Swine Flu - Some Perspective

This article was written by Dr. Larry Miller (former head of Emergency Medicine at the Baptist Health System in San Antonio and Medical Director for several EMS Systems). I think it provides some great perspective on the current situation and gives an alternative viewpoint to all of the media hype.


Swine Flu - The Journalistic Scaredemic
April 28, 2009

Swine Flu is a new strain of influenza that has yet to cause a death in the USA. That being the case, why are Americans in a state of panic over the Swine flu?

The answer is that the media (CNN, ABC, NBC, USA Today, along with other publications) have stirred the public into a virtual frenzy. They are bombarding us with hysteria. They love it. Nothing turns them on more than to sensationalize mountains out of molehills. In the case of the Swine Flu, the media is guilty of causing an epidemic of panic. They are guilty because they relentlessly hype this dubious threat into a certain deadly pandemic.

Let's look at the facts:
Seasonal influenza causes thousands of deaths every week during flu season in the USA. The CDC estimates that seasonal flu causes over 36,000 deaths per year (200,000 hospital admissions) and over 500,000 deaths per year in the world. Does the media discuss these statistics? No. Why? Because these are boring facts - not sensational news that bolsters their ratings and increases their revenue.

How is Swine Flu different than regular seasonal flu?
It has become the "boogie man", used by the media to terrorize the public. And they are getting away with it. Yes, the Swine Flu will eventually kill people in the US, but the chance of it becoming more dangerous than seasonal flu is unlikely. Unfortunately, the media is even scaring medical and public officials into irrational behavior. Why are they closing schools for Swine flu (that has yet to kill anyone) but not for seasonal flu (that kills thousands every week)?

What other biological threats do we encounter every day?
Tuberculosis, Streptococcus (flesh eating bacteria), AIDS, Hepatitis, Pneumonia, Influenza, Staphylococcus, E Coli, Salmonella, Shegella, and the list goes on and on. Thousands die every week from these infections; some are incurable and untreatable. I would much rather be infected with Swine Flu which is susceptible to several antiviral agents, than to have MRSA that often cannot be cured.

As EMS leaders what should we do?
We already have protocols that address exposure to dangerous biological threats. As long as we practice our usual and customary universal precautions we will not contract Swine Flu or any of the far more dangerous biologics we encounter every day. We do not have to change any policy, protocol or procedure. We do have to use common sense and notify supervisors or medical control if we are concerned about a particular incident.

We live in an environment of danger from infectious diseases. Swine Flu is only one of them. How do we stay healthy? Most folks have a strong immune system that protects them. In medicine we work in the midst of such infections, but rarely contract them because we use universal precautions (gloves, masks, and gowns) to keep us safe.

What we in the medical field need to do, more than anything else is to remain calm and reassure our patients that the sky is not falling in. Be understanding and prepared, but do not get caught up in the hype and hysteria. We need to be a voice of sanity in an insane world.

During the last great war, Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." That has not changed.

As a rational scientific community, we should reprimand the media for their irresponsible behavior. Force them to develop a balanced approach to a potential problem. As it stands today, they have inadvertently become the problem. They are the Epidemic (Scaredemic).

Larry J Miller MD
miller 'at' gvtc.com

Some perspective

He Is Risen!



All Hail the Chief.

$1000 is the new $500

I went to the SAXET gunshow this morning with some of the crew and was pretty put-off by the amount of price gouging going on with some of the more shady dealers. I expected a little bit of shenanigans due to the recent election, but a quick browse through Shotgun News will show that recent reports of the end of gun ownership in America are a bit premature.

I saw a $700 Golani going for $1100. An Armalite AR-180 selling for $2,599 (not a typo). Wall-to-wall crowds of sorry looking hopefuls trying to find their last chance to get a (gasp!) assault rifle before the laws get passed (no new laws have been suggested).

