EUO is a Material Condition Precedent Claim Properly Denied for Refusal to Testify at EUO Post 4936 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/euo-material-condition-precedent-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-exccc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. See the full video at and at Erin Hughes appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) on her causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith arising after Farmers’ denial of Hughes’s property insurance claim because she refused to testify at a second examination under oath (EUO). In Erin Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B331168, California Court of Appeals (November 8, 2024) the condition precedent was enforced. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Hughes is the owner of real property in Malibu (the property). In December 2020, Hughes obtained an insurance policy to cover the property for fire loss through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Also in December 2020, Hughes obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy from Farmers to cover perils other than fire, including losses due to theft (the policy). One month later, in January 2021, the property sustained significant fire damage. Hughes contacted Farmers, which advised her that fire loss was not covered by her Farmers policy, and she would have to pursue any such claim through her FAIR Plan policy. Unhappy, on January 21, 2021, Hughes tendered a theft claim under the Farmers policy, asserting in excess of $2 million worth of personal property was stolen from the property. Farmers ultimately denied the claim on January 5, 2022, on the ground that Hughes failed to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation, including by failing to participate in a second examination under oath as required by the policy. Hughes’s Complaint Against Farmers One week after the denial of her claim, Hughes sued Farmers and alleged Farmers demanded “duplicative, onerous and/or unnecessary” documentation of stolen items. Further, she alleged Farmers subjected her to “two confrontational, accusatory and grueling examinations under oath.” Hughes alleged her second examination under oath had been “suspended due to [her] medical condition,” but Farmers disregarded her condition and demanded a third examination. Farmers’ Motion for Summary Judgment Farmers moved for summary judgment contending it properly denied Hughes’s theft claim based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation of her claim as well as her material misrepresentations in obtaining the Farmers policy. In May 2021, as part of Farmers’ theft claim investigation, Hughes participated in an examination under oath. During the examination, Hughes’s counsel informed the Farmers attorney he had just sent more than 40 additional receipts that the attorney would be receiving shortly. Recognizing they would not have time to go through the new items that day and the examination would need to continue on a future date, the Farmers attorney proposed “continu[ing] to work with one another to identify what’s missing.” In response, Hughes and her counsel agreed, with Hughes stating she would be happy to get “every single thing that you need and I’ll send it to my attorney right away.” In October 2021, a second session of the examination under oath was held regarding documentation Hughes had produced during and after the first session. Hughes appeared remotely with counsel and before any questions were asked of her, she objected to a further examination. Hughes accused the Farmers attorney of interrogating her “like a fucking criminal” and stated, “if you want to take my deposition . . . you are going to take a second deposition in court, and that’s going to be a formal deposition.” Hughes’s remote connection then cut out, and her counsel indicated she would not proceed with the examination. Farmers informed Hughes that it was denying coverage based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation and particularly her refusal to proceed with the second examination under oath. Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment and Denial of Hughes’s Continuance Request and Motion for New Trial The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers. Noting an insurer has “an absolute right” to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath “as long as the insurer exercises the right reasonably,” the court determined Hughes had not shown Farmers acted unreasonably. The court concluded summary judgment was appropriate “based solely on failure to cooperate.” DISCUSSION The trial court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute that Hughes’s failure to participate in an examination under oath constituted a material breach of the policy; accordingly, Farmers was excused from having to pay on Hughes’s claim. The right to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath concerning all proper subjects of inquiry is reasonable as a matter of law. An insured’s compliance with a policy requirement to submit to an examination under oath is a prerequisite to the right to receive benefits under the policy. Because Hughes refused to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation by participating in and completing her examination under oath, she cannot establish her own performance under the policy. Breach of Implied Covenant Claim The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on general contract law and the long-standing rule that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. Hughes’s claim for bad faith fails as a matter of law. ZALMA OPINION Wildfires tend to destroy everything. That is why insurers are unwilling to write fire insurance in Malibu and other areas prone to wildfires and obtain fire insurance from the Fair Plan, an organization designed to cover uninsurable risks. Because of the destruction done by a wildfire or a dwelling fire a $2 million dollar theft loss after a fire is questionable and a good reason to take a thorough EUO. Farmers tried to do so and Hughes refused without reason after admitting she left open much investigation elements at the agreed conclusion of the first session and an agreement to a second only to refuse. (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

