

  6. Since the PWC Sherriff and Police seem to live at my door, 😉 I can vouch for their professionalism (and only ONCE for their lack of consistent communications, empathy and judgment). Besides that, their Chief is brilliant. In my mind, that’s a pretty good record.

  7. Elena

    Thank you for shedding some more light onto F.A.I.R and its desire to take over your event. I find it interesting, even then, you could see through their disguise. I can’t tell you how upsetting it is to me that PWC is being used as their “poster child”.

  8. Lucky Duck

    Kgotthardt, contact the county police PIO for all of the information and figures.

  9. Robb Pearson

    On 20 July 2008, 0:33, WhyHereWhyNow stated:

    So my question to you is: what sort of approach should we take to reach Corey Stewart?

    First try to discover why you want to reach him and why it’s important to do so. But I’d say approach him with politics taken out of the equation. Approach him without making appeals to policy matters. The best way to reveal the human face of the issue is to not highlight those mechanisms which relegate immigrating people to mere pawns of policy.

    I’ll give more thought to this.

  10. Elena

    Moon Howler,
    Excellent example of Les Miserable!

  11. Moon-howler

    I find it incredibly disturbing that HSM has chosen to distort its role in the history of Prince William County’s Immigration Resolution. This article sickens me.

    FAIR leads us to believe that Chief Deane’s behavior was somehow influenced by ‘immigration reform activists’ (wretch puke barf) rather than because he is a professional. Furthermore, they left out that less than 5 ‘immigration reform activists’ (<——you have GOT to be kidding me) showed up for these events.

    What troubles me the most about HSM is their lack of honesty. FAIR didn’t just make this crap up. They were fed it and they named by whom…a sometime reader and writer on this blog.

    Shame! Those of us who have been around this issue for the duration know better!

  12. Robb Pearson

    On 20 July 2008, 21:07, NotGregLetiecq stated:

    I’m wondering, Robb, if you would have received Greg’s perversion of Holy Scripture any differently back in the dark days of 2007.

    Funny you should mention this. Before, during, and after my rally last year I was engaged in an email dialogue with a local pastor who was on the “pro-immigrant side”. And in supporting my position I used almost exactly the same Biblical and political arguments Greg Letiecq used, and even quoted the same scripture in Romans as Letiecq did to argue how Christians are obligated to obey secular laws. But I used the Bible simply as a means of speaking the pastor’s language, not because I believe the Bible has any primary authoritative relevance whatsoever to the “immigration issue”.

  13. Juturna

    MH – we’ve had that discussion, if the steak was the closest food item to the to the door with less chance of being caught. If you get to that level, you are invalidating the ethical decision.

  14. Moon-howler

    Juturna, it wasn’t about getting caught. It is about conflict between 2 ideals: feeding your offspring and not stealing. I believe most things are relative, not absolute. There are different types of ethics, thank goodness. Some people have ethics I find very questionable.

  15. HSM and GL, as you know, MH, are fairly narcissistic. Remember, their goal is to take over the county—they are “foot soldiers.” As such, they want to keep their “troops” motivated. They will do this any way they can–through intimidation, lying, manipulation, schmoozing, etc. I cannot believe our BOCS fell for it. We should treat everyone with a moderate amount of suspicion (though not malevolence), meaning, we must always question motives. If the motives are pure, it will come through. We can see Corey does not have pure motives. Neither does Stirrup. They have agendas and bias that have incited discrimination.

    Thousands of people gathered outside the BOCS chambers hardly represents 3 or 4. Any thinking people would recognize this. I am disappointed the BOCS had such lack of critical thinking skills. I am glad some of them have started to say, “Hey! Wait! Something is fishy here.”

  16. Moon-howler

    Yes, kG, how odd that the numbers are used so cavalierly. Three people show up at an immigrant’s meeting where Chief Deane is in attendance turns into hordes of ‘immigration reform activists’ (gag wretch barf puke) who are able to keep the chief in check. Yet thousands of voices outside the chambers October 16 fell on deaf ears.


  17. Lucky Duck

    The thousands (estimated to be around 2000 people) who were outside the BOCS chambers in the parking lot were, in fact, outside because of their sheer numbers. They simply could not fit into the Board chambers or the rotunda. The BOCS should have looked past the wooden doors to the majority of the people participating in the hearing.

    HSM was outnumbered 100 to 1 on October 16th.

  18. Juturna

    I was referring to steak (not okay) and bread (okay).

  19. You got it right Lucky. It wan’t hard to hear the crowd. I guess chambers was just a hiding place that day for people who want to be blind and deaf.