But the belle of the ball was a Mak-90 (yes - that Mak-90) selling for $1600. The best part was the "faux operator" behind the table (thigh rig, cropped hair cut, 80's aviator glasses) assuring all of the unwashes masses that these were the absolute last ones they could ever hope to get and the The Man was going to come to the show personally by the end of the weekend and collect up anything that hasn't sold.

Sort of a reverse Santa, I suppose.

For shame.

Banning Assault Weapons Because of . . . Mexico?

I've been struggling over the past few weeks, trying to figure out how exactly the Libs are going to take their next step in the war on firearms rights in America. You know it's big on their wish lists and with all four branches of the government now being Democrat (the House, the Senate, the President, and the Media), it seems high time for them to come in together for the Big Win.

Unfortunately, it's not exactly a great time to try to introduce gun control legislation. There's that whole economy thing that us working stiffs want the government is fix. Gun ownership is also on the rise. Crime isn't out of control. And because of the realities of the post-911 world and the really choice way the government handled Katrina and Rita, a lot of people who would have never considered gun ownership in the past have stocked up on arms and ammunition.

Despite getting the Big O elected into office, things were looking pretty good for gun rights in America, especially with the recent DC vs. Heller decision, so you can imagine one might be inclined to let his guard down.

In fact, just last week I was talking to one of my friends at a local gunshow about how Obama never really introduced any new gun control legislation, and since he told Field and Stream he was really interested in any new gun laws, I was feeling pretty good about how we'd do over the next four years.

Then . . . wham! I saw it in this morning's Express News.

Gunrunners' land of plenty

A giant, front page headline. Even more relevant than the recent terrorist attacks in India, more alarming than our nation's financial crisis. All other stories bested by the news that over 1000 guns that were sourced in Texas have been used in crimes in Mexico.

I can see it now . . . since the primary "reason" assault rifles were banned in the 90s - the super crime wave hyped by the media that never came to fruition - is no longer a viable excuse, we are supposed to give up our gun rights because there are criminals doing horrible things in other countries.

Wow. I am just glad Texas doesn't export machetes to Africa!

Wait, I have an idea. Maybe since there are so many problems in central and south America due to America's drug habits, we should ban drugs here. Yes - more laws! That should stop the problem. Criminals will suddenly stop being criminals when they realize there are more laws against their crimes.

Oh wait. That didn't work so well, either.

Here's the crux of the article:

Last year, Texas sellers were the source of 1,131 guns found discarded at shootings in Mexico or confiscated from the cartel gangsters, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That’s more than twice the number of runner-up California and more than the combined total of 13 top other states.

I am not sure that's altogether too amazing considering the fact that you can't really buy guns in California and there are MILLIONS of gun owners in Texas.

It goes on to describe the nature of the weapons that these thugs in Mexico are so eager to get their hands on:

[Assault Rifles] are so prevalent these days that Mexico authorities have seized 13,000 of them in the last two years, along with thousands of other guns and 3 million rounds of smuggled ammunition, much of it also bought from U.S. retailers.

But wait a minute, I thought they said this was all coming through Texas and the US? I added up all of the numbers on their pretty chart and it totals 4,180 weapons for all of the United States (and BTW - remember that California - land of some of the strictest gun laws in Amercia was in 2nd place with 1006) - this means that the other 8,820 weapons are coming from somewhere other than the US.

In fact, the article also mentions:

Some of the hardware is military grade — rocket launchers and grenades coming into Mexico through Guatemala.

So maybe we need to have Guatemala get on board and get some of these gun laws going there, too?

Here's the deal, folks.

1) Despite what Hollyweird would have you believe (and I am not going to even bother listing all of the movies where this has happened), you can't just wander into a gun store or army-navy store and pick up machine guns and grenades and related military-grade ordinance.

2) Mexico is a corrupt, corrupt country where the almight peso (dollar) can make any of your dreams come true - regardless of what the laws say.