Police should be REQUIRED BY LAW to have an active insurance policy for general liability, to pay out the lawsuits and police misconduct claims! And those cops should also be CRIMINALLY CHARGED under federal law, Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 every single time they violate the rights of Americans! I have been telling people this for YEARS! I install replacement windows for a living..... My job REQUIRES me to purchase a ONE MILLION DOLLAR general liability insurance policy. Without it I can't work! I DON'T carry a gun, shoot people, taze people, bust out people's car windows, imprison people with torture cuffs, or put people into a cage while I'm at work..... I simply install windows, and MUST HAVE liability insurance! Don't you think it's beyond reasonable to ask that #Police Officers be REQUIRED BY LAW to carry a general liability insurance policy, just like I have to have, since they DO all of the things listed above! They DO carry a gun, they DO commit violence against other Americans, they DO put people into shackles, they DO damage the property of Americans, and they DO harm Americans on a regular basis Is it REALLY necessary for ME to be forced to have general liability insurance in order to "Change a window" when we have MEN IN BODY ARMOR WITH GUNS AND TASERS who don't have insurance? You see..... Police definitely DON'T WANT to be required to purchase their own insurance policy! Do you know WHY??? I'll tell you... If these Police had their own liability insurance every time that an American citizen wins a case of police brutality or misconduct, and / or wrongful death when they kill the innocent.. THEIR INSURANCE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE LAWSUIT! And that would make their premiums go up... And when it has happened several times (Like happens with bad cops) their policy would be CANCELLED leaving them unable to ever work as a police officer again! This is something that MUST HAPPEN! We can no longer tolerate a #Criminal gang of blue line thugs who are "Above the Law" and are NEVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE! And body cameras should be MANDATORY and activated throughout the shift of ALL POLICE OFFICERS! If they turn them off it should be an automatic 25 years in prison! The body cameras and dash cameras should be LIVE-STREAMED to servers controlled by CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES of regular Americans (Like myself and James Freeman) and to Police headquarters, after a 5 minute delay THE AMERICAN PEOPLE should NEVER get a redacted version of the body cameras, after all, THEY ARE THE BOSS! Every body camera in America should be viewable after a 5 minute delay, it should be released for ANYONE to look at it, at any time, and for any reason... and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should it be edited whatsoever! STOP enabling criminal behavior by Police! STOP enabling criminals to walk free among us! DEMAND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY WITH EVERY BREATHE YOU TAKE, RIGHT UP UNTIL THE VERY LAST ONE! Because if you should fail to do this.... Your children and grandchildren will live as #Slaves and under #Tyranny https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1651406135372025867

Bad Faith Set Up Fails Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bad-faith-set-up-fails-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-jllxc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Inadequate Information Made Refusal to Pay Policy Limits Not Bad Faith INADEQUATE MEDICAL AUTHORIZATION USED TO CAUSE INSURER TO REFUSE SETTLEMENT DEMAND Post 4930 Kara Flick appealed from the judgment after a jury rejected her claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Flick contends the judgment should be reversed due to juror misconduct. In KARA FLICK v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, B330507, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division (November 5, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute. FACTUAL HISTORY After sustaining injuries in an automobile accident caused by Francisco Reyes, Jr., Flick had her attorney send Reyes's insurer, the United Services Automobile Association (USAA), a letter explaining the severity of her injuries and an authorization for the release of her medical records. Flick's attorney followed up with a settlement demand two months later, requesting that USAA pay Flick the entirety of Reyes's $100,000 policy limit in exchange for a release of liability. Attached to the demand was a single medical record from Flick's neurologist. USAA investigated Flick's claim and determined it did not have sufficient information to accept or reject her demand. Flick then filed a personal injury lawsuit against Reyes. The jury found in her favor and awarded nearly $1.7 million in damages. Flick, with an assignment from the Reyes, sued USAA for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. TRIAL At trial, a USAA claims adjustor admitted that Reyes was fully at fault for the accident with Flick. Reyes could therefore be exposed to liability in excess of his policy limits-if Flick provided sufficient documentation to support her claim. USAA's expert on insurance claims handling and another of its claims service managers both agreed with the supervisor that Flick's authorization was invalid and inadequate to allow USAA to obtain Flick's medical records. USAA needed additional records before it could determine the value of Flick's claim. Those records could have included the medical bills Flick provided to her own insurance company, the multiple doctor's notes she had excusing her from work, or the thumb drive recording her purported speech problems, all of