6/6 Free Friday: The Intercept + Sneezies Match App

FREE FRIDAY BOOK

June 6, 2014: Today’s Free Fridays book selection is THE INTERCEPT – a tense, driving detective thriller from Law & Order creator Dick Wolf.

Overview

In a debut novel ripped from tomorrow’s fears, Dick Wolf writes about a terrorist plot launched against the new One World Trade Center built on the ashes of Ground Zero. With that harrowing apocalypse hovering in his mind, NYPD detectives Jeremy Fisk and Krina Gersten must find a way to track down a single missing suspect in a very large city.

“Dick Wolf’s THE INTERCEPT is nail-biting, page-turning, twisty suspense. Warning: If you value sleep, don’t start this one late at night.” — Harlan Coben

FREE FRIDAY APP

June 6, 2014: Today’s Free Fridays app selection is SNEEZIES MATCH – a fun puzzle game!

The Sneezies have got themselves caught up on a wire, and they need your help to rescue them. Slide the rows of Sneezies left or right with your finger to find pairs of the same color. Tap the pairs to make them sneeze, and send them parachuting down to safety. You get more points for matching more than 2 Sneezies in a turn. Each Sneezie you free will charge one of your powerups, giving you special powers to use to increase your score.

 

MORE FREE FRIDAY FUN?

Keep a lookout for more FREE FRIDAY content coming later today…

  • Penelope Snopes

    This looks to be a very engaging read for the summer! Thanks Amanda, Thanks B&N and thanks to all who contribute here.

  • Carlissa
    • Casi King

      Thank you so much!

  • JEGTPA

    Excited to start this one!

  • spec

    Here’s additional freebies, a.k.a Free Friday’s Extras, that many good people found and shared since last Friday. As usual all the books were free at the time of submitting this post, please verify the price before clicking Buy.

    Religion & Spirituality
    Wherever the River Runs: How a Forgotten People Renewed My Hope in the Gospel by Kelly Minter

    Romance
    Safe by the Marshal’s Side (Love Inspired Suspense Series) by Shirlee McCoy
    Coulda Been a Cowboy by Brenda Novak

    Children’s eBooks
    Voyage with the Vikings by Paul McCusker, Marianne Hering

    Biographies & Memoirs
    Chasing God: One Man’s Miraculous Journey in the Heart of the City by Roger Huang, Susanna Foth Aughtmon

    Technology
    Microsoft System Center: Designing Orchestrator Runbooks by David Ziembicki, Aaron Cushner, Andreas Rynes, Mitch Tulloch
    Microsoft System Center: Configuration Manager Field Experience by Rushi Faldu, Manish Raval, Brandon Linton, Kaushal Pandey, Mitch Tulloch
    Microsoft System Center: Troubleshooting Configuration Manager by Rushi Faldu, Manoj Kumar Pal, Andre Della Monica, Kaushal Pandey, Mitch Tulloch
    Introducing Windows Server 2012 R2 by Mitch Tulloch
    Introducing Windows Azure for IT Professionals by Mitch Tulloch

    Religious Fiction
    Michal (The Wives of King David Book #1): A Novel by Jill Eileen Smith
    Critical Care (Mercy Hospital Series #1) by Candace Calvert
    Chasing Sunsets (Cedar Key Series #1) by Eva Marie Everson
    Rekindled (Fountain Creek Chronicles Series #1) by Tamera Alexander

    Science Fiction & Fantasy
    The Lady Astronaut of Mars: A Tor.Com Original by Mary Robinette Kowal

    Please vote up this post if the list is useful to you.

    • Robbin Phillips

      Thank you for these.

    • Emilie Rose

      Spec, your children’s book was published by Focus on the Family, which has a very intolerant agenda. I appreciate that you put up lists of free books, but something from them would really be propaganda.

      • Summer Vespestad

        Seems rather intolerant of you.

        • b_sndbrg

          Took the words right out of my mouth.

          When I was growing up, I loved listening to “Adventures in Odyssey” on the radio, and I’m excited to share this book with my niece. Thanks for posting all the links, Spec.

      • Stephanie Spencer Rotramel

        I’ve read the book, my son has read the book and there is nothing intolerant in the book. It’s kind of like Magic Tree House books with a Christian spin. Not everything from Focus is intolerant brainwashing. geez.

        • Scott Cameron

          Yuy

          • beyond partisan

            Oh please. Such drama. Comparing an organization that promotes traditional family values to the KKK is just ridiculous!

          • Ruaidrí Ó Domhnaill

            The KKK promotes what you call “traditional family values” as well. Does that make the KKK’s reading list appropriate for this blog?
            Let Focus on the Family promote their propaganda elsewhere and at their own expense. I’d rather not see it here.

          • beyond partisan

            Focus on the Family, unlike the KKK, has never promoted or participated in violence! And there are a lot of people who feel that the belief that gay marriage is equivalent to gay marriage is just that – a *belief* they disagree with, and a certain group of people want to FORCE that belief on other people, using what they might call “PROPAGANDA.”

            So I’ll be fine with banning Focus on the Family books if we likewise ban books associated with GLAAD or any gay rights organization, because they are pushing their own “propaganda” as well. While we’re at it, let’s ban linking to books that promote any particular worldview, because someone is likely to be offended. Heck, why not just ban and burn ALL books?

          • traumasurvivor

            You are absolutely wrong they are listed as a hate group and participated in shaping legislation in Africa that puts people to death

          • Paul Hue

            To whatever extent the KKK promotes “traditional family values” (I disagree), it also promotes many things that are detestable. Meanwhile, these Christian groups only promote authentic traditional family values, which are the values that got the USA to the pinnacle of civilization.

          • Scott Cameron

            ‘authentic traditional family values’…Let’s drop the codewords and call things what they are…religious dogma. Whether you choose to agree or not, Paul, the FACT of the matter is that both the KKK and Focus on the Family seek to deny your fellow Americans equality under the law because they feel that their religious prejudices trump the Constitution.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            What a load of crappola.

          • Scott Cameron

            Yet, Rowwdy, you offer nothing to dispute my statement.

            Come back when you can have an INTELLIGENT discussion.

          • Paul Hue

            Traditional family values = the values that come from the definition of human life, which can only be created by one man and one women. The two of them forming a family in which all the children come from that coupling, and staying together, is a scientifically based family unit nucleus, known as the nuclear family. All other factors held constant, that biology-based family unit produces the best results.

          • Scott Cameron

            SO, when do we start requiring fertility tests before marriage? EXACTLY how many children must a marriage produce and on what schedule? Why is there not a mandatory dissolution of any marriage that fails to produce children?
            Try again, Paul.

          • traumasurvivor

            Not to jump in the arguement but focus on the family is listed as a hate group sooooooooo compairing it to the kkk (who also tout themselves as a christian organization) is more than appropriate! They have donated money overseas in Africa and are directly linked in getting the laws passed there that put homosexual people to death….they are an abhorant organization who condones murder.

          • Paul Hue

            Any list that registers Focus on the Family as a “hate group” is a list with no credibility; it is a list constructed by people who don’t know what “hate” means.

          • Scott Cameron

            Paul, so now you claim to be the arbiter of what is classified as “hate”? REALLY? Yet, you have shown nothing to dispute traumasurvivor’s statement about Africa. You, Paul, are the one with no credibility.

          • Paul Hue

            This Christian group has shown zero hate for anybody. Please present your evidence that this group advocates hate for anybody.

          • Scott Cameron

            Why bother? Then you’ll rant about the “liberal media”.
            Whether Focus on the Family “hates” anyone is neither here nor there.
            The initial statement was that Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Disprove the statement or shut up.

          • Paul Hue

            Marriage means two unrelated members of complimentary genders forming a lifetime bond. All adult Americans have the right to enter into marriage.

          • Scott Cameron

            To gay person, a person of the same sex is the complementary gender.
            Any other questions?

          • Paul Hue

            Well, I don’t have another question, but I do have a question: by what logic are two identical reproductive organs “complimentary”?

          • Paul Hue

            Marriage exists, and is recognized by governments, for the same reason: the basic and clear biological facts of how humans and families come into existence. The biological facts include the existence of exactly two genders, as designated by exactly two genitlia, each of which are designed to fit one within the other, and when doing so, present the only possible method by which life may form.

