Dr. Ben Carson: Ebola Patients Should NOT Be In The United States for Treatment Warning Graphic Images


This is from Jan Morgan Media.

When I heard the Ebola patients were being brought to America I said is Why the Hell is this happening?

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 3.13.15 PM

Dr. Ben Carson on Fox News says that he would NOT have brought the two medical missionaries in Africa back to America for treatment.

His position is that viruses can undergo mutation and be transmittable in other ways..
He said the people who contracted this virus KNEW the risks when they agreed to the mission work they were involved in and also knew how to protect themselves yet they still contracted the virus.

He also said the virus can stay alive up to two days outside the body.
In addition he said that the health and well being of the population of the United States must be given first priority.

Dr. Carson says we should have treated the individuals there and only returned them back to the states when they were well.
Carson criticized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pointed out we could send a hospital equipped plane or set up a properly equipped hospital on location in Africa.

The former director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University and Hospital, explained a simple medical mistake could cause the disease to spread within the borders of the United States because the bodily fluids of an infected patients remain infected for many days.

When questioned whether the fear in the Untied States is a valid, Carson answered, “It is very real. It is a highly contagious disease and all it requires is some infractions in procedures and all of a sudden you have got more spread and that’s what I’m afraid of.”
Then there’s this:

Dr. Carson emphasized that bringing the virus here also introduces the risk of someone selling contaminated lab work from the patients for a large sum of money and releasing it to cause an outbreak in America.

There there is this..

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 4.48.21 PM

Here are a few examples of the effects of ebola on patients.


Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 3.14.52 PM

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 3.15.10 PM


Children And Guns – An Iowa Fail

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

Gun safety should be reinforced daily.

There is no such thing as being too safe.

Teach and live by these rules you will be safe.


Jeff Cooper’s Rules of Gun Safety





When my son was 4 years old, we decided it was time to introduce him to gun safety. He couldn’t quite tie his shoes yet, but we knew we had guns in the house, and we knew we needed to instill good habits early, because it was literally a matter of life and death. His father was a police officer, and I was active in gun rights, and made it a point to be armed as much as possible. I still do. It’s a matter of life and death.

We started with simple rules:

1) Ensure mom or dad are around if you want to touch a firearm, and get permission.
2) Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot
3) Never, ever point your gun at anything you do not intend to kill

We made him repeat those rules. We showed him our firearms. He was allowed to touch them with supervision. Before touching any firearm, he recited safety rules. He knew them cold before he was allowed to handle firearms.

I can’t remember how old he was, exactly, when he shot his first firearm – I think he was probably 8 years old – but I know he was around 10 when he shot his first machine gun. I remember when he was about 6 years old, I sent him to my bedroom to get some paperwork that was on his father’s night stand. He called down to me and said, “Mommy! Daddy’s pistol is sitting on top of the paperwork. Do I have your permission to move it?” That’s when I knew we taught him well. Today, at 16, my son loves to shoot. He’s responsible, focused and capable. He understands firearms safety. He never picks up a pistol without clearing it, never points it in an unsafe direction and keeps his finger off the trigger unless we’re at the range shooting. Today, I have every confidence in the world that he will continue to enjoy shooting sports and that he will do so safely.

My son was lucky. He was legally allowed to handle firearms in Virginia. We took him to the range. He shot a variety of firearms – rifles, pistols, machine guns and shot guns. He has had his own eye and hearing protection since he was in elementary school, and he received his first Mossberg Plinkster when he was approximately 9.

Children in Iowa aren’t so lucky.

A recent press report tells the tale of little Natalie Gibson, who was asked to leave a Polk City shooting range last week, because legally – at 8 years old – she was not old enough to practice with the pistol she had been shooting for the past three years.

The range’s gunsmith told them a state law “no one knew about” has surfaced: Anyone 20 or younger must be under the direct supervision of a parent or instructor to practice with a pistol or revolver. Youths younger than 14 can’t use a handgun at all, even with supervision, Iowa Code states.

Why did the law surface?

Because a state legislator introduced a bill that would lower the legal age from 14 to 12. State representative Joe Riding, who says he taught his own daughter how to shoot when she was 9, claims he sees no reason parents should be prevented from involving their children in an activity that hones their focus and develops their sense of personal responsibility. And yet, his proposed legislation, instead of repealing the age restriction altogether, only suggested the limit be reduced by 2 years, and by doing so, brought attention to an arcane law everyone either ignored, or knew nothing about in the first place.

Consequently, more and more ranges have begun turning children away from the sport they love in an effort to enforce existing law, bringing Natalie Gibson to tears, because she thought she had done something wrong, according to her dad.

