The Ranger: The Guy With A Gun In A Knife Fight A lot of people are calling the Ranger the strongest class in the sport, and whilst this is a chunk of an exaggeration, there may be some reality to these claims. The Ranger has absurd ranged harm with bows in combination with their Perks, super vicinity-denial options with bear traps and Quick-Shot, and even innate restoration with Rations. An archer elegance with get entry to to infinite arrows in a sport in which both the protective and evasive alternatives are sparse is certainly terrifying. Everyone having guns in Escape from Tarkov was one thing, but this is completely distinctive. This is exactly why the Ranger works nicely in solo play. Even the most veteran Dark and Darker players still get hit by AI enemies from time to time, but the Ranger's combat loop basically gets rid of that threat. Plus, towards actual gamers, a nicely-placed Ranger can easily fight and win against a three-character squad unmarried-handedly. And, even though their combatants do manage to close the space, Rangers can use their innate movement speed and endure traps to outrun and frustrate their pursuers before finishing them off with a bolt as quickly as they permit their guards down. The Fighter: A True Swiss Army Knife Class Where Rangers are a brilliant solo elegance because of their overall utility in areas, ranged fight and pace, Fighters are properly solo instructions because of their widespread software in all areas. Fighters have proper health, true defense, desirable offense, appropriate survivability, top Perks, proper Skills, and are simply all-round pretty excellent. However, be aware how none of their aspects are described as 'notable' or 'outstanding'. Yes, Fighters are accurate at maximum things, however they may be not clearly the 'high-quality' at some thing in exchange. Their average melee damage is not as right as a Barbarian's, they may be no longer nearly as speedy as a Rogue or Ranger, and that they don't have access to Spells like a Cleric or Wizard does. But, for a solo player, a properly-geared Fighter (each in terms of armor and weapons) will provide them the overall maximum chance of survival against the odds. Now, Fighters can not without problems 1v3 an enemy group, but they will typically stay lengthy sufficient to try to and have the best risk of dwelling to try to escape if they can't. The Cleric: Tons Of Healing In A Game Where Healing Is Sparse And sooner or later, there are Clerics. In wellknown Clerics are excellent solo training for a lot of the identical motives Fighters are. Their offense isn't horrible, their defense is respectable, and that they also can use a protect. But, in which the Cleric excels solely is of their basic survivability and PvE software. Clerics have a mess of spells that deal damage to undead which include Holy Light and their Holy Purification Skill. Not simplest that, but they may be also able to maintain themselves alive plenty longer on common than every other elegance might by the usage of each Lesser Heal and Holy Light. That said, while Clerics are accurate for solo gamers, they still shine the brightest when in a crew due to the fact they are able to heal their harm sellers mid-combat and even revive teammates with a spell. But for anyone simply trying to play on their very own and survive towards enemy squads, a Cleric is a pretty good elegance desire. Why Not Barbarian Or Rogue? And ultimately, it need to be stated that each Barbarian and Rogue can work in solo play, they can even dominate in the proper hands. In fact, with how regularly players see Rogues jogging round by themselves, it'd appear peculiar not to have them on here. But, in phrases of their standard playstyle and available Skills/Perks, Barbarians and Rogues simply war more in solo vs squad play than the other instructions do. A Barbarian's slow interaction velocity, sluggish motion speed, and overall awkward weapon hitboxes make it hard to chase or break out enemy gamers. Meanwhile, the Rogue can sneak up on a player without difficulty or even melt them before they have a hazard to react relying on what number of stabs they get in, but in the event that they get hit even as soon as, they're essentially completed for. They're just lessons that shine so much extra in a group scenario that it would be a chunk silly to simplest use them in solo play. The Fighter in Dark in Darker is largely the Mario-type person in Super Smash Bros Ultimate of this recreation if that makes sense. It's the elegance alternative gamers select to analyze the game earlier than moving directly to the extra robotically unique training. Or, rather, they grow to be sticking with it and coming across the man or woman or class' internal complexities. It's the Ryu from Street Fighter or the Sol Badguy of Guilty Gear, just to provide a few different examples. But, as absolutely everyone who has 'principal'ed' any of those characters in fighting video games will say, just because it's the 'starter' man or woman does not mean that it's horrific, simple, or clean to grasp. So, allow's smash down the Fighter in Dark and Darker and pass over its standard construct. All servers of Dark and Darker Gold Coins on MMOexp.com.

