Lies I Taught in Medical School: How Conventional Medicine Is Making You Sicker and What You Can Do to Save Your Own Life.

Modern medicine is lying to you. Discover the true science behind chronic diseases—and implement an actionable plan to take control of your health and longevity once and for all.

For the first time in history, chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and obesity plague our population on a global scale. From a seasoned physician, this paradigm-shifting book comprehensively explains the linked cause and exposes the misconceptions prevalent in modern medicine.

In Lies I Taught in Medical School, Robert Lufkin, MD, explains that metabolic dysfunction is the common underlying cause of most chronic diseases that has been overlooked for decades, providing the tools needed to address these diseases in ourselves. He draws on expansive, peer-reviewed evidence, proving that standard medical recommendations are killing us.

Over the course of 12 illustrated chapters, Lies I Taught in Medical School chronicles how Dr. Lufkin corrected four chronic diseases in himself and expertly supplies the strategies needed to:

  • Identify chronic disease risk factors, such as inflammation and insulin resistance
  • Boost mental health via nutrition and lifestyle
  • Improve diet and metabolism
  • Attend to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular and other common chronic diseases
  • Get off unnecessary medications, including many diabetes and hypertension drugs

What’s more, Dr. Lufkin offers practical advice to show how lifestyle factors such as nutrition, sleep, exercise, and stress management can target the fundamental cause of chronic diseases. Lies I Taught in Medical School is a revolutionary and holistic guide that will help you take control of your health—before it’s too late.

Running The Defensive Lever-Action Rifle.

Any firearm has its own manual of arms, and the lever-action rifle is no exception. The armed citizen who chooses to use a lever gun for personal defense should know safe carry techniques and efficient and safe loading and unloading methods. And, just as with any other defensive firearm, we need to practice safe, efficient techniques when firing at the range and during dry practice.

When not carrying the lever gun I prefer that the magazine be loaded and the chamber empty. When encountering a threat or potential threat I have the option of levering a round into the chamber when I pick up the rifle and then lowering the hammer to the safety notch or, in the case of later model guns, engaging the external safety. The other option is to run the lever, chambering a round as I bring the gun to my shoulder and address the threat.

Whether the gun has a safety or not, I don’t like the idea of walking around with the hammer cocked. It is just an added safety measure to lower the hammer unless one is actually about to fire the gun. And no time is lost when the shooter cocks the hammer as he brings the gun to his shoulder and the sights onto the target.

In practice sessions it is important to get into the habit of firing and cycling the action without taking the gun down from the shoulder. The gun stays in the shoulder pocket while we fire our shot, cycle the action with a live round, and get back on target. With practice, one can also top off the magazine (tactical reload) without removing the gun from the shoulder.

Since the majority of lever-action rifles load from the right side of the receiver, the shooter will have to use their right hand to reload, regardless of whether they are right or left-handed. And one will just have to practice a little with a belt-mounted ammo slide or butt cuff on the gun to see what works best for the individual. Obviously, loose cartridges in a pocket should be avoided if at all possible. Just as with our defensive handguns, dry practice with the lever action is important. Dummy rounds can be purchased and used to practice various loading and unloading methods.

With most lever-action rifles the only way to unload them is to cycle the live rounds through the action and eject them. The only safe way to do this is to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction and make doubly sure that the trigger finger is nowhere near the trigger. It is critical to pay close attention to the unloading operation, go slowly, and focus on safety.

When firing and cycling a lever action it is important to do it with some force; my friend Richard Mann says, “Do it like you’re killing snakes.”  Running the lever gently can lead to what we call a short stroke, that is when the bolt fails to chamber a round. You run the action with the same forcefulness that you run a pump shotgun.

In short, the lever-action rifle can be an excellent choice for personal defense, but it is critical that the armed citizen learn how to run it safely and efficiently. Those who haven’t grown up hunting with lever guns would be well advised to sign up for one of the several defensive classes that are offered. In fact, professional classes are always a good idea regardless of a person’s experience level.

Former Judge has Crap for Brains

Quote of the Day

One problem with the court’s approach is that it is formalist, pedantic—soulless.
It wrongly suggests that the court should give the words in a statute a form-over- substance significance that focuses on dictionaries, and historic word usage while ignoring the basic right at stake or the basic evil a law aims at ending.

In the abortion case, an anti-abortion court could have turned the decision on weighing a life or potential life protected by the Constitution against the liberty of a woman to control her own body—another right protected by the Constitution.
Rather than methodically marching to the foregone conclusion that women had no rights historically, the court could have overturned Roe simply by restriking the balance of rights in favor of a life or potential life that might be lost in abortion.

