Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Judge Dismisses Mother's Lawsuit Over Her Son's Transition to a "Girl"

A federal judge in Minnesota dealt a devastating blow to parental rights last week. Senior U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson dismissed a lawsuit brought by a mother who accused school officials, healthcare providers, and doctors of violating her parental rights by assisting her son with gender transition without the mother’s consent.


Anmarie Calgaro’s case made international headlines last year when she sued her teenage son — known only as EKJ — for undergoing a sex change through hormonal therapy without her permission, as well as numerous state agencies for the role they played in helping him to transition from male to “female.” Calgaro’s lawsuit claimed that she was neither consulted nor informed about the transition, thereby stripping her of her constitutionally protected parental rights.


“The U.S. Constitution says that parental rights are fundamental rights, that can’t be terminated without due process,” said Calgaro’s attorney, Erick Kaardal of the Thomas More Society.





At particular issue in Calgaro’s lawsuit was a Minnesota law that allows minors to undergo medical care and procedures without parental consent. According to Calgaro’s suit, Park Nicollet and Fairview Health Services began providing hormone therapy to her son in November without consulting Calgaro or even informing her about it. Calgaro also argued that St. Louis County violated her parental rights by providing government assistance in the form of medical payments to cover the costs of the child’s transition.


Calgaro indicates she is fighting for parents to be included in their minors’ medical decisions.


"I"m also taking this action for the benefit of all parents and families, who may be facing the same violation of their rights — so that they and others in the future may be spared from the same tragic events," she opined.


Sadly, some media outlets portrayed Calgaro less as a champion of parental rights and more as an anti-LGBTQ activist, even quoting critics who took issue with Calgaro’s and her attorney’s repeated references to her son as male, which of course squares with reality, but not with her son’s desire to be acknowledged as female. 


For Calgaro, however, the case is not about her son"s “transgenderism,” but with his ability to obtain medical treatment without her knowledge or consent, particularly potentially harmful treatment. At a press conference, Calgaro told reporters that "The transitioning thing isn"t even the issue, the issue is that he"s able to make these [medical] decisions."


In fact, scientists suggest that it is psychologically harmful for adolescents to undergo hormonal therapy in the name of transgenderism, as most children outgrow gender confusion.


"Children are a special case when addressing transgender issues. Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood,” a study in The New Atlantis reads.


“There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents, although some children may have improved psychological well-being if they are encouraged and supported in their cross-gender identification," it continues. "There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender."


The study argues that enabling acceptance of transgenderism through medical intervention is particularly harmful. “An area of particular concern involves medical interventions for gender-nonconforming youth. They are increasingly receiving therapies that affirm their felt genders, and even hormone treatments or surgical modifications at young ages,” the authors observe.


Calgaro’s lawsuit also focused on the absence of an official legal process in the state for the emancipation of minors, and this absence served to create considerable confusion and inconsistencies in Calgaro’s case. Some of the agencies involved considered the teenage boy to be emancipated from his mother based on the grounds that he no longer lived with Calgaro and was not financially supported by her. EKJ reportedly moved out of his mother’s home in 2015 to move in with his father so that he could attend a better school and has not returned since. He eventually moved in with friends until he finally began living on his own.


EKJ also filled out an emancipation form with the help of a homosexual advocacy group without Calgaro’s knowledge. In the lawsuit, Calgaro notes that the emancipation form was riddled with falsehoods. For example, the form claimed that Calgaro failed to report her teen son as a runaway and “made no attempt to bring him home,” thereby concluding that she wished to have no contact with him, all of which Calgaro denies.


The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that an attorney with the Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid clinic then provided EJK with a letter that concluded the teen was legally emancipated under Minnesota law.


Meanwhile, Calgaro’s attorney noted at a news conference last year that Calgaro was never given notice that her child was seeking emancipation and the emancipation determination was reached without a hearing or court order.


"If there had been a court order of emancipation, then Anmarie would have received notice and an opportunity to be heard," said Kaardal.


Once it was determined that EKJ was emancipated, the school then refused to provide Calgaro her son’s medical records, and the Department of Human Services refused to provide her information about her son’s hormonal therapy, Life Site News reports.


Yet, while these particular agencies accepted EKJ’s emancipation determination, the St. Louis County District Court had rejected the teen’s application for a name change because of the “lack of any adjudication relative to emancipation,” underscoring the flimsy legal grounds on which the defendants’ case stood.


Calgaro turned to the federal court to intervene, and asked the court to stop the teen’s hormone treatment and award her financial damages.


But Judge Magnuson determined on Tuesday that Calgaro’s claims were “meritless.”


Magnuson admitted that the boy was not legally emancipated, and that Calgaro"s parental right "remain[ed] intact." However, he decided that the defendants could not be held liable “because they did not act under color of state law.” Without evidence that the school and agencies violated a law or a “policy or custom,” Calgaro had no claim, he determined.


Magnuson revealed his flagrant disregard for parental rights by going so far as to question whether those include access to school records.


Furthermore, Kaardal asserts that Judge Magnuson’s decision has done little to clarify the state’s emancipation issue.


“On the legislative front, people on the left and on the right believed that emancipation procedures in Minnesota should be put in statutes and codified,” Kaardal said. “But until then, it’s confusing and the court’s decision hasn’t cleared up that confusion.”


NBC News notes the potential impact that a decision on the state’s emancipation process could have on abortion in Minnesota, since current statute mandates that a non-emancipated minor cannot access an abortion until 48 hours after parental notification has taken place.


