wingnut-

Speaking from personal experience, I would advise against it. The only way to resolve marital issues is to deal with them, together. Separation typically leads in the opposite direction, marriage counseling would be a much better path to take. God bless

Yeah, pretty cool stuff.

Yeah, I know it was all private funds, I didn't mean to sound like I was implying this was tax dollars being spent or anything. It just shows to me a real disconnect for the things that actually matter. Consider that now in the education system we have parents providing materials the schools once provided with our tax dollars, or in many cases the teachers themselves in inner cities actually providing materials out of their own pockets. The fine arts programs are now dependent on outside money, like for example with concert band, becoming a "pay to play" requirement. These are just a few examples of how money like this could be better spent in my opinion, and those examples are just in regards to education. Politicians are supposed to be leaders, and yet politics is the most wasteful area within our nation, so that is what I meant by that. God bless

Hey gator, I agree with the history aspect of this, but one key factor in the history that you are overlooking is the outright alienation that Hillary caused with her "basket of deplorables" comment. This was a much larger deal than it appears on the surface, even people who were opposed to Trump have someone in their lives that they care about who was called deplorable. That kind of damage doesn't simply go away in a few months, or probably even years. The best move the DNC could make right now is to distance themselves from Hillary and apologize to all the people that she offended. This won't happen as long as they remain so out of touch and in denial about why they lost in the first place. Unless I missed it in the past, none of these other situations had a candidate for President making such absurd statements about half the citizens in this country.

That is priceless

I like your positive outlook on this, generally I share an optimistic outlook on things as well. When it comes to Hollywood though, I don't believe they live in the same reality as the rest of us. I suspect if you or I went and polled these folks regarding the election, the response we would get is that Trump colluded with the Russians to fix the election and that is why Hillary lost. I suspect they would talk about how she won the popular vote and things of that nature, so while I hope you are correct in this, I wouldn't expect the money from Hollywood to stop pouring in. I do agree that most people have had their fill of the smear campaigns though, and that they do not render the desired result. God bless

Freedom of speech being squashed, it would be nice if some lawyers took up cases like this.

Praying for these students and for everyone in the Philippines as ISIS continues their hostile takeover bid.

57 million dollars spent on one election, absolutely ridiculous, no wonder we are so far in debt as a nation.

I Thessalonians 5:12 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.14 And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. 15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil. 23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.

Agreed jade, that is truly the best solution. Too many parents nowadays don't want to be the "bad guy" and deny their kids what everyone else has, but what I wonder about that logic is, since when did we decide to let the inmates run the asylum? Maybe it's time for parents to start being parents again and start making the tough decisions when it comes to their child's safety. God bless

I pray not sister, but honestly, nothing would surprise me at this point with the rapid slide I've witnessed in the last 20 years even. Are you saying you don't look good in red or orange That is where we see things just a bit differently really, because in my opinion the minute the internet came into being they found their predatory hunting ground. Personally I would rather see parents just not let their kids be exposed to this and keep them out of the social media stuff entirely. I did not allow it for my daughter, the only reason she ended up on myspace or facebook was because her mother and I divorced, and her mother was more interested in being the "cool mom" than in doing the right thing. That is the only reason I even made a facebook account, was to monitor her since I could not stop it, I haven't been on facebook in so long I don't even remember the password lol. I would like to see this changed as well, but I suspect out of the 50 states, Michigan is not the only one with this kind of deficiency with the sexual predator statutes. Not to mention the others negatively affected, that being the group you mentioned where one young person is labeled for life by a mutual decision between two young people in which no malice was done. Of course I don't excuse or condone their poor choices, but at the same time there is a difference between what they are guilty of and a sexual predator. So there are more cracks in this system as a whole than immediately come to mind. Absolutely, there are a lot of serious issues with the criminal justice system that need to be addressed. I do understand where you are coming from in regards to this decision though, and I respect and admire your passion to speak up for the defenseless. I feel the same way and will continue to do so as well. At the end of the day I am actually encouraged though, to see two unanimous decisions from SCOTUS in as many days brings a little hope for the future. God bless

No need to apologize, no offense was given nor am I offended. I did read the entire article, and yes I know the laws vary from one state to another. I just tend to look for the positive results of anything, and to me that is a positive thing, no matter how small the number it affects. I know we may view this ruling as different, but we definitely share the same thoughts regarding the deviants. The reason I mentioned my daughter was to demonstrate that these predators are already online, and have been since the internet first came into being. Regardless of this decision, we won't suddenly see sites advertising their intentions. They will continue to operate in the shadows as they have been doing. The only thing that will change this is if a law were passed making their behavior acceptable in society, this ruling does not do that, it is still illegal to do what they do. God bless

I can't really add anything that others have not already mentioned. Age is certainly a factor, but in light of some of the things you have mentioned in addition to this original post, perhaps the suggestion of pornography is on target. If she has the access to any computer he uses, perhaps checking the history would shed some light on that. If he is actually checking out other women in her presence that is certainly cause for concern, if that is what he is actually doing. Sometimes people perceive something like that, when he could in fact just be daydreaming and it merely appears he is looking at someone in particular. It is very hard to say for sure, but the best thing for her to do is maybe talk to him about this. He may not be much of a communicator but direct questions are not easily avoided. God bless