The problems that Mexico is having with gun smuggling isn't because gun laws are so lax in US, but because we have a completely porous border between us and Mexico. I know it isn't popular or hip to say that, but its a choice we're going to have to make as a society - open border (crime, illegal imigration, gun and human smuggling, TB, polio, etc) or closed border (social/political quagmire).

The article even states:

Someone would only have had to drive the guns over the international bridge and then 12 hours to Aguascalientes.

No mention or a search, scan or any type of countermeasures. Just driving over a bridge.

Guns that criminals use are almost always either stolen or purchased for the criminal by a family member. Or bought from some cash-strapped brothel owner at a shooting range. Seriously? That sounds like a judgement call to me and laws don't really do a lot of good to make folks have better judgement.

I think one of the respondents to the article said it best:

We had the assault weapons ban for 10 years. It didn't result in any reductions in crime. I have been in LE for over 30 years. Most of the guns we find in criminal situations are stolen! NOT BOUGHT ACROSS THE COUNTER OR AT GUN SHOWS! Criminals don't usually spend much money on their guns. They prefer buying stolen ones from druggies who need to support their drug habits. A Glock sells across the counter for $500 or more most places. The last one I came across was sold for $50 on the street. It was stolen from an apartment here in SA.

Lastly until Mexico decides it wants to be more then a Third World country they have to deal with their own problems. The article even points out that military armament is coming from Guatemala. I guess we're going to stop that too? With the money being generated from the sale of illegal drugs I would bet that they can buy any guns they want, any time they want. Who's going to stop them? Also please note that they aren't mentioning the AK47 that is coming from China and all parts of the far East by the hundreds of thousands. And sells for pennies compared to the American made AR15s. But then again we wouldn't expect the truth from the media. Just look at the last election for evidence of that.

Here. (San Antonio Express news - 11/30)

And here. (Houston Chronicle - 11/29)

Rest assured this is only the beginning of the "anti-gun" sentiments in the media and the first salvo in the latest war against our gun rights.

More Obama Gun Fun

No sooner had I pulled the trigger on my last post then I realized that there was a veritable full magazine of online articles discussing everyone's fears about gun rights under an Obama presidency.

Gun sales surge after Obama's election

"I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11, Katrina," Conatser said, as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now."

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.

"I believe the Second Amendment means something. I do think it speaks to an individual right," Obama said in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in February.

With the U.S. economy in a tailspin, however, the president-elect's advisers say gun legislation is not a high priority.

The October '08 issue of Field and Stream had extensive interviews with both Obama and McCain detailing their opinions on hunting and fishing, gun rights, and conservation. The message from Obama was pretty clear,

"I'm more interested in enforcing the laws that we do have - for example tracing guns that are used in crimes back to people who have been using them. I don't anticipate that there's going to be a whole slew of efforts at the federal level when it comes to gun control. "

However this still hasn't dissuaded anyone from considering him an anti-gun politician, and his record of past votes lies in stark contrast to his election promises.

Apparently, no one is convinced that "common-sense measures" aren't a thinly-disguised metaphor for yet another round of new legislation on "ugly guns."

The good news is that none of this legislation ever happens quickly - and the national economy is a far more pressing issue at this time - but one thing that is apparent is shooters generally aren't getting the warm and fuzzy from Obama on gun rights - despite everything he has said to the contrary.

I understand the reason why everyone is running out and arming up - there are more cool innovations in modern weapons technology available now then ever before:

• Civilian legal FN P90s
• Mad amounts of AR upgrades (Go LaRue!)
• USCM-inspired HK G36-clones
• 37mm flare launchers - oh, my!
  

But it is important to also realize that the focus must remain on preserving our rights - not just so we can go to gun shows and exercise the right our Constitution guarantees, but to fight to preserve these rights so that those who haven't yet gone to gunshows or been to a shooting range - will get the same opportunities that we did.

Get involved!
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
The National Rifle Association

Couldn't see this one coming . . .

Ok - so I am trying to not get a whole mess (literally) of politics into this blog, but this one is notable for the gun show culture. We've all been taking about the inevitability of Obama and what that has to do with 2nd Amendment rights - and apparently this is a sentiment shared fairly generally with gun enthusiasts.

Run on Guns After Obama Wins



Full article.

And another from before the election.

In honor of the upcoming election . . .



Check out Part 2 here.

Ban Guns and the Loonies Will Find Something Else

I saw this little tidbit on Drudge today and it again drives home the proven fact that banning guns doesn't make people safer, it makes law-abiding citizens less able to defend themselves:

Six dead in South Korea fish knife frenzy

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- A financially strapped South Korean man went on an arson and stabbing rampage in Seoul on Monday, leaving six people dead and seven others wounded, police said.

The 31-year-old suspect, identified only by his surname, Jeong, first set fire to his room in a low-cost lodging facility in southern Seoul and then stabbed other residents with a sashimi knife while fleeing the fire, police said.

Five people were stabbed to death and another died after jumping out of a window to escape the blaze, police said.

Seven others were wounded, including four seriously, and the death toll could rise, according to police.

The suspect, arrested at the scene, told police he did not want to live because "everybody looks down on me," Kim Kap-shik, chief detective at Seoul's Gangnam Police Station, told reporters.

Yonhap news agency and other media reported that Jeong has been convicted of crimes eight times in the past. Police were not immediately available to confirm Jeong's criminal record.

More.

Once again a career criminal with a history of mental illness goes off and engages in violence against the citizenry. That is so bizarre. And unpredictable.

If they'd had a way to defend themselves, then someone wouldn't have had to jump out of a window to get away from the attacker. On second thought, anyone who jumps out of a multiple-story window to avoid a knife attack may not be the most tactically minded person in an emergency situation.

Britain has a law now banning "assault knives" as the number of people using knives and swords in crimes has exploded. Taking away guns didn't make England safer (ask the Home Guard veterans about this, if anyone over there is still alive that remembers) , but instead forced criminals to find a new way to conduct their nefarious deeds. The citizens - now unarmed - are left to their own devices and must rely on random chance to not become the victims of crime.

Banning guns does nothing to reduce crime. Reduction in crime comes from taking a long look at what causes the problem (unemployment, ridiculous drug laws, disenfranchisement with society, a lack of opportunity or hugs/love from parents) - versus trying to stop it by taking away people's rights.

We have enough laws, statutes, provisions, and acts to restrict us in every aspect of our lives from now until The Judgment. What we need is to punish the hell out of folks who use guns in a crime - mandatory sentences - and get these violent ne'er-do-wells off of the streets and away from giving gun haters the ammunition they need for their ultimate goal of banning private firearms ownership.

You Don't Agree With Me - You Must Be A Racist!

Ah, the good old days.

I remember back in my college days when I would get involved in debates/yelling matches on the West Mall at UT. It was the standard post-high school goodness - you remember these times - you had just left mommy and daddy's house and you claimed you knew everything.

Years later - 10 years into my career and knee deep in families, mortgages and 'real life' action - now I claim I know nothing. :)

Anyway, back in those days, being a young, semi-conservative Christian at a very liberal school, I was assured by my erudite college mates, homeless folks, and other questionable adults who for some reason had the ability to spend all day arguing with kids (still trying to figure out what job that was) - that all of the beliefs that I held dearly were wrong.

The Bible was wrong. Gun ownership was wrong. The right to self-defense was wrong. The Civil War was all about slavery and had nothing to do with the long-running battle over states rights vs. federal rights. For God sakes, even being a "real man" was wrong. Everything I stood for. Challenged, crapped on, spat on - because my rules for living came from a 2000 year-old-book* - not from whatever the latest word was from Hollywood celebs and the MTV-culture set.

