in the U.S. 15 - 20% of all pregnancies will end in a miscarriage or stillbirth.

if that's nature, GOD lets it happen. so let's be thorough. punish all those who would 'kill' babies. burn down the churches! that'll show HIM!

it's a cruel law meant only for political gain or pseudo-moral pride. no one can say infants matter when they do little to nothing to help them AFTER they are born. that's a reality too.

want to refute that?

remember this?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeb-bushs-florida-lost-500-kids

likely those 'lifers' can rest peacefully ignoring the horror of some smug unjust hypocritical law - but the kid can't.

* * * *

or someone that says it better...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VDHg-KOhLw

also some of the things that the Holy Warriors overlooked...
religious freedom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e26YL3-TbE
federal land: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggpFARWaGlA&t=7s

The FAA is up there with the TSA, DHS and the NSA as far as TLAs you should NEVER piss-off.

I got pulled over by DHS while I was driving through North Cascades National Park a few years ago. They weren't even marked trucks. One pulled ahead of me, the second one was right on my rear bumper and the "PULL OVER NOW!" was like the voice of God.

I was going camping and they made me pull every fucking thing out of my Subie. Then they went through it all. They confiscated my two pre-rolls and my pipe ("you're on Federal land"), then they called "backup". I sat on the side of the road at Newhalem for about two hours while they dug through all my stuff like a half-dozen times and kept asking me the same stupid-ass questions ("why are you here", "do you know anyone in this area?", "have you ever been arrested for a crime in the US or abroad?") over and over. People where driving by and looking at me and my wife like we were the whitest ISIS fighters ever.

They gave me the ol' "You're free to go" and drove off.

Fuckers took my dope!!

So, you think there should be new regulations put on oil production companies so they don’t raise prices? Or are you calling for the full nationalization of the oil and gas industry? You must be, because for it to be Biden’s fault, he must control it somehow. I wonder, do you think he sets oil prices? Production schedules? Supply or demand? Controls OPEC or Russia?
Biden released oil reserves to mitigate the price gouging (didn’t work), but without nationalizing oil and gas, there’s little more he could do (maybe threaten to halt all new drilling permits until those already issued are used, but good luck). You would pretend cancelling Keystone XL raised prices, it wasn’t operational yet.

Just ask Texas how privatization and deregulation is working for them. Analysts say they aren’t better prepared for extreme weather than last year because there’s no requirement for them to upgrade, so statewide power outages and multiple deaths can be expected, and the hits to the economy that come with shutting the state down for weeks.

The largest oil and gas companies made a combined $174bn in profits in the first nine months of the year as gasoline prices climbed in the US.
Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP among group of 24 who resisted calls to increase production but doled out shareholder dividends and bought back stock.
The oil and gas industry has fought Joe Biden’s attempts to pause new drilling permits on federal land, despite its unwillingness to expand operations in order to reap the returns of costlier oil and the fact the industry currently sits on 14m acres of already leased land that isn’t being used, an area about double the size of Massachusetts.
“It’s not the government that is banning them from drilling more,” said Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James. “It’s pressure from their shareholders.”


Soooooo…..nationalize? Gas in Venezuela is $.12 a gallon. If not, blame capitalism, not Biden, for your “high” gas price. (Try gas prices in Europe where gas isn’t subsidized, now those are high gas prices).

In part, yes, but not the current class. The old thinking was just never allow fires. We know better now, but still suffer from 70 years of poor management.

Um....what? He is in charge of 57% of forests in California, the ones burning, and has not done a thing to "fix" them, and instead blames governors for his failures on Federal land the governor's don't control. This has nothing to do with cities, and Trump leads ALL American cities, moron. Not just Republican led cities, which are few and small.

Really? Prove it. I see Trump encouraging armed thugs to go out and kill, praising them when they do, and never denouncing the violence on the right, not even the terroristic bombers and arsonists. Conversely, I've seen every Democrat that gets air time denounce rioting, looting, arson, and violence from ANYONE.

He's supposed to be the leader, the man in charge....everything that happens is his fault. If he refuses responsibility, he refuses the ability to do anything about it and abdicated leadership.
This didn't happen under Obama, but the cities were democratic then....so clearly it's not Democratic leadership causing unrest, what has changed? Hmmmm....let me think.

