Articles by Herschel Smith

You all know that Zinc is one of the necessary daily drills for being healthy, including an effective treatment for Covid.  Here is a recent study that indicates it’s good for other things too.

Many people pop a zinc supplement at the first sign of a cold, and there’s new evidence supporting the habit.

Australian researchers found that the supplements appear to help shorten respiratory tract infections, such as colds, flu, sinusitis and pneumonia.

Many over-the-counter cold and cough remedies offer only “marginal benefits,” the researchers noted, making “zinc a viable ‘natural’ alternative for the self-management of non-specific [respiratory tract infections].”

The study was led by Jennifer Hunter, associate professor at the NICM Health Research Institute at Western Sydney University in Penrith, New South Wales. Her team published the findings Tuesday in the BMJ Open.

According to Hunter’s team, zinc as a nutrient has gained attention from researchers because it’s known to play an important role in immunity, inflammation, tissue injury, blood pressure and in tissue responses to any lack of oxygen.

To learn more about zinc’s potential, the investigators reviewed more than two dozen clinical trials that included more than 5,400 adults.

All were published in 17 English and Chinese research databases up to August 2020. None of them specifically examined the use of zinc for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.

Lozenges were the most common form of zinc intake, followed by nasal sprays and gels, the research team said. Doses varied substantially, depending on the formulation and whether zinc was used for prevention or treatment.

[ … ]

Dr. Len Horovitz is a pulmonologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. He wasn’t involved in the new study, but agreed that “most clinical evidence supports the use of zinc supplement for prevention and treatment of colds, some inflammatory processes, and respiratory infections.”

“The usual recommendation is 25 mg of zinc daily,” Horovitz said, but he cautioned that “it is unclear exactly what dose is best.”

Queueing in three … two … one …

The CDC announces that they’ve reversed course and decided that Zinc should be avoided and even removed from your daily diet.

No, this isn’t the Babylon Bee, at least not yet.

Seen at David’s WoG.

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and U.S. Reps. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), and Jennifer Wexton, (D-Va.) introduced The Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act, H.R. 5764, in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate as S. 3117. The legislation is troublesome because the politicians authoring it pitch it as a means to detect and prevent those who might be planning to commit an atrocity or terror attack.

They don’t really believe they can predict the future.  They just want more control of the average American.  Anyone who is a serious threat to the status quo will know how to control their intel and counterintel.

We’ve discussed over my blegs before, things like Quik Clot, gauze, bandages, tourniquets, aspirin, etc.  But this article makes some interesting points and I’m glad I read it before outfitting mine.

• Moleskin
• Blister Foam
• Orthopedic Felt
• Duct Tape
• Surgical Tape
• Krazy Glue
• Small Scissors
• Alcohol Wipes 
• Gel Toe Sleves
• Scalpel, Pin, or Needle (for popping a blister)
• Ibuprofen

This is for blisters.  He also deals with frostbite, deep cuts and burns, all of which are common in the bush.

But I think his point is that an injury such as deep blistering can be debilitating and can prevent effective movement.  I’ve seen some awful blistering before.  In the book “Awol on the Appalachian Trail,” the author deals with blisters so severe that they required a doctor’s attention to press and drain puss, followed by several weeks of recovery.

Needless to say, he didn’t move those few weeks.  All he did was bed rest and heal.

Anyway, for what it’s worth.  Feel free to fill in the details of other things you would put in your med kit.

Not for precision shooting – for hunting.

I think I agree with one of the comments.  His final bullet was probably due to shooting slightly uphill.

Retarded.

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in a closely watched guns case, the discussion won’t start with the last landmark ruling on firearms from 2010, or even with the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791.

Instead, attorneys on both sides will likely reach back to a 700-year-old English law – and a debate over the influence it had on the framing of the Constitution.

[ … ]

That has drawn both sides of the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, into an intense battle over a statute from 1328 that some historians say informed the Framers’ views of when people may carry their guns in public. The Statute of Northampton regulated the carrying of “arms” in public places.

Briefly, I couldn’t care less what English common law says about anything.  The colonists fought a war over many things, including gun control (see Kopel, “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution“).

The colonists fought a war against the government to overthrow tyranny.  It’s ridiculous and sophomoric to pretend that they ever assumed that men wouldn’t engage in RKBA, or that they wouldn’t turn those guns against tyranny.

Presuppositions.  This is the stuff of life.  The 2A makes no sense unless seen in the light of the lives of the men who wrote it and their own assumptions, value judgments and world and life views.

Any lawyer who begins with, discusses or ends with English common law isn’t worth his weight in salt.

A Lot.

Kavanaugh pressed Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone on the prospect that the legal machinery of the new abortion law could be used against other freedoms, referring to a brief filed by a gun rights group.

“We can assume that this will be across the board, equally applicable as the Firearms Policy Coalition says, to all constitutional rights?” Kavanaugh said, later asking Texas’ lawyer to imagine a law that let anyone sue a person for using an AR-15 rifle and hold them liable for $1 million.

Did they say something like that?  Oh to be sure, they did.

