Posted on 09/30/2024 10:55:08 PM PDT by ransomnote
🚨 Tulsi Gabbard, former Democratic candidate for president, joins Republican party at Trump rally
Gabbard represented Hawaii’s second district in Congress from 2013 through 2021
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-former-democratic-candidate-president-joins-republican-party-trump-rally
Comin’ in HOT!
A genius type of whom I’ve never heard! I don’t care what he’s selling.
Why not both? Have character while being one.
BRICS! The investment we know Nothing of the new world alternative.
QUORUM. Fine explanation for causing Vance to be a POTUS.
Bump.
Please God, let it be THIS NOV 3!!!!
He did not Shoot him. A fragment from a round ricocheted back from a target and hit the reporter. (Per the KC Star Newspaper) What ever else that is it is not a “Shooting Range”. I think they have a couple of sheets of metal on the left. Yes it unsafe. Miss the target and you are spraying rounds back into the woods. As I recall he is running saying he was in the military. I think the look on his face means “Oops! Just lost the election!”
Good night L.J.!
More on “Lock Trump up”:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4272718/posts
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4272700/posts
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4272671/posts
6 posted on 10/22/2024, 10:46:15 PM by rktman
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4272728/posts?page=1
Kamala Harris Busted for Plagiarizing Congressional Testimony from REPUBLICAN District Attorney
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com ^ | 10/22/2024 | cassandra macdonald
Posted on 10/22/2024, 11:22:57 PM by bitt
Vice President Kamala Harris has been busted for plagiarizing a congressional testimony from a Republican district attorney in 2007. This is the second plagiarism scandal that the Democrat nominee has faced in recent weeks.
According to a report from the Washington Free Beacon, Harris’ testimony was stolen from Illinois District Attorney Paul Logli.
If Trump loses in Nov....
polar bear walking on ice...
https://youtube.com/shorts/5EZ4Ms0t5yM?si=jWRkeAJMDJdvIVEd
busted by the dash cam - watch out for these maggots
https://youtube.com/shorts/wKtxYCNmHgU?si=_LBHODRlNcTj5G3C
Wow! You got me beat. I’ll remind the Mrs of that when she complains.
-SB
Bill Gates to Stand Trial in Netherlands in COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit
A Netherlands court last week ruled that Bill Gates can stand trial in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. Other defendants include Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-covid-vaccine-lawsuit-netherlands/
Excerpt:
A Netherlands court last week ruled that Bill Gates can stand trial in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines.
According to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, the seven “corona skeptics” sued Gates last year, along with former Dutch prime minister and newly appointed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and “several members” of the Dutch government’s COVID-19 “Outbreak Management Team.”
Other defendants include Albert Bourla, Ph.D., CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.
“Because Bill Gates’ foundation was involved in combating the corona pandemic, he has also been summoned,” De Telegraaf reported.
According to Dutch independent news outlet Zebra Inspiratie, the plaintiffs allege that Gates, through his representatives, deliberately misled them about the safety of the COVID-19 shots, despite knowing “that these injections were not safe and effective.”
Dutch independent journalist Erica Krikke told The Defender that the seven plaintiffs — whose names are redacted in the lawsuit’s publicly available documents — “are ordinary Dutch people, and they have been jabbed and after the jabs they got sick.”
Krikke said that of the seven original plaintiffs, one has since died, leaving the other six plaintiffs to continue the lawsuit.
Turns Out There Is No Risk From Second Hand Smoke
https://wheelgunr.blogspot.com/2024/10/turns-out-there-is-no-risk-from-second.html
https://reason.com/2024/10/16/we-were-wrong-to-panic-about-secondhand-smoke/
Excerpt:
Or not enough risk to get worked up about. We Were Wrong To Panic About Secondhand Smoke?
The short answer is yes. You can’t hear the long answer because it is drowned out by all of the shouting about “settled science.”
In 2003, UCLA epidemiologist James Enstrom and I published a study of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)—also called “secondhand smoke” or “passive smoking”—in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Using data from the American Cancer Society’s prospective study of 1 million adults, we concluded that ETS exposure was not associated with increased mortality.
Since that conclusion flew in the face of the conventional wisdom that had long driven state and local bans on smoking in public places, our study understandably sparked a controversy in the public health community. But the intensity of the attack on us in the pages of a medical journal—by critics who were certain that our study had to be wrong but typically failed to provide specific evidence of fatal errors—vividly illustrates what can happen when policy preferences that have taken on the status of doctrine override rational scientific debate.
Rational scientific debate? We can’t have that. The 21st Century is all about feelings, and so my feelings trump your facts any day of the week.
As hard as it may be for some people to believe, science gave up claims to “ultimate truth” at the end of the 19th Century. If you’re looking for ultimate truth, you should study religion or philosophy. That means the science is never settled.
Exposure to ETS is known to cause eye and throat irritation and to exacerbate preexisting respiratory conditions. In addition, it is simply disagreeable to many people (including me). But assessing the claim that ETS is potentially deadly requires dispassionate examination of the available scientific evidence.
That is not what Enstrom and I encountered when we published our BMJ paper. Critics were outraged by the article and demanded its retraction. But they were never able to satisfactorily explain why such an extreme step was justified.
Because the people screaming are not engaged in science; they are defending their religious position. In this case about 2nd hand or environmental smoke.
**********************************
Because there’s no grift in “likely negligible”.
There is a link in that paragraph to some of the “grift.” That is, some of the ways the lawyers got rich suing over a non-existent hazard.
> Rogan Trump interview
When is it supposed to happen?
-SB
Well well WELL well well.
Buckle seatbelts!
And anyone who supprts, facilitates, funds, protects them or brought them into the country.
> Turns Out There Is No Risk From Second Hand Smoke
I knew that decades ago. Despite that I’ve been treated as a second class citizen for just as long.
Thank you for posting this. It’s getting shared.
-SB
Thanks. I saw the document, or most of it, and posted. I’ll listen tomorrow.
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.