Wednesday, December 19, 2007
View the article here
Jamie Lynn Spears may not be the only one who is expecting. Casey Aldridge, the 19-year-old boyfriend Jamie Lynn says got her pregnant, could also be "expecting" — a visit from people wearing badges.
The Internet is abuzz with the question du jour: Since Jamie Lynn is 16 years old, does that make her a victim of statutory rape?
If Casey is indeed the dad-to-be, and the blessed event took place in Jamie Lynn's home state of Louisiana, then the act could be classified as a "Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile," defined as "sexual intercourse with consent between someone age 19 or older and someone between age 12 and 17."
If Casey were tried and found guilty, he could face a maximum possible term of 10 years imprisonment, possibly with hard labor.
According to Louisiana Revised Statutes 14-80 and 14-42, an individual can legally consent to sexual intercourse when he/she is 17 years of age. And in cases (such as Spears') where the victim is 15 or 16, the defendant (Aldridge) must be no more than two years older for the sexual intercourse to be legal.
So if their baby was conceived in Louisiana, 19-year-old Casey could be confronting some not-so-sweet-16 charges.
The law, like everything else, is different in California. But Casey could still be in trouble if the couple did the deed in the Golden State, where Spears resides while filming her Nickelodeon show "Zoey 101."
"It states clearly in the Californian Penal Code that any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (under 18) who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces up to one year in a county jail," said criminal defense attorney Jim Hammer.
“But if Aldridge is actually more than three years older, he could be up for a felony, which carries a maximum three years in prison.”
According to the code, "unlawful sexual intercourse" is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor.
“Police can openly investigate the case, but the biggest challenge would be to determine [in] what state the act actually took place,” Hammer said.
However, criminal defense lawyer Christopher Darden says charges are unlikely.
“The father of the child may have committed a criminal offense or misdemeanor by having unlawful sex with a minor,” said Darden. “But unless the complaint is filed from the minor’s parent, it is unlikely that this will be taken further.”
- Since when did this matter? In many other cases, the state takes over the case and runs with it, and presses charges, even if the "victim" doesn't press charges.
A rep for Jamie Lynn declined to comment on the pregnancy reports, which appeared in OK! Magazine on Wednesday.
"What is in OK! is their story," said the spokeswoman. "We cannot comment on its accuracy."
View the article here
It should be called "The Department of Injustice", IMO. It's funny how they love to cover things up, when it involves their own.
The Department of Justice refused to send a representative to answer questions from Congress today on the investigations into allegations of rape and sexual assault on female American contractors.
"I'm embarrassed that the Department of Justice can't even come forward," said the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, D-Mich.
"This is an absolute disgrace," said Conyers. "The least we could do is have people from the Department of Justice and the Defense over here talking about how we're going to straighten out the system right away."
Among the witnesses who testified today was Jamie Leigh Jones, who appeared on "20/20" last week.
Jones, now 23, says that after she'd been raped by multiple assailants in her room at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, she was warned by company officials that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.
To date there has been no prosecution of the men who Jones says gang-raped her.
- Of course not, they are part of the "Good Ole' Boys" club!
Jones' congressman, Ted Poe, R-Texas, also testified at the hearing and told the committee how he has not been given any answers as to the status of the investigation by DOJ or the State Department.
"The Department of Justice has not informed Jamie or me of the status of a criminal investigation against her rapist if any investigation exists," Poe said today. "It is interesting to note that the Department of Justice has thousands of lawyers but not one from the barrage of lawyers is here to tell us what if anything they are doing. Their absence and silence speaks volumes about the hidden crimes in Iraq. Their attitude seems to be one of blissful indifference to American workers in Iraq," said Poe.
Jones told Congress that it wasn't until after she was interviewed by "20/20," that an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida questioned her about her case.
"I asked the AUSA, 'Where should I refer victims to contact me?' and she responded, 'Don't refer them to my office, but you may want to refer them to the office of victims of crime,'" Jones recounted for Congress today.
But the Department of Justice Crime Victims office, in a letter to Jamie's lawyer, had already said it had closed out her complaint claiming it did not have jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice, following the hearing, said today that the department is "investigating this matter" but would not elaborate.
Jones has now filed a lawsuit against Halliburton and KBR.