When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwt49KRg, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggwkMJ_U and at https://lnkd.in/gbFpkHtK and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage Post 4939 Karina Monasterio appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive Express Insurance Company on Progressive’s complaint for declaratory judgment and Monasterio’s counterclaim against Progressive, and in favor of Rasier-DC, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. on her crossclaim against those defendants. In Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Karina Monasterio, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier – DC, LLC, No. 24-11256, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (November 18, 2024) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the USDC. FACTS Progressive sued for declaratory judgment. Monasterio counterclaimed seeking a declaration that Florida’s TNC Act required Progressive, Rasier-DC, and Uber to provide uninsured motorist coverage for her accident. Florida’s TNC Act required insurance coverage may be maintained by the TNC, the TNC driver, or the TNC vehicle owner, or it may be provided by a combination of their policies. FLORIDA UM/UIM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS Florida Statutes provide that no motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto. Neither Rasier-DC nor any other named insured paid the premium for uninsured motorist coverage. THE APPEAL The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the statutory text is clear. The policy was not issued for any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or garaged in Florida. So, the requirements of the statute did not apply. Because statute did not require uninsured motorist coverage for the auto insurance policy the TNC Act did not. ZALMA OPINION It is always important for a court to read the language of the applicable statute and the policy to determine coverage on an automobile insurance policy. Here the TNC, Raiser-DC rejected UM/UIM coverage and coverage was clearly not required by the statute. The only question I have is why the parties thought it was worth their time and effort to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

Requiring an Insurer to Waive its Right to Subrogation is a Valid & Enforceable Contract Waiver of Subrogation Applies in Marine Insurance Policy Post 4938 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/requiring-insurer-waive-its-right-subrogation-valid-zalma-esq-cfe-gkn3c/, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog. Competing motions for summary judgment were presented to the USDC for the Eastern District of Louisiana in a limitation-of-liability action arising from the listing and capsizing of the liftboat RAM XVIII. The motions present the principal question whether Fieldwood (charterer of the liftboat) must defend and indemnify Aries (owner of the liftboat) and U.S. Specialty (Aries’s insurer) under a master time charter agreement from the personal-injury claims brought by employees of Fluid Crane & Construction, Inc. and United Fire and Safety, LLC (Fieldwood’s subcontractors) who were aboard the RAM XVIII when it capsized. Fieldwood moved for partial summary judgment enforcing waivers of subrogation in the master time charter agreement and the relevant U.S. Specialty insurance policy. In The Matter Of Aries Marine Corporation, et al., Civil Action Nos. 19-10850, 19-13138, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (November 20, 2024) the USDC resolved the disputes. BACKGROUND The USDC resolved a five-year-old limitation-of-liability action that arose from the listing and capsizing of the liftboat RAM XVIII in the Gulf of Mexico. Aries chartered the RAM XVIII to Fieldwood under a master time charter agreement (the “Time Charter”) in relation to work being performed on one of Fieldwood’s offshore platforms. Under those Master Services Contracts, Fluid Crane and United Fire sent employees to work on Fieldwood’s platform; those employees were aboard the RAM XVIII when it capsized. U.S. Specialty, for its part, underwrote an insurance policy (the “Policy”) that provided Aries with certain coverages in effect when the RAM XVIII capsized. Six employees of Fluid Crane and one employee of United Fire-all of whom were aboard the RAM XVIII when it capsized-brought personal injury claims against Aries. The motions before the Court present the principal question whether Fieldwood must defend and indemnify Aries and U.S. Specialty from those personal-injury claims. THE TIME CHARTER Section 10 features a waiver-of-subrogation provision mandating that “[u]nderwriters of all policies of insurance required [by Section 10] shall waive their rights of subrogation against the Charterer Group,” which includes Fieldwood. THE POLICY The Policy provides coverage to Aries for protection and indemnity, including coverage for personal-injury liability. The Policy includes a waiver-of-subrogation provision that applies to the protection-and-indemnity coverage. A