which were entered into evidence at her personal injury trial. Because they were not provided to USAA, it was "very difficult to place a value on" Flick's claim. Flick's expert testified that USAA's handling of the settlement demand "was clearly unreasonable." Flick also did not respond to USAA's requests for additional information. By a vote of nine to three, the jury found that Flick did not make a reasonable settlement demand of USAA and rejected her claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court polled the jury, and each juror confirmed their vote. DISCUSSION The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Flick's new trial motion. USAA successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice by showing there is no reasonable probability that the juror, D.C.'s misconduct by not explaining he did not hear all of the adjuster's testimony, actually harmed Flick. Much of the adjustor's testimony consisted of facts regarding his communications with Flick's attorney - facts that were undisputed. What was disputed-whether Flick's settlement demand was reasonable-was the subject of other witness testimony, including USAA's expert on insurance claims handling, its supervising claims service manager, Flick's personal injury attorney, and her expert witness on insurance claims handling. What the admitted evidence showed was that D.C. confirmed multiple times that he voted that Flick did not make a reasonable settlement demand: Based on this record there was no reasonable probability that D.C.'s alleged juror misconduct actually harmed Flick. ZALMA OPINION The tort of bad faith arose from abuse by insurers on those they insured. Since its adoption in California about three quarters of a century ago, the abuse has been turned on to insurers. Ms. Flick's counsel placed a demand for settlement on USAA that it could not reasonably and in good faith to its insured, Reyes, because it was incomplete and inadequately supported and forced Flick and Reyes go through a trial where she received an uncollectible judgment against Reyes in hopes of a gigantic bad faith judgment. After much litigation and USAA spending a great deal to defend itself she received the $100,000 policy limit. USAA was punished but neither Flick nor her lawyers profited from the scheme or the appeal. (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

Another Jump in Astrophysics: Early Galaxies Challenging Dark Matter Models, The field of astrophysics has always been rife with surprising discoveries, and the latest findings from cutting-edge telescope data are no exception. Recent observations have cast doubt on some long-held assumptions about the formation of the early universe, leading scientists to question whether our current cosmological models, including the standard ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model, truly represent the intricacies of cosmic evolution. A Glimpse into Early Galaxies Data from advanced telescopes, like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), has shown that early galaxies, formed less than a billion years after the Big Bang, were much larger and more luminous than previously believed possible. According to traditional models, galaxies were expected to grow more gradually, accruing mass and light over billions of years. The revelation that such massive and bright galaxies existed so early in the universe’s history has prompted a reevaluation of the ΛCDM model. The Standard ΛCDM Model: A Quick Overview The ΛCDM model is a mathematical framework that has long been the backbone of Big Bang cosmology. It consists of three main components: A cosmological constant (Λ): This represents dark energy, an enigmatic force driving the accelerated expansion of the universe. Cold dark matter (CDM): Hypothetical matter that does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation, explaining the unseen mass that affects gravitational forces on large scales. Ordinary matter: The familiar atoms and particles that make up stars, planets, and everything else visible in the universe. This model is referred to as the standard model of cosmology because it is the simplest and most comprehensive framework that has so far provided a reasonable explanation for a wide range of astronomical observations, from the cosmic microwave background to the distribution of galaxies. Early Challenges and New Theories However, the discovery of unexpectedly large and bright early galaxies implies that our models might be missing key details about the dynamics of the early universe. If galaxies formed so rapidly after the Big Bang, alternative explanations may be necessary. These might include modifications to our understanding of gravitational interactions on cosmic scales or the introduction of new interactions between particles that do not fit into the current ΛCDM framework. Some astrophysicists are exploring models that propose dark matter behaves differently in the presence of extreme conditions, while others suggest entirely new mechanisms that accelerate the process of galaxy formation. These theories challenge the conventional narrative by suggesting that dark matter might not be a universal constant, or that additional factors, such as modified gravity theories, might come into play. The Future of Cosmological Exploration As these observations continue to be studied and debated, it is clear that our current cosmological models may need to be updated or expanded to align with this unexpected data. The insights gained from the JWST and similar telescopes will undoubtedly continue to push the boundaries of our understanding, leading to new theories that could redefine our comprehension of the universe’s origins and its early development. The journey of discovery is far from over, and the universe, as always, holds more mysteries yet to be revealed. Whether these findings lead to small adjustments in the ΛCDM model or prompt the development of entirely new paradigms, one thing is certain: astrophysics is entering an exciting new chapter.