Why Riding and his fellow Democrats pushed a bill that only lowered the legal restriction, instead of eliminating it altogether, is anyone’s guess. It certainly seems as if they were trying to woo some gun owners during an election year, while ensuring that their anti-gun base remained loyal.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, in its usual froth-flecked, hoplophobic zeal, insists gun rights advocates are to blame for the failure of the bill, and Riding, whose legislation would have kept his own daughter from legally enjoying using a handgun at the range, claims the bill would have sailed through if Iowa Gun Ownershadn’t interfered and tried to force an amendment to remove the restriction altogether.

Gun grabbers, in the meantime, are gloating, because as one quivering coward of a psychiatric nurse put it, “Teaching kids handgun shooting implies there might be an appropriate time for them to use the gun in a situation they perceive as dangerous, with or without supervision.”

Really? You mean there isn’t an appropriate time for a child to use a handgun in self defense?

So this 14 year-old boy should have allowed home invaders to break in and victimize him and his siblings? And this one should have allowed as many as three intruders into his home? And this boy should have allowed two suspects to harm his mom and his sister?

Teaching children about real life and giving them the skills and the tools necessary to defend themselves, if need be, are signs of good, responsible parenting.

Taking away the parental right to decide when the child is ready and able to learn a valuable skill is a sign of an authoritarian swine.

Nicki Kenyon has been an avid gun rights advocate since she returned to the United States from an overseas Army tour in Germany. She began writing about Second Amendment issues in 2001 when published her first essay, “The Moment.”. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in International Relations from the Johns Hopkins University and a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies from American Military University. Her area of expertise in those fields is European and Eurasian affairs. When not writing about gun rights or hanging out with her husband and son, she practices dry-firing her M1911 at the zombies of “The Walking Dead.”


Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley presses lawmakers for handgun licenses for residents

1 Comment

This is from The Washington Times.

As Rush Limbaugh says Martin O’Malley has presidential perspiration.

So to run for president has to run farther left of Obama.

So to do so O’Malley needs to propose a more radical agenda.


O’Malley set to push for restrictions before Senate committee.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley will urge state lawmakers on Wednesday to pass legislation requiring residents to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun, but Second Amendment advocates hope to drown out his message.

Mr. O’Malley, a Democrat, will testify before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in favor of his bill, which would also ban assault weapons, limit magazine capacities to 10 rounds and require prospective gun buyers to complete a safety course and pay a $100 application fee.

However, gun-rights advocates will descend upon Annapolis to rally against a bill that they say tramples on gun owners’ rights and won’t stop criminals who carry illegal guns.

“The overriding problem with the governor’s bill is that it does little to address the bad guys with the guns,” said Delegate Michael D. Smigiel Sr., Cecil Republican, who said rally organizers are expecting 1,000 to 3,000 people. “It deals with ways of curtailing law-abiding citizens from being able to exercise their full Second Amendment rights.”

Mr. O’Malley proposed his legislation last month in an effort to fight gun violence and prevent incidents similar to last year’s deadly shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo.

While requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public is the norm throughout most of the U.S., only nine states currently require a license or permit to purchase a handgun, according to Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Gun Policy and Research.

Maryland would join Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York as states that require applicants to also provide fingerprints and give state officials authority to reject applications.

Connecticut and Iowa require fingerprints but have no authority to reject applicants. Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina require licenses, but do not reject applications or require fingerprints.

Supporters cite studies showing that license-to-purchase laws in these states have decreased illegal straw purchases and gun trafficking.

“We lose too many American lives to gun violence,” Mr. O’Malley said last week in his State of the State address. “Who can watch the sad images of the last several weeks, who can see the pictures of those young faces and honestly say we are doing enough?”

While gun-rights advocates question the legality of license-to-purchase laws, Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, a Democrat, issued an opinion last week saying that such laws are constitutional because the government is allowed to place some regulations on gun ownership.

Mr. Gansler, a Democrat, added that the governor’s bill would not allow the state to confiscate handguns purchased under current laws.

Mr. O’Malley’s proposal has heavy backing from Democrats, but is expected to receive virtually unanimous opposition from Republicans and some conservative Democrats.

In addition to questioning the bill’s impact on law-abiding citizens, Mr. Smigiel argued that the legislation’s licensing and training costs will discourage lower-income residents who might want to purchase a handgun for protection.

He said Wednesday’s rally will be organized by groups including the Second Amendment Foundation and Maryland Shall Issue, two groups that have fought against the state’s concealed-carry permit law, which was struck down last year by a judge who considered its requirement that permit applicants provide a “good and substantial reason” to be unconstitutional.

The state appealed the case to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently reviewing it.

Mr. Smigiel said the state would be better served to devote more attention to mental health programs and institute tough mandatory sentences for anyone caught using a gun to commit a crime.

“How does raising a fee keep anybody else alive?” he said. “We’re doing just the opposite of what we should do.”
Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Leave a comment

This is from Human Events.