          • Scott Cameron

            You have described procreation, not marriage. Procreation IS NOT a government-mandated outcome of marriage.
            But enough with the games.
            My original statement was that Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Either disprove the statement or get out of the game. I’m tired of your rants.

          • Paul Hue

            Marriage exists as a consequence of procreation; only because procreation exists, did humans ever as part of their march towards civilization ever invent the concept, and elect to preserve it as civilization advanced. However, some civilizations have deconstructed themselves, as we are doing here. Diminishing the distinctiveness of marriage, and unmooring it from its biological underpinnings, is an excellent mechanism to unraveling civilization itself.

          • Scott Cameron

            My original statement was that Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Either disprove the statement or get out of the game. I’m tired of your rants.

          • Paul Hue

            I have disproved your contention.
            Every American adult has the right to marry. Marriage is a biological-based union involving exactly one man and one woman.

            Focus of the Family is attempting to protect this biologically based institution from being rendered meaningless.

          • Scott Cameron

            That is like saying every American has the right to buy a black car, even though some people want red cars.
            Focus on the Family’s (and your) argument is strictly based on saying “God says that red cars are an abomination.” Not a strong secular argument for either cars or marriage….as has been proven recently by several Federal judges.
            No American gets to force their religious doctrine on other Americans through our system of law.

          • Paul Hue

            A car is still a car, regardless of its color. But parking a boat in a garage doesn’t make it a car. And marriage is very specific; its definition falls from its reason for existence, which is how humans come into existence. Two adults of identical gender can no more enter into a marriage than they can enter into an act of reproductive copulation.

            Marriage has always required an act of “consummation”; this act involves the two persons performing the act from which the institution of marriage arose in the first place. What act would constitute the “consummation” of a marriage involving members of the same gender? Any act other than the one that has the capacity to produce human life would show that this union is no more of a marriage than a boat can be a car.

          • Scott Cameron

            The topic of this conversation is whether Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law. Your personal definition of marriage has no bearing on this topic. American law does NOT require “consummation” of a marriage, other than both parties signing the marriage contract. It appears that you think that your personal views should dictate American law…wake up, sparky.

          • Paul Hue

            Focus on the Family is not NOT seeking to deny any segment of Americans equality under the law. Focus on the Family seeks to preserve the right of ALL American adults to participate in the institution called “marriage”, and that institution has a definition and a purpose and an underlying historical and biological basis for existing and perpetuating, and having governmental recognition.

            Please consult any printed dictionary prior to Obama’s second term for a definition of “marriage”, “husband”, and “wife”, and also any biology textbook to understand how it is that a human, and families, come into existence, the number and genders played by those participating in the unique biological act that can create life, and thus a family. It is very interesting, and not arbitrary, and confirms to the religious beliefs of Focus and the Family.

          • Scott Cameron

            You continue to make the same useless argument again and again that has been rejected by Federal judges throughout the country. FotF (nor you) gets to claim “traditional values” and FotF (nor you) has not supplied any credible scientific evidence to support their argument. Your dictionary argument is just plain stupid….consult a dictionary from the 1800s and I doubt it says that “hip” means “cool”….however, that is a standard definition of the word “hip” today.

          • Paul Hue

            Where is your evidence that your definition of marriage is anything other than invented out of thin air in the last few years? When has the federal government ever recognized, prior to recent years, marriage other than that which flows from the biology of how life forms?

          • Scott Cameron

            The same argument could be made about slavery. Slavery was a “traditional value” for millennia and was legal when the America was formed. People at that time argued that other people were inferior and therefore were not deserving of equality under the law. Today, slavery is illegal in America. Your argument now is as weak as their argument then.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Disprove it.

          • Paul Hue

            Slavery was adamantly opposed at the time of our Founding, including a a majority of our Founders, and had been opposed, debated, and questioned since the 1400s beginning with St Patrick. A majority of the original 13 states outlawed slavery. Slavery itself is not inherently a part of civilization, nor in any definition of any social institution embedded in our Constitution, or any of the documents of governance of England, from which our own nation arose. Please refer back to the thousands of pages of documents written on this topic by your founders and a majority of US senators and representatives prior to 1860.

          • Scott Cameron

            Yet, the American Founders did NOT see fit to outlaw slavery from the outset.
            Again, Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.

          • Paul Hue

            But they hotly debated it, and the Abolitionists believed that the Constitution indeed did outlaw slavery. So did several Supreme Court justices. Most historians believe that the language of the Constitution represented a total, and ultimately fatal defeat for the slavers. And the slavers themselves considered the the Declaration of Independence to be explicitly anti-slavery. They hated the document. The slave rebels and Abolitionists, meanwhile, loved the Declaration, considering it to be an anti-slavery document as well, stating explicitly what the Constitution only implied.

          • Scott Cameron

            So frigging what? No matter how “hotly” it was debated, the Founders did not outlaw slavery at the founding of the country. SO…there goes another of your stupid arguments up in flames. Thanks for playing.

          • Paul Hue

            None of the Founders were foolish enough to even consider the possibility of redefining marriage. Marriage, unlike slavery, has always been a settled issue. Marriage, unlike slavery, is necessary for civilization, and flows from the process by which humans, families, and societies form: coitus. Slavery is not a naturally obligate part of human existence, society, and civilization. Coitus, on the other hand, is, as is its formal extension into the legal realm, known as marriage.

          • Scott Cameron

            “Coitus…is…marriage.” LOL
            Please cite the American laws that mandate coitus as part of marriage and the penalties imposed by the American government for failure to comply.
            I’m STILL WAITING for your clinical evidence of your “science-based” marriage concept also.

          • Paul Hue

            Coitus isn’t marriage. However, marriage is based and premised on coitus.

            http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/10/legal-definition-consummation-gay-marriage

          • Scott Cameron

            British law has no bearing on AMERICAN law. Remember that whole Revolution?
            Try quoting an American source.

          • Paul Hue

            The federal judges who are today codifying the illogical rewrite of the ancient concepts of marriage, husband, and wife are committing an act of absurdity. Supreme Court justices and other federal judges are not infallible. For nearly 100 years a majority of them upheld slavery, and for nearly 100 years after that a majority upheld racial discrimination. Judges are currently creating a similar outrageous blunder of logic and morality.

          • Scott Cameron

            Yet another epic fail for you! Both the abolition of slavery and the Civil Rights gave MORE people equality under the law. Folks against marriage of marriage equality seek to actively deny people equality under the law.

          • Paul Hue

            This is a novel notion that you propose: that people get to define what constitutes a marriage. But that is a fundamental pillar of liberalism: the eradication of definitions; making them up as you go along.

          • Scott Cameron

            Nice try, but I’m not buying it. Have you run out of rational arguments that you have now resorted to ideological hyperbole?
            My statement: Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Disprove my statement in a fact-based, rational way or admit defeat. BTW, your personal definition of marriage has no bearing on American law.

          • Paul Hue

            I have no personal definition of marriage; I simply utilize the definition officially used by our Founding fathers, which is based on science, and involves the terms “husband” and “wife”, and a consummating act that can only be performed by exactly one man and one woman.

            Focus on the Family attempts to preserve this institution, for all Americans who wish to participate in it. For Americans who have no interest matching up sexually with a single, adult, non-related member of the complementary gender, that is their choice; marriage by definition excludes them, the same way that the act of cunnilingus by definition excludes two men, the act of felatio by definition excludes two women, and the act of coitus by definition excludes homosexual couples. Marriage is an institution based on the act of coitus, based on the fact that this act is special, in that it involves the two reproductive organs performing in their specially designed manner, and is the only act in nature that can produce a human, and thus a family. Marriage is the institution that renders permanent and official a biological act that otherwise is no different than what animals perform with their reproductive organs.

            Marriage is thus a defining, basic element of human society, and indeed of civilization, which itself by definition is based on written records, including contracts. Marriage is a social and legal contract based on the act from which all humans arise, and which produces the social unit known as a family.

          • Scott Cameron

            More rant, no substance. You have made the same foolish argument innumerable times and it still does not stand up to legal scrutiny.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law, based on their RELIGIOUS convictions.

          • Paul Hue

            What is your argument and logic? That marriage is whatever anybody wants it to be?

            Focus on the Family, like the Abolitionists and the Civil Rights warriors of the 1950s, have arrived at their moral conclusions based on their religion. Happily, their religious conclusions conform with biology and notions of “natural right” and limited governance as understood by our Founders. Martin Luther King, Abe Lincoln, and Frederick Douglas all used Christian values to justify their advocacy of Abolition and full legal rights for blacks. Happily, their religions views conformed with those of a majority of our Founders, and certainly with our Founding documents.