Btw, most killings have been right wingers killing others including police, not liberals with a few exceptions at most.

Trump has blamed State governors for fires on federal land for 3 1/2 years+ but has done nothing to solve the problems on land he controls.

The failure has been in the making longer than that, try since the industrial revolution. I live in a rain forest starting it's third decade of drought. It's a major climate shift. The science is settled, not in question for decades.

No, he needs to listen to the professional forest managers already there instead of ignoring them because he knows more about everything than anyone. See his recent meeting with California's forest managers for examples of his stupidity, his plan is just like for Covid, do nothing, blame others, deny there's a problem, claim it will just go away, blame others again, pat himself on the back for a job perfectly done.

His idea, rake the forests, is just dumb and impossible. Only a complete moron believes you can rake up 33 million acres of mountainous forests, including removing all forest litter which is necessary habitat for many forest creatures and downed trees like redwoods that are useless as lumber. Only a stupid ignoramus believes that's a solution.

Let's say it costs about $1000 per acre, a vast underestimation, that's an extra $330 billion per year for raking California's forests alone. Is Trump offering to fund that, or is he cutting funding instead? (Hint, he cut funding)

Much of the mismanagement is from fighting fires. For decades the plan was don't let any fire burn, that's left forests with 2-5 times the fuel it would naturally have. The last decade that's been realised and when possible fires are allowed to burn. It's too little too late.

Trump's idea of draining the swamp has been plugging the outlets and pumping millions of gallons of sewage into it. That means removing career civil servants and selling positions to friends and contributors with no experience and massive conflicts of interests. Trump's is the most criminal administration ever, with more convictions than any other including Nixon. Politics are incredibly more swampy than before Trump, and the state of the union is crumbling and poised to dissolve into another civil war.

🤦‍♂️

No, Bob. The "antifa is setting wildfires" claim is pure bullshit with zero evidence. I bet Trump is repeating it. The fires in Oregon were started by lightning. Edit: and downed power lines, and dragging trailer chains, ....

The cop who posted that bullshit lie with no evidence whatsoever has been suspended for spreading lies designed to instigate violence.

The fires are started by lightning mostly.

The wildfires are not caused by antifa or spontaneously exploding trees. They are caused by excessive dryness and decades of drought caused by anthropogenic climate change and dry summer thunderstorms that are increasing in number as our climate changes.

One was started by morons doing an explosive baby reveal.....yes, another one.


They are made worse by the criminal mismanagement of federal forest lands, which make up about 57% of the state's forests. Trump likes to blame California government for mismanagement of the forest, but is too ignorant to grasp that California only owns 3% of it's forests, and they're managed far better than the federal lands.

If you watched anything that wasn't pure propaganda, you would know this. Only right wing bat shit crazy propaganda hides those facts and pretends the fires are from liberals....Only fools believe the same people who've lied to them constantly for years.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/13/912449209/oregon-officials-warn-untrue-antifa-rumors-waste-precious-resources-for-fires

So, you're ignorant of the fact that most forests, approximately 60% in California, are national/federal forests under federal control, with only about 3% being state controlled? The rest are privately owned.
You're likely also ignorant of the fact that your messiah has cut the already wholly inadequate funding to manage them by around $2 billion per year nation wide, threatening to drop that to zero in California, all the while ignorantly claiming it's the state who is not managing it's responsibilities.
California, conversely, has budgeted >$2 billion to manage state run forest lands.
Requests to the national forestry department for better management of overgrown and unmanaged federal forests have been met with threats from Trump to remove all federal funding.

The nation's forest service is so poorly funded under Trump that they can't even afford a spokesperson to answer those accusations, there's just a recording saying there's no staff due to budget cuts.

So much for the promise to fix the nation's infrastructure.

Side note, Paradise Ca is in conservative Butte county....burned to nothing. ($16.5 billion and 85 deaths) That fire started on federal land.
Redding is in conservative Shasta county, badly damaged (>$21 billion with 8 deaths.) That fire also started on federal lands.
But keep blaming liberals, it's all you're good at. *facepalm

Your video, CGP Grey: What is Federal Land?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Now I wonder, can someone live on Federal land, and not have residency in any state?