Rather than spending their time fixated on the interior life of a gun, the court in Cargill could have considered what the law was obviously aimed at limiting—guns that mindlessly spew multitudes of bullets and threaten public safety. Laws have values in them—life, liberty, public safety, etc., and when the court ignores them in favor of games with words, it undermines respect for the institution.

Thomas G. Moukawsher
Former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. June 25, 2024
Bump-Stock Ruling Reveals a Supreme Court Obsessed With Word Play | Opinion (msn.com)

I dropped my jaw in amazement reading this.
He thinks judges should weigh the pros and cons and examine how they feel about the topic to decide the case?
Really?
That is the job of the legislators when making the laws. If he were to have it his way we would end up with bump stocks being legal or illegal depending upon which judge was assigned to our case. Abortion doctors and the women who employed their services would be sent to jail or on their way, again, depending on what judge they were assigned or perhaps even the mood of the judge that day.

Word mean things and the law depends on the precise meaning of the words used to create those law. If not, then the result will be injustice and chaos. You just won’t know what is an ordinary everyday activity and what a multiple year felony.

This guy is a former judge! Well, maybe this is the reason he is a former judge. He has crap for brains.

New FBI rule gives gun dealers access to stolen firearm records; Springfield law enforcement and gun store owners weigh in

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3) – A new ruling by the FBI gives federal firearm licensees access to FBI records of stolen firearms.

Before this new ruling, firearm dealers had to use their best judgment when buying guns from strangers.

“People that bring in a used gun, I have no way of knowing if it’s stolen or not and if I do purchase it, and it is stolen, I lose the money I put into it and the gun,” 417 Guns owner Brent Ball said.

We asked how he verifies whether a gun is stolen or not without the database tool. Ball said he was in law enforcement for many years and tries to use his best judgement when buying firearms, but there’s not been a way to verify whether it’s stolen or not until now.

“If I’m not comfortable with the situation, I have them leave. I don’t need that business,” Ball said.

Major Tad Peters with the Springfield Police Department said this new ruling is a good thing, especially since the city has experienced issues with stolen firearms before.

Continue reading “”

What with today’s decision reversing Chevron deference, I see no way that the bureaucrap’s rule on unfinished receivers stands.

BLUF
Fortunately, we will not have to wait too long to see if Cargill stands alone or reflects a broader trend of checking ATF claims of authority. On April 22, 2024, the Court granted certiorari in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case challenging the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule as beyond the scope of the agency’s authority. A decision in VanDerStok will likely come during the Court’s next term.

Garland v. Cargill: The Court’s Textualists Stick to Their Guns

Because it involves guns, Cargill v. Garland has been seen by supporters and opponents alike as a Second Amendment case. That is not really correct. Rather, it presents a question of basic statutory interpretation. And in answering that question, Cargill is a triumph of textualism and separation of powers concerns over purpose-driven interpretation and legislative intent.

For the majority, the words on the paper are what matter, even if the Congress that wrote them might have done things differently. It does not matter if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck if it doesn’t have the features that Congress used to define a duck.

On the separation of powers front, Cargill is a victory for congressional lawmaking authority. Administrative agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) cannot step in and rewrite statutes by administrative fiat just because Congress is not acting as quickly as they might wish.

Continue reading “”

The Dangers of a Desperate Biden Campaign

After Thursday night’s disastrous debate performance, Democrats are officially gameplanning how to get Biden to step aside as the Democratic candidate for president, even though Biden’s surrogates claim he’s not going anywhere. If Biden does decide to stay atop the Democratic ticket, he’s going to be desperate to keep his base of support as intact as possible, and desperate people do dangerous things.

That’s especially true when we’re talking about politicians. So what steps could Biden take between now and November to ensure the gun control lobby spends tens of millions of dollars to promote his doomed candidacy?

We’re not going to see a gun ban or any other gun control bill approved in Congress between now and November. Biden’s options are really limited to executive branch actions, and thankfully the Supreme Court has taken a big step toward reining in executive branch overreach by overturning the Chevron Doctrine. That doesn’t mean, however, that Biden can’t propose new ATF rules, nor does today’s decision prevent the ATF from putting those rules in place. Loper Bright makes it much easier to invalidate agency overreach after the fact, but it won’t stop abuses from being implemented or enforced.