Declaring a Policy Void When a Policy Is Void For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe A small portion of what was provided to subscribers. In almost every policy of insurance, there is a clause declaring the policy void if the insured misrepresents or conceals material facts or commits fraud. For example: We do not pay for bodily injury or property damage which is expected by, directed by, or intended by an insured. This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury that arises out of the use of reasonable force to protect people or property. (AAIS Form BP-200, (c) 1987 AAIS). or: This Coverage Form is void in any case of fraud by you at any time as it relates to this Coverage Form. It is also void if you or any other “insured,” at any time, intentionally conceal or misrepresent a material fact concerning: a. This Coverage Form; b. The covered “auto”; c. Your interest in the covered “auto”; or d. A claim under this Coverage Form. (Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 01 87). The policy wording requires that the insurer prove, not only that the insured misrepresented or concealed a material fact but must also prove that the insured did so with the intent to deceive. Absent the rare confession it is often difficult to prove intentional deceit. The insured will usually claim that he or she was mistaken and had no intent to deceive. In more than 50 years of investigation of fraudulent insurance claims I only once received from an insured an under oath statement that the insured intentionally deceived the insurer and then, not in person, but by correcting false testimony in the transcript of an examination under oath. If fraud or mutual mistake is an issue, insurers and insureds doing business in Oklahoma must resort to courts of general jurisdiction for a determination of contractual rights.[1] In Oklahoma, the Workers’ Compensation court does not have the right to rescind or declare a policy of Workers’ Compensation insurance void. However, where there is a misrepresentation with intent to deceive and the putative insured recognized the materiality of the misrepresentation the insurance policy is void from its inception.[2] In Florida, Florida Statutes (2006), state in pertinent part: any insurance fraud shall void all coverage arising from the claim related to such fraud under the personal injury protection coverage of the insured person who committed the fraud. In harmony with this statutory provision, the fraud provision in an insurance policy set forth: “any insurance fraud shall void all personal injury protection coverage arising from the claim with respect to the insured who committed the fraud” is appropriate and enforceable. [Bosem v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 35 So.3d 944 (Fla. App., 2010)]

Permanent Punishment for Conviction for One Ounce of Cocaine Improper Government Overreach and Abuse Reversed Post 4927 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/permanent-punishment-conviction-one-ounce-cocaine-zalma-esq-cfe-geq1c, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. After Recovery From Cocaine Abuse Dr. Regained License to Practice CMS Refused to Allow Dr. White to Bill Medicare for Services Dr. Stephen White challenged two unfavorable decisions made by the Secretary for the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) that denied and revoked his Medicare enrollment. The decisions, rendered by the Appellate Division of the Departmental Appeals Board (“Board”), were based on Dr. White’s 2010 guilty plea and deferred prosecution for possession of less than 1 gram of cocaine, which occurred in Texas in 2007. In Stephen White, M.D. v. Xavier Becerra, Secretary for the United States Department of Health and Human Services, No. 2:19-CV-00037-SAB, United States District Court, E.D. Washington (October 28, 2024) the USDC applied entered a judgment reversing the decision of the Secretary [42 U.S.C. § 405(g).] SUMMARY JUDGMENT Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. BACKGROUND Dr. White is an orthopedic surgeon. In 2006 and 2007, he was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine in Texas. He was able to rehab and become clean of his problem with the drug. The Texas Medical Board revoked his license, but then monitored his recovery and compliance and allowed him to practice again. Dr. White had no violations for nine years following his arrest. He is currently practicing medicine in Washington state and is an enrolled Medicare supplier. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the denial, finding that CMS had a legitimate basis because Dr. White was convicted of a felony offense. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and Dr. White appealed that decision to the USDC. OVERVIEW OF MEDICARE PROGRAM The Medicare program provides health insurance benefits to people sixty-five years old or older and to eligible disabled persons. Suppliers, such as Dr. White, must be enrolled in the Medicare program and be granted billing privileges to be eligible to receive payment for care and services rendered to a Medicare-eligible beneficiary. DENIALS CMS may deny a supplier’s enrollment for any reason stated in federal statutes that allow that CMS may deny a provider’s or supplier’s enrollment in the Medicare program for the some of the following reasons: Felonies such as insurance fraud and similar crimes. REVOCATIONS The ALJ found CMS had a legitimate basis because White was convicted of a felony offense that CMS determined to be detrimental to the bests interest of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries. Dr. White’s presented equitable arguments to the ALJ that 1 he self-reported and was not practicing; 2 using his self-report to deny would encourage other physicians to not self-report, 3 he has fully complied with the terms of the modified license, and eventually he was allowed to practice medicine without limitations. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision, upholding CMS’ denial of Dr. White’s Medicare enrollment and rejected Dr. White’s argument that the timing of the revocation action by CMS was clearly retaliatory and intended to apply pressure on Dr. White for additional monetary penalties. ANALYSIS The USDC found CMS’ decisions to deny Dr. White enrollment in Medicare and revoke his privileges, and the subsequent Board’s affirmations were arbitrary and capricious and not supported substantial evidence. CMS did not have a legitimate reason to deny enrollment or revoke because the record does not support CMS’ assertions that Dr. White’s 2010 conviction for simple possession of a small amount of cocaine was detrimental to the best interest of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries. The USDC understood the deference it owed to administrative agencies as they adjudicate numerous complex cases before them. Yet, a court may not simply act as a rubber stamp for agency decisions. Because CMS failed to provide a reasonable basis for denying Dr. White his enrollment in Medicare or revoking his Medicare privileges, the decision of the Secretary is reversed. ZALMA OPINION A doctor should never get involved or addicted to illegal substances like Cocaine. The Fact that a doctor self reports his involvement with the drug, was rehabilitated, clean for nine years, and practices medicine legally, does not pose a danger to Medicare as do those doctors who are arrested every year for fraud. The decision of Becerra, the ALJ and the Board was clearly retaliatory and abusive and the USDC had no choice but to reverse the Board and let the doctor continue to practice medicine and charge Medicare for his services. Overreach by the administrative agency was stopped by the court. (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 sues Oregon to force state to remove ineligible voters from voter rolls https://justthenews.com/nation/states/judicial-watch-sues-oregon-force-state-remove-ineligible-voters-voter-roll The lawsuit targets Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, and claims the state has the "highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation," according to Judicial Watch. Conservative watchdog Judicial Watch on Wednesday announced a lawsuit against the state of Oregon, that would force it to remove ineligible voters from its voter rolls, as mandated by the National Voter Registration Act. The voting act requires states to make a "reasonable effort" to remove voters who have either died or changed residences from their voter rolls. The voters are removed if they fail to respond to address confirmation notices, and do not vote in two consecutive federal general elections. The lawsuit targets Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, and claims the state has the "highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation," according to a Judicial Watch news release. The lawsuit alleges that 29 of the state's 36 counties have removed few or no voter registrations, and that the state has registration rates exceeding 100%. “Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Oregon has among the dirtiest voting rolls in America and needs to clean them up ASAP!” Judicial Watch has led other efforts to clean up voter rolls in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Carolina, Kentucky and Ohio. Altogether the efforts have resulted in the purging of up to four million ineligible voters, the group said. Misty Severi is an evening news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.

Americans would be JUSTIFIED in SH00TING TO KILL anyone trying to infringe upon their INALIENABLE RIGHTS The word "Inalienable" means that NOBODY can infringe upon these rights! Not ANYONE... And not for ANY REASON! Not a #Tyrant POS #Sheriff, and not the #Congress of the #Corporation of the United States, and not ANYBODY ELSE! ANYONE trying to infringe upon your inalienable rights has put themselves into the position of being JUSTIFIABLY ELIMINATED (In self-defense) Inalienable means "Don't even try or you'll get SHOT!" and that is reasonable.And this is the red line folks! It'd sure be a shame to get a hole punched in that tin star! The one on your HEAD btw.... The slow walk too tyranny best slow it's roll... Before it gets it's head shot off The 2nd and 4th amendments DO NOT give you your rights! They simply recognize that EVERY MAN (Including FELONS) have these rights And ANYONE attempting to infringe upon the INALIENABLE rights of another should EXPECT to be eliminated with prejudice

Breaking: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules https://www.infowars.com/posts/breaking-fluoride-in-water-poses-unreasonable-risk-to-children-federal-judge-rules

Is It Even Possible To Get Back To ‘E Pluribus Unum’? I pen this after both the second assassination attempt on former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump and listening to a monologue by establishment Democrat Chris Cuomo. In listening to Cuomo’s words – and I by no means agree with his political philosophy as I do believe myriad statements by the elected Left fomented the targeting of Trump – I believe the meat of his intent is absolutely correct. The division in the United States – and quite frankly, in the whole of the free world – is so extreme that it isn’t unreasonable to ask if societal cohesiveness can ever be achieved again. It’s always been a work in progress and always will be. But as it stands today, the ideological gulf that exists between opposing factions in our society is enormous, and, in my educated opinion, it is manufactured by the elite for the elite.