            The same is true for FotF and their view of the ancient, science-based concept of “marriage”, and the related words “husband” and “wife”.

          • Scott Cameron

            Funny, if King’s, Lincoln’s and Douglass’s views all conformed with the Founders…why did the Founders allow slavery to exist at the formation of the nation?
            Your arguments are more nonsensical by the moment.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law. Period.
            If you could refute my statement in a rational way, you would have by now. You lose.

          • Paul Hue

            A car is defined as an object that performs particular, unique functions. The same is true of marriage, or, for that matter, the definition of any other word. The color of a car does not change its defining functioning abilities and capacities. Marriage consists of two persons each of the complementary gender whose reproductive organs can couple together in such as away as to potentially produce a child. This is the only coupling capable of doing that, the fundamental act of forming a society’s basic, nuclear unit. Any other grouping lacks that capacity.

          • Scott Cameron

            “performs particular, unique functions”…In American law, marriage is a legal contract that creates a familial bond between two non-related persons. Unless the legal system can document a specific reason to NOT allow two persons to enter into a marriage contract (unable to give informed consent, etc,), it creates inequality under the law. Any arguments based on “traditional values”, “complementary genders”, etc. have no bearing on the government’s obligation to provide equality under the law.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            LOL…I noticed that you added “potentially” to “produce a child”….I’ll take that as a point for me.

          • Paul Hue

            In America, as in all other civilizations, marriage has always been defined the same way: a union consisting of a husband and a wife, based on the biology of how humans and families come into existence in nature.

            The qualifier “potential” is not a point for you. Marriage has never required the production of a child, but it has required an act of consummation, which is the performance of the act upon which marriage is based: coitus.

          • Scott Cameron

            Do you SERIOUSLY intend to argue that the American government requires proof of consummation of a marriage or it revokes the marriage contract, without intervention from either spouse? Your arguments are becoming increasingly delusional.

          • Paul Hue

            The concept of marriage has always involved that; please review history. And yes, you can sue to vacate your marriage on grounds that it was never consummated. Look it up.

          • Scott Cameron

            Please cite ANY current American law that allows the government to unilaterally revoke a marriage for lack of consummation.
            Put up or shut up.

          • Paul Hue

            No, I have not argued that, because it isn’t true. However, consummation has always been a part of the institution of marriage, and legally in the United States, before divorce became easy, it figured into grounds for divorce or annulment, if one partner claimed that consummation had not occurred. Please consider learning about a term before you start demanding to change its definition.

            http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/10/legal-definition-consummation-gay-marriage

          • Scott Cameron

            You have a problem living in the present, huh? At one time, a woman was considered the chattel of her husband.
            All of this crap you keep bringing up has no bearing on how the American government defines marriage NOW.

          • Paul Hue

            By your standard, all words mean whatever a majority wants them to mean. That is the definition of social chaos.

            There is nothing inherently necessary about about wives being chattel of their husbands. Marriage, on the other hand, is the legal establishment of the physical act that produces children and thus families.

          • Scott Cameron

            Again, with the stupid procreation argument. American law does not mandate procreation as a condition of marriage, nor does it unilaterally revoke marriages for the lack of children. You’ve lost this argument already.

          • Paul Hue

            Every government document in American history pertaining to marriage has include two spaces: MAN and WOMAN, or HUSBAND and WIFE.

          • Scott Cameron

            Actually, no. Many states refer to the marriage license applicants as “spouse” as opposed to gender-specific terms. Yet more stupid arguments from you.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Disprove it.

          • Paul Hue

            Please read carefully. I am referring to all state marriage license forms prior to the insanity of Obama’s second term, though I suppose a couple of state’s might have dismantled marriage a few years prior to then. In any case, this is a recent phenomenon, with no basis in history, custom, law, or science.

          • Scott Cameron

            You challenged me to cite something and I did…you lose yet again.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.

          • Paul Hue

            Spouse1 and Spouse2? A recent, degenerate development, based on no sensible logic. With logic like this, the concept of marriage would never have come into existence, and civilization would never have formed.

          • Scott Cameron

            LOL…actually not degenerate at all, simply not gender-specific. Neither you nor FotF gets to impose their version of “degenerate” through the legal system.
            Focus on the Family is a “degenerate” religious propaganda organization seeking to turn America into a theocracy.

          • Paul Hue

            Do all Americans have the right to perform cunnilingus, felatio, and coitus? Can a woman perform felatio on another woman, despite her RIGHT to perform felatio? Can a man perform cunnilngus on another man, despite he RIGHT to do so? Can two men, or two women, engage in an act of coitus, though they have a RIGHT to engage in coitus?

          • Scott Cameron

            What a stunningly STUPID argument you make, even for you.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Disprove it.

          • Paul Hue

            I have disproved your contention, many times in many ways.

            Marriage is an institution based on coitus. All adult Americans have a right to participate in this action. However, the definition of coitus requires two people, one male and one female. Thus, marriage by definition is confined to two people, one from each gender. Other biological considerations preclude closely related adults.

            Changing a law to redefine “marriage” is no less absurd than changing a law to redefine the meaning of “coitus”, which is a biological activity at the heart of marriage. If coitus did not exist, neither would marriage. Removing the biological basis from the ancient concept of “marriage” also removes any logical restriction against closely related persons and multiple persons.

          • Scott Cameron

            You have NOT disproved my statement at all…all you have done is ranted about what YOU think marriage is. BTW, I’m still waiting for that clinical evidence that will be substantial enough to bear the scrutiny of a Federal court about your notion of “science-based” marriage.
            Put up or shut up, bucko.

          • Paul Hue

            How is it that you believe marriage came into existence? For what purpose? And based on what?

          • Scott Cameron

            How marriage came into existence millennia ago has no bearing on how the American government chooses to define marriage NOW. How long will you continue to grasp at your useless straws?

          • Paul Hue

            Marriage was not invented by the US government. It was established millennia ago and recognized by all governments in its original form, because the scientific facts that form its basis has never changed. The US government can no more “redefine” marriage than it can redefine the related terms husband, wife, consummation, and infidelity. They are long-established terms with definitions that arise as consequences of basic reproductive biology.

          • Scott Cameron

            Actually, America can and DOES define marriage for its citizens. You’re just PO’d because America refuses to define the way YOU want it to be. Put your big boy pants on and accept that you lost.

          • Paul Hue

            Every American has the right to play baseball. But baseball is an institution that has a definition. You must have a bat, a baseball (not a football or a basketball), and a glove, and a baseball diamond. Though you have a right to play baseball, the definition of baseball precludes you from playing it on a basketball court using a basketball and none of the interested parties having gloves, bats, or a baseball!

            You are proposing here no different than accommodating basketball players who think that they want to play baseball by redefining baseball to mean: any ball, any equipment, any field of play that you like is hereby called “baseball”, simply because baseball is more popular than basketball, and the basketball players feel left out. Except instead of merely ruining the definition of baseball, you are doing so to the fundamental unit of civilization, an institution that has already been undermined, and in its current dismantled state has resulted in much social havoc.

          • Scott Cameron

            Since the rules of play of no sport are legislated by the government…all you have is a steaming pile of crap. Marriage, on the other hand, IS legislated by the government.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Disprove it.

          • Paul Hue

            Defining anything involves the same basic concepts of logic, whether you are defining the game of baseball, or the terms “marriage’, “man”, “woman”, “husband”, “wife”, “apple pie”, “car”, “dog” or “cat”.

            It is no less absurd to take the term “marriage” and redefine it to suit the way you want it to be than it is to redefine the term “dog” so that all cats qualify now as dogs.

            All of these terms come into play in legal proceedings. Focus on the Family is protecting the term “marriage” from including two people who can’t perform coitus the same as the American Cat Society would protect the term “dog” from including cats on leash laws. But the terms “marriage” and “dog” and “cat” all have scientific bases, thank goodness.

            Every American has a right to own a cat; but cat owners don’t have a right to enter their cats into dog shows, and police can’t issue tickets to owners of cats that are not on leashes. At least not until you liberals get around to redefining the term “cat”.

          • Scott Cameron

            You’ve lost your frigging mind. Now you have to rant about cats and dogs because you cannot refute my statement in any rational way.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.