  20. Censored bybvbl

    Lucky Duck, thanks for an estimate on the size of the crowd. I watched the entire show on channel 23 (and the footage by 9500liberty) and got the impression from the speakers alone that HSM was outnumbered but had no idea that it was by such a large margin.

  21. Moon-howler

    Juturna, ah good. We agree. I am on sensory overload this am. My critical reading skills are not as they should be.

  22. Moon-howler

    Suggestion for the new county slogan:

    Come to Prince William: Where size really doesn’t count!

  23. Elena

    Moon-howler, 21. July 2008, 12:08


    And yet Lucky Duck, it mattered not in the end. The BOCS had already made its mind up, and the ratio just did not matter.

  24. Moon-howler

    I am trying to remember if the volumes of people were even acknowledged. I am not suggesting that we live by sheer volume, but somehow, all those people should have been made to feel like their voices were at least heard.

    What kind of lesson does that offer about democracy? What issue could get that kind of crowd of ‘native born’ residents out to McCoart? I haven’t seen anything bring out that volume of people in all my years in Prince William County.

  25. Lucky Duck

    Censored, there were no more than 20 HSM members there at any given time. The anti resolution crowd grew until after 7 PM. It got larger as people came from work while the HSM crowd got smaller and smaller.

    MH, the anti-resolution crowd was the largest crowd I have ever seen for that type of event in all the decades I have lived here. I must admit, I went home impressed with their actions for that day. They were organized, resolute and hopeful of democracy in action and they were trampled upon by 8 people who never came outside of the chambers except to conduct media interviews in the back hallways.

    Our republic is based upon majority rule. What makes us whole is consideration for those who are not the majority too. That day we embarrassed ourselves as a government.

  26. Mando

    Thing is, the overwhelming majority of those anti-resolution people were not residents of PWC. It was a circus for MSF and they went around day laborer sites and bussed people in. Not to mention the scads of loonies from socialist and anarchist groups. As far as I can tell, MSF in PWC is defunct so another turnout like that is highly unlikely. Most of the illegals that were there have moved on to greener pastures anyways.

  27. Lucky Duck

    No Mando, they did not go around to day laborer sites to bus people in. That day the day laborer sites were full as usual. If you were at McCoart that day, you had to notice the anti-resolution people arriving in their green shirts as families, sometimes several generations and I’ve never seen an entire family or a female for that matter, at a day laborer site.

    There were a few, probably less than five or seven people representing Socialist groups and they were politely avoided by the anti-resolution crowd.

    While I disagree with MWB in their approach, they did have a part in organizing the event but the vast majority of the anti-resolution crowd appeared to be just that, anti-resolution and not members of MWB.

  28. Michael

    Robb 10:05

    You bring up a very interesting point in the following statements. I will go back and read more scripture to support what I am going to say, relevant to your personal viewpoint, but for now I disagree with your “pro-illegal” alien scriptural analysis for the following reasons. First I will re-post, only the portions of the scripture which seem to not be paraphrased or analyzed in your own voice (without taking time to look it up, so feel free to fill in any errors later), in the context of your previous statement, which follows.

    “But I used the Bible simply as a means of speaking the pastor’s language, not because I believe the Bible has any primary authoritative relevance whatsoever to the “immigration issue”.

    This leads me to assume or ask (as it has relevance to the strength of your argument), whether you are simply using the Bible as a counter to another person’s scriptural argument or understanding of God’s message to them (known as scriptural horse trading), which from experience I know is very often done out of context, done to win vain arguments, and often done out of an overall mis-understanding that the entire biblical message is one from God to “individuals”, not to “groups or legal institutions for punishment of man, by man” and is in my interpretation, to be interpreted by each individual as God’s message for the “individual”, who is quite often given different guidance and wisdom as God intends only for that individual, which may be a different permission and interpretation of the same words to others who hear the message differently. In other words, the judgment of the truth in the “Word” is God’s judgment alone to make, and the individual alone to make, for that individual on a case by case basis, not a judgment any “man” is entitled to use to “judge another” as a surrogate stand-in for God. The context of all such “scriptural” arguments is an individual interpretation of the entire scripture, for the entire message, and thus each individual scripture has degrees of relevance, and degrees of priority for each individual according to Gods will for that individual.
    It would help to know if you are a biblical scholar, a well-seasoned deeply “studied” Christian, a beginning Christian or a person who simply goes to church occasionally, and reads or uses the Bible when an argument needs to be resolved and you see it as another tool in an arsenal of debate resources.