The arguments were pointless. It was two perspectives with such a wide delta between them that there was no way we would reach common ground. My basis for belief was scorned (even though most of these folks would also claim to support 1st amendment rights - but not for all beliefs, apparently), but because I wouldn't accept their perspective as dogma, I was stupid.

Here is how a typical "debate" went down:

Angry Man #1: "There is no Jesus."

Me: "Yes, there is"

Angry Man #1: "How can you believe such mythology?"

Me: "Because of faith, and the Bible"

Angry Man #1: "The Bible is wrong. And bad."

Me: "I don't agree with that."

Angry Man #1: "Then you are STUPID!"

That was it - I was stupid. College scores, SAT scores, IQ tests - useless in the face of my inability to turn my back on my beliefs and my God.

But at least back then, I was only called "stupid."

Now, I would be considered racist for not agreeing with the liberal intelligentsia.

Because surely, if I don't agree with the supposition, that in this time - certainly the greatest moral, political, ideological and economic crisis this country has ever faced - if I don't buy their hype and support their ridiculous policies, then it is not because their candidate is unqualified, it is not because I happen to not agree with his politics or his charisma, it is because I am racist.

Calling me racist is an unacceptable lie that denies the legitimacy of my right to take part in the political process - and makes them look like fools in the process.

Please go back to just calling me stupid for not thinking the way you do.

* BTW - Christianity is based on the concept of freewill - the only major religion to do so. Freewill also happens to be the entire basis of Western Culture and democracy.

And just like that . . . the commies won!

As an ardent supporter of a free market economy, I - like many other Americans (98% of emails to the White House over the past week or so - according to some sources) - have been appalled by the lack of perspective in some of the government bailout nightmares that have been taking place in the last few weeks.

Some of the recent policies are so socialist in their application that they are making FDR look like an ardent conservative.

Here's the latest piece of hogwash to cross the radars:

US government may take part ownership in banks

WASHINGTON (AP) - News that the Bush administration is considering taking part ownership in a number of U.S. banks helped restore a relative calm over global financial markets Thursday.

The aim of such a move would be to thaw the lending freeze that threatens to push the world's economy into recession. It comes after rampant fear about the global economy sent investors scurrying on Tuesday for safety in U.S. government securities despite an orchestrated round of rate cuts by the world's central banks.

Investors also were hoping that selling, which gave the Dow its ninth straight day of losses, was overdone. Wall Street began the day higher, but then slid after declines in some blue chip names like General Motors Corp. weighed on the markets.

An administration official, who spoke late Tuesday on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, said the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress last week allows the Treasury Department to inject fresh capital into financial institutions and get ownership shares in return.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told reporters that Treasury was moving quickly to implement the $700 billion rescue effort and he specifically mentioned reviewing ways to bolster the capital of banks.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93N27U01

Not to be conspiratorial here, but what the hell is going on?

I don't know where we lost our way (but I think it may have happened sometime in the 1960s), but we are not the country we were when we set-off to defeat fascist nationalism in Europe during the 1940s.

Let's take a look and see where we are in the process:

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

(My emphasis in bold)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

From wikipedia.

I am not smart enough to know exactly what the hell items 7, 8, and 9 mean, but I can tell there is a general movement in this country to change the culture of America - from the cradle of the industrial revolution and the envy of the world, to the a shadow of its past greatness - where the political focus has moved from being a beacon of light for the rest of the world - to being a giant hand-out machine to everyone who thinks they need to have a suck at the big government tit.

What a world we live in where the Russians are the capitalists and the Americans are becoming the communists!

Some of my more left-leaning friends would have you believe that communism is the most equitable system of government . . . it just has never worked in modern, non-nomadic societies because it hasn't been hasn't been their whiny, disenfranchised version of it.

Ron Paul's Perspective on the Economy

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

Check out - http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Nice . . . speech


Check it out. :)

And now . . . the moment we've all been waiting for . . .

Russia threatens military response to US missiles

MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is warning his country may respond to a U.S. missile shield in Europe through military means.