KBR says that in the case of Jones they were quick to offer her support and assistance.
Halliburton says it is improperly named the lawsuit.
View the article here
I find it ironic that it was NEVER a thorny issue, until celebrities get nailed with a sex crime, then the hypocrites start screaming and moaning.
(CNN) -- The announced pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears -- the 16-year-old children's television star and younger sister of beleaguered pop star Britney Spears -- is casting new light on how states deal with the thorny issue of consensual sex among teens.
Spears, the star of Nickelodeon's "Zoey 101," told OK! Magazine that she's pregnant and that the father is her 18-year-old boyfriend.
There has been no public talk of criminal prosecution in the case. Consensual sex between the two may well have been legal, depending on where and when it took place.
But critics of the nation's statutory rape laws say that laws that are ignored in some cases can be used to put other teens in prison and land them on sex-offender registries.
"You have a disturbing disparity in how these laws are enforced," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "I have no problem at all with nailing adults who sleep with children, but I have a problem with the prosecution of teenagers in consensual relationships.
"What this case should focus the nation on is having a more evenhanded approach to these cases."
Watch a psychologist talk about how Spears' pregnancy could lead to parents talking to their kids about sex
In Louisiana, where Spears lives, it is a misdemeanor for someone age 17 to 19 to have consensual sex with someone age 15 to 17 if the difference between their ages is more than two years.
In California, where she sometimes tapes her television show, it's a misdemeanor to have sex with someone younger than 18 if the offender is less than three years older. Someone more than three years older could be charged with a felony.
According to OK! Magazine, which first reported the news Tuesday, Spears said the father of her baby is longtime boyfriend Casey Aldridge.
Turley said most states have similar laws but rely on prosecutors to be selective in enforcing them. But that's a recipe for legal problems, he said.
The issue drew international attention when a Georgia teen was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.
In 2005, Genarlow Wilson was tried for the rape of a 17-year-old girl at a hotel-room party. While he was found not guilty of that charge, he was convicted of aggravated child molestation for the act with the 15-year-old -- even though he was less than two years older.
Georgia law, which has since been changed, required a mandatory 10-year sentence on the charge of aggravated child molestation and required Wilson to register as a sex offender when he was released. Under the revised Georgia law, the act now would be a misdemeanor.
- This is why mandatory sentences are wrong! The judge has no discretion in the case!
Now 21, Wilson was released from prison in October -- after serving more than two years -- when the state Supreme Court ruled his sentence was "grossly disproportionate to his crime."
"The current laws leave too much to prosecutorial discretion," Turley said. "We saw in the Wilson case how prosecutorial discretion can lead to grotesque results."
He said statutory rape prosecutions of teens are more common in Southern states and small towns than they are elsewhere in the country or in big cities.
B.J. Bernstein, Wilson's attorney, argued throughout his case that Wilson was imprisoned for an act that, while perhaps morally questionable, probably is going on among teens everywhere.
"If you prosecuted, even with misdemeanors, all those cases, you'd clog up the justice system with kids having sex," she said. "It's a social issue -- and it may be something that parents don't want to happen or wish wouldn't happen at that age -- but it shouldn't be a crime."
Spears, who turned 16 on April 4 and says she is 12 weeks into her pregnancy, told the magazine she plans to raise her child in Louisiana, "so it can have a normal family life."
Nickelodeon released a statement saying the network respects Spears' decision "to take responsibility in this sensitive and personal situation."
View the article here
How much longer before they start tying sex offenders to stakes and setting them on fire? This is just abuse of the Constitution and a modern day witch hunt similar to what the Nazis did to the Jews and others they did not like.
CANTON - A group of local sex offenders is challenging a state law that will dramatically lengthen their registration periods, in some cases making it a lifetime requirement.
Attorney Rick Pitinii filed the challenges Tuesday in Stark County Common Pleas Court on behalf of seven convicted sex offenders. The lawsuits argue the law is unconstitutional and ask a judge to halt its enforcement.
“They didn’t afford any of these guys due process,” Pitinii said. “Last time I checked, the Constitution still applies.”
Ohio changed its classification system earlier this year to bring it in line with the federal Adam Walsh Act.