separate section of the Policy-governing hull-insurance coverage contains a waiver-of-subrogation provision and a provision naming Fieldwood as an additional insured. THE MASTER SERVICES CONTRACTS. Fieldwood executed the Master Services Contracts with Fluid Crane and United Fire, respectively. Fluid Crane and United Fire agreed to indemnify the other entities involved from claims asserted by their own employees, as well as to be responsible for defense costs for such claims. ANALYSIS Fieldwood’s Motion Fieldwood moved the Court to grant partial summary judgment enforcing waivers of subrogation in the Time Charter and Policy and dismissing Aries’s crossclaim and U.S. Specialty’s complaint-in-intervention. The Court held that Fieldwood is entitled to partial summary judgment because a review of the Time Charter and the Policy confirms that both Aries and U.S. Specialty have waived their rights of subrogation against Fieldwood. U.S. Specialty Waived Its Rights of Subrogation The Policy unambiguously waives U.S. Specialty’s right of subrogation in favor of Fieldwood. The Policy features a waiver-of-subrogation provision. The Time Charter qualifies as a “written contract” that “require[s]” U.S. Specialty to waive its rights of subrogation against Fieldwood because the Time Charter features a waiver-of-subrogation provision mandating that “[u]nderwriters of all policies of insurance required [by Section 10 of the Time Charter] shall waive their rights of subrogation against the Charterer Group,” which is defined to include Fieldwood. Because a review of the Time Charter and the Policy confirms that U.S. Specialty unambiguously waived its rights of subrogation against Fieldwood, and because the claims asserted in U.S. Specialty’s complaint-in-intervention rest on a subrogation theory, the Court granted Fieldwood’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice U.S. Specialty’s complaint-in-intervention. The USDC concluded that the waivers of subrogation in Fieldwood’s favor are enforceable, and Aries and U.S. Specialty have not adequately presented any argument that would allow the Court to hold that their claims for defense and indemnity can survive despite the enforceability of those waivers of subrogation. Fieldwood’s motion for partial summary judgment was GRANTED. ZALMA OPINION Insurance policies like the marine policy interpreted in this case contain standard language authorizing the insured to waive the insurers’ right of subrogation if it does so before there is a loss. Since the litigants sought subrogation recovery which it had waived by the standard language of its policy this five year long litigation was resolved by the acceptance of the waiver. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

No Breach of Contract no Bad Faith Happy Veterans Day to My Fellow Veterans Some Claims Proper Some Not Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/happy-veterans-day-my-fellow-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-ovpec, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/happy-veterans-day-my-fellow-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-ovpec and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Post 4929 Vepo Design Corporation and its officers (collectively, “Vepo”) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on their breach of contract and bad faith claims against American Economy Insurance Company (“AEIC”). Vepo’s claims relate to AEIC’s denial of coverage following a fire in a laundromat, known as the “Central Laundromat,” which Vepo was developing. In Vepo Design Corporation, et al. v. American Economy Insurance Company, No. 23-55634, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (November 4, 2024) the issues were resolved serially. DECISIONS Business Income The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AEIC on Vepo’s business income claim, which concerns income Vepo contends it would have earned operating the Central Laundromat if the fire had not occurred. AEIC argued that Vepo’s claim for lost income was too speculative given that the Central Laundromat was still under construction and Vepo had not secured additional financing to own and operate it. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Vepo as the non-moving party the Ninth Circuit concluded that there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact and that Vepo’s claim for lost business income is not unduly speculative. There is evidence that Vepo was contemplating an arrangement under which it would own and operate the Central Laundromat for a period of time before selling it, and that Vepo later engaged in similar arrangements for other laundromats. Vepo, which was experienced in the laundromat industry, also demonstrated that it had a history of securing financing for its laundromat projects and that it intended to refinance the Central Laundromat once a certificate of occupancy was received. Although Vepo had not secured refinancing for the Central Laundromat as of the time of the fire, Vepo’s Principal Owner stated in her declaration and