Medvedev says that the deployment of an anti-missile system close to Russian borders "will of course create additional tensions."

"We will have to react somehow, to react, of course, in a military way," Medvedev was quoted as saying Tuesday by the RIA-Novosti news agency.

Russian officials have already warned of a military response to the U.S. plans, but the statement by the Russian leader was likely to further aggravate already tense relations with the West. The comments come after Medvedev recognized two Georgian regions as independent nations, prompting criticism from the U.S. and Europe.

Ok, kiddies. Just make sure you have your eye on your favorite gas station/sporting goods store when its time to head for the hills...

The Chair Is Against The Wall.

Woo-hoo, the Olympics!


Fun for everyone . . . . except Christians, those who speak out loud, parents, Zhang Zhixin, press folk, fringe religions, Tibetans, rural villagers, minorities, any religions and free thinkers.

Go USA Badminton!

She Gets My Vote

Finally someone with an energy policy that makes sense.

Now that is some serious awesome. Thanks, Interweb!

Officers fear Mexican military encounters will turn violent

Since 1996, there have been more than 200 confirmed incursions by the Mexican military into the United States.

Particularly galling is the fact that the Mexican military often pulls these stunts in Humvees donated to them by the American taxpayers.

More.

Quotes

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.”
- Nancy Pelosi

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
- H L Mencken

That's What's Up - Some Freedom!


Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in the nation's history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

Here.


Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Here.


Court: A constitutional right to a gun

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

Here.


Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

Here.

Random stupid on the new GI JOE Movie

Ok - I know it's really hip to say how bad things are, everything sucks (remember how cool this made you feel back in high school?), but there are some things that should never be touched.

And one of those - is the mission of GI Joe - A Real American Hero.

Apparently, this is more than liberal, USA-hating Hollywood can stand, and thus, the producers of the new GI Joe movie have made some slight alterations:

Paramount has confirmed that in the movie, the name G.I. Joe will become an acronym for "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity" — an international, coed task force charged with defeating bad guys. It will no longer stand for government issued, as in issued by the American government.

That's awesome, because there really is a world standard for who the "bad guys" are. Hmm . . . do we give it an Eastern angle, and support the status quo of the world superpower in that region, or do we base it on natural resources and thus look out for the interests of the Middle East?

I know . . . we can all have a vote and then decide on what's best - oh, wait . . . most of the world's countries don't believe in silly concepts like "God-given rights," "freewill," and freedom to worship and express yourself.

No - they're too busy dragging political dissidents off to gulags, harvesting their organs, or chopping the arms off of their neighboring tribes.

Oh, wait . . . that's right - we're supposed to be the "bad guys" now. Bringing all that awful foreign aid to all of the good countries of the world, selfishly being first to provide medical support and supplies in times of disasters, and adopting unwanted children from other countries that just throw them away if they are unlucky enough to be born female instead of male.

The word is that in the current political climate, they're afraid that a heroic U.S. soldier won't fly.

I first saw this on AintItCool.com, but here's the full article on Fox.

Thanks, Hollywood . . . but didn't you already made this movie?

Let's get political, political . . . come on and get political . . .

Ok, so I do my best to avoid political discourse.

I was much more into this when I was younger and actually knew everything, but now that I am older and realize that I don't really know anything, its much harder for me to make strong arguements for abstract concepts (like, say the usefulness of lawyers or politicians) and I try to stick to concrete ideas - like the cool factor of a certain paintball gun, etc.

However, I've made no attempt to disguise my political leanings and even my discretion can tend to wander the path when I am getting off on a rant or rave about something I am passionate about - which is probably most things.

Though I tend to be a single-issue voter, my personal politics are more on the Libertarian side of things.

Andrew Sullivan recently published his thoughts on Ron Paul and they are definitely worth reading - especially those who would otherwise be turned off by his "Republican" label.

But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.

It is really interesting to me that the only candidate on the ballots who supports ending the war in Iraq is a Republican.