The left is ramping up their propaganda for election season.
Of course, that isn’t the price of insulin. Not even close. I give people Insulin in the ED every single day. Here is the cost: less than $40, and that is for a 30 day supply. That includes Novalog, Lantus, and others. The cost is slightly more than a dollar a day, which is nowhere near the $1,300 a month being claimed.
Even if a drug was more than a person can afford, all they have to do is go to the ED. The hospital will give it to them while they are a patient.
The entire post above is a lie. It didn’t happen, or at least not the way that the person creating it wants you to believe that it happened, and that’s before we get into how a restaurant manager only made $35k a year.
The ATF gets a puff piece on Face The Nation. One of the key moments in the video that just tipped my “that’s stupid” radar was at 16:40, when they are looking at a Cartel pistol, the woman reporter gets all flustered when the ATF tells her that you can get the Virgin Mary encrusted diamond grips for your pistol, because they are not regulated. Um, why does that matter? What do diamonds on your pistol grip do to make a handgun more deadly?
The ATF’s firearms “expert” doesn’t know how to disassemble a Glock, nor does he know the difference between a clip and a magazine. Then at 19:30, he makes the claim that anyone who walks into a gun store and puts down $12,000 for a Barrett must be a criminal member of a drug cartel, because that’s the only reason why someone would do that, so dealers should automatically refuse to sell it. There is also a SAW on the table, not because people have them, but because it looks scary for the Infomercial they are filming. That’s what this is- it isn’t journalism, it’s a paid Informercial for the ATF and gun control. See for yourself:
ATF Director Steven Dettelbach went on CBS's Face The Nation & displayed a shocking ignorance of firearms while trying to gin up fear to strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
It should scare everyone that Dettelbach doesn't know the difference between a clip & a magazine. pic.twitter.com/0cABaCZ2sT
The news media outlets aren’t in business to sell facts. Their entire business model is to sell ad space by attracting more viewers. The more viewers they have, the more valuable that advertising space is. Whatever gets their target audience to watch increases the value of that ad space.
Consumers of the news, the viewers, are the product being sold. The businesses paying for that advertising space are the customers. You, as a consumer of news, are simply a product, a means to an end. The facts are immaterial and only get in the way.
All of the outlets on the left (CNN, MSNBC, etc) and on the right (Fox, Newsmax, etc) are there to report whatever ‘facts’ will get them the viewership they need in order to be profitable through selling advertisement time and space to their customers. So they play to their viewers by reporting ‘facts’ that will attract enough viewers, and the veracity of those facts is immaterial to the news organizations’ goal of selling more advertisement space.
Have you ever wondered why the local news never does reports on crooked car dealers? Because the local news channel knows that car dealers are the largest purchasers of advertising space, and the producers of the news shows don’t want to risk losing the advertising sales of those businesses.
News outlets aren’t reporters of facts, they are entertainment companies whose business model rests on reporting things that attract more viewers. The truth is immaterial to that goal.
A woman is claiming that her child’s Easy Bake Oven gave her family carbon monoxide poisoning. This is why people shouldn’t use Google to self diagnose medical problems. The Easy Bake oven uses a lightbulb to generate heat. There is no open flame, thus no combustion. Since carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete combustion, this isn’t the culprit.
The second issue here is that a pulse oximeter allegedly showed 89 percent. This is not caused by CO for technical reasons. See, a pulse oximeter works because hemoglobin that is bound to another molecule absorbs certain frequencies of red light, while hemoglobin that is not bound to another molecule does not. The pulse oximeter shines two frequencies of red light through the body, and measures how much one is absorbed over the other. The result is used to calculate the proportion of bound hemoglobin versus unbound that is passing through the beam.
Carbon monoxide poisoning is caused because CO binds to hemoglobin 200 times more readily than does oxygen. This causes the hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin, which absorbs that red light as readily as oxyhemoglobin, which is formed when oxygen binds to hemoglobin. This means that the pulse oximeter will show the same number whether it is carboxyhemoglobin or oxyhemoglobin. This phenomenon is called the pulse oximetry gap and makes a pulse oximeter useless for diagnosing CO poisoning.
