I watched a video not long ago that presented this theory. In the video, you can see the driver turn around when the fatal shot is fired, at which time Kennedy's head jerked back, meaning that shot came from in front of him and not from the book depository. Now, did it come from the driver, or the grassy knoll? In the video I watched the statement was made that Jackie knew it came from the driver, which is why she climbed out of the seat because she didn't want to be killed too.
I'm not quite sure how based she was, especially being an LRH/Thetan follower. And, as such, I'm surprised she was treated at a cancer center. Maybe that's why the cancer was just recently discovered.
Very sad, may she RIP.
I find your comment interesting. I have several family members that follow the bible and said they prayed about getting the jab before they decided to get it. And, one of them, who is an elder in his church, continues to get boosted.
People can follow Jesus and the bible yet still drink the Kool Aid. As I said, my family members prayed about getting the jab and they got it. So, I don't agree with your stance that it is either one or the other.
The majority of those that got the first jab soon after decided not to get boosted but the others are still doing it. Yet, they talk as if they are based, which makes me wonder. Can someone be based and still get the jab?
I didn't read the whole thing but what jumped out at me, and it makes sense, is that PB is used for diarrhea, oftentimes when a virus is picked up during travel. So, what's to say it can't work on this "other" virus. The best part is that PB is OTC medication.
If it is deemed effective I bet the FDA will pull it.
Check out https://jamesclinic.com I dealt with Dr. Mollies James last year and it was such a great process.
As others are saying, just being there for your son and listening when he's ready to talk. Or just hug him.
The pain of losing a friend in that way is never easy, it just gets just easier to deal with (speaking from experience).
I'm so sorry you are all going through this.
The author CLEARLY stated that no other news outlet had reported on it. Here it is: "But with “national emergency” language added to the second submission of the petition it begs the question relating to the alternative news outlets, such as Zero Hedge, Unz.com, Breitbart, and The Gateway Pundit failing to cover this story—as of this writing Monday at 12 noon—that resides in the public domain"
That is a false statement, hence shoddy work.
RIGHT! And it you don't have someone speaking for you that's what you'll get. It scares the shit out of me. I'm thinking of getting "PUREBLOOD ONLY" tattooed on my arms just for that type of situation. One on each arm just in case the other arm is gone for some reason.
This was a shoddy article. The author claims that no other news outlet, specifically on the right, has reported this, which is false. It is an interesting case, which I read when a different news outlet first reported it. But, let's see if anything happens with it.
The gist of the article was that journalists for years have said the CT touts affirmative action as "paramount" to his success and getting into law school. BUT...he started law school in 1965 which was WAY before AA was on the scene. What was paramount for him was the Civil Rights Act of 1965, NOT affirmative action.
Poor excuse and laziness. I'm not talking about immediate reactions, I'm talking about more efficient titles. A poster can put pertinent words in the title without reprinting the entire post. As a matter of fact, I believe I saw a post about this very subject a while back, it may have been from one of the mods.
Search was fixed but not the logging out issue? Got it.
I know many people that do NOT use their real name, unless they want to use SM for work purposes. In which case, having 2 accounts (one personal and one for business) may work.
I NEVER use my name on any of my SM accounts. That's how people find you.
I enjoyed this video. As someone else pointed out, this was an interesting take on his "religious exemption."
However, the one glaring issue I have is, as an Army Medic, nowhere in this video did he mention that he, and EVERYONE, were being forced to take an experimental drug. Which is not legal for the military. Military members can be forced (ordered) to take FDA approved shots, but not experimental shots. So, unless the military was injecting the drug that is/was NOT available in the US, they could not LEGALLY enforce it. He didn't discuss that, which I find interesting.