I have been married twice. My wedding experiences were both very different, even though I cried at both ceremonies. At my first wedding, I had been doing a lot of manual labor in the day prior to the wedding. Unfortunately, I did not have any gloves, and I ended up getting a lot of blisters on my hands. By the evening of the wedding, these blisters were very painful to touch. My bride was wearing what I thought to be an elaborate wedding dress. It was pretty, and it had a lot of buttons on it. Little, white, cloth covered buttons. These buttons were also a part of her sleeves and gloves. During the ceremony, she was holding my hands very tightly, and it hurt. I mean, it really really hurt! I didn't want to pull my hands away, as the gesture could be misconstrued, and I might hurt her feelings. So, I stood and held hands with her, enduring the pain. Although I managed to remain silent, I couldn't keep the tears from falling down my face. The more I cried, the harder she squeezed and the more painful it was. She always thought that I was crying due to emotion on our wedding day, and I never told her any differently I didn't want to hurt her feelings. Some years after that lengthy incarceration ended, I was fortunate to wed again. I had not done any manual labor before our wedding day. My hands were fine. Also, my bride did not have a lot of intricate buttons on her dress, nor did she wear gloves or even have sleeves. We were wed on a beach, just the two of us. No one else was in attendance. We had written our own vows, in fact, our own ceremony, including our own rituals. And yes, I cried, because I was / am so in love with my bride. I still tear up every morning when I awaken and see her sleeping beside me. Peace Question: After the first marriage he was? Options: A. not enough information B. divorced C. Fortunate D. Happy === The correct answer is
B

WHITE HOUSE President Donald Trump, after a tactical retreat this week on immigration policy, demonstrated Friday that there is no strategic shift to his overall tough approach to those attempting to illegally enter the country, and vowing to "end the immigration crisis, once and for all." U.S. immigration laws, Trump declared, are "the weakest in the history of the world." Trump made the remarks in an auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House, where he presided over an event with so-called "Angel Families," those who have had relatives killed by people who entered the country illegally. "Your loss will not have been in vain," the president told the families, who held large photos of their slain relatives. "We will secure our borders the word will get out. Got to have a safe country. We're going to have a safe country." Trump called family members to the presidential lectern to recount how their loved ones had been killed by those who were in the United States illegally. Several of those speaking condemned the media for ignoring the stories of the victims and praised Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for their attention to border security. Crime assertion Trump, in his remarks, also suggested those illegally in the United States commit more crimes on a statistical basis than citizens or resident aliens. However, studies have shown that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit a crime in the U.S. than native-born citizens, including one published by the libertarian CATO Institute this year. Following intense domestic and international condemnation, Trump on Wednesday signed an order ending his administration's practice of separation of children from their families while parents were being prosecuted for crossing the border illegally. The administration's recently implemented "zero tolerence" policy led to the criminal prosecutions of undocumented border crossers, which in turn led to federal officials separating adults and their children. Question: Who suggested those illegally in the United States commit more crimes on a statistical basis than citizens or resident aliens? Options: A. not enough information B. President Trump C. Angel Families D. The CATO Institute === The correct answer is
B

Q: Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. Question: The author believes that: Options: A. Commen sections shouls not be placed under blog posts B. Comment sections should always remain disabled C. not enough information D. Comment sections should always remain open === The correct answer is
A: D

*Question*
What was the reason behind you becoming a Wiccan? I had very bad experiences with the old angry bearded GOD in the Christian religion. He had turned his back on me. He had betrayed me time and time again. So, I left. Still wanting connection with a higher power, I hungered for connection. I liked communing with the Wiccan Gods. I also liked how They made me feel, at peace, and I felt I had the strength to change my own life for the better. They are always there for me. How did you find it? When I was a teen I heard the word Wicca. I didn't know what that was. I was curious and decided to investigate it. So, the next day I went to a book store. I asked the lady behind the counter if they had any books on "Wicca." She got excited and whisked me off to the metaphysical section of the store. She told me she was pagan and started handing me book after book into my arms. Soon I could barely see over the books in my arms. I mumbled behind the books, "Which ONE book would you recommend." She then handed me Scott Cunningham's book Wicca, A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner. I purchased the book and took it home. With my dyslexia it was not easy for me to read. But I started reading and plowed through the book. I found many things I was already doing. He talked about things I already understood to be true. The book rang true for me. I dedicated myself to the God and Goddess when I finished the book. Have you ever had any bad experiences after completing a spell? I did a prosperity spell once and got the opposite reaction I was hoping for. I lost all my income! I realized later my mistakes and redid the spell correctly and then got the results I truly wanted. Question: When did the author go to the bookstore? Options: A. When they read their first Wiccan text. B. When they became angry with God C. not enough information D. The day after they heard of Wicca. === The correct answer is
**Answer**
D