🚨 Idaho abortion numbers are currently increasing under Pro-Life regulatory laws.

🚨 BREAKING: Nick Shirley, at 24, just stood next to the President of the United States and called out the media to its face. He exposed the Minnesota fraud with a camera, and the press didn't go after the fraudsters. His words: "When I expose fraud, instead the mainstream media investigating the fraud, they investigated me." He says people actually wanted to kill him for it. Trump said what we're all thinking: "They went after you instead of the fraudster. I'm not surprised." Shirley says the fraudsters bought Mercedes and sent our money overseas. Now regular Americans get paid to stop them. One kid did the media's job. Now they're the story.

🚨Just in: The historic 143-year-old bell tower of Limoges town hall has collapsed after rioters set the building on fire

Why should Christians vote no on Proposition 1 in Idaho? LISTEN TO THE MESSAGE HERE: ekklesiamuskogee.subspla.sh/… Let me give you the wrong answers first, all of which have been given by Pro Lifers in this state: Proposition 1 should not be opposed because "it is too radical." When you argue like Proposition 1 is too radical, you are subtly communicating that the current laws which allow child-sacrifice are not too radical, but in fact they are. Any allowance under law of any person at any stage of human development to murder any human being is too radical. Proposition 1 should not be opposed because "it takes away parental rights." When you make that argument, you are teaching the culture that as long as parents have rights over their underage children, they can allow their grandchildren to be murdered. Proposition 1 should not be opposed because "you already have laws that do not restrict birth control." When you argue like that, you are teaching the culture that hormonal birth control and IUDs are fine, and do not lead to the carrying off of preborn children to death. But in fact they are not fine and they do lead children to the slaughter! Proposition 1 should not be opposed because "you already have laws that do not restrict IVF." When you reason like that, you are tutoring your neighbors in the lie that IVF is not an evil practice, but acceptable and a fine option. But in fact it is not! It is a wicked practice which is outside of God’s prescribed means of procreation, the marriage bed, and it leads to millions of murdered children and millions more unlawfully locked in freezers, awaiting their inevitable demise. Proposition 1 should not be opposed because "you already have laws that do not prohibit Plan B." When you reason like this you are communicating to those around you that Plan B is an acceptable form of Pregnancy prevention, when in fact it is not, because it is post-fertilization termination, not pre-fertilization prevention. Proposition 1 should not be opposed because "you already have laws that do not prohibit abortions in the case of rape." When you argue like this you are communicating that it is acceptable to murder a child for the sin of a parent, which is of course a monstrous lie. Proposition 1 should not be opposed because "you already have laws that do not prohibit abortions in the case of incest." Again, just as it is with rape, when you argue like this about incest you are communicating that it is acceptable to murder a child for the sin of a parent, which is of course a monstrous lie. Proposition 1 should not be opposed because "you already have laws that do not abortions in the case of the life of the mother." When you reason like this, you are discipling the culture in the lie that sometimes it is necessary to murder a baby in order to save the life of the mother, which is another lie from hell.