    Unlike your statement, I do believe the Bible has primary authoritative relevance to the “Illegal” immigration issue. I add “illegal” noting you own apparent reluctance to use the term “illegal”, thus confusingly broadening the issue to “immigration” which I believe confuses meaning and obstructs issues to the point no-one can understand the debate, so I use the term “legal” and “illegal” to define human choice to follow lawful and unlawful behavior and to distinguish it from “God’s law” and man-made doctrinal law, so we do not confuse the scriptural relevance to law-abiding and law breaking behavior which is critical to defining what God’s law and man-made doctrinal laws say we should do.

    First I want to state some points relevant to the following scripture you used.

    “What the law says, it says to those who are ruled by the law. Its purpose is to shut every mouth and make the whole world accountable to God. So it can’t be said that anyone will be made right with God by obeying the law. ”

    This is a critical scripture to understanding the second covenant of Christ, that we are imperfect, that we cannot ever perfectly follow “mosaic” and Leviticus law, because of that imperfection, and that the only “law” applicable to entry in heaven is the 2nd covenant law to “believe” in Christ. That is the only unforgivable sin, the “sin of un-belief” all others are forgiven by God (and not by the judgment of man).

    Like a father, loving his children, he provides further understanding of why he has “legal” and “illegal” human behavioral concepts, and like a father taking care of children wishes them to be well behaved, clearly recognizing they cannot behave perfectly, and also must use “judgment” in how “good” and “bad” should be applied in the interpretation of what is meant by “good” behavior to each situation and each person’s individual need. It is my belief God allows this interpretation so that none of his children will suffer mercilessly under the weight of impossible to achieve perfection in law. The proper use of that personal good judgment determines your relevant “approval” ranking in how close you will sit with God in heaven, recognizing that no “man” can closely follow the entire set of “mosaic” law perfectly, and that each individual may have each of these laws applied to them only as “individuals”, with potentially different outcomes. permissions, and acceptance in the eyes of God.

    “Do not think I have come to get rid of what is written in the Law or in the Prophets. I have not come to do that. Instead, I have come to give full meaning to what is written.”

    “Do not break even one of the least important commandments. And do not teach others to break them. If you do, you will be called the least important person in the kingdom of heaven. Instead, practice and teach these commands. Then you will be called important in the kingdom of heaven.”

    The issue is “breaking” a command, and identifying their is a hierarchy in importance to each command, some being more important than others, but all being important. It is very important to recognize that breaking any one of them will not keep you out of heaven, but will lower your stature with your father.

    Thus we must ponder God’s command “thou shall not kill” in the context of approval and dis-approval and priority and consequence.

    Take the priority of each of these in context with the need of the individual to make a choice at his own cost in heaven.

    Killing someone who rapes, or might kill your daughter.
    Killing a soldier or criminal to remain alive or to protect a nation from a cruel dictator.
    Killing a criminal to protect others from death by a criminal
    Killing a baby prior to birth to save a life of a mother
    Killing a neighbor because he broke into your house to steal
    Killing a gang member who threatens your families life
    Killing a family member
    Killing a stranger
    Killing yourself
    Killing a squirrel, deer, bear or duck for pleasure
    Killing a squirrel, deer, bear or duck for food
    Killing a stem cell
    Killing a bacteria or virus

    The consequence of making the wrong choice in any of these is not to ban you from heaven, but to lower your stature in the eyes of God. For man to judge man in each of these, is not Gods direct commandment, but Gods right alone to punish.

    It is in this same context that each individual in the eyes of God must judge their actions in the action taken toward “legal” immigrants, and “illegal” immigrants. God’s words do not necessarily apply to each concept the same, each individual the same, and each decision the same.

    “Suppose an outsider lives with you in your land. Then do not treat him badly. Treat him as if he were one of your own people. Love him as you love yourself.”

    Further scripture which you do not quote, guides us for how we should deal with “outsiders” in our land, in the same why that Solomon, dealt with his enemies, Moses dealt with the pharaohs’, and Paul dealt with the “prostitutes” that sold themselves to bring people to false religions (the later term changed to mean “fornication” and then “sexual relations” in later Bible revisions by men). Each of these was to be “loved” as well, but also not to be “allowed” to “harm and destroy”

    I do not interpret the above as a command from God to never remove the outsider from your land, that is your interpretation I believe, but not mine. Many Biblical people were supported by God in defending their land and general welfare from the “outsiders” who wanted to destroy them, commit crimes against them, and take their land from them. Modern Israel today is an exercise in preserving that right to protect their people and the land given to them by God. The scripture tells you to simply not treat him badly, with “badly” defined later in many, many other scriptures in the Bible, too numerous to put here. It means in my mind to treat him under the same “law” you treat yourself. That the law you must follow is the law he must follow, and that is first and foremost “Gods” law, and secondly can be interpreted by other scriptures (some of which you provided) as he must also follow man’s law of the land (as long as that law is applied to everyone the same, is fair and equitable, and applied to both you and the “outsider” the same.