Senate Bill 10 (PDF) replaced the old categories of sexually oriented offender, habitual sex offender and sexual predator with three tiers. Instead of a judge deciding which tier to place an offender, the new law assigns offenders by their crime without considering the risk to the community or likelihood of re-offending.
The changes take effect in January and the attorney general’s office is reclassifying all sex offenders who didn’t complete their registration requirements before July 1.
At the least, offenders face five more years of registration and could find themselves in more restrictive tiers.
On Dec. 12, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to the law brought by the Ohio Public Defender and other groups.
The seven men, among the first to challenge the law locally, were convicted in Stark County, where they also live. Their crimes include sexual battery, gross sexual imposition and rape. All were initially classified as sexually oriented offenders, but five of them now face lifetime registration with community notification. The registration periods for the other two men will lengthen, but not as severely.
One of the men, Lawrence Hagedorn, completed his 10-year registration requirement in May.
Convicted of sexual battery, Hagedorn had to register on or before July 1997. He registered in May 1997 shortly after his release from jail and renewed his registration every year, Pitinii said,
But the state is sticking to the July date, which now would put Hagedorn in line for life-time registration.
Pitinii wants a judge to put the law on hold and is requesting a hearing before Jan. 1.
If the men are reclassified and subject to community notification, they will be irreparably harmed, he said.
County prosecutors are representing the state in challenges to reclassifications at the local level. Assistant Stark County Prosecutor Chryssa Hartnett said prosecutors will take the position that reclassification should go forward.
Sex offender classes
Sexually oriented offender: Annual registration for 10 years
Habitual sex offender: Annual registration for 20 years
Sexual predator: Lifetime registration with verification every three months
Tier 1: Annual registration for 15 years
Tier 2: Registration every six months for 25 years
Tier 3: Lifetime registration with verification every three months
View the article here
SAN JOSE — Federal prosecutors say a former NASA engineer has pleaded guilty to possessing child porn on his government computer.
A statement issued by the U.S. Attorney's office in Northern California says 56-year-old Mark Charles Zelinsky of San Bruno pleaded guilty Monday.
Authorities say Zelinsky admitted to downloading child porn on his NASA computer and storing more than 600 sexually explicit images of minors. He could face up to 10 years in prison when he's sentenced in March.
Zelinsky was working at the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field in 2005 when an investigation uncovered the images.
A NASA spokesman says he is no longer an employee of the agency.
View the article here
Singer has until 9 a.m. tomorrow to show up to court
A warrant has been issued for the arrest of R&B star R. Kelly after he failed to show up for a court hearing today in Chicago.
TMZ reports that Kelly’s tour bus was held up in Utah, making Kelly late to his hearing for his child pornography charge. The delay prompted the residing judge to put out an ultimatum: Kelly, 40, must report to court by 9 a.m. or go to jail. Kelly’s lawyer claims he was held up because of bad weather.
The self-proclaimed “Pied Piper of R&B,” was originally indicted five years ago on 21 counts of child porn, in a scandal that involved Kelly allegedly urinating on an underage girl. He currently faces 14 counts.
Since the beginning of the trial, there has been a number of delays, including, at one point, Kelly’s camp claiming he couldn’t make it to a hearing because of a “burst appendix.”
The woes surrounding the case caused Kelly’s ex-wife, Andrea, to seek a restraining order against the troubled star in 2005, claiming he physically and verbally abused her. In August of this year, Kelly’s publicist of 14 years, Reginia Daniels, resigned from her post, citing in a press release, “There are some lines that should never be crossed professionally or personally. Mr. Kelly crossed a line that forever altered the scope of our relationship.”
On December 14, a candlelight vigil and demonstration called "Protest Against Pedophiles," was held in Los Angeles, to speak out against the star.
If found guilty of being the man behind the sex tape that surfaced to public outrage, Kelly could receive up to 15 years in prison. Kelly’s trial has been delayed until spring 2008, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
View the article here
I personally think the people who harassed this child should be brought up on involuntary man slaughter charges.
Meier's 13-year-old daughter killed herself after being teased on MySpace
JEFFERSON CITY - The mother of a teenage girl who committed suicide after being taunted online urged a state task force on Internet harassment Tuesday to recommend criminalizing such behavior.