So what, if anything, could Biden do to thrill his anti-gun allies ahead of Election Day? As retired ATF deputy assistant director Pete Forcelli told Bearing Arms just a few days ago, his sources within the agency have informed him that Bidens’ White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is putting pressure on ATF director Steve Dettelbach to go after Glock by reclassifying the company’s semi-automatic pistols as “machine guns” because of the rise in illegal switches that allow semi-automatic firearms to function as fully automatic arms.

I have heard from some good sources that the White House, and don’t forget that the Office of Gun Violence Prevention is run by Rob Wilcox, who’s formerly from Everytown.

He has a lot of influence at ATF now, and I know that from a number of sources because I didn’t retire from there all that long ago. One of the things they kicked around was trying to force ATF to reclassify Glocks as machine guns, because they’re so easily converted, in their minds, to a machine gun through the use of a switch.

And people within ATF pushed back and Dettelbach didn’t bite into that fishhook and get caught on that… yet. Who knows what happens if the Biden administration has nothing to lose.

I think we’re officially at the stage of Biden not having anything to lose… at least if he doesn’t drop out of his re-election campaign altogether. Dettelach too might be more inclined to go for broke if Biden remains the nominee, knowing that he’ll be removed from his post if Donald Trump wins election.

They also contemplated putting out a ruling to gun manufacturers stating that if you sell to government entities, then you would be prohibited from selling to the civilian markets. So, think about that for a second.

ATF agents use the Glock. If Glock wanted to sign on and sell guns to the ATF or to the military, they would be prohibited from selling to the civilian market. Again, that did not happen, but these are the things that the White House is trying to push the ATF to do. It may be gently now, but once there’s no worry about being re-elected maybe it’s not such a gentle nudge.

Conversely, if there’s a huge worry about being re-elected, then maybe Biden and Dettelbach decide to roll the dice and release this proposed rule as well. Again, desperate times call for desperate measures, and Biden’s reelection bid is in dire straights right now.

Heck, even if Biden does decide to fall on his walker and allow for a candidate who can complete a sentence to replace him as the nominee, he may very well decide to give the gun control lobby these parting gifts before he leaves office. The gun control groups have been very good to him, and I’m sure he’d like to repay the favor while he still has the chance.

Whether Biden remains the Democratic candidate for president or steps aside and allows for a chaotic race to replace him, gun control activists like Wilcox are almost certain to push Biden to go big on their issue between now and Election Day, and it’s crucially important for Second Amendment advocates to keep up with their machinations behind the scenes.

Justices rule for Jan. 6 defendant

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf

The Supreme Court on Friday threw out the charges against a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the law that Joseph Fischer was charged with violating, which bars obstruction of an official proceeding, applies only to evidence tampering, such as destruction of records or documents, in official proceedings.

Friday’s ruling could affect charges against more than 300 other Jan. 6 defendants. The same law is also at the center of two of the four charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 25 on Trump’s claims of immunity and has not yet issued its decision in that case. But Smith has argued that even if the court were to rule for Fischer, the charges against Trump could still go forward because they rested, in part, on efforts to use false electoral certificates at the joint session of Congress.

The law at the center of Fischer’s case is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to “otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding.” U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols concluded that because the previous subsection, Section 1512(c)(1), bars tampering with evidence “with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,” Section 1512(c)(2) only applies to cases involving evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding, and he dismissed the obstruction charge against Fischer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed Nichols’ ruling, concluding that the “meaning of the statute is unambiguous,” so that it “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by” the prior subsection.

On Friday, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision, interpreting the law more narrowly to apply only to evidence tampering.

Continue reading “”

Overturning the Chevron Deference Could Mean a Regulatory Revolution

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

Business groups have long argued that federal agencies have too much power in their rulemaking. The Supreme Court agrees.

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the legal precedent known as the Chevron deference in a 6-3 decision, which will reshape the way that federal agencies interpret laws and craft rules that regulate a wide range of businesses.

For decades, courts have turned to regulatory agencies to fill in the legal gaps when areas of the law are ambiguous–this is the so-called Chevron deference, which emerged from case law.

The Chevron deference resulted from a 1984 case filed by Chevron, a big oil company, which argued that the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was overly broad. Chevron lost the case after a judge found that federal agencies are considered to be the authority on a statute if it’s ambiguous. That decision brought forth the Chevron doctrine, or the Chevron deference.

The high court revisited Chevron through a pair of companion cases: Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day

If Joe Biden was that bad in front of tens of millions of people after a week off with 16 people preparing him…on a friendly network, with moderators who hate Trump, with every crutch he asked for…all rules favoring him…imagine how bad the Hur interview is they are desperately hiding…