          • Paul Hue

            Why, according to your definition of marriage, must it be confined to “two parties” and why must they be “unrelated”? Why are you denying the right to marry to groups of people who have sexual urges for each other, and those who are related biologically?

          • Scott Cameron

            Because biologically related people already have a familial bond, so there is no reason to marry. Personally, I don’t care if more than two people want to marry, as long as any government entitlements are divided equally between any spouses….but the polygamists can fight their own fight.

          • Paul Hue

            Why are you discriminating against closely related people? My mother and I enjoy having sex with each other, and I want to inherit her pension and Social Security. Also, we want our love to be recognized and respected for what it is, which is unlike that of mother and son. Why are you denying us equal protection under the law?

          • Scott Cameron

            You have no fight with me about that. If you want to bang your mom and marry her…have at it. But you wanting to marry your mom and is an entirely different set of circumstances than marriage equality for same-gender couples. I’ll be waiting to read about your case.

          • Paul Hue

            Supporting my right to marry my mother means at least you are consistent. However, you are wrong that it is “entirely different” than two men having a right to marry each other: it is exactly the same. What if those two men are brothers?

          • Scott Cameron

            No, I am not wrong at all…I am consistent. There is already a familial bond between you and your mom; there is no familial bond between two un-related men. One is an argument of whether two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry, the other of whether marriage should be allowed between those with an existing familial bond.
            Regardless, I am STILL WAITING for that clinical evidence that withstands judicial scrutiny for your “science-based” marriage concept. Where is it?

          • Paul Hue

            My sexy mother and I do have a family relationship already (part of the attraction!). But this relationship is not the same as what we want, which is that of married couple. How is it that we lack the right to enter a marriage union, when there is no longer a science-based definition of marriage? You are just making up restrictions as you go along.

            I, on the other hand, accept the original, ancient, science-based, time-tested over the millennia definition, which is based on the sole act that can create children. And that definition precludes me from marrying my mother, because the defining act of real marriage — coitus — can produce children, and children produced form close relatives, according to the laws of biology, are fundamentally flawed, and dangerous to the health of the entire populace.

          • Scott Cameron

            STILL WAITING for the clinical evidence of your “science-based” marriage that is so compelling that the Supreme Court will reverse itself.
            Come on…where is it?

          • Paul Hue

            The Supreme Court has demonstrated that they will ignore reality in this matter. A simple collection of world history textbooks and dictionaries more than ten years old will demonstrate these facts, as I’ve explained. But that holds no interest of a majority on this court, who either believe in destroying marriage, or are more interested in being popular then in being correct.

          • Scott Cameron

            A plea for “traditional values” is not sufficient. You seem to forget that America was founded as a revolt against “traditional values”.

          • Paul Hue

            “Withstands judicial scrutiny”? The judiciary will accept whatever its members decide, including the Unconstitutional and the ludicrous. Slavery and Jim Crow “withstood judicial scrutiny’ for nearly 200 years, though not universally. Marriage has been established in our nation’s jurisprudence according to the printed dictionaries, and confirmed by the relevant documentation of all states, until insanity began to override reason ten years ago. That dictionary definition includes the terms “husband” and “wife”, as to the documents of all states pertaining to this concept, in concordance with the plain biological facts known for thousands of years, which inspired the concept of marriage in the first place.

          • Scott Cameron

            In other words, you can’t cite any clinical evidence that withstands judicial scrutiny for your “science-based” marriage concept…just admit it. No, your pleas for “traditional values” don’t count as scientific evidence.

          • Paul Hue

            Why are you more concerned about homosexuals having the right to “marry” than polygamists and we incestors? You are obviously a bigot.

          • Scott Cameron

            Go fight your own fight. The fight for same-gender marriage equality is essentially already decided….and you’ve lost. The polygamists and “incestors” can go and have their day in court. I’ll be waiting to read about it.

          • Paul Hue

            Agree, that farcical marriage is already decided: the ignorant mob has won the day; we who hold fact- and logic-based notions of marriage have lost.

            But your side won because many, many non-gays took up this absurd cause. I thus must wonder on what basis these non-gays, and the gays who embraced their support, will not just as adamantly support the polygamists and incestors. This notion of of only supporting “my own” fight, if applied to “gay marriage”, would have prevented “your” side from victory. But I suppose now that “your fight” has one, you can now practice selfishness after others (foolishly) stood up for you.

          • Scott Cameron

            Actually the fact-based, Constitution-supporting, intelligent Americans have won the day. They have thoroughly beaten all of the hidebound, “traditional values”, theocracy-seeking enemies of the Constitution in a fair fight in the judicial system. Your side has failed completely in presenting any type of compelling evidence…because none exists. BTW, I’m STILL WAITING for the compelling clinical evidence to support your “science-based” argument against marriage equality.
            Your smoke-screen of polygamy and incest is just more hyperbole to try to tar me with the same brush that has coated you so thoroughly. Sorry…you own your bigotry all by yourself.

          • Paul Hue

            I have not mentioned religion once in my definition of marriage.

          • Scott Cameron

            Since this discussion is about Focus on the Family, not you, it doesn’t matter whether YOU bring religion into your definition or not. Focus on the Family DOES bring religion into the issue. Stay on topic.

          • Paul Hue

            Glad to accept your concession that my own position is unassailable.

            OK, back to FotF, which does employ religion in their defense of marriage. Their religious position coincides with the science-based definition of marriage, and does not involve any hatred against those who suffer from unhealthy urges.

          • Scott Cameron

            Please cite clinical evidence that has been accepted by the Federal court system as valid that supports your argument of “science-based” marriage. Without that, FotF (and you) have no leg to stand on to deny other Americans the right to equality under the law.

          • Paul Hue

            The US Constitution does not mention marriage, but it mentions licensing, which it entrusts to the state. Go to any state agency that provide marriage licenses and request a marriage license application printed prior to Obama’s second term. That from will list blanks for two people, husband and wife, or man and woman. Next consult a biology textbook, any world history textbook, and any English language dictionary printed prior to Obama’s second term. You will discover the science-based definition of the words marriage, husband, wife, man, and woman, and discover that state government marriage applications conform to these science-based definitions.

            Now I challenge you to provide evidence for the definition of marriage as whatever anybody wants it to be due to their sexual urges. Thanks in advance.

          • Scott Cameron

            I refer you to any Massachusetts marriage license form where same-gender marriage has been legal for 10 years or better. Next?

          • Paul Hue

            You have proved my point: only ten years ago did absurdity get invented out of thin air, based on no logic, and in defiance of science.

          • Scott Cameron

            Said the man 10 years after the abolition of slavery: “Only ten years ago did this absurdity get invented out of thin air, based on no logic, and in defiance of science.” Next? You lose YET AGAIN.

          • Paul Hue

            The concept of abolishing slavery began in the 1400s, at least. And slavery is not an obligate institution in civilization, but coitus and the legal institution that arises from it is.

          • Scott Cameron

            Rant, rant, rant.
            Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            STILL WAITING for you to disprove this very simple statement.

          • Paul Hue

            I’ve disproved it many time. You suffer from a comprehension problem known as liberalism, which involves abject prejudice in which you form an opinion based on your own thoughts, and cannot be swayed when presented with contradictory facts and falsifying logic.

          • Scott Cameron

            You HAVE NOT disproved it at any time….in addition, you have STILL FAILED to provide the clinical evidence for your “science-based” marriage concept. You should spend more time backing up your statements, rather than spouting ideological claptrap.

          • Christina Scroggins-Shipley

            James Dobson is NO man of God. Hatred of anyone is not “good Christian” values. As a Christian I find it extremely disgusting that people ridiculously claim that the Bible is inerrant but yet it is full of contradiction and inaccuracy. Not all Christians believe in using the clobber verses to harm their fellow man. James Dobson has repeatedly demonstrated that he is an intolerant and frightening individual who uses his pulpit not to further the love of God or even “focus” on families.. he uses it to cause pain and harm to others which is as far away from what the historical Jesus would have done! I recommend reading Zealot or The Mythmaker Paul and the Invention of Christianity.. learn a little bit about the history of the church and why these people are twisted and evil to one another and then get back to me Paul. Focus on the Family has been listed as a hate group on more than one “list” due to their activities… FYI the passage in the Bible (although who the heck knows which version you are subscribing to) concerning “homosexuality” is written concerning male prostitution.. not loving consensual relationships. What these “Christian” groups complain about is creating protections for a group of people who deserve to live their lives here in the good ole secular USA as they see fit.. we are NOT a Christian country.. and I wouldn’t want us to be because Dobson’s version of Christianity are nothing to which I would want to be a part of it is immoral and against the teachings of Jesus to hate another we are called to love period!