Gov. Matt Blunt formed the task force in response to the death of Tina Meier's 13-year-old daughter, Megan, who killed herself last year after being teased on her MySpace page by a fictional teenage boy named "Josh." A neighborhood mother and two girls played a role in creating the hoax because they wanted to keep tabs on Megan's gossip.
"I can start MySpace (accounts) on every single one of you, and spread rumors about every single one of you, and what's going to happen to me? Nothing," Tina Meier told the task force at its first meeting here. "People need to realize that this is 100 percent not OK, that you're going to go to jail."
A local prosecutor decided Lori Drew, her daughter and a teenage employee did not violate state laws against stalking, harassment or child endangerment. Drew's attorney Jim Briscoe has said the children designed the account and sent the messages to Megan. Drew wasn't aware of the hurtful messages sent prior to Megan's suicide, he said. A few other Internet users joined in with cruel taunts before her death.
The task force, which includes legislators, academics and law enforcement officials, hopes to have a draft law written to submit to state lawmakers when they convene in January.
A member of the panel, University of Missouri law professor Doug Abrams, said U.S. courts have largely upheld the right of people to say things anonymously, whether on the Internet or a street corner. But it could be constitutional to outlaw using fake identities online to harass someone or solicit sex.
Lawmakers could "make it a misdemeanor to misrepresent the sender's identity. ... That's what goes on in a lot of these cases," Abrams said.
Industry groups are not necessarily opposed to new regulations, said MySpace lobbyist William Guidera, who is a task force member. For example, Internet companies supported passage of a law that makes it illegal for someone to lie about their age when setting up a sexual encounter online, Guidera said.
"Is there a silver bullet? No," Guidera said. "Are there multiple areas where you can be innovative to prevent this sort of thing? Yes."
Any law proposed by the task force would likely build upon existing legislation, said Mark James, director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety and chairman of the task force. A bill that would ban online harassment already has been filed in the state Senate.
View the article here
WARREN — Law enforcement agencies charged with keeping tabs on sexual predators living in Trumbull County are going to be hard pressed to monitor the offenders after the first of the year. A law going into effect Jan. 1 will increase the number of designated offenders by 89 percent, officials say.
The Trumbull County Sheriff’s Office is seeking two more deputies to enforce Ohio’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, a law that toughens registration, verification and notification regulations on sex offenders.
The change increases Trumbull’s 22 sexual predators to at least 202, each one of whom must have an address verified in person every 90 days, Sheriff Thomas Altiere said.
‘‘It doesn’t increase the number of people, it increases their reporting status and what we have to do,’’ Altiere said.
Altiere made the request for help during his annual budget hearing Tuesday before Trumbull County commissioners, who are in the process of whittling away $48 million in requests to somewhere near $42 million.
He said the new law causes a ripple effect that will overload his personnel already handling sex offender duties, which is why he’s asking for the additional staff.
The new law calls for offenders to be classified in three tiers, which essentially match the old labels of sexually oriented offender, habitual offender and sexual offender. Now, instead of a judge deciding which class, the class will be based on the crime.
Current law calls for sexually oriented offenders to register once a year for 10 years with law enforcement; habitual offenders once a year for 20 years; and predators every 90 days for life.
The new law calls for those in level one to register for 15 years; level two for 20 years; and the third level still calls for a lifetime registration, but the change means someone convicted of a once lesser crime could be moved to a higher level, thus increasing the registration time, which is what happened in Trumbull County.
Adding to the problem is the transient ways many of the people keep, moving often from home to home and community to community, said Chief Deputy Ernie Cook.
‘‘These guys move a lot,’’ Cook said. ‘‘The problem is that neighbors find out who they are and they pick up and move down the street.’’
Cook said the office also is working on being able to by Jan. 1 send out e-mail notification of offender whereabouts to those who register for the service.
‘‘We’re hoping to do it,’’ Cook said. ‘‘We’ve got to scramble, but we’re hoping to get it done.’’
View the article here
LAFAYETTE — A judge will decide whether a state law that can force sex offenders to move protects children or unduly punishes offenders.
The issue is key to a lawsuit filed in Tippecanoe Superior Court by a registered sex offender identified in documents as John B. Doe.
Doe, who was convicted of child seduction in 2000 and released from probation the following year, was forced to move from his home near a church that offers youth programs by a state law that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or youth program center.