confirmed at her deposition that it was too early to do so in the project timeline. That Vepo had yet to refinance does not render its claim too speculative as a matter of law and its losses are for a jury to decide. Extra Expense The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AEIC for the extra expenses that Vepo allegedly incurred in storing laundry equipment in a warehouse owned by Vepo’s sister company following the fire. While the policy only required the expense to be incurred, not paid, there was insufficient evidence to create a triable issue over whether the expense was incurred at all. No payment changed hands between the two entities, and there is no accounting record showing that Vepo was liable for the storage amount. When the same person signed as representative of both entities, does not create a genuine dispute of material fact. Lost Profits The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Vepo’s claim for lost profits on the prospective sale of the laundromat. Even assuming that such a loss would be covered under the policy, the claim fails because the policy limited coverage to losses that occur within one year of the incident. Vepo’s plan called for it to own and operate the Central Laundromat for at least one year after opening, which would place any hypothetical sale more than a year after the pre-opening fire. Individual Personal Property Claims The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for AEIC on the claims by the individual plaintiffs for their own personal property that was allegedly lost in the fire. As the district court correctly found, Vepo did not identify what individual property was lost or its worth. The individual plaintiffs’ claims were too unsupported to create a triable issue. Bad Faith The Ninth Circuit partially reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Vepo’s bad faith claim, to the extent of the single insurance claim it allowed to go forward-the business income claim. The district court may permit any further motions practice on the bad faith claim as it deems appropriate. However, it affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the bad faith claim insofar as that claim is premised on any of the other breach of contract claims to which AEIC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There is never a claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing if there was no improper denial of coverage under the policy. ZALMA OPINION The importance of this case is the reiteration of the law that there can never be a viable tort of bad faith if there is no improper denial of a claim by breach of the insurance contract. If the one cause of action remaining was breached in bad faith and there was no genuine dispute over coverage, that cause can be brought for bad faith damages. The other decisions of the Ninth Circuit were obvious and well reasoned. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

Who’s on First & in What Percentage Application of Diverse “Other Insurance” Clauses Insurers Protected Insured and Litigated Their Differences Post 4920 Two insurance companies- Gemini and Zurich- asked the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal to determine what share of a $2 million settlement each is required to pay. The district court entered judgment for Gemini, ordering that Zurich pay $500,000 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties appealed, with Gemini seeking another $500,000 and Zurich challenging the award of prejudgment interest. In Gemini Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 22-13495, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 23, 2024) the competing “other insurance clauses” were resolved. FACTS After the death of Josue Vallejo, who was struck by a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of FSR Trucking, Inc two of three insurers disputed what proportion of the settlement each should pay. Zurich insured FSR, through its coverage of Commercial, for $1 million. Gemini also insured FSR for $3 million. The Vallejo claim settled for $3 million, of which Gemini contributed $2 million. Ryder’s insurance company, which is not a party to this appeal, contributed the other $1 million. Gemini and Zurich agree that they each owe a share of the $2 million, but dispute how much each one must pay. Under Gemini’s theory, they each owe $1 million. Under Zurich’s theory, they each owe their pro rata share, which is $500,000 for Zurich and $1.5 million for Gemini. The different theories of coverage turn on the application of the two policies’ “other insurance” clauses, which generally function to apportion coverage when there is overlapping insurance. Gemini argues that its policy is excess to Zurich’s, while Zurich argues that the policies attach at the same level and thus trigger pro rata contribution. Gemini sued Zurich for a declaratory judgment in its favor and an award of $1 million plus interest under claims of contractual subrogation or equitable subrogation/contribution. Zurich tendered $500,000 to Gemini to satisfy its pro rata