          • Paul Hue

            “Loving consensual relationships” between members of incompatible genders involving sexual gratification is simply illogical from a mental health perspective.

          • Scott Cameron

            To a gay people, two people of the same gender are NOT incompatible.
            So, what’s you point?

          • Paul Hue

            So many words, I kept waiting for even one example to justify your repeated contention that Dobson or his group are hateful.

      • RBHolb

        I agree with you about it being propaganda, and I wouldn’t download it on a dare. On the other hand, let others decide for themselves if it’s appropriate.

        • beyond partisan

          Why don’t you read it and decide for yourself? Maybe the charge to ban books by Focus on the Family is ITSELF propaganda?

          • Scott Cameron

            Funny how the original commentor made no mention of banning any books, but you carry on and on about it. In the meantime, Focus on the Family has actively sought to deny a segment of Americans equal protection under the law. So, yes, FoF is a propaganda organization seeking to subvert the Constitution.

          • excelrn Nonya

            There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage- come on people! Enjoy what you want to download, let other people enjoy what they want to download, and thank you Spec for ALL OF THE FREEBIES!

          • Scott Cameron

            I agree…there is nothing in the Constitution about ANY type of marriage. So, why does the government sanction straight marriages and not gay ones? Or don’t you agree with the Constitutional concept of equality under the law?

          • Paul Hue

            Everybody does have a right to get married, which means to form a lifetime legal pact with an adult, un-related member of the complementary gender. Now that you have trashed the meaning of marriage, why are you limiting it to a pair, and to unrelated adults? Why can’t I marry my mother, or two brothers marry, now that marriage is just any adults who enjoy erogenous gratification and want to live together forever?

            The Constitution omitted this (and abortion) because the Framers never imagined how demented large chunks of the population would become. Can you imagine one of the Framers even broaching these topics?

          • Scott Cameron

            You forgot the parts of your rant about marrying a toaster or (Santorum’s favorite) a dog. All of your arguments have been trotted out and been dismissed by Federal courts throughout the country.
            The Framers also did not eliminate slavery, yet today the idea of slavery is repulsive to most Americans….the Framers could not anticipate everything and they were wise enough to know it….that’s why they built in methodology to amend the Constitution when needed. The Framers realized the world would EVOLVE.
            Suck it up, sparky, you’re a dying dinosaur…you have nothing to give the world anymore except gas.

          • Paul Hue

            Men marrying each other is “evolving”?

          • Scott Cameron

            The negation of religious-based prejudice by a secular nation IS evolution.
            In the bible, slavery is OK, yet that concept is not accepted in by any evolved nation. Are you going to argue that slavery should be re-instated here in America because the bible says it’s OK?

            Any other questions, religious dinosaur?

          • Paul Hue

            Marriage is not based on religion. It is based on the plain facts of biology.

          • Scott Cameron

            Actually, no. Here in America, marriage is a legal contract.
            Any other fallacies you’d care to spout?

          • Paul Hue

            It is a legal contract based on ancient custom that is based on the plain biological facts.

          • Scott Cameron

            ‘based on’…which means it is different than it was in the past…..which means that folks in the past “re-defined marriage”. Yet, folks like you complain about re-defining marriage now.

            In fact, I would state that re-defining marriage is a “traditional value”.

          • Paul Hue

            The plain biological facts of not changed. Redefining marriage outside of its biological basis renders it nothing but a farce, subject to ongoing whims.

          • Scott Cameron

            I agree that the mechanics of procreation have not changed, but procreation is NOT a government-mandated outcome of marriage.
            Enough with the games.
            My initial statement was that Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Disprove the statement or give up. I’m tired of your games.

          • Paul Hue

            The governments of civilization have never required that marriages produce children, or that they are even fertile. However, the concept of marriage itself exists based on the organs and their functioning that compose the act of procreation. And of course marriage is not considered finalized until consummation. What would be the consummate act in a “gay” marriage?

          • Scott Cameron

            My initial statement was that Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the Law.
            Disprove my statement or give up. I’m tired of your preaching.

          • excelrn Nonya

            My comment wasn’t for or against any marriage, just the fact that I keep seeing people attribute words to the Constitution that aren’t there.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            Why? Because SPLC says so? That group is the real hate group.

          • Scott Cameron

            Who said anything about hate groups?…only you.

            Is your reading comprehension TRULY that limited or are you just not able to dispute my statement in a rational manner?

          • RBHolb

            1. I have no particular interest in children’s books, so I wouldn’t download it anyway..
            2. Focus on the Family is an advocacy group. Any advocacy group–FOF, PETA, SEIU–that puts out a children’s book is engaging in some degree of “propaganda,” in the most literal sense of the word.
            3. I think I was agreeing with you, to some extent. Let people who are interested take a look at it, and decide if they want it. The only criterion for putting it on the list should be “is it free?”
            4. A “charge to ban books” is censorship, not propaganda.

      • Holly Eischens Bryson

        Thank you for letting me know. Now I will definitely download this book.

      • Judy

        Emily Rose – I don’t think it is propaganda and you could have just not commented. You are the intolerant one.

      • JJ

        I agree with you just because it’s free does not make it FREE.

      • Michelle Notinterested

        Wow we are starting to request the spec “ban books” from the freebie list?! Talk about intolerance!
        There are MANY books I don’t have any interest in or may even find offensive to me personally, but I would never request that spec (or anyone else who I think is doing an EXCELLENT job of letting me in on some great freebies) stop posting them.

        Let each reader of the blog decide for himself or herself what to download.

        • Ebonie 800

          I look forward to free Fridays and appreciate ALL who take time out of their day to post all the freebies.
          Reading is a personal experience for each individual no matter the topic. As a person of color, I could say I don’t won’t any freebie post, that is affiliated with any white supremist group, but that is not what Free Fridays is about.
          Nobody forces me to download a book of dubious orgins.
          All parents should police their children reading material, it is not the job of this blog to do it for them.
          Appreciate everyone of contributes to the freebie list.

      • spec

        Thank you for that comment. Please keep posting those as I have no way to check every single freebie on that level of detail.

        • JJ

          Perhaps the catagory could be Childerns’ Christian or Religous to help parents choose more carefully.

          • Aliceyn Parker

            Perhaps parents can take it a step further and investigate for themselves. Spec already has categories. Why ask her to do another one. Not all posters who share books place them in categories, Spec takes it a step further and does. I don’t think it’s fair to ask more of her…

          • JJ

            And now I will reinterate I never said that any book should be banned!!! Others brought that up. I said maybe recatagorize? Thou doest protest too much!!! Geeez.

        • beyond partisan

          Spec, don’t kowtow to the politically correct police.

          • Scott Cameron

            Have you ever noticed that when people use the phrase ‘politically correct’ in a derogatory way, it’s usually because the people using it aren’t getting to regard other folks as second-class citizens anymore?

          • beyond partisan

            You regard religious people as second-class citizens. You are filled with hate and arrogance, and are hardly the model for tolerance. Get off your high horse.

          • Scott Cameron

            The “your intolerance of my intolerance is intolerable” argument is REALLY feeble. I notice that you can’t defend your statement and only have name-calling. How weak-minded…I’m guessing you’re a Christian. Come back when you can debate above the level of a school-yard scuffle.

      • Pam Proctor Davidson

        Now, who is being intolerant?

      • Dana Pritchett

        I appreciate you mentioning that it is a Focus on the Family book. It may have been more constructive to just say something like:
        Hey I just wanted to let the parents know Voyage with the Vikings is published by Focus on the Family.

      • https://www.facebook.com/takealookfreenookbooks Hannah Blessing

        Why don’t you let Focus On The Family speak for themselves?

        http://www.focusonthefamily.com/

        If you are going to discard books, this wouldn’t be where I would start. I would throw out all the erotica myself. Some things don’t need overemphasized.

        • Scott Cameron

          Focus on the Family has made their agenda very clear…namely, to discard Constitutional principles in favor of their own religious claptrap. Get back to us when they just as zealously seek to abolish divorce as they do to ban marriage equality.