His attorney, Earl McCoy of Lafayette, argued the law unfairly punishes sex offenders while doing little to protect children from molesters. McCoy said Doe is allowed to visit his home, where he had lived with his wife and stepchildren for about six years, any time of day.
“He can be there all day. He just can’t sleep there,” McCoy said. “Nothing about this law is protecting the children.”
Attorneys for defendants Tippecanoe County Prosecutor Pat Harrington and Sheriff Tracy Brown, who had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, argued in a hearing this week that the law served the community’s best interest.
“If the law saves one, two or three children from being molested in a year, then that’s rational,” said Robert Wente, a deputy attorney general representing Harrington.
But McCoy argued the law was unfair because Doe could be forced to move again if his new neighbors decided to host youth programs such as scout meetings.
“They can create a situation to oust a neighbor if they want to,” McCoy said. “There’s no guarantee. That’s our concern.”
Judge Thomas Busch, who will decide if the lawsuit can proceed, questioned during Monday’s hearing where the line between punishing offenders and protecting children lies.
“Of course, there’s extreme punishment where we could banish all of them to Australia or if you were to cut off the hands of a thief,” he said. “But isn’t there some point where even though the motive is protection of children, the action is punishment?”
Doe’s lawsuit is one of three filed in Tippecanoe County challenging the law that forced 28 local sex offenders to move. Deputy Prosecutor Laura Zeman said all the offenders have relocated.
In a summary judgment hearing involving a different sex offender Monday in Tippecanoe Circuit Court, attorney Ken Falk of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said his client has become homeless since he was forced to leave the childhood home he had shared with his mother.
“Even if there is not a punitive purpose behind the statute, it does have a punitive effect,” Falk said.
Neither judge ruled immediately on whether the respective lawsuits could proceed.
View the article here
Life's pretty sweet when you're teen TV princess Jamie-Lynn Spears, even if you get knocked up just after your sweet 16.
It could be a hell of a lot worse, anyway. Just ask Genarlow Wilson, an African American honor student, who, at 17, got a consensual BJ from a 15-year-old during a motel room party. Wilson was convicted of aggravated child molestation and had to lobby the legislature and courts to avoid a decade in prison and a spot on the national sex offenders registry.
Zoey 101 star Jamie-Lynn, the youngest sibling of Britney, not only got freak nasty with Casey Aldridge, the 19-year-old son of a Cleveland, Tennessee, paper mill worker she's been dating since she was 14—she got pregnant. The response? A comforting hug from her employer Nickelodeon, the cover of OK! magazine, and a portrayal of the events framed in the soft light of an after-school special.
The greatest fallout for Jamie-Lynn will be foregoing young Hollywood rights of passage such as under-age drinks at Chateau Marmont, extreme weight loss, and rehab (actually, that one could still happen). Not that it's all shower gifts and designer maternity wear. She's already getting shredded on PerezHilton.com, and our money's on paps agency X17 scoring the first pantyless crotch shot of a pregnant underage teen, probably getting out of a Maybach at Starbucks.
This isn't a cake walk for mother, Lynn, either, who tells OK! "I didn't believe it because Jamie Lynn's always been so conscientious. She's never late for her curfew." Lynn is now having to delay her parenting book to help her baby raise a baby.
Repeat: The woman who passed on her maternal instincts to K-Fed-inseminated child custody-challenged daughter Britney will have to delay a parenting book.
Meanwhile, Britney found out the news amid another night of multiple wardrobe changes and hotel hopping and later released the following boilerplate statement to E!: "Britney is aware of the news regarding Jamie Lynn's pregnancy. She wishes her sister nothing but the best and asks for privacy during this time."
Unless you're promising the cover.
View the article here
What: Pennsylvania man accused of possessing illegal images objects to Circuit City technician perusing his video files and then alerting police.
When: Superior Court of Pennsylvania rules on December 5.
Outcome: Evidence of illegal images allegedly discovered by technician can be used in court.
What happened, according to court documents:
On October 15, 2004, Kenneth Sodomsky brought his computer to a Circuit City store in Wyomissing, Pa., and asked store technicians to install a DVD burner.