share. Gemini, however, continued to litigate for the other $500,000 plus interest on the entire amount. Gemini appealed the District Court’s ruling in favor of Zurich and sought to obtain the other $500,000. ANALYSIS In Florida, where more than one insurer’s policy provides coverage for a loss, as the parties agree is the case here, it is appropriate to review the insurance contracts to see if the documents address the ‘ranking’ or contribution of other insurers. The Other Insurance Clauses Gemini’s “other insurance” clause provides: “This insurance is excess over and shall not contribute with any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis. This condition will not apply to insurance specifically written as excess over this policy.” Zurich’s “other insurance” clause is slightly different. “When this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy covers on the same basis, either excess or primary, we will pay only our share. Our share is the proportion that the Limit of Insurance of our Coverage Form bears to the total of the limits of all the Coverage Forms and policies covering on the same basis. Interpretation of the “Other Insurance” Clauses Where two insurance policies contain excess insurance clauses the clauses are deemed mutually repugnant and both insurers become primary and share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance with their policy limits. Zurich argued, and the district court agreed, that both policies contain excess clauses such as pro rata contribution results. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Gemini because when two policies containing conflicting “other insurance” or excess [uninsured/underinsured motorist] clauses. In sum an “other insurance” clause containing the phrase “we will pay the proportion of damages payable as excess” means that the clause was pro rata, even though it also characterized itself as an excess clause. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit concluded both policies were primary. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment with regard to the amount of contribution and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Gemini for the principal amount of $1,000,000, with the understanding that Zurich has already paid half of that sum. Upon entry of the amended final judgment on remand, Gemini will be the prevailing party. When a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff’s out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded for the court to enter judgment in favor of Gemini in the principal amount of $1,000,000 understanding that Zurich has already paid $500,000. It also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on the first $500,000 and direct the court to award Gemini prejudgment interest on the second $500,000 from February 7, 2019, until the date of the amended final judgment. ZALMA OPINION The three insurers of the defendant did the right thing by protecting the insured and then resolving their dispute over the share owed in court. Although insurance companies, generally, should not sue each other. “Other Insurance” clauses invariably raise disputes between insurers and often cause hardship to the insured. In this case Gemini, Zurich and an unnamed insurer put up the $3 million to settle and then Gemini and Zurich sued to clarify who owed what. The Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court was wrong because interpreting the competing “other insurance” clauses should have resulted in a finding that both Gemini and Zurich were primary insurers and each owed $1 million of the settlement and Zurich owed Gemini $500,000 plus interest. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

Judicial Watch: Biden-Harris State Dept Records Detail Targeting of Tucker Carlson over Putin Interview https://www.judicialwatch.org/tucker-carlson-putin-interview/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 105 pages and 211 pages of heavily redacted records from the U.S. State Department in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that show officials in the Biden State Department exchanging an article comparing Tucker Carlson’s February 2024 interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolph Hitler’s handing out copies of Mein Kampf to newlyweds in Germany in the 1930s. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after the State Department failed to comply with a February 7, 2024, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:24-cv-00840)) for: All (2024) emails and diplomatic notes sent to and from the following officials referencing “Tucker Carlson:” Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Deputy Secretary Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary James O’Brien, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Yuri Kim, Deputy Assistant Secretary Sonata Coulter, Deputy Assistant Secretary Gabriel Escobar, Deputy Assistant Secretary Joshua Huck, Deputy Assistant Secretary Douglas Jones, Deputy Assistant Secretary Jacqueline Ramos, and/or Deputy Assistant Secretary Christopher W. Smith.