          • Ruaidrí Ó Domhnaill

            Bravo!

          • https://www.facebook.com/takealookfreenookbooks Hannah Blessing

            Being a Christian is a constitutional right. Perhaps you should read the Constitution? Because you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.

          • Scott Cameron

            Yes, being a christian IS your right…and it is MY right to say that I think your religion is foolish and fear-mongering that appeals to weak-minded people, such as you appear to be. An example of your weak-mindedness is your failure to stay on topic.

          • beyond partisan

            But you do NOT have the right to silence religious people or shut down the free speech of people who believe differently than you do. But that’s exactly what your side has been trying to do lately – shut down debate, censor people, bully people who disagree, and participate in virtual book burnings as witnessed here. It is for this reason – despite being pretty moderate socially myself – I have to stand on the side of the “religious nuts” because your desire to impose your beliefs on everyone is frightening and wrong.

          • Scott Cameron

            I have never said anything about wanting any book banned at any time…go ahead and quote where I have…I dare you.
            I have spoken on one subject…the fact that FoF is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law. You have yet to supply anything that disputes my statement. You are welcome to your free speech, but that does NOT allow a religious movement to enshrine their doctrine into American SECULAR law in contradiction of the Constitution.
            Again, the “your intolerance of my intolerance is intolerable” is a weak and stupid argument…yet you continue to pursue it. That is why the religious folk are losing this battle in courts across the nation. Suck it up, you lost.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            “Religious folks” are losing battles because the courts are filled with socialist/Marxist tools.

            Whether you believe it or not, Christianity was one of the building blocks of this nation. NO ONE has tried to enshrine anything. America has never had a “state” religion and never will. But, America has been a Christian nation since it’s inception.

            It is people like you and the rest of the socialists who want Christianity removed because it is an impediment to your sick agendas.

          • Scott Cameron

            LOL…”America has never had a state religion….but America is a christian nation.”

            Do you always contradict yourself from one sentence to the next? Which is it, Rowwdy, does America have a state religion or not?

            BTW, while I’m sure your christian friends LOVE your paranoid rants, but to the world in general they just make you look like a fool.

            Come back when you can have a RATIONAL discussion rather than an ideological rant, sparky.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            I didn’t contradict myself. You obviously don’t know the difference between a ‘religion’ and “state religion” and ‘Christianity’.

            Religions are like Baptist, Luthern, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Quakers, Catholic, etc., etc. None of these are forced upon the entire country as THE religion of America. They do all share one thing in common……a Christian belief system in a variety of formats. The latter is NOT a state religion or even a religion.

            Example: Japan had a forced state religion. It was Shintoism. Even though many practiced Buddhism, Taoism, among others including Christianity, the only “religion” OPENLY allowed in the country was Shintoism. That ended at the end of WWII.

          • Scott Cameron

            Are you SERIOUSLY going to argue that Christianity is not a religion? You should let dictionary in on that one!

            Then in your next sentence you classify Christianity as a religion along with Buddhism and Taoism.

            Way to go there contradicting yourself yet again!

          • Rowwdy Colt

            I did NOT classify “Christianity” as a religion. I said it was a “belief system”.

            Gaaaawd, you are such a low IQ bore.

          • Scott Cameron

            Sorry, I speak English, not Rowwdyish.

            Per Merriam-Webster: Christianity-the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
            I may be a bore but my IQ is WAY higher than yours.

          • https://www.facebook.com/takealookfreenookbooks Hannah Blessing

            I’m trying to keep YOU on topic. Read the constitution before you tell people what’s in it. And another thing, you are jumping to conclusions, because I never said I was a Christian. Which is totally allowed, should I choose that. I would have you know though, that you will NEVER win this argument because all of my family from each of its branches came to this country for its religious freedom, and I will always defend them and what they have stood for! You are a complete idiot who makes things up! And another thing, you have some nerve to come at me saying religious people are awful and terrible and we shouldn’t be allowed around on the very weekend we commemorate D-Day, the beginning of World War II. My grandfathers and so many others fought and risked their lives so I can have whatever religion I want, and groups like Focus on the Family can be around. And you have the freedom of speech, which you like to use to put your foot in your mouth and bully people around when you are totally wrong. If anyone should be censored it’s you and I will NEVER talk with you EVER again.

          • Scott Cameron

            LOL…”rant, rant, rant…and I will NEVER speak with you EVER again.”

            In other words, you don’t want to admit that my initial statement is correct and it annoys the crap out of you that I’m right, so….you act like a two-year-old and run away.

            The fact that you think that your hysterics is a valid response reinforces my statement that you are weak-minded.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            It is my right to say homosexuality is salacious, the epitome of perversion and a danger to society. Next to Islam, gays are the most intolerant people.

          • Scott Cameron

            It is your right to say that. It is not your right, nor anyone else’s, to deny other Americans equality under the law based on your opinions or religion.

            Perhaps you should move to a theocracy like Iran. Here in America, NOBODY gets to dictate law based on religion.

            BTW, the “your intolerance of my intolerance is intolerable” is a really stupid argument.

          • Paul Hue

            Apparently, we have lost the right to criticise this sort of conduct. Homosexuallity can only be applauded and paraded these days, not critically ascertained.

          • Scott Cameron

            LOL….go ahead…you know you want to say it….go on…here, I’ll say it for you….its all part of the gay agenda!
            You are such a pathetic caricature of a homophobe, even the other homophobes are laughing at you.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            Well Paul, we just have to keep plugging away. Can’t let ‘them’ win.

          • Paul Hue

            We have lost, and are doomed. However, I am inclined to offer a lonely voice in the wilderness. I value the rare chance to commiserate with a fellow member of the resistance.

          • beyond partisan

            You know damn well there is a huge difference between trying to stop something NEW from being implemented (i.e., gay/lesbian marriage) and changing something that has been around for a while (divorce) – it’s precisely the reason you are so hell-bent to get gay/lesbian marriage pushed through, because once its in place, you know it will be difficult to turn the clock back. And, if you had bothered to read their website, they ARE against divorce: Example:

            http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/divorce_and_infidelity/divorce_and_separation/divorce_is_it_the_answer.aspx

          • Scott Cameron

            Equality under the law is not a NEW concept in America…and America evolves (unlike Christians) to perfect that concept.
            Following your thought process, “traditional” American values included slavery, Jim Crow laws, women as chattel, miscegenation, persecution of homosexuals, etc….you know, a Christian’s wet dream.
            FoF is devoted to denying segments of American citizens equality under the law….and FoF is LOSING. Mainly because they are an un-American organization that seeks to elevate their religion above the Constitution.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            More ravings from a lunatic socialist.

          • Scott Cameron

            Since all you’ve done is name-caling…..you are the one that is raving.

            Learn the English language, sparky!

          • Paul Hue

            Slavery was not universally accepted as a family value at the time of the Founders. Few families owned slaves. The concept in our society had been debated since the days of St. Patrick in the 400s.

            Furthermore, the concept of family does not inherently involve slavery. However, sexuality does, because a family forms and preserves via reproduction, which involves exclusively one male and one female, each using the organs that define gender in their uniquely designated manner. Only via this activity does the concept of family exist. Slavery is not an inherent concept with regards to the definition of family and the reason that marriage exists in the first place.

          • Scott Cameron

            My, your reading comprehension is very poor. Or do you just spout extraneous comments uncontrollably?
            Go back and respond to my actual statement as opposed to that useless verbal masturbation you just spouted.

          • Paul Hue

            Once the concept of marriage loses its obvious biological underpinnings, then there will be no logical imitation at all. It will — it must — accommodate every possible sexual urge, including incest. Removing stigma from divorce and illegitimacy led to the drop in marriage rate, and the attending social and even economic calamities.

            Marriage previously provided the only socially acceptable way that people could have sex and produce children. No longer. Sex and reproduction now happily happen outside of marriage, rendering marriage less valuable and less valued. Now marriage is being hijacked to provide social legitimacy to various forms of perversion that do not involve the sacred activity upon which civilization depends: the production of children and their rearing into productive citizens. Marriage itself is now perverted into promoting behaviors that simply undo civilization, rather than behaviors that promote civilization.

          • Scott Cameron

            LOL…several Federal judges (including one appointed by Bush and endorsed by Santorum) have stated that your exact argument is a steaming pile of crap.
            Suck it up, Paul. You don’t get to enforce your religious morality on other Americans through the legal system.