I think you misunderstood me perhaps, I was not claiming anyone said parents should abdicate their responsibilities. I was simply pointing out that my daughter is now an adult, and I was monitoring her activity on the internet during her entire childhood because I KNEW that sexual predators were already online then. This ruling hasn't suddenly placed them on the internet, they have been on the internet since it started. They have been operating in anonymity since it started, and will continue to do so regardless of any court rulings. When a person buys a computer or gets internet access through their cable company or whomever, no one is asking them if they are a sexual predator and running a background check on them. So I am really not following your logic on this. That pedophile network you speak of existed prior to this ruling, and these people have been prowling social media sites for as long as they have existed. That is all I am saying, nothing has changed overnight because of this ruling. If you don't agree with that then we will just have to agree to disagree. God bless

No problem brother, just speaking the truth as I see it. I agree that no one condones or even tolerates this deviant behavior outside of those who practice it of course. I don't believe the SCOTUS was sending a message that this is acceptable to them either, I imagine this was a very tough decision for them because some could perceive it that way. I brought up the Michigan law simply because I try to see the good in any situation, and this entire topic is very unsettling to me personally, I try very hard to keep the flesh part of me contained and these individuals who target children make that extremely difficult. God bless

I agree, it is is a horrible law that somehow has not been ironed out here for some odd reason. Why it wasn't or hasn't been changed to this point is indeed ridiculous, one wouldn't expect there would have to be a debate over it. In regards to the true sexual predators out there though, I don't see this changing anything for them. They have been on the internet all along and will continue to be, this ruling won't change how they operate in the slightest. As I said, I have a difficult time having any compassion for them, so I am not at all happy if this somehow grants them more access, but I honestly don't see that it will. They will continue to fly under the radar and parents need to be very careful what their children are doing on the internet, and particularly who they are talking to. As my daughter was growing up I always was, because I have no illusions that the predators haven't been on the internet all along. God bless

This is an area that the Lord still has work to do on me, I have no compassion for people who prey on children or women. To me they represent the very worst of humanity and I struggle to contain my contempt for them. That being said, I honestly don't see this ruling as having any effect on those who are a danger to children or women, they are already prowling the internet and have been all along. This ruling is not going to make them suddenly pursue their agenda in the open, they are sneaky and deviant about this. The ruling though, does have some positive attributes, and by this I am referring to the labeling of sexual predators in the state of Michigan specifically. This is an outdoorsy state, we do a lot of hunting, fishing, camping, etc. There are not always restrooms available in these situations, and when nature calls there is no stopping it. Here in Michigan, if one is caught relieving themselves in public by the authorities they are assigned the label of sexual predator in the system and are registered sex offenders. There is a big difference between the two, and there are ongoing legal battles in the state currently trying to change this improper branding of certain individuals. Since these people are not a danger to anyone this ruling is a positive thing for them, as it allows them to pursue liberties they have otherwise been denied because of legal loopholes. So overall I don't see that this changes anything for the wicked, but it does bring something positive to at least some individuals. That's my take on it anyway. God bless

Hey retro, This is an interesting take on this, but I am not sure I can agree with you. For example, Paul points us to Isaiah 54, and there are verses within that point to the New Jerusalem. Here is what I am referring to, and would be interested in what you make of it. Isaiah 54:11 “O you afflicted one, Tossed with tempest, and not comforted, Behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems, And lay your foundations with sapphires. 12 I will make your pinnacles of rubies, Your gates of crystal, And all your walls of precious stones. 13 All your children shall be taught by the Lord, And great shall be the peace of your children. 14 In righteousness you shall be established; You shall be far from oppression, for you shall not fear; And from terror, for it shall not come near you. 15 Indeed they shall surely assemble, but not because of Me. Whoever assembles against you shall fall for your sake. Now here is some description of the New Jerusalem. Revelation 21:18 The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. What you present would be more convincing if Isaiah 54 referenced Mount Zion as so many OT prophecies do, but in this particular case it does not. Anyway, just wanted to offer this for consideration and get your take on it from this perspective. God bless

Hello Marilyn, Thanks for indulging me on this, it is a very interesting topic indeed. I am not ignoring your reply to my other inquiry, but for the moment I am more interested in this end of the discussion so will get back to that other discussion in the future. I agree with you that Paul is addressing the two covenants in this passage, so this would be my question to you, actually two questions. Since we know Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, and we know that Ishmael and his offspring represent the enemies of Israel as a nation, then what do you think is being suggested about earthly Jerusalem from that? Likewise, since we know that heavenly Jerusalem represents the promise for God's children, His elect, would you agree that this is meant to represent all believers?

Hey retro, If I'm understanding you correctly it appears we see things in the same manner. I am curious as to clarification in regards to the above though, you do see the section regarding the Rider on the White Horse as the start of the millennium, correct? As in this is where satan is bound upon His coming and then the thousand years? From this point on if I am understanding you correctly, is after the thousand years? One other thing I am curious about is your closing statement, just for clarification purposes. At the end of the millennium do you agree that God the Father is dwelling with us as well, as in when the New Jerusalem descends? God bless

Praying for the family.

Great to see this, a victory for liberty.