    It does not mean “accept his lawlessness, his crime, his desire to hurt you or the others identified as “different” than the “outsider”. It does not mean, do not “deport” him out of your land.

    It also means that God recognizes ” aliens” as others not of your land and your nationality.

    “For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, he must do exactly as you do. The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD.”

    It means they too may present an offering that is pleasing, and that you and your children must recognize he must become just like you (I interpret commended by God to integrate and assimilate, to promote peace and harmony), and AGAIN an affirmation that the law must be applied to each of you the same. If that law is to deport an “illegal” alien, it must be applied the same against all men the same, and you must live under that law’s guidance as well. It also afirms that each of you shall come before the Lord to be judged, each on your own individual merit.

    The bottom line to me, in the core issue of “illegal” immigration is how God will treat each person who breaks his one law, to believe or not believe, then where each will stand in status in the eyes of God according to the laws they uphold, and in what priority. I interpret that to mean that those who break his law (God’s law) in committing crimes as a result of their “illegal” status, on innocent people of “legal” status, will not be approved of well by God. That those who break man’s law as a “result” of “illegal” status, will also not be well approved of by God, when the breaking of that law causes even more pain and misery than the “personal gain” achieved from breaking that law. In isolation from the entire community it may make sense, but in an entire community of affectors and affected, it does not. I believe God does not want anyone to support lawlessness and support those who break the law of “illegal” status and as a result of thier choice in that behavior cause misery, unhappiness, crime, financial ruin, pain and suffering on those affected by your lawbreaking. these people will not be approved of well by God. God looks at the pain and misery level of all his children, judging each by how much pain and misery they inflict on others as to who is the lessor and greater lawbreaker. God’s word does not call those who defend themselves from those who would hurt them, defend themselves from “outsiders and aliens” and from and those criminals who would break the law as “children of God” who are “immoral” and “unjust” simply because they are protecting themselves from pain, suffering and misery. He does not give any group special privilege under his law to claim their “race, gender, religion or ethnic group” has a right to break God’s law, or a nation’s protective laws designed to protect everyone the same from harm, personal suffering, ruin and misery.

    This is where I disagree with your scriptural analysis that all “illegal” aliens deserve amnesty and protection from deportation and protection from both God’s and man’s law.

    I believe that God supports “legal” immigration for all of the above humanitarian reasons, but does not support “illegal” immigration for all the misery, pain and suffering it causes on ALL of his children, those who commit it, and those most deeply affected by it.

  29. Mando

    @Lucky Duck

    You are talking about the one from October of last year right? That is most definitely not what I saw. Lyall herself was going to those day laborer sites.

  30. Elena

    Very profound Lucky Duck, thank you for sharing.

  31. Censored bybvbl

    Mando, since the BOCS asked that speakers give their addresses and that PWC residents speak first, I’m going to assume that the speakers were indeed residents of the county. You should know that the opposite baseless argument could be made – that HSM bussed in Minutemen and pro-resolution activists from Fairfax and Arlington.

    I thought that the anti-resolution crowd, the people with the most to lose and the target of HSM’s rhetoric, behaved well and presented their side of the story well. What the BOCS did to diminish their input and relegate them to the “invisible” was one of the ugliest moments I can remember in this county.

  32. Lucky Duck

    Sorry again Mando, I saw Ms. Lyall there from noon until the end, well into the night and I spoke to her throughout the day. So I am not sure where your information comes from but its incorrect. Where you there?

  33. Red Dawn


    I can follow and agree with most of what you say. The argument that I have is the law changes ( man made) God’s love is everlasting and it is the INTENT of the individual that only God can judge. ( no one knows anyone’s heart/intent)

  34. Red Dawn


    I wanted to add that God’s law never changes ( when I said his love is everlasting)

  35. Elena

    Censored I agree with your summation, whole heartedly.

    Stop believing Greg’s propoganda. Just because he tells a story, it doesn’t make the folklore true.

  36. Elena

    Just my feeling, but you failed, quite badly, at challenging Robb’s deconstruction of Greg and his gospel.

  37. SecondAlamo

    Ok folks, should homeless people be allowed to steal food? If you say no, then why should people be allowed to break our border laws if their families aren’t starving? If you say yes, then I hope you don’t own or invest in grocery stores!

    Just a follow up from this mornings post.

  38. Moon-howler

    Lucky Duck, I agree with Elena. Your words are very profound. I gained a new respect that day.