Predictably, EJK’s attorneys welcomed the judges’ decision, saying it “shows the resilience of transgender youth and the importance of access to appropriate health care.”


“The law protects all young people, including transgender young people, and we are pleased that this outcome supports her access to essential health care and other critical service,” said Asaf Orr, a staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Transgender Youth Project in San Francisco.


According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Kaardal and Calgaro are considering an appeal.


“Anmarie Calgaro is living a parent’s worst nightmare," Kaardal said. "Her minor child has been piloted by third parties through a life-changing, permanent body altering process by organizations that have no legal authority over him, and that have denied his own mother access.”

Derrick Broze: Is Anarchy Coming To Your City?


By Rory Hall


Central banksters, central planners and governments in general have grown up over the past 4-5 decades believing they own the citizens and have the absolute right to dictate every aspect of our lives. They don’t. Unfortunately, what has happened is the citizens, around the world, have bought the lie the government has been selling – we are here to care for you, your children and everything you need we will provide. What a scam.


Now, it appears, there is a growing number of citizens that see this lie for what it truly is – dictatorship and enslavement. As we have pointed out endlessly, in the United States, the enslavement began with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The lies, corruption and fascism have all had to grow up with the Federal Reserve Note – U.S. dollar – otherwise, the lie would have been revealed a long time ago and the jig would’ve ended.


We see the results of what is termed “populism” with the election of Donald Trump, the BREXIT vote in the U.K. and the uprisings across Europe. The people have had enough and their voices grow stronger every day.



How do we maintain this movement? How do we, as individuals, grow stronger, smarter and break away from this failed system? What are the lessons from our ancestors we can learn and combine them with today’s technology to create a system that works for us? How does that happen and how will it work?


Our grandparents and great-grandparents lived a much simpler life. Primarily they grew their own food, maintained their own water supply and when something “broke” or needed repairs they either did it themselves or recruited local help with the necessary skills. Usually these tasks and chores, depending on the size and scope, were handled devoid of any monetary transaction. Simple trade or other form of “payment” was made. These transactions were “off-book” and did not require any government intervention on any level. They didn’t have a codes department telling them what they can and cannot do with their property, there was no tax man waiting for his cut at the end of the transaction and the other neighbors kept to themselves and didn’t really feel the need to tell someone how to raise their child. My, my, my how things have changed.


Why can’t some, or all, of these situations be handled today as they were 100 years ago? Actually, they can. We need the guts to knock on our neighbor’s door or reach out to the church and have the courage to ask for help or seek guidance with an open mind. We can also remove our monetary transactions from view of the government. We now have options to make this happen. We now have technology, both ancient and new, that will allow us to break away from the system almost completely. Within a few years, or, perhaps, even in a few months, we may actually be able to break away 100%.


Enter GoldMoney and cryptocurrencies. Gold Money was introduced in 2015 by the Gold Money company. Gold Money is a form of digital gold that spends like your national currency, e.g. U.S. dollar. The physical gold is held in a vault and has a debit card assigned to it allowing the end user, owner of the physical gold, to use the debit card on most any of the credit/debit card systems currently in operation. This is genius.


Gold and silver have been money and stores of wealth since the beginning of trade. Now we have, not only, GoldMoney, but several new players getting into the market using the blockchain. ZenGold, OneGram and, coming soon, Royal Mint Gold are backed by physical gold and the “tokens” or “coins” can be acquired in as little as one gram of physical gold. This technology allows a person to spend gold instead of their worthless national currency.



Grow our own food, begin drinking actual water instead of lead-laced poison coming out of the tap and using alternative forms of currency. Combine these with other self-sufficient means and the next thing you know your life has transformed into something altogether different and a heck-of-a-lot more meaningful.


How can someone begin to make these changes? A great starting point is The Conscious Resistance, published by Derrick Broze and a handful of other like-minded seekers of truth. Starting June 1, 2017 in Houston, TX, Derrick and his merry pranksters will set out across the country delivering a message of new beginnings, self sufficiency and new/old ways of doing things. The next 30+ minutes will introduce ways, in detail, that will help you and your family move closer to home and further away from government interference and theft.


Easiest way to get your first bitcoin (Ad)



Rory Hall’s site is The Daily Coin, where this article first appeared. Beginning in 1987 Rory has written over 1,000 articles and produced more than 300 videos on topics ranging from the precious metals market, economic and monetary policies, preparedness as well as geopolitical events. His articles have been published by Zerohedge, SHTFPlan, Sprott Money, GoldSilver, Silver Doctors, SGTReport, and a great many more. Rory was a producer and daily contributor at SGTReport between 2012 and 2014. He has interviewed experts such as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Dr. Marc Faber, Eric Sprott, Gerald Celente and Peter Schiff, to name but a few. Don’t forget to visit The Daily Coin and Shadow of Truth YouTube channels to enjoy original videos and some of the best economic, precious metals, geopolitical and preparedness news from around the world.

Children Now Face Fines And Arrest If They Don’t Get a Permit To Mow Grass For Money


By Jay Syrmopoulos


Gardendale, AL — A regular summer right of passage for motivated teenagers across the United States in search of some extra spending money has always been cutting the neighbors’ grass. However, teens in Gardendale, Alabama, and many other cities across the United States, are about to get a rude lesson in how government overregulation stifles personal and financial growth.


Local officials and area law services have reportedly warned area teens that without a business license issued by the city, which costs $110, they are in violation of a city ordinance, thus violating the law, if they attempt to cut grass without a license.