How many more doctors will close their offices because of Obamacare.

A shortage of doctors will lead to health care rationing.

We will become like England and Canada with long waits for treatment.

We will have government panels deciding on who lives and who dies.


A Washington physician, whose father founded his practice in the late 1960s, is shuttering operations because of the burdens created by federal health care reform, in addition to Medicare and insurance company hassles.

Health care regulations and laws created by President Barack Obama’s 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are the biggest problem, said Dr. Andrew Lee, a general practitioner who has treated more than 10,000 patients since he opened his business.

“I think all citizens in America should be provided with some access to health care,” he said. “But, I am not sure this is the right way to shovel a massive law through,” he said. “My anticipation is that it will be modified, some.”

Lee said he and his wife, who is also a doctor, took over his father’s practice in 1999 at the same address in the capital’s Chinatown, where his father started it. “He actually grew up in the house next door.”

The doctor was born in D.C., at the former Columbia Hospital for Women, now a condominium complex called The Columbian. “When I walk by with my kids I tell them: ‘You know, I was born there, I could retire there,’” he said.

“My wife and I would have this discussion for years, but it was not until three years ago, did I realize we are really fighting a losing battle,” he said.

“I am not sure if it is 100 percent related to government, as much as it is also the health insurance companies,” he said. “They tend to have a lot of factors in there that make you do things like pre-authorizations, which increase your administrative time.”

Joining Johns Hopkins

Regardless of who controls the White House and Congress, Lee said the business will close some time next year. “We are going to close our practice and join Johns Hopkins University,” he said.

Johns Hopkins is a Baltimore-based institution that is expanding its operations into Washington, he said. The school does not buy practices or have private practices inside its own business, so the couple will actually close the business and become salaried employees of Johns Hopkins, although they will take their patient records with them with the intention of treating them at their new home.

“I’ve told our patients we will be just seven blocks away and that Hopkins is committed to practicing very good medicine,” he said.

One of the considerations he and his wife dealt with was the transition from running their own business and being their own boss, he said. Initially, giving up the “ownership” of one’s job was difficult, the doctor said. But, in another way, Lee and his wife are glad to be freed from the hassles from the government and insurance companies, he said.

“My wife and I look forward to it because we can just focus on being a good physician, not worrying about the administrative headaches,” he said. “We really looked at the benefits versus the risk and we were really unsure about what is going to happen with the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

“In my view, the two winners for the Affordable Care Act are the insurance companies, because more people will have to purchase insurance, as well as the pharmaceutical companies because many more people will be buying medications—they are the two lobby groups that have fared pretty well from this.”

For Lee’s Medicare patients, the problem is not the reimbursement rates, which in some cases is more generous that what private insurance companies pay, he said. “What really hurts us—with Congress unable to come to a budget, and the fiscal crisis in January—they have always talked about cutting 27 percent if this thing goes through,” he said.

“They usually come up with a stopgap for another six months, but we are always under this threat,” he said. “The last one that happened last year, and the year before, our Medicare clearing house tells us: ‘Just don’t submit anything for one month—and then after the stopgap comes through, then send the billing in again.’”

The result is that the practice loses its Medicare revenue for that month, he said.

No tort reform

“Another problem is that there is no tort reform on the table,” he said. “That is a big problem here in D.C.—there is no cap on the personal injury portion of malpractice—all these things add cost, and our costs are going to run us out of our practice.”

Without tort reform, malpractice insurance keeps going up, he said. Lee pays $25,000 per year, and his wife roughly half that, for $1.5 million per occurrence, with a total coverage of $3 million, he said. “There is no deductible, and the premium is non-tax deductible.”

The doctor said the tort situation makes it very difficult for doctors to find an insurance company and that in turn makes it an unwelcome environment for doctors to practice in the city limits.

In the end, the neighborhood doctors like him are going away, said the graduate of the New York College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, N.Y.

“What people really like is the access to their doctor,” he said.

“We deliberately run this as a very small practice. There are no nurse practitioners, no physician’s assistants, we just have the two staff people up front and me and my wife,” Lee said. The practice does not accept new patients, unless they are friends or related to existing patients.

“We have used electronic record keeping since 2006,” he said. The government is forcing doctors to use computers to cut down cost and electronic records to cut down on paperwork, he said. “What that does is put the onus of the cost on the individual physicians.”

Under the federal government’s “Meaningful Use” programs, if computer equipment was purchased in 2011, the practice could put in for reimbursement, he said.

The problem is that Lee and his wife bought their system in 2006, he said. New regulations require completely new computer systems in 2013, which for the Lees would cost $15,000 to $20,000.

Because they are shutting down their operations in 2013, they are ignoring the law for now, he said.


%d bloggers like this: