|
Posted on 12/12/2023 8:00:29 PM PST by ransomnote
Q has reminded us repeatedly that together, we are strong. As the false "narrative" is destroyed and the divisive machinery put in place by the Deep State fails, the fact that patriotism has no skin color or political party is exposed for all to see.
3038 Mar 12, 2019 2:55:14 PM EDT
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 4fe510 No. 5643022>Decide for yourself (be free from outside opinion).
>Decide for yourself (be objective in your conclusions).
>Decide for yourself (be true in your own beliefs).
>Decide for yourself (be open to following the facts).
>Decide for yourself (be strong in defending your beliefs).
>Decide for yourself (be resistant to blindly accepting fact-less statements).
>Decide for yourself (be free)
Those who attack you.
Those who mock you.
Those who cull you.
Those who control you.
Those who label you.
Do they represent you?
Or, do they represent themselves (in some form)?
Mental Enslavement.
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment).
When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone.
Trust and put faith in yourself.
You are not alone and you are not in the minority.
Difficult truths will soon see the light of day.
WWG1WGA!!!Q
In the battle between those who strip us our constitutional rights, we can't afford to let false divisions separate us any longer. We, and our country, will be forever made stronger by diligently seeking the truth, independence and freedom of thought.
Where We Go 1, We Go All
What I’d like to see is rank-and-file Catholics holding their leadership to the same standards they preach. Are you OK with Cardinal Bernie Law, from New York, dodging the pedophile charges by hiding in the Vatican until he died? I’m not big on double standards from any group/place/organization. But the Pope stuck his chin out. Are you OK with the queer marriage sanction?
Malacca Straits closed to Israel??? MALAYSIA BANS ships going to ISRAEL from it’s waters and ports
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbi-RIEwQ7g
!!!! :)
Nice catch steve
Just a note: Bergoglio did not sanction “queer marriage”, but “allowed” blessing of queer partnerships.
The stuff built in the 50s, 60s, & 70s, eh, not so much. It's not quite Soviet-style socialist brutalism but it's close. Here are two examples from the 60s. They aren't the worst I could find.
WWG1WGA
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty, but humility comes before honor.
Proverbs 18:12 (ESV)
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”
Exodus 20:12 (ESV)
The best way to tell body doubles apart is the inside of the ear. Everyone’s is different. Post 1966 McCartney’s inner ears are completely different than after 1966. Notice how you’ve never seen Fetterman’s head from the side post hospital.
-SB
The professionals knew that their hardware wasn't as good as ours, that their troops weren't trained as well, and wouldn't as motivated.
WWG1WGA
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
freeper Qiviut found it
X22 12.20.23: Did You See What Colorado SC Did? Do You See The Real Dictators, Enemy Of The People – Ep. 3240
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 12/12/2023 Vol.482, Q Day 2236, grey_whiskers wrote: Holy crap, Cheshire! From your 2nd link:
At no point was true pharmacology of BNT162b2 ever assessed. The famous “rat distribution” study comes closest. It at least uses the same LNP construct as BNT162b2, but with RNA encoding luciferase rather than the spike protein. As openly admitted in the introduction:
https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-2389-06.pdf p. 40.
At no point did Pfizer or BioNTech have any idea what their product was doing or would actually do in humans.
At no time would the CDC/FDA/NIH treat as valid evidence that the 'vaccine' was harmful because they required that those making claims of vaccine harm prove the mechanisms of action(s) (i.e., what the vaccine was doing).
I believe that Pfizer and BioNTech knew exactly what their 'vaccines' were doing, but withholding the documentation prevented researchers from making their case quickly and stopping 'vax' distribution.Fauci and Walensky both worded their advertising promotions for the 'vaccine' by saying, "We're seeing evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective..." and, at the time, they were obviously using wording from the hand of lawyers, because science doesn't base conclusions about safety/efficacy on 'some ea evidence I saw'. So those two ghouls plan to say they never saw pharma evidence based on pharma false claims that it was never studied. The dog ate their homework.
.
My point is to use the most emotional word to get your point across. A little Saul Alinsky back in [their] face don’tchaknow.
Noah’s Nightly News – 12/20/23
https://truthlion.com/noahs-nightly-newsletter-12-20-23/
* Trump vs. Biden — (Baby Please Come Home)
* President Trump Issues Ominous Warning…
* Financial Article
* The REAL Reason The FBI Raided Mar-a-Lago Revealed?
* Former White House Lawyer and Noted Trump Critic, Ty Cobb, Tells CNN Why Supreme Court Will UNANIMOUSLY Overturn Colorado Sup. Ct.
* Another State Expected To Rule On Removing Trump from Ballot This Friday
* Six More States Now Actively Investigating REMOVAL Of President Trump From 2024 Ballot
* Did You Know Abraham Lincoln Was Also Removed From The Ballot In An Election?
* Top Pollster: Trump Is Now “More Likely” To Beat Biden After Colorado Ballot Ruling
* Ron DeSantis Asked If He Will Stand With Vivek and Trump and Remove His Name From the CO Ballot
* The Secret Weapon to Avoid Being a Victim of the Next China Virus?
* UPDATE: Recalled Applesauce Products Intentionally Tainted With Lead?
* Something BIG is about to go down… multiple confirming signals point to cyber takedown of financial system
* PRAYER CHAIN: Can We Get One Million People Praying for Trump?
gisd O
At no time would the CDC/FDA/NIH treat as valid evidence that the 'vaccine' was harmful because they required that those making claims of vaccine harm prove the mechanisms of action(s) (i.e., what the vaccine was doing). I believe that Pfizer and BioNTech knew exactly what their 'vaccines' were doing, but withholding the documentation prevented researchers from making their case quickly and stopping 'vax' distribution.
Fauci and Walensky both worded their advertising promotions for the 'vaccine' by saying, "We're seeing evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective..." and, at the time, they were obviously using wording from the hand of lawyers, because science doesn't base conclusions about safety/efficacy on 'some ea evidence I saw'. So those two ghouls plan to say they never saw pharma evidence based on pharma false claims that it was never studied. The dog ate their homework.
Again, rephrasing this in terms even people as dishonest as the $hot $hill$ might be able to follow:
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.
