Sure, here you are. It was Mr Smith of Texas.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt671/html/CRPT-112hrpt671.htm

"First, CIANA makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor
across state lines to obtain an abortion in another state... "

"Second, CIANA applies when a minor from one state crosses
state lines to have an abortion in another state that does not
have a state law requiring parental involvement in a minor's
abortion decision, or when a minor from one state crosses state
lines to have an abortion in another state that does have a
state law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion
decision, but the physician fails to comply with such law. In
such a case, CIANA makes it a Federal crime for the abortion
provider to fail to give one of the minor's parents, or a legal
guardian if necessary, 24 hours' notice (or notice by mail if
necessary) of the minor's abortion decision before the abortion
is performed"

"CIANA contains two sections, each of which creates a new Federal crime subject to up to a $100,000 fine, or 1 year in jail, or both"

Google is a great resource...took me 2 seconds to find. Pretty much exactly what the commercial is about.

Extrapolated from there, when abortions can be outlawed statewide, that ban would be extended to anyone transporting a pregnant woman to another state for an abortion....it tries to force neighboring states to follow your states laws for notifications and wait times, and criminalizes transportation of the pregnant women, it's completely dishonest to imply the same wouldn't go for outright bans.

If you create an account solely to post a video for whatever reason, but do not actually participate in VideoSift in any other way before or after, you may be considered a spammer/self-promoter and your account is subject to banning.

Second video posted from Michael Waldner YouTube page
No other participation.
*ban

https://videosift.com/faq#posting_guidelines

"If you create an account solely to post a video for whatever reason, but do not actually participate in VideoSift in any other way before or after, you may be considered a spammer/self-promoter and your account is subject to banning."

230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:


Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)





>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)


>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)


>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)


>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)


>An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)


>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

Also dont masturbate too often.

Why should "natural" or "recreational" drugs be exempt from the same sceptical analysis that ordinary drugs are subject to?

If you see the behind-the-scene filming of your favourite movie or tv show it looks a bit cringy too. but it's what you see onscreen that is the subject to be judged.. I think these people are trying to do things that mimic what they see pro models/actors/musicians do in videos/photos. and it works, they try all sorts of angles and find a good shot then post it and it makes people think they are awesome and are worth following/listening too.. then they plug products and get paid. no big deal.. just the tech has gotten cheap for consumers and distribution is simple.

Beautiful video and a lot of fun and interesting facts. My wife and I are big hummingbird fans, but we were a little disappointed after putting out a feeder that ended up being dominated by a very crafty and very vicious little guy. We put several more up, thinking that he wouldn’t defend them all, but he did. He was really attempting to injure and or kill the others, so we took the feeders down. Little bastard ruined it for everyone!!
I think that it wouldn’t hurt to maybe cut about 40% of the humor. I don’t think that some posters understand how distracting humorous comments can be, and how they can seem forced and entirely irrelevant to the subject.
You have a great voice for this sort of presentation!

I find the argument that a good apple shouldn't even be in the policing business (i.e. guilt by association) problematic. My argument would be: If I'm a good apple, I'd be all for reforming and fumigating out all the bad apples! Bad apples don't deserve to tarnish my good reputation nor my silence (i.e. as good as complicity), ESPECIALLY since there are -- ahem -- "only 0.01%" of them in the force! Isn't that the logical and moral sentiment?

My concern about focusing the debate on the ratio of "Good apples vs. bad apples" is that it's fraught with pitfalls. Without "big data" (because the System won't ever allows such transparency), that "ratio" is subjective. It's just an excuse for politicians and legislators to wiggle out doing anything.

The argument should be that a fair, just and functioning society should punish each and every bad apples to protect the good apples and its citizens. We shouldn't tolerate any bad apples, no matter the "ratio"... police depts & judges SHOULD be exemplary in their knowledge and adherent to the law, NOT the other way around. How else should a people trust its government?