    SA, You are trying to force an analogy where a relationship doesn’t exist. I actually don’t know of many people who feel it is ok to break our border laws. However, I accept that people do break them as a fact of life. The question then becomes, what to do about it, realistically. Cutesy little slogans and chest thumping just don’t cut it.

  39. DB

    I enjoyed reading your post. It brought to mind my Old Testament prof who spoke about contextualism vs literalism as far as biblical interpretation is concerned. I heard GL’s interpretation, 9500 Liberty’s Catholic priest refute what GL said, and I also looked at what Robb said and what you had to respond, and as a “fallen Catholic” I like your interpretation the best. See folks? This is how religion happens. One decides which interpretation one likes/can live with and we all march on crusade tomorrow. The Bible is actually a fluid document, understanding lies between the reader and the text which is exactly what Michael was saying: the Bible is God’s word with an individual. Therein lies the fact that I am way glad that there is a seperation between church and state. Thank you Michael.

  40. Robb Pearson


    Thanks for your comments, and for your extensive response to my exposition of Greg Letiecq’s dreadful use of scripture to support his unstable political thesis pertaining to the “immigration issue”.

    You asked why I use the Bible the way I do. Firstly, understand that I hold the Bible in tremendously high regard. That being said, it is a product of man and nothing more. I can take it seriously without taking it literally. Much of it contains great wisdom and powerfully instructive stories, and that it is at times very useful for imparting lessons and encouraging mindfulness on a number of important life-related themes. And I often use the Bible as such.

    But as to “divine authority”, it has none outside the domain of those Christians who choose to insist that it does. And that’s their prerogative within the confines of their own theological constructs.

    And that brings me to the second way I sometimes utilize scripture: to counter those motivated Christians who advance their theologies and agenda-driven interpretations by way of insolent and presumptuous imposition.

    As to how I possess the knowledge I do, that is entirely unimportant.

    In regards to the rest of what you mentioned in your remarks, and considering you do indeed believe in the divine authority of the Bible, the most pertinent response I can offer is this very simple question: Who is your neighbor?

  41. SecondAlamo

    People previously made supporting statements for illegals crossing into the US saying that they’d do the same thing if their family was starving. Most here support that notion even if it means breaking the law. Ok, so if breaking the law to feed one’s self or family is noble, then why not anyone? Why is there only compassion and support for illegals and not the local homeless citizen? This is what I don’t get. People being more supportive of non citizens than those who’ve worked to build and support this country, meaning US citizens! And don’t give me that crap about Mexicans building America. I watch tons of documentaries and Mexicans are rarely if at all mentioned in the building of this country. European immigrants as future citizens are who built this country. You know, the ones Fernandez hates!

  42. Juturna

    SA Maybe we’ve crossed paths bringing breakfast or sandwiches to the winter or homeless shelter?

    The debate here is illegal immigration. In fact on another thread is a fundraising suggestion for meals on wheels. I will point out that Stewart has made it clear he does want the 90+ year old recipients prove they are legal. I have pointed out that this net that has been cast has far reaching effects

  43. Robb Pearson

    On 22. July 2008, 6:17, SecondAlamo stated:

    People previously made supporting statements for illegals crossing into the US saying that they’d do the same thing if their family was starving. Most here support that notion even if it means breaking the law. Ok, so if breaking the law to feed one’s self or family is noble, then why not anyone? Why is there only compassion and support for illegals and not the local homeless citizen?

    SecondAlamo, any human being who is hungry and in need should be extended compassion regardless of where they come from, where they are in life, or what their national citizenship is (or isn’t).

    On 22. July 2008, 6:37, Juturna stated:

    I will point out that Stewart has made it clear he does want the 90+ year old recipients prove they are legal.

    Is this true? If so, it is disgustingly outrageous. Such a policy is grossly inhuman, and deserves to be vigorously opposed and completely disregarded.

    Is there somewhere I can read some record of Corey Stewart making mention of such a policy?

  44. Andy

    Robb Pearson said “Is there somewhere I can read some record of Corey Stewart making mention of such a policy?”

    Of course not, just one of the many made up things that are said on this blog. Quite often words are put in people’s mouths that they did not say.

  45. Censored bybvbl

    Robb Pearson, here are some of the services the county will limit. There are some services for the elderly among the list. The police portion of this has seen some changes.

  46. Michael

    Elena if you think I failed badly then I can only assume you agree with the concepts of Robbs last statements, that I doubt any person who understand the bible well would likely accept his concept as an expert.

  47. Michael

    Having said that he is entitled to his expert opinion as much as anyone else.

  48. Robb Pearson

    Michael, you still haven’t answered my question: who is your neighbor?

Comments are closed.