These demonic scumbags are NOT psychics people! So when they lay out "things that our future holds" for us..... IT IS BECAUSE THEY PLAN TOO MAKE THEM HAPPEN!!! The fact that these demons have not been arrested already, every last one of them, well... THAT should tell you everything you need to know about the "legitimacy" of "governments" around the world! Every last one of them are #Corporations and are ALL run by the very same #Criminals! There are no "countries" anymore..... It's just one big organized crime ring controlling the entire world because WE ALLOW IT! The worst part of it is.... When they send someone to kill you, it'll be ONE OF US going to kill our brothers and sisters, because we are #Slaves to a worthless "note of debt" It is truly sad! We could completely cut them out of the equation IF WE STOOD TOGETHER! But as soon as they offer some poor kid from the ghetto (who they put there) some WORTHLESS PAPER he will gladly do whatever they say! He'll destroy his own future for worthless paper! As will their "mercenary" armies! If you are in the military then YOU are a servant of #Satan! I have nothing but love for our veterans.... But there comes a time to pull your head from your ass and look around! The "Military" of ALL COUNTRIES is nothing more than shock troops of #Evil men! And you should be ashamed if you are one! You have NEVER "fought for freedom" You have just been the pawn of "worldly gouernours" using you to their evil ends! I will STAND OPPOSED every time! But I won't be standing alone! The Full Armor of God (Geneva Bible) 10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the assaultes of the deuil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and against the worldly gouernours, the princes of the darkenesse of this worlde, against spirituall wickednesses, which are in ye hie places. 13 For this cause take vnto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to resist in the euill day, and hauing finished all things, stand fast. 14 Stand therefore, and your loynes girded about with veritie, and hauing on the brest plate of righteousnesse, 15 And your feete shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace. 16 Aboue all, take the shielde of faith, wherewith ye may quench all the fierie dartes of the wicked, 17 And take the helmet of saluation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the worde of God. 18 And pray alwayes with all maner prayer and supplication in the Spirit: and watch thereunto with all perseuerance & supplication for al Saints, 19 And for me, that vtterance may be giuen vnto me, that I may open my mouth boldly to publish the secret of the Gospel, 20 Whereof I am the ambassadour in bonds, that therein I may speake boldely, as I ought to speake. https://bastyon.com/index?s=6cb2c2b5263187e274edc99c55bccbd3f62f503f1cc423b8678dda044aa9dd71&ref=PR73uNkFMJzvL9NtkL66NAZ2ci1GVQuW8E

Meet Matt Croyle. Help Make Him Famous. https://imgflip.com/i/8wi7yq Matt is the former first ward constable of Oil City, Pennsylvania. He is also a former Principal at Mill Creek Elementary school. On July 3, 2024 he tweeted at 7:48 AM on that fateful day: “If you have friends and family members who support Trump—if it comes down to it, you may literally have to kill them before they kill you. This is where we are headed. This is a fifty-alarm fucking fire.” So why hasn't he been arrested and charged with sedition and treason yet, not to mention instigating it? https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1808557130963640603

Watch: Middle Schooler’s Patriotic Speech CENSORED by Principal Goes VIRAL https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-middle-schoolers-patriotic-speech-censored-by-principal-goes-viral/

This Explains the MAGNIFICENT Northern Lights Last Night They're "on tap" for tonight as well! https://imgflip.com/i/8pr7bj High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is based in Alaska and it's a high-power, high frequency (HF) transmitter for studying the ionosphere. The principal instrument is a phased array of 180 HF crossed-dipole antennas capable of radiating 3.6 megawatts into the upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Transmit frequencies are selectable in the range of 2.7 to 10 MHz. The research team have announced that they will be carrying out tests from the 8th to the 10th of May 2024.