Besides, if what they say is true -- that the "bad apples are few and far between" -- there shouldn't be much consequence to prosecute them all right? It must be worth reforming to salvage the far-to-damaged reputation right? It would be a moral booster for BOTH the police & community IMO.

I've got a lot of respect for the interviewer. No way could I ever handle putting myself in any of the situations he does. And as ridiculous as his interview subjects are, they're also real people. I think it's worthwhile to document the more fringe / bizarre elements of society.

Congress controls the purse strings. The president has no control over budget or taxation or whatever.

Veto is a good thing. We have too many laws (~10'000 roughly wherever you set foot), and we get more every year. Start repealing.

Correct. I will not be complaining about Biden, I will be complaining about congress. President can't sign a law that isn't handed to him by congress.

The treason accusations are subjective. It's not like he sold out defense secrets to an enemy state. He *may* have pressured Ukraine to divulge why the investigation into Hunter Biden was dropped without explanation.

Knowing why is a good thing. I also think it's fishy that a politically connected American who doesn't speak Ukrainian and is not 'an energy man' is sitting on the board of a foreign energy company in a country we helped commit a coup in and getting paid a few million+ 50k/month.

It's not that Republicans don't dare to cross him - they infight with him all the time. They also have no alternative to him right now that doesn't involve giving up power entirely.

-scheherazade

Brother? Really? Yeah, you aren't a bit racist, just stuck in the 70's (when that would still be considered racist, but at least contemporarily racist).

One bad apple.....spoils the bunch is the rest of that sentence.
We see nothing but bad apples. There are no good apples in the bunch, because they left those bad apples in the bunch for decades, actually recruiting them in many cases (see Florida, who recruits cops fired for violence).

Pablo Escobar did nice things, he was a bad apple. Not being the most racist, accusatory, disrespectful, violent assholes possible at every turn does not make a good apple. Turning in, and testifying against his fellow thuggish cops whenever they get violent, racist, or abusive until those cops are in prison instead of on the force, that makes a good apple. They don't exist.

The agreement between law enforcement and citizens starts with law enforcement's obligations.
First is to enforce the law evenly and fairly, not use it as a club for their personal prejudices. Second is their obligation to police themselves with greater zeal and less leeway than they give citizens.
Until they fulfil these obligations, citizens have no obligation to be civil to them. They shirked their obligations first, and theirs came with authority and benefits they retain even though they fail at their obligations every single time.
Civility with police in no way protects you from abuse....it often does nothing but give them excuses to violate citizens further. Any first year lawyer can tell you, there's no benefit to speaking with them at all.

Funny how you think finding one instance where being friendly ended with just a ticket and search you insist it works every time despite the numerous, uncountable examples proving that's simply not true shown to you daily.

"The race issue" (as if it's only one issue) if at the forefront because Republicans have become so outrageously overtly racist with support from the top down that the entire planet has had enough and are marching against the racist, murderous police. We know who is on who's side. It's clear. No one is accepting your word on the subject. We know you have said clearly that you support lying if it helps your cause or proves your point.

BTW, thanks for getting last night's bobknight33 off the keyboard. That one really needs more practice before being put in rotation, he didn't sound like the bobknight33 group in any way. Edit:oops, I hadn't read your other post this morning. These do not appear to be the same person posting in your name 1 1/2 hours apart....shift change comrades?

seeing the discussion between bob and newt reminds me of this george will observation about d.j. dimwit's tweeting...

"He has an advantage on me, he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters, and I can't."

b.k.'s "..a distant fear that never occurred." was a sign to stop. akin to "road out ahead". but being adventurous, forged ahead to see how big the gap was.

give this one to newt. there was a gully washer in bob's neck o' woods

here's an insightful observation...

One good phrase or political catchword is worth more to him than cartloads of dry exposition and theory. A catchword gives the unthinking mob not only the material for an idea, but also furnishes them with the pleasant illusion that they are thinking themselves.

source material: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02646R000100030002-2.pdf