Sorry, Ms Constitutional lawyer...the supreme court disagreed with you long ago on almost every point.

AND...if the fed can't actually own the land as she claims, then they couldn't possibly legally have GIVEN that land to the ranchers, could they? The land would be the property of the people the fed took it from, namely the native Paiute in this case. The fed broke treaties, and illegally used the military to remove the owners, then gave it to settlers. Somehow I doubt they care about THAT overreach of the Fed, though, because that doesn't help them steal land for themselves.
So, if the Fed owning and managing land were unconstitutional, it would legally go back to the natives. Period. I think if that was pointed out clearly to these idiots, they would suddenly find the Fed's ownership of land legal, because otherwise the land they own today (not just the federal land) is the forcefully stolen property of the natives, and these people would have to leave their ranches and go back to England (or wherever their ancestors came from).

Federal law IS above the states law, so in the way she's mentioning, the federal government IS above the state.

It's so sad that her interpretation of the Constitution is so incredibly different from the well defined, legally codified interpretations made by the only group that is empowered to make final interpretations, the supreme court, but she somehow doesn't understand that her self serving interpretation doesn't trump theirs. If she's really a lawyer, how did she ever pass the bar with such a poor grasp of the law and how it works?
*lies

So...the feds holding property they've held at least since 1907 as a wildlife refuge, or surroundings they've purchased since then, and leasing it to people like these at ridiculously low prices is 'creeping into our lives' and 'overgrowth of government'?
Um...yeah...how does that work?
These people committed arson on federal land DURING A WILDFIRE and were found guilty, and are sentenced under federal MINIMUM guidelines, not given the max, and these Bundy people are finding that an overreach of government...how?
The cognitive dissonance in their last statement would be hilarious if it wasn't an actual mindset so many people AGREE with when talking about white groups, but scoff at as self serving drivel when applied to black groups.
THESE people think the law is rigged against them? What should the Black Lives Matter people think when it's PROVEN the law is rigged against them, and it's their LIFE at stake, not their right to do whatever they want on other people's property, including arson, without consequence.
And can you imagine the terrified outrage on Fox if a group of armed BLM (Black Lives Matter) people took over a BLM (Bureau of Land Management) office, like these nutjobs did? Now consider the ridicule if they did it to 'protest' the mandatory sentencing of a convicted arsonist....who's black.

Oh...interesting to find out this as well....
-Many of the tactics and talking points being used were popularized in the 1970s by the white supremacist group Posse Comitatus. This group promoted the “Christian Patriot” movement, advocated the formation of “Citizens Militias,” helped forge an idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution, said the county sheriff was the highest elected official that should be obeyed, and opposed federal environmental restrictions.

Sweet Zombie Jesus!

Once again you personally insult, and ignore most of the facts in order to further your insanity. I'll see your 'child' and raise you to infant.
FAIL
I only read your post because someone else replied quoting you (and I can't fathom why it showed your comment even then, it should have been hidden since you're ignored...@lucky760, what happened?)
You can't parrot what you haven't heard said, and no one else is pointing out that you can't be a patriot if you don't believe in the Fed, which unites the states....at least no one I've heard.
Your misconception based on intentionally misleading, 1/4 true, right wing media BS is obvious...this guy is a violent felon who publicly threatened to use violent force (against law enforcement that was not yet there in force OR heavily armed) to enforce his "right" to continue to break the law, no question, as are all those that brandish weapons at officers of the law, federal or not. It's the law that you can't do that to people not attacking you or breaking into your property (and NEVER to law officials) ...and no one attacked the cowards hiding behind their wall of women and children OR the Bundys, they simply confiscated illegally grazing cattle on FEDERAL land, belonging to all of us.
EDIT: and you ignore that most of these people don't consider themselves citizens, as they don't believe in the fed...without which there is no U in USA. They are citizens of their own states (in their own minds), considering themselves 'sovereign citizens', even though most don't have the balls to actually renounce their citizenship in the USA.
Non- payment of well known, legal state and federal fees for use of state and federal property, and non-payment of taxes are NOT civil matters, they are criminal, as is failure to appear. Many of his supporters guarding the Bundy's from prosecution (hindering prosecution is a felony too) are the same ones that support the fed seizing property of those caught with a joint, so it's not about state rights or 'freedom', it's about standing with idiots that hate what you hate, namely "the negro" (one in particular).