There is a linear decline in O2Hb (oxyhemoglobin) saturation as COHb (carboxyhemoglobin) saturation increases. This decline is not detected by pulse oximetry, which therefore overestimates O2Hb saturation in patients with increased COHb levels. The pulse oximetry gap increases with higher levels of COHb and approximates the COHb level. In patients with possible CO poisoning, pulse oximetry must be considered unreliable and interpreted with caution until the COHb level has been measured. [Bozeman WP, Myers RAM, Barish RA: Confirmation of the pulse oximetry gap in carbon monoxide poisoning. Ann Emerg Med November 1997;30:608-611.]
The fire department found no signs of CO in the apartment, but the couple claims that this was due to the oven having been unplugged 8 hours before.
This entire story is stupidity, and newspapers should be sued for publishing garbage like this with no corroboration other than some moron’s Google search. If you are going to make a claim like this, at least do a little research. Layers of editorial research my hairy ass.
Because I am getting used to providing evidence based resources:
Barker SJ, Tremper KK, The effect of carbon monoxide inhalation on pulse oximetry and transcutaneous PO2. Anesthesiology. 1987; 66: 677-679Gonzalez A
Buckley RG, Aks SE, Eshom JL, et al. The pulse oximetry gap in carbon monoxide intoxication. Ann Emerg Med. 1994; 24: 252-255
Gomez-Arnau J, Pensado A, Carboxyhemoglobin and pulse oximetry.Anesthesiology. 1990; 73: 57
The author of this piece is Dr. Tom Hastings, the conflict resolution coordinator at Portland State University. Portland. Enough said, but let’s look closer at his nonsense anyhow.
It is long past time to repeal the Second Amendment.
Why?
To strengthen democracy.
I don’t want democracy. With democracy, 50.1 percent of the voters would be able to legalize slavery. The voters could easily vote to euthanize everyone over the age of 65, or even confiscate the property of everyone who has a net worth of more than $500,000 so that it can be redistributed. The beauty of our system of government is that, while they are democratically elected, our representatives can’t violate the rights of the individual.
Already in 2022, as of Sept. 25, there have been 32,643 gun deaths in America from a variety of causes, including murder, homicide, accidents and suicides. Many of these deaths were in places that attempted strict gun control, including a ban on assault rifles, but were successfully sued by the NRA or other gun rights groups and their local or state laws vacated by rulings prompted by the Second Amendment.
Let’s start with the “gun deaths” metric. First, a “gun death” is a stupid metric. An early death is no more tragic if carried out by cancer, diabetes, being tossed out of a helicopter, or simply beaten over the head with a hammer.
Second, more than 26,000 of those “gun deaths” were actually suicides. A person intent on killing themselves could, if guns were outlawed, simply step in front of a train, leap from the window of a tall building, or overdose on sleeping pills. Getting rid of the Second Amendment would not save the lives of anyone intent on suicide. The fault in logic here is stunning- the left contends that people who wish to take their own lives would not do so if there were no guns in the home. Ridiculous and easily demonstrated as a false premise. In the United States, over 48,000 people take their own lives each year, and there is no reason to believe that things would improve with the outlawing of guns. Take Guyana as an example, where the government has passed every single dream of gun control proposed by the left.
In Guyana, Category B firearms are only available to sport shooters who hold a license to practice for at least 6 months, with a medical certificate, without a criminal conviction, and additionally require at least three shooting sessions with an instructor. Specific purchase and possession permits can then be applied for from a local police department, are valid for 5 years and can be extended. These weapons can then only be used for sport shooting in shooting ranges, never for hunting. Category B includes all assault rifles such as AK-47/AKM, AK-74 or AR-15/M16/M4, as well as all similar weapons, even if they are chambered for rimfire (.22 LR) cartridges. These can only be semi-automatic. All handguns, including those using rim ammunition, are classified as Category B. It is illegal to possess these Category B weapons after the expiry of a specific non-renewed license: the weapons must be disposed of (e.g., sold to a firearms store or otherwise destroyed).
Meanwhile, Guyana has the highest suicide rate of any nation in the world: 40.8 suicides per 100,000. That number represents a suicide rate three times that of the United States. So gun laws have no effect on suicide rates, which are more of a mental health issue than they are a firearms issue. In Guyana, the suicide problem is related closely to alcoholism, not guns.
