Posted on 06/09/2024 4:00:42 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Four innocent hostages brought home, and a legal blow against presumptuous government action.
In a daring feat masterfully executed, the Israeli Defense Force rescued four of the hostages in Gaza. Most touching of all was the rescue of Noa Argamani, whose mother is dying of brain cancer, who had prayed she’d be reunited with her daughter before she died. The hostages had been held by private citizens in two separate apartments 200 feet apart within the central market of Nuseirat in Gaza and the rescuers had to stage a difficult simultaneous operation to free them. They operated under heavy fire from Hamas and local citizens. One IDF soldier, Arnon Zamora, was killed in the rescue and a significant number (who can trust reports from Hamas?) of those who attacked the rescuers and hostages were killed.
Lieutenant Colonel Arnon Zamora, may he rest in peace, led the team in breaching the building where three hostages were held (Noa was held in another building about 200 meters away). Zamora was injured during the confrontation with the terrorists and later succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.
- The hostages were held by Hamas guards in homes of Arab families (Hamas paid the families to hold the hostages -- indicating there are no innocent bystanders).
- The IDF entered Nuseirat in trucks and civilian vehicles with Gazan license plates.
- Many terrorists from Nuseirat fired upon the IDF, including anti-tank missile fire, resulting in a firefight where many Palestinians were killed.
- The confrontation occurred near Nuseirat's market.
- The rescue vehicle was hit, caught fire, and became stuck.
- Forces from Brigade 98: Paratroopers, Kfir, Givati Brigade, Golani Reconnaissance Battalion, and Shayetet 13 attacked Nuseirat from multiple directions under heavy bombardment from the Air Force, helicopter fire, Navy ship fire, and...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
stop lying:
this is what the court found:
The majority’s ruling holds that Jacobson only applied to measures to prevent the spread of disease, and that we had credibly pled that the COVID vaccines were not designed or intended to prevent disease spread, but were only designed to reduce the severity of illness in infected persons. Therefore, the majority held that Jacobson does not apply. [emphasis supplied.]
In a concurring opinion, Judge Collins wrote that measures to protect an individual from getting sick, as opposed to preventing disease spread, fell under a separate line of authority for the proposition that each person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment. That was exactly our theory of the case.
As an example to the next one and the one after that...
Except that isn’t what the Ninth ruled.
“It’s important to note that the court did not find as a fact that the mRNA COVID shot is a treatment and not a vaccine, and did not find as a fact that it does not prevent the spread of COVID-19, as proceedings have not reached that stage; the court was simply ruling on a procedural motion as to whether the suit was moot and whether LAUSD’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly decided.”
wrong but then you have been wrong over covid the whole time.
markman46 wrote: “wrong but then you have been wrong over covid the whole time.”
Not so. Please provide a quote from the findings that the court found as a fact that the mRNA COVID shot is a treatment and not a vaccine.
If you cannot provide that quote then it is you who are wrong and once again I am correct. Please note, a direct quote, not what someone else says is in the findings.
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.