User Profile: Deborah


Member Since: March 24, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • October 18, 2015 at 8:51am

    I do not claim to have the knowledge you have on these matters. However, it would seem to me he would be asking questions that would lead her to lead him into the house. I can imagine someone posing as someone who claimed they were authorized to enter her house, say, a “repairman,” and he would come into her house and take advantage of her. This man is asking a closed-ended, “yes” or “no” question. He may have been following her because he was specifically looking for someone he could quickly and easily access to get information. She was available because she was running. In other words, her presence was convenient.

    Although, yes, I can understand her fear.

    My hunch is that he was harmless.

  • October 18, 2015 at 8:37am

    One cannot simply leave anything in the mailbox. It is strictly for use by the USPS. Oh, and by the way, this is something I only recently learned.

  • October 18, 2015 at 8:30am

    A slight edit to my previous post: The man’s presentation was PECULIAR, not PROBLEMATIC. The man’s stretching out his hand may look peculiar, but he may have been doing this to clearly show his arm and that he did not have a weapon.

  • [1] October 18, 2015 at 8:15am

    I want to share this story about something that happened this past summer in my “neck of the woods.” A woman in a local small city had been complaining that she was being stalked, by whom, I do not know at this moment. A local cop gave her a very brief lesson on how to use a gun. A man walked up to her porch (he was a delivery man who had come to her door mistakenly), the woman freaked out because she did not know who he was, he turned around and began walking away, and the woman shot him in the back. And this shot killed him. The woman was arrested for murder, and the cop lost his job owing to his bad instructions that he gave the woman.

    Lesson: Never shoot anyone outside of your house who is walking away. We cannot always assume a stranger has ill intentions. I support her right to bear arms and to be afraid. This particular man may not have had ill intentions. However, his presentation, at least IMHO, was problematic. He really could have been looking for “Robert.”

    Another lesson: If you want to learn how to properly use a handgun, take lessons from an official gun trainer, and get licensed for CCW.

    Enough said.

    I know what it is to be afraid of strangers. I have experienced stalking. Although, so far, it has not involved–at least for the most part–strange men walking up to the door. (Knock on wood!) A ton of common sense would have kept the woman (the local woman, that is) out of jail, and the cop would still be working.

    Responses (2) +
  • October 15, 2015 at 9:06am


    You are morally confused and philosophically challenged. I don’t believe you really believe what you are saying. What is it you embrace? Whatever viewpoint it is that you embrace, you do so because you think it is preferable to other belief systems. You, therefore, lie to yourself and others. AND, unfortunately, the SCOTUS is just as confused as you are.

    You believe the following: “What’s right for me is right for me, and what’s right for you is right for you.” If what you say is true, and you really embrace it, you should have no problem at all if a Jihadist decides to cut off your head. After all, “it’s right for him.” And you should have no problem with the bombings of the World Trade Center and other events of September 11, 2001. After all, it was “right with them.”

    You are a moral relativist. But moral relativists, when they become a victim of another person, cease being relativists, at least for the moment, and display righteous indignation.

    I hope you grow up someday.

  • [8] October 12, 2015 at 5:21pm

    I don not believe that these out-of-control justices–although I believe this term is a misnomer–merely want to stamp their own beliefs onto us. Instead, they are COWARDS and CAREERISTS. They are terrified of losing their power and becoming politically irrelevant. And this makes them relativists who do not really believe or vote for what is truly right. So, in the end, MIGHT makes RIGHT. In a sense, they might as well vote that 2 plus 2 equals 5. The truth be damned.

    We live in sad and dangerous times.

  • [15] October 12, 2015 at 3:50pm

    Never forget the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Do you all remember the looters pushing buggies of “goodies” that they robbed from stores? And do you think people of this same mentality will limit their looting to stores? NOT!!

  • [30] October 12, 2015 at 10:37am


    Exactly. The libs will be the ones doing the looting. And unfortunately, they exist in droves. During a disaster, a lib president ( a looter-in-chief) will issue an XO that the “haves” must give to the “not haves,” the latter being the looters.

    Libs are inherently looters.

  • [27] October 12, 2015 at 10:22am

    Well, if the Second Amendment is not “absolute,” then perhaps the SCOTUS decisions are not “absolute” either. In other words, I do not have to “absolutely” obey them. Yes or no?

  • [201] October 12, 2015 at 10:13am

    Interesting. Yesterday I took a course that involved using my AR-15. I asked the instructor under what circumstances I would find myself needing to use this particular weapon. He replied that it would not only protect me inside of my home, but also, in the event of a large disaster–one that resulted in a lot of looting–one would use this rifle to ward off intruders not only within your home, but on your property. He said that large-scale disasters–and I do not believe we are immune to large disasters–looters will often set houses on fire if they perceive that a homeowner has something that the looter wants but cannot get. In other words, ENVY CRIMES, often result. The AR is an effective weapon in such scenarios during which law enforcement is not available to protect us.

    We are being incrementally stripped while the country is becoming increasingly violent.