          • Paul Hue

            Plenty of judges prior to 1860 confirmed slavery. Judges are not always correct.

          • Scott Cameron

            So what? Those judges were over-ruled in the end.

          • Paul Hue

            Based on what, then, can my mother and I be denied marrying each other… and my brother / her son?

          • Paul Hue

            Obviously you can’t explain by what criteria it’s OK for two men to marry, but not me and my mother.

          • Scott Cameron

            Sorry, Paul. I’m not playing that game anymore.
            The initial statement I made was that Focus on the Family, based on their religious beliefs, is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Either disprove the statement or shut up.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            Another idiotic rant.

          • Scott Cameron

            Another name-calling episode with no dispute of my statement.

            Are you really this incapable of rational debate?

        • beyond partisan

          From the Focus on the Family website:

          We believe that all people are of infinite value, regardless of age, development, appearance or ability.

          We believe that marriage is the foundation of family life, and that God’s design for marriage is a relationship where both husband and wife are committed to loving and caring for one another for a lifetime.

          We believe children are a gift from God, and thrive best in a home where both mother and father are committed to raising them with love, intention, and care.

          We believe sex is given by God as an expression of love to be shared and enjoyed exclusively between a husband and wife.

          We believe that Christians have a responsibility to promote truth and social policy that improves the strength and health of the family, as God designed.

          And we believe that parents should aspire to model for their children how to humbly follow the teachings and spirit of Jesus at home and in the community.

          ===

          WOW…such EVIL people for believing in traditional marriage! Let’s round them up and stone them! (sarcasm)

          • Scott Cameron

            If they believe so strongly in “TRADITIONAL VALUES”, why has FoF NEVER spoken about banning divorce? Hmmmm? Why haven’t we heard FoF call for stoning Bristol Palin to death for being a harlot and having a child out of wedlock? It’s truly amazing the hypocrisy from your ilk.

          • beyond partisan

            Yet more hyperbole. FoF does NOT advocate for violence against homosexuals – the religion that does stone homosexuals, BTW, is Islam, and yet I don’t see you here demanding that Spec keep all books about Islam off the list. Hypocrite.

          • Scott Cameron

            What hyperbole? If FoF embraces “traditional values”, they have to embrace ALL of them. After all, that is the definition of “Tradition”. So, why ISN’T FoF actively fighting just as hard for a ban on divorce as they are for a ban on gay marriage?
            Again, I have NEVER said anything about anyone banning any book…you are the one that keeps pushing that agenda. I have simply been pointing out that FoF is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law.
            Look in the mirror, sweetie. You’ll see hypocrisy staring back at you.

          • Rowwdy Colt

            Your own twisted, perverted mind just doesn’t allow you to get it.

          • Scott Cameron

            Way to go, Rowwdy! More name-calling but no response to my statement.

            My statement: Focus on the Family is actively seeking to deny a segment of American citizens equality under the law.

            Prove me wrong or shut up.

      • Todd Beall

        A totally intolerant comment. One person’s propaganda is another person’s delight. Are you really interested in having someone ban all books that you don’t happen to like??

      • beyond partisan

        You’re the propagandist here. The book probably shows an old-fashioned family with a mom and a dad who never got divorced raising their kids in a loving home. God forbid they choose not to publish children’s books with two mommies or a polygamist family of vegan nudists!! Just because you disagree with the organization’s religious values doesn’t make them evil or their books automatically bad. People like you are creating a huge backlash to YOUR agenda…because you are so hypersensitive and intolerant.

        • Scott Cameron

          Focus on the Family only exists to seek to deny a segment of the population equal protection under the law.

          Sorry but the “Your intolerance of my intolerance is intolerable” is a really stupid argument.

          Btw, did you hear Wisconsin’s gay marriage ban was declared un-Constitutional today? How many is that in the last year?

          • beyond partisan

            “Focus on the Family only exists to seek to deny a segment of the population equal protection under the law.” That’s a load of hyperbole and BS and you know it. They exist because they believe children do best when raised by their mother and father in an intact home. Do you deny the fact that most children want and need both a mother and a father, and in an ideal world, they would have both biological parents loving them and there for them?

            As for this: “Btw, did you hear Wisconsin’s gay marriage ban was declared un-Constitutional today?” Personally, I don’t care if homosexuals marry (when you use the term GAY you are talking about homosexual men – talk about sexist!!).

            But saying “gay marriage” (i.e., homosexual marriage) is “constitutional” is a load of BS too because nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to a state-sanctioned marriage – which is a privilege afforded by the state. And still today, even in states with gay (and lesbian) marriage, not everyone can marry – a brother and a sister cannot marry. Why? Because the offspring would have a high chance of birth defects. The original intent of state-sanctioned marriage was to provide a structure for the raising of children. Two siblings should not have children and a homosexual couple cannot have children naturally.

            Bottom line is, you have your belief and they have theirs, and you want to shove your belief down everyone else’s throat. You want to ban any sort of discourse that disagrees with you, and use ridiculous hyperbole and KKK references to shut down intelligent discussion. You are nothing more than an authoritarian, intolerant drone and no better than the worst fundamentalist religious zealot.

          • Scott Cameron

            LOL…All this talk about me wanting to “ban” things…quote one instance where is said anything should be banned…I dare you.
            As an aside, it’s truly laughable that you try to correct my use of the word “gay”. Show our discussion to any lesbian and they will laugh in your face.
            In the meantime, the rest of your argument is all just more gobbledy-gook to cloud the issue that you have failed to address my initial statement. BTW, you forgot the part about people wanting to marry a toaster or a dog. (Rick Santorum would be ashamed of you!) It all boils down to the fact that FoF is actively seeking to deny a segment of Americans equality under the law…and you seem to be OK with it.
            FoF is essentially the same as the KKK…an organization seeking to suppress the rights of other Americans they don’t consider as equals.
            Every argument you make is the same–your intolerance of my intolerance is intolerable. Suck it up, you don’t get to play the victim and the aggressor at the same time.

      • dee

        Emilie, While I understand and respect you do not like Focus On The Family’s views, others may. They too have the right to find such books on this blog.

      • Cynthia Volkers

        Focus on the Family stands for the traditional, Godly, Bible based family that this country was based on. Thank goodness there are wonderful organizations such as themselves that still stand up and speak the truth when we are living in a time when few want to hear it.

        • Scott Cameron

          Cynthia, America was based on MONEY! You know, taxation without representation. But then again, maybe you don’t know…Christians tend to be a fairly stupid and arrogant lot. Regardless, go take your traditional, godly bible-based self off to live in a nice theocracy…how about Iran? We here in America won’t tolerate folks like you that want to place their religion above the Constitution.

    • Birdie Hough

      thank you great books today

    • Summer Vespestad

      Thanks so much for the free books. I look forward to Friday for this very reason.

    • Lori

      Spec – thank you so much for these FREE book links. I appreciate your list every week. Can’t beat FREE can you Emile Rose?

    • k bagioni

      Thanks for diligently posting each week.

    • Michelle Notinterested

      spec, I finally figured out how to post a reply on here, but I wanted to let you know I GREATLY appreciate all your posts – especially with the link to the original articles. I have been able to read (and download for future reading) many great titles. THANKS!

    • Aliceyn Parker

      Spec, my thanks are very long overdue. I’ve been too lazy to sign up but a comment today hit me the wrong way…

      I sincerely appreciate the hours and work it takes to find these books for US.

      I appreciate that you take the time to separate the books into categories for US.

      It is NOT needed or your responsibility to go another step and figure out the publishing house and their politics and add that to what you already graciously post for US.

      I am selective when I download books. As I read the description and reviews I personally take it a step further and see who the publisher is. As I said this is not your responsibility…

      Thank you again for your time and the years I’ve been following you. I look forward to your posts on free Fridays as much as the main post. When I got my nook I used to spend hours searching for free books, and don’t have the time.

      I doubt you get paid for this, and are definitely posting from the goodness of your heart…

      My note to the readers: People IF you don’t like the selections, the publishing house or anything else, don’t waste your time being negative

      • Rhonda

        Great comment, I so agree!

      • JJ

        Spec does not catagorize these books or review them. That’s already done by B&N all Spec does is copy and paste them here after they have been recomended by others. If you had spent hours searching for for books yourself then you would have noticed the catagories. If you had been on this site multiple times then you would have seen Spec’s comments about how he/she came them.

        • Aliceyn Parker

          My point was that she does a lot, doesn’t need to do more. We should all be grateful for her contribution…Happy Friday :-)

        • radii

          You thought this was significant why? Are you trying to trivialize Spec’s efforts?

      • Karen

        I just want to thank you Spec for the time you take to find these free book and post them. I look forward to your post every Friday and to add my choice to my ebook collection.

    • las1

      Thank you for this weeks list. I almost always find something on your list that I want to read. Keep up the good work!

  • James Screech

    Yet again due to technical problems with the B&N website it is not possible to download the book (THE INTERCEPT)

    • Eastlake17

      Worked fine for me…..

    • Andrew

      James,

      I used to have problems downloading books,
      until I spoke with someone from B&N, they told me you can log into
      your account (with a PC) download all the freebies, then goto the Nook
      and they are waiting for you to read. You will probably have to Refresh
      your library before you see them, though.

      Hope this helps!!!

      Andrew

      • James Screech

        I am using a PC, this isn’t the first time I’ve had this problem. I’ve tried two different PC browsers and my HD+.

  • Becky Kessler

    Thanks Amanda/B&N, Spec, and all others that post here. Today’s Free Friday looks great and I can’t wait to start reading it. I’m sure that I will be hooked into the series and want to enjoy them all.

  • boo

    I already read this weeks pick and it was page turner. I always find some new author in the comment section. So thank you all for the posters leading to me authors I wouldn’t think twice about reading.

  • David

    Thanks to all for the Friday freebees. I really enjoy them .

  • Virginia

    Thanks to Amanda, Spec, and Carlissa! This is one of the best Free Fridays in awhile. Even the app is addictive and fun!

  • Linda Spicibear

    Thank you spec for all the posts you put up for us all. In response to Emily Rose, I feel that we all have the right to choose rather or not to download or read material that some may consider intolerant, as a parent, i’d prefer my child to read anything that interests them and then to discuss it. In my humble opinion, this is a better way to shape a childs thinking as opposed to no exposure at all.

  • Sally Schmidt

    Thanks again Amanda and Spec and all the others for the pointers to freebies.

  • JEGTPA

    Amanda, Spec, Carlissa, Many thanks! You all ROCK!

    Enjoy your weekend. :-D

  • Stephanie

    Thanks Spec and Amanda and B&N for the free books. I can finally afford to buy books now, but I always seem to find new authors through the free books that I would never have thought to look for…it’s great!

  • James

    Any idea on what happened to the free Friday nook video…was it just for May???

    • AmandaC_NOOK

      Hi James; unfortunately there was a last-minute technical issue with the NOOK Video that was lined up for Friday — the plan is to feature one every week! Thanks for understanding.

  • mamaduck720

    There are plenty of books that come up that don’t suit my particular tastes, so….. I simply DON’T download those ones. I do not see anyone forcing you to click the download button. Also, if one is so particular about the politics of the source the books come from, why not search for the freebies yourself and then either share with the rest of the class on the disqus page here on fridays, or do as many others have done for specific genres and start your own facebook group and you can monitor what books your are presenting to yourself and others. Meanwhile… I check this page faithfully every week and have gotten tons and tons of freebies and been introduced to lots of new authors! Thanks so much for your hard work Spec (and others like her)!!

  • Rhonda Wise

    I just wanted to say thank you for all the free Friday books. With the exception of one that I got two months ago, I’ve pretty much enjoyed reading them. And now that I think I figured out how to write comments I plan on going back and rating them. I’ve enjoyed the variety and the fact that so many people add free books to the list. Thanks again

  • JT1969

    Thanks as always for the Free Friday Book this week! Here
    are some free books that I found during the past week, but please double check
    that they are still free before you click “buy.”

    *Sci-Fi/Fantasy:
    Forever Fae by L.P. Dover
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/forever-fae-l-p-dover/1113932216?ean=2940045120418&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    To Kill a Warlock by H.P. Mallory
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/to-kill-a-warlock-h-p-mallory/1100483522?ean=2940011092206&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    Suspending Reality by Chrissy Peebles
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/suspending-reality-chrissy-peebles/1118739329?ean=2940045715751&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    *Romance:
    Tuesday’s Child by Dale Mayer
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/tuesdays-child-dale-mayer/1104562657?ean=9781927461310&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    The White Aura by Felicia Tatum
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-white-aura-felicia-tatum/1113871339?ean=2940044481008&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    Eternal Starling by Angela Corbett
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/eternal-starling-angela-corbett/1103139109?ean=2940045937474&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    Seduced by Innocence by Kimberly Kinrade
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/seduced-by-innocence-kimberly-kinrade/1115291879?ean=2940044514607&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    Marked by Elisabeth Naughton
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/marked-elisabeth-naughton/1100341329?ean=2940044966062&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    *Young Adult:
    The Girl in the Wall by Daphne Benedis
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-girl-in-the-wall-daphne-benedis-grab/1112214327?ean=9781440552717&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    The Island by Jen Minkman
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-island-jen-minkman/1115469783?ean=2940045730372&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1
    Gravity by Abigail Boyd
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/gravity-abigail-boyd/1104172828?ean=2940044668973&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1
    *Historical Fiction:
    Gastien: The Cost of the Dream by Caddy Rowland
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/gastien-caddy-rowland/1119407750?ean=2940149467365&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    The Flyer by Stuart Harrison
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-flyer-stuart-harrison/1114043635?ean=2940045142045&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1
    *Mystery:
    Pretty, Hip & Dead by Madison Johns
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pretty-hip-dead-madison-johns/1119565767?ean=9781498946667&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

    Into the End by Bonnie Paulson
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/into-the-end-bonnie-paulson/1109753392?ean=2940033130054&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-tWxX/Rg9ax8-_-10:1&r=1

  • TrinityFL7
  • dee

    Everyone that enjoys Friday freebies should be able to find books they would like to read on this blog. Please remember, America is still a free country with freedom of speech and not a 3rd world country that dictates what we can or cannot speak/read, etc… With that said, keep up the good work Spec. I appreciate the work you put in, which allows us to enjoy the freebies you post.

  • Desiree Iuzzolino

    I just want to thank everyone who posts free Friday books. Its a big help to me to be able to get lists in one spot and investigate them. I sincerely wish that people would NOT get into the kind of nastiness that has occured this week in the comments. You aren’t going to convince the other to see it your way in the space of the comments section. It accomplishes nothing other than making it take longer to find the lists for those of us who come here to find an easier way to find new and different books.

  • Jessica Wilt

    There seems to be way too much to say to put down others’ beliefs. Does it really have to take place on the Nook Blog? People don’t come here to get beat down yet again…we just want to read and relax for at least 5 minutes.

  • Paul Hue

    Marriage exists, and is recognized by governments, for the same reason: the basic and clear biological facts of how humans and families come into existence. The biological facts include the existence of exactly two genders, as designated by exactly two genitlia, each of which are designed to fit one within the other, and when doing so, present the only possible method by which life may form.

    Marriage for thousands of years was the only way for civilized humans to respectfully have sex and produce children, and was an institution that was taken seriously by all, with naturally defined standards, and involving a lifetime oath, made in public, and which every government recognized. Starting in the 60s, marriage was deconstructed, so that it became temporary, and optional. Having sex and producing children no longer requires the sanctity of marriage in order to enjoy social acceptance, and the marriage vow was no longer a vow that anybody could break without receiving social backlash.

    The destruction of the institution of marriage to that point has produced self-evident consequences, all of them bad. Now what’s left of the institution is being used to normalize and promote homosexuality. Civilization has entered a new phase, wherein no institution exists by which stable, cohesive families form; the concept of marriage no longer exists, except as a farce. God help us all.

  • 23 75 74

    I started reading all of these comments and cannot believe how much hatred can come from so few. The bottom line that started this is someone’s wish to ban a particular book from being on this list. Free is free. If you don’t like it, don’t download it. I don’t expect to wake up every Friday, 52 weeks out of the year and find a book to my liking listed here. I think it is great that this post is here, but everyone has different tastes. Those preaching banning should learn the word tolerance. If you don’t tolerate a Friday giveaway, don’t download it. Wait until the next Friday. If the books have to be censored, then so should your comments.