The importance of this petition is not about any debate over the existence or scope of any constitutional right to abortion. Indeed, Amicus takes no position on such questions, which are before this Court in other cases. Rather, this case is about access to the means of enforcing individual constitutional rights, as determined by this Court’s cases, and protecting against their infringement, regardless of the particular right involved. Texas’s novel scheme for infringing upon and chilling the exercise of the right to abortion under this Court’s Roe and Casey decisions while seeking to evade judicial review, if allowed to stand, could and would just as easily be applied to other  constitutional rights. That result is wholly anathema to our constitutional scheme, regardless what one thinks of abortion or, indeed, of any other hotly debated constitutional right, such as the right to keep and bear arms.

See also here.

But you see, there is no constitutional right to destroy a company because someone used their product to injure others, any more than there’s a constitutional right to kill babies.  Those things are just made up out of whole cloth.

FPC is scared that 2A rights will be violated if we disallow the killing of babies.  But if you make your bed with the devil, don’t be surprised when he kills you.  There is no basis for the belief that this argument won’t be used to kill the Texas law and then summarily ignored when a state or individual bankrupts a firearms company (with the black robed tyrants ignoring the case).

Justice has been sacrificed for expediency, because in the eyes of the FPC, the only thing standing in the way of the obliteration of the 2A is SCOTUS interpretation.  Then where are you?

To me, the same place we were.  God grants a right, man does not.  Breakage of the covenant of the 2A means that the government is illegitimate and must be divorced, not that we lose a right.

The FPC could have done a much better job with their brief.  They’re on the losing side of one issue, and they may end up on the losing side of yet another.

Fear is a vicious monster and should not be tolerated.

Here is the sad story.  See all of her Twitter entries.  It tells an evolving story.

But apparently she isn’t convinced enough of the problem yet.  Today someone sent me this.

He wants to do some custom things to the gun that I would not choose to do.  If I am ever able to purchase this gun, I will leave it as is, except for installation of optics.

Readers seemed to like the gun when I posted previously, so I thought this would be a good update.  I haven’t seen any negative reviews of this gun anywhere.

Also, Shooting Sports USA has a review up.

Seen at Jon Rappoport’s blog, an interview with the doctor who performed the abortion (so you can’t get more definitive and authoritative than that).

“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”

“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”

Author Hacking continues: “…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”

“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”

[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]

[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]

Hacking: “In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”

“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:

“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”

If you’ve read or heard that the baby they used was a miscarriage or some such thing, and that we may as well benefit from the cell lines, then you’ve been lied to.

The baby was alive, it was infanticide, and a team of technicians was standing by to slice open the un-anaesthetized baby for purposes of experimentation.

There is more on this from a courageous interview of Biologist Pamela Acker.  Here is the interview.

If you’re the sort of person who would rather read it, this is a link of the transcript.

Again, you were lied to.  Don’t be so surprised.  Virtually everything you’ve ever been told by your government [and their ministers of propaganda, the media] is a lie.

Seen in the comments at David’s WoG.

‘The Second Amendment states explicitly that it exists to protect “a well regulated Militia,” ‘

Ah, no!

What it says is that RKBA shall not be infringed.

In a prefatory clause it indicates ONE of the reasons why that must be true.

https://www.mic.com/articles/24210/gun-control-myth-the-second-amendment-makes-clear-guns-aren-t-just-for-the-military

Wishing it were otherwise, and trying to use SCOTUS lack of rulings on RKBA issues to make that wish come true, does not make it true.

What is rarely discussed by outfits such as Vox, is that for much of the Second Amendment’s existence, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not under ceaseless attack, so there was no reason for SCOTUS to get involved.

But that is not in alignment of Vox’s version of the truth.

But as noted leftist and anti gun Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said:

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES.  This.  This.  And a thousand times yes.

I’ve pointed out before that firearms ownership was ubiquitous in the states.  The colonists had a RKBA because God granted it.  This is an axiomatic irreducible.  It is the predicate upon which everything else is based.  Without this presupposition, the second amendment makes no sense.

The framers needed only one reason to tell the FedGov to stay out of their business, and this was their main one.  The second amendment is not a treatise on the RKBA.  The second amendment is the states telling the FedGov not to interfere with the militia.  The militia brought their own armaments.

Thus, God gave the right to own firearms for hunting and feeding the family, just like he gave men the right to use rocks and spears and bow and arrow to do the same in ancient history.  If you want firearms for this purpose, God protects that right.  It is assumed in the second amendment, which doesn’t speak to hunting.

If you want cannon to protect your ship’s cargo, God gave you that right in the Holy Writ.  The second amendment doesn’t speak to cannon aboard ships of trade because it doesn’t have to.  It is assumed.

If you want to give your son a rifle to carry with him to school like the founders did for hunting and plinking and learning to be a man, that’s within your rights too, because God says so.

If you are 90 years old and unable to form with the militia but want a machine gun to defend your home, that’s within your rights too because God says so.

If you want firearms for 3-gun competition because you enjoy it, that’s within your rights because God says so, totally apart from forming with the militia.

Rights and duties are granted and given by the Almighty, the sovereign maker of the universe.  The second amendment is the states telling the FedGov to back off ever trying to regulate said rights because what’s at risk is the capability overthrow tyranny.

That’s all the founders had to say.  The second amendment is about tyranny.  Not hunting, not competition, not self defense, not pleasure plinking.  Those things are assumed, presupposed, and irreducible.  They are the basis for everything else – because God says so.