    Responses (13) +
  • [3] September 24, 2015 at 9:56am

    @ Wiseone1w

    The reason you are confused is that you have a different understanding of the afterlife than Catholics. Catholics, unlike Protestants, believe that those who have died are only dead in their earthly BODY, but not dead in SPIRIT. For example, my late husband Mike’s earthly body is in his grave. But his spirit is alive. And that being the case, I talk to him frequently. And I believe he can hear me. And I ask him–since he is not distracted by earthly concerns–always intercedes for me. It is actually better to ask those who are alive in spirit only (and dead in their earthly body) to pray for us because they always pray for us when we ask them. I know–God, have mercy on me–sometimes others ask me to pray for them, and I forget, because I am distracted by earthly concerns.

  • [1] September 24, 2015 at 9:44am

    Catholics do not “pray to” saints, anymore than Protestants pray to “faith healers.”

    As a Protestant, have you ever attended a revival? Are not certain persons believed to have a special grace–conferred in the laying on of hands–to aid in the healing of others? Why do you not go to every believer (in Jesus Christ) in such situations? I believe there are persons–both Catholic and Protestant–who have been designated by our Lord to have a special intercessory power. Read Corinthians. Such individuals are CONDUITS of God’s power to heal. The actual power can only be the grace of Jesus Christ, for He is the only One who can heal.

    I do not understand why there is so much controversy over this.

  • [9] September 17, 2015 at 11:35am

    I do not have a problem attributing a miracle to the presence of a particular human being. After all, the New Testament gives testimony to mere human beings being healers. Do we not engage in the “laying on of hands” in order to confer the Holy Spirit? There are teachers, preachers, healers, those with the gift of knowledge, the gift of discernment of spirits, etc. And they are all members of the body of Christ.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-2] August 27, 2015 at 7:52am

    This has nothing to do with a matter at hand being “private” or “religious.” It is whether or not reality can be re-defined. Reality dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    If the government, in this case, the SCOTUS, concluded that the color red is blue, should the people follow suit and conclude the same? Should they be penalized if they disagree?

    Yes, even moral issues have a basis in objective reality. And why people suddenly draw a line in the sand and put moral issues in a box all by themselves truly escapes me.

  • [31] August 24, 2015 at 10:53am

    Not only is beauty “skin deep,” it is also subjective. Check out some yahoo images of her. I think she possesses a rare kind of beauty, at least IMHO.

  • [13] August 21, 2015 at 9:09am


    Discrimination is not always wrong. Would not a hospital be discriminating against a man who applied for a job as a doctor but did not have the credentials? Yes, that is discrimination. Gay people do not have the credentials of what has always been understood as marriage–a man and a woman. The credentials that a man and woman have is the Natural Law. It is that simple.

    Furthermore, baking a cake for someone is an act of love. But baking a cake for a “wedding” that is not in line with the Natural Law is “formal cooperation with evil.” The message is, “I support your act of joining together in something that is objectively wrong.” Now if the persons–in this case, the bakers–are held at gunpoint, or forced by a judge to bake the cake or suffer consequences, that is DURESS. And when someone does something under duress, it is “material cooperation with evil.” To resist evil while facing negative or very uncomfortable consequences, is called “virtue.” And virtue is the stuff of “saints.”

  • August 6, 2015 at 7:35am

    Perhaps the reason nobody is talking about embryonic stem cell research is owing to the truthfulness of what you just said. The problem with embryonic stem cell research is that embryonic stem cells are poorly differentiated. That is why they cause tumour formation such as teratomas. “Poorly differentiated” is a characteristic that stem cells share with aggressive cancers.

  • [-1] August 6, 2015 at 7:11am

    The SCOTUS ruling is the equivalent of saying 2 + 2 equals 5, as in “1984.” The SCOTUS has declared that illusion is reality. If the SCOTUS ruled that 2 + 2 equals 5, or that the color red is green, and a lot of people (rightly) objected, would those persons be wrong in objecting? Would these persons be discriminating against persons who go along with the SCOTUS in saying 2 + 2 equals 5? Would they be “discriminating” if they instead continued to assert that 2 + 2 equals four?

  • [-1] August 6, 2015 at 6:59am

    Why did this woman stop issuing marriage licenses to heterosexuals? Discrimination? It was not “discrimination” prior to the SCOTUS ruling. What we are saying as Christians who uphold the Natural Law is that only heterosexual couples can truly marry and that the SCOTUS ruling is wrong. What am I missing?

  • [10] July 22, 2015 at 9:21am

    And excessive use of Plan B will eventually take its toll on these young women. Excessive use of exogenous hormones is carcinogenic. That is the reason why doctors are discouraging older women from using a lot of exogenous hormones, which are believed to help protect women from heart disease and osteoporosis. Why younger women are being encouraged to use exogenous hormones is beyond me. Many of these women will develop breast cancer when they are older.

    My hope is that a huge lawsuit will ensue and expose contraceptive use for what it truly is–cancer causing, just like x-radiation, asbestos, and tar (from cigarettes).

    Responses (5) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love