Civilized countries enact laws that actually protect their children. Unlike every single other developed or large country in the entire world, the number one cause of death for children in the US is firearms.
Wrong. Homicides don’t even come close to being the number one cause of death, even including homicides by all mechanisms. Unless you consider 15-24 year olds as being children.
The simple fact is that more than half of the homicides in this country are actually due to street gang activity where one gangs are resorting to violence in order to protect their drug dealing turf. I don’t need to go any further- this guy’s post is filled with enough factual deficiencies that we already know he is lying to support his agenda.
To prevent Civil War 2.0.
With approximately 400 million guns floating around US society and an armed MAGA-driven polarization met by an increasingly armed leftist radical wing, along with evermore virulent rhetoric and escalating numbers walking around open-carrying war weaponry in public, half of America believes that civil war is coming. Tossing out the Second Amendment would free legislatures and city councils to begin seriously ending such belligerent displays of combat weapons.
During Vietnam, the left thought they were clever by asking “What if they threw a war and no one showed up?” The more important question is “What if they threw a war and only one side showed up?” The answer to that is, of course, genocide. Disarming one side allows the other side, still armed, to do with the unarmed as they please.
It’s as if he thinks that getting rid of the Second Amendment would cause the 600 million plus guns already in US hands to simply disappear. Instead, the repeal of 2A would cause many of those 600 million guns to be used against the very people who would be attempting to confiscate them, guaranteeing the onset of an American civil war.
This guy, who is supposed to be interested in conflict resolution, is advocating for the one thing that is guaranteed to cause more conflict than any other single thing that the government could do. Clueless, but the left’s ideas usually are.
A little over a month ago, I pointed out that five men spent hours erecting a gallows in front of the Capitol in the early morning hours of January 6, with one of them making a coffee run at the shop closest to the FBI’s headquarters. This to me indicates that the Feds know who these men are, because they are likely FBI informants or agents.
Martin believes that the gallows were constructed by those wishing to paint President Trump and his supporters in a bad light. Specifically, Martin wonders why police did not stop its construction. So far, there is no evidence to support Martin’s claims.
False. There IS evidence.
The police didn’t stop the construction. That is a known fact that can’t be disputed. The area of DC around the Capitol and Whitehouse is one of the most heavily policed and surveilled areas in any American city.
Likewise, the FBI is a counterintelligence agency. They have every inch of the area around their headquarters monitored by security cameras. There is no doubt that there is closeup video of at least some of these men.
So why aren’t they looking for them? It is reasonable to infer that they aren’t looking for them because they are already known. If the press in this nation was actually doing its job, they would be asking these questions and finding the answers.
CNN is allied with Hamas, and had foreknowledge of the October 7 attacks, making CNN a terrorist organization. I can excuse what Hamas did as an act of unrestricted warfare. However, CNN is not fighting a war unless they want to claim Hamas as their allies.
I’m not even on the “guns” yet. There is a basic flaw with this chart, and that flaw is the assumption that the event that causes your death is random- that is, they are assuming everyone is equally likely to experience one of the events. So looking at “opioid overdose” for example, if you don’t take opioids, your chances of dying of an opioid overdose are exactly zero.
Now that we have exposed the flaw, note that “guns” is the only cause of death that is listed as an object, and not an event or action. You will also note that the math doesn’t work. Firearm assault and accidents aren’t even close to equaling your odds of dying from “guns.” Doing the math, there is a 1.1 percent chance of being killed by “guns,” but your chances of dying from a firearm assault or accident are only 0.049 percent. The other 0.61 percent? That is from suicides. So you cut your chances of being killed by “guns” if you take the simple step of not comitting suicide. We see that on the next line, where you have a 1 percent chance of killing yourself.
Taking other steps, like not being a gang banger, a drug dealer, or a violent criminal likewise reduce your risk of death by “guns,” but we won’t mention that because it doesn’t fit the agenda. This is a great example of how people can be mislead by what appears to be solid facts and mathematics applied in a scientific appearing article, when it is really just hokum that is designed to manipulate the reader.
