Posted on 08/31/2021 12:00:43 AM PDT by weston
If she did there would be more potholes in GA.
I’ve been vaccinated against rabies. This was the pre-exposure vaccination. I had three shots in my arm. Not bad. If I ever get bit, I have extra time to be treated and the treatment isn’t as severe.
Congratulations.
I’ve heard the treatment is better than it used to be. Maybe he gambled against the odds.
Neither do I, come to think of it. LOL
30 yrs back, After dog bit me, I was given 7 shots in my stomach.
What did they do to the dog?
Pres. Trump endorsed Kari Lake but look who endorsed Matt....
mattsalmonaz
@mattsalmonaz
·
Sep 28
ENDORSEMENT! ✅
Excited to announce that former NYC Police Commissioner @BernardKerik is endorsing my campaign for AZ Governor. Bernie has dedicated his life to keeping our communities safe.
Our support from law enforcement continues to grow each day! https://mattsalmonforaz.com/salmon-for-ariz...
Are gas prices going up?
Oh wait....you’re in CA, yes?
>>>What did they do to the dog?
Dog disappeared. No records of any shot.
I don’t know where that cop got his information.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/p0611-bats-rabies.html
This was Washington’s Governor before Inslee. This happened back in April 9, 1997.
“Gov. Gary Locke, his wife and their infant daughter are getting rabies shots as a precaution after bats were discovered last week in the governor’s mansion, Locke’s press office said Tuesday.” “There are no discernible signs that any of the Lockes were bitten by bats, but Locke and his wife, Mona, heeded the advice of state and Thurston County health officials to get the shots to be on the safe side, said the governor’s press secretary, Mary Lou Flynn.”
So if you find bats in your home and especially dead ones rabies shots are recommended because their TEETH are so SMALL you may not know you have been bitten during the night.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/apr/09/governors-family-gets-rabies-shots-precautionary/
Arizona 2020 Vote Audit Finds Potentially Election-Shifting Numbers Of Illegal Ballots; What To Do Now?
The Federalist ^ | 09/29/2021 | Margot Cleveland
On Friday, the Arizona State Senate released the final reports on the results of the Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit. While the reports made several significant findings supporting former President Trump’s complaints about the 2020 election, the corporate media ignored those aspects of the audit to focus instead only on the results of the hand recount.
As broadly reported, the audit established “there were no substantial differences between the hand count of the ballots provided and the official canvass results for the County.” Maricopa County, which represents Arizona’s most populous county thanks to its county seat of Phoenix, had provided Biden a 45,000-vote advantage in the state, propelling Biden to a victory by 10,457 votes. So the media presented the recount as confirming Biden’s victory in the state.
Left unmentioned, however, were the numerous findings of problems with the election and, most significantly, evidence indicating tens of thousands of ballots were illegally cast or counted. A report entitled “Compliance with Election Laws and Procedures,” issued by Senate Audit Liaison Ken Bennett, highlighted several issues, of which two were particularly significant because of the number of votes involved.
First, Bennett excerpted the Arizona statutory provisions governing early ballots. Those provisions require early ballots to be accompanied by a signed affidavit in which the voter declares he is registered in the appropriate county and has not already voted. The statute further mandates that a voter “make and sign the affidavit,” and directs the early election board to check the voter’s affidavit.
Significantly, “if the affidavit is insufficient, the vote shall not be allowed.” The secretary of state’s Election Procedures Manual reinforces this point, stating: “If the early ballot affidavit is not signed, the County Recorder shall not count the ballot.”
In his report, Bennett noted that “while the Audit scope of work did not include comparing signatures with voter registration records for each voter, it did identify a number of missing signatures on ballot envelop affidavits, which to the extent the ballots in such envelopes were tallied, would violate the above statutes and procedures.”
Although Bennett did not elaborate on the issues related to affidavit signatures or the numbers of affected ballots, in a 99-page report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineer Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai detailed numerous anomalies.
First, Ayyadurai analyzed the early voting ballot return envelopes, on which voters were required to sign an affidavit within a signature block. That review revealed more than 17,000 duplicate images of the return envelopes. When the duplicates were eliminated from the review, Ayyadurai’s company, EchoMail, concluded that Maricopa County had recorded more than 6,545 early voting return envelopes than EchoMail determined existed. EchoMail also concluded that another approximately 500 of the envelopes’ affidavits were left blank.
Ayyadurai also highlighted several implausible statistics, such as that while there was a 52.6 percent increase from 2016 to 2020 in the number of early voting ballots, Maricopa County reported a decrease in signature mismatches of 59.7 percent. “This inverse relationship requires explanation,” the report noted, and then recommended a full audit of the signatures.
Bennett’s report on election law compliance highlighted several additional issues, but of particular note, in light of the audit report, was his reference to Arizona’s statutory requirements for individuals to be considered eligible voters, as delineated in Articles 1, 1.1, and 2 of the Arizona election code.
“The Audit identified numerous questions regarding possible ineligible voters,” Bennett noted, while adding that because “these determinations were made from comparisons between the County’s final voted information and private data sources,” the cooperation of Maricopa County and further investigation would be necessary to “determine whether ineligible persons actually were allowed to vote in the 2020 election.”
The referenced articles of the election code discuss voter registration requirements and the requirement for individuals to be registered to vote at their address of residence, although individuals moving within 29 days of the election remain properly registered to vote in the county in which they previously resided. However, students, members of the military, and others temporarily living at another address remain properly registered at their permanent home address.
Also of significance is the Arizona secretary of state’s Election Procedures Manual, which according to the audit provides that “ballot-by-mail must be mailed to voters by first-class, nonforwardable mail.”
These statutory provisions and procedures prove significant because the audit revealed that 15,035 mail-in votes in Maricopa County were from voters who had moved prior to the registration deadline, another 6,591 mail-in-votes came from voters who had moved out of Arizona prior to the registration deadline, and 1,718 mail-in votes came from voters who moved within Arizona but out of Maricopa prior to the registration deadline.
One of three scenarios seems possible here: First, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address and then provided to the named voter, who had only temporarily relocated. Such votes would be legal and entirely proper.
Second, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address and then provided to the named voter, who had permanently moved, but failed to timely update his registration record yet signed an affidavit attesting to a false address of residence. Such votes would be illegal.
Or third, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address, and then someone other than the named voter cast the vote. Such votes would be both illegal and fraudulent.
Neither Maricopa County nor the state of Arizona knows how many of these 23,000-plus votes fall within each of these three scenarios. And that’s a problem.
As I wrote when similar problems, albeit with more conclusive evidence, were unearthed in Georgia, “Elections are too tight and the populace too divided for ‘close enough for government work’ to cut it anymore. The American voting system must be reformed to ensure security, transparency, replicability, and election officials’ uniform compliance with state election law.”
Sixteen years ago, both Democrats and Republicans would have agreed on these goals, as the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform’s report “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections” confirms. That commission, co-chaired by Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican James Baker III, spoke of “the administration of elections as a continuing challenge, which requires the highest priority of our citizens and our government.”
Unfortunately, rather than acknowledge the problems the Maricopa County audit revealed and rise to the challenge of ensuring they are not repeated, while also investigating areas of potential fraud and illegal voting, Democrats and some Republicans pretend the hand recount’s confirmation of the official vote tally ends the matter.
The corrupt press likewise pushes this narrative: The audit confirms Trump lost, and that is all there is to the matter.
But this isn’t about Trump, just as the 2005 report on building confidence in American elections wasn’t about Al Gore. This is about election integrity and our democracy because, as the commission wrote not even 20 years ago:
The vigor of American democracy rests on the vote of each citizen. Only when citizens can freely and privately exercise their right to vote and have their vote recorded correctly can they hold their leaders accountable. Democracy is endangered when people believe that their votes do not matter or are not counted correctly.
The Arizona audit ended nothing including, sadly, the view held by half of our country that their votes do not matter and are not counted correctly—and that many politicians and members of the press don’t care.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3999120/posts
Yes in CA. They were high before, but have gone up a little in the last couple of days. I think I heard the average price in CA was $4.39, which is about what the are here in HB at the highest places. Costco gas is about $3.79.
Maybe buckshot.
..........
believe it or not she is actually doing Yoga, so there is that.
Oof. Our shots were in 1993, so that was almost 30 years ago. I’m sorry you had to go through that. I’m glad you did.
I saw Joe's fake Oval Office too.
I better not comment further.
Oh wow. I know the commodities market has been going crazy with natural gas prices the past few days.
I think Nashville (closest town where I can get statistics) is averaging right under $3 a gallon this past month, at least. My local Sam’s Club has gas for $2.70 a gallon.
I haven’t filled up in a month, but I’m getting within a quarter tank. I might go ahead and fill up tonight.
Important reminder that if you get bit by a bat or any other animal, do your best to capture it or kill it. I believe if they test it and it’s negative, you can avoid the rabies treatments. Or at least it used to be that way.
Here’s why the federal government can’t study gun violence
The congressman who pushed the so-called “Dickey amendment” came to regret it.
By ERIN DOOLEY
October 6, 2017,
Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called “Dickey Amendment” effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence — an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed “a public health crisis.”
The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012.
Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed “point man for the NRA” on The Hill — the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. But along with the gun control line came a $2.6 million budget cut — the exact amount that the agency had spent on firearm research the year prior — and a quiet wariness.
As one doctor put it, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear ... but no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency’s funding to find out.”
Though President Obama formally directed the CDC to “the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it” shortly after the Newtown mass-murder in 2012, the chilling effect had already taken hold, and the CDC has consistently declined to allocate money to study the issue.
In fact, to this day, CDC policy states the agency “interprets” the language as a prohibition on using CDC funds to research gun issues that would be used in legislative arguments “intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.”
Thus, researchers remain “afraid to even delve into that area of research because they’re afraid of having their funding pulled,” Corby said.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
In the 1990s, the organization successfully lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s funding for gun violence research and implement a ban on further funding.
That ban was reversed in 2018, when Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed a spending bill that permitted the CDC to study gun violence. In the following year, Congress approved an agreement that gave $25 million to the CDC and the National Institutes of Health to research gun violence. At the time, Republican lawmakers criticized the effort as a means by which left-wing gun control activists would come up with scientific studies to claim that gun control is needed as a matter of public health to prevent injuries and deaths.
But the CDC has actually studied gun violence for years, despite the apparent ban on doing so. In 2013, President Barack Obama ordered the CDC to research gun violence following the December 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.
The agency funded and published a report with findings that, contrary to the expectations of gun rights and gun control activists alike, did not support common claims made by the left regarding gun violence. The CDC found that using guns in self-defense is in fact a common occurrence, that gun buyback programs are not effective at reducing crime, and that there are “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
CDC restarts gun violence research; Director Walensky wants gun rights activists to be involved
about a month ago
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky is restarting the agency’s discontinued gun violence research program, expanding the bureaucracy’s mission beyond controlling and preventing infectious disease to include studying what President Joe Biden has called a “gun violence public health epidemic.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.