There has been no assult on the rancher's property, it's all on Federal land.
This may be an example of why dumb americans want guns, but this is also an example of many people that SHOULDN'T be allowed to have guns. If you want a rifle to take on the federal government, you are an idiot. The feds have tanks and missiles, who wins EVERY TIME in that fight? Just ask (edit, I meant Koresh and the Waco people). His suggestions amount to telling children to go play in the freeway because it belongs to them as public land, and the fed has no right to reserve it for cars. I wish this guy walked his own talk and was standing right there in the front baiting the feds, he might be the first casualty.

This is not about 'defending freedom', it's about defending a criminal that believes federal land is his to use and damage as he sees fit, even after being told clearly and repeatedly that he has to pay for it, (which he refused to) and can only use it for certain purposes for a certain time period (which have ended long ago).

His example of allowed use, the solar company, is forced to follow environmental laws and not damage the land/environment, cattle don't follow laws and do damage the land badly. Solar and wind don't hurt turtles, cattle and vehicles (used to manage the cattle) do. Proven.
EDIT: I recall many 'ranchers' on federal land intentionally killing turtles because they burrow, making holes that cattle get hurt in.

I agree with Yogi, this guy is massively deluded and is attempting to spread his stupidity...suggesting that non-citizens take on the fed in this kind of action? WHAT?!? Also claiming that the fed managing it's land is 'facist'. Just DUH, dude. I might downvote this video for mis-information, lack of understanding, and just plain ridiculous ideas if I could.
I note this blowhard isn't standing with the rancher armed...maybe he doesn't WANT to be shot?

@rottenseed

However, if you read the "context" (since you dummies love to pull the
context card out), the question he is answering is:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

So pretty much the ONLY mention of a man and a woman is an exclusive
mention of not getting a divorce

Obviously it isn't the only mention, since Jesus is quoting the Old Testament. There are other verses which refer to marriage, but even if it were the only one, it doesn't change the fact that God has defined marriage to be between a man and woman and has condemned homosexual relations and fornication. One mention or 100, the truth of it is absolute.

All of this is for naught, however, since the first amendment to the
constitution, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty amazing, huh? How not only does the constitution (apparently
written and signed by "Christians") doesn't mention any "god"
whatsoever, but they make sure in an amendment, that the government
does not support any single religion. This means that, sin or not, the
government has no business enforcing any law on the basis of religion.

game. set. match.

Your declaration of victory is premature. What the founders meant by "religion" is any particular Christian denomination. They did not want any to be preferred or adopted as the national religion. Fisher Ames, who wrote the language of the first ammendment, said this:

“...we have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education....We've become accustomed of late to putting little books in the hands of children containing fables with moral lessons. We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principle text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man made book.”

The man who wrote the first amendment obviously thought it was constitutional to teach the bible as our principle text in public schools, yet today they say that even having one in the classroom violates the 1st amendment. I wonder who actually knows more about the 1st amendment or what its purpose was. Obviously it wasnt meant to prevent government support of Christianity or the bible as our principle means of education. "Imagine that"

Two years after Jefferson wrote the letter that people use to justify a separation of church and state, he ordered as a presidential act the extention of using federal lands "“for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity”. He ordered that act extended two more times before he left office. Yet today they say that we can't have a nativity scene on government property. Are you starting to see how painfully out of context your imagined secularist interpretation is? There wasn't any such thing as secularism then, because everyone was Christian and believed in God. Why do you think the US capitol building was converted to a church every sunday? Why was the first supreme court opened with a 4 hour prayer and communion service?

What you are also unaware of is that the state constitutions at the time not only mentioned God and Christianity, many of them forbid anybody but Christians taking office:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Starting to get the picture? How about this treaty?

Continental Congress (1783), ratified a peace treaty with Great Britain at the close of the Revolutionary War. The treaty began:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence
to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith… and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences… [p.149]


Why did George Washington announce this when they finished the constitution?:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

The evidence is insurrmountable and overwhelming that this country was founded on Christian principles. To deny it is to ignore everything that is true about our history.