Circuit City told Sodomsky that the upgrade would be finished in about an hour. After installing the DVD burner, the technicians tested the drive's new software by searching the computer's hard drive for video files to play back. (Amusingly, the court refers to "codecs"--video compression and decompression software--as "code X.")
When searching the Windows XP computer for some sample video files, a technician named Stephen Richert allegedly spotted files that "appeared to be pornographic in nature" based on their names. Richert clicked on one that had listed a male name and an age of 13 or 14 and found a video he believed to contain child pornography.
Then the usual series of events happened: Richert called Wyomissing police, who promptly showed up, seized the computer, and, after Sodomsky returned to pick it up, seized its owner as well.
What makes this case relevant to Police Blotter is the question of what privacy rights govern Sodomsky's computer when he drops it off for an upgrade. If he had an expectation of privacy, then the allegedly incriminating files could be suppressed. If not, they could be used as evidence against him.
The trial court granted Sodomsky's request to suppress the information, but prosecutors appealed.
Making this case tricky for the appeals court is that there's not exactly a clear precedent, leaving the judges to reason through analogy. Is this a no-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy situation such as when a defendant hands illegal drugs to a third party? Or is it closer to tenants or bank customers, who retain some privacy rights under state or federal constitutions?
In the case of Sodomsky, the appeals court noted that he gave Circuit City technicians access to the hard drive and consented to the installation of a DVD drive. The court also noted that the technicians weren't randomly perusing the drive for contraband, but instead were testing its functioning in a "commercially accepted manner."
The appeals court reversed the previous order, allowed the evidence to be introduced, and sent the case back to the trial judge for additional proceedings.
Excerpts from appeals court's opinion:
Appellee implies that the DVD drive should have been tested by inserting and playing a DVD. Nevertheless, as noted, Appellee did not ask how the burner would be tested nor did he place any restrictions regarding the manner of that procedure. As Mr. Richert's testimony indicated, the playing of videos already in the computer was a manner of ensuring that the burner was functioning properly. Once the search for videos was initiated, the list of appellee's videos appeared automatically on the computer screen. The employee testing the burner was free to select any video for testing purposes, as appellee had not restricted access to any files. Therefore, Mr. Richert did not engage in a fishing expedition in this case...
The final factor we utilize is the volitional nature of appellee's actions. In this case, Appellee removed the computer from his home, took the computer to Circuit City, and left it there without either removing the videos containing child pornography or changing the titles of the videos so that they did not appear to have illegal content...Appellee was aware of the child pornography and could have elected to leave the store with the computer rather than risk discovery of the pornographic files.
This scenario also stands in contrast with the landlord case relied upon by the trial court. Although landlords routinely retain the right to inspect their premises upon notice, people still retain a privacy expectation in their home despite its status as rental property. Here, however, we find that under the facts and circumstances presented, appellee knowingly exposed to the public, the Circuit City employees, the contents of his video files. It is clear that Circuit City employees were members of the public; hence, if appellee knowingly exposed the contents of his video files to them, as members of the public, he no longer retained an expectation of privacy in those videos nor could he expect that they would not be distributed to other people, including police.
Our result in this case is consistent with the weight of authority in this area. If a person is aware of, or freely grants to a third party, potential access to his computer contents, he has knowingly exposed the contents of his computer to the public and has lost any reasonable expectation of privacy in those contents...
We also conclude that the incriminating nature of the video files was immediately apparent. Appellee suggests that it was unclear whether the videos depicted child pornography because police could not ascertain the age of the naked male, whose face was not revealed, from the portion of the video that they viewed. We disagree....Finally, police had the lawful right to access the videos because, as analyzed extensively above, appellant had abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in them.
This is not SO related, but felt it was something people here would want to see. We must stop sedating everyone every time they have some problem. We are becoming a society of drug addicts.
View the article here
Does this verse sound familiar? People like Mark Lunsford and everyone else, do not understand the true meaning of it, yet try to use it to justify their hatred. We are all God's children!
Jesus will not lose any of His children. His sacrifice was sufficient to atone for them.
God is love, and He watches over His own. He is the Lion and the Lamb, gentle unto His own, and fierce to His enemies.
It is written: If any man causes a child who believes in Jesus to stumble or lose faith, it would be better for that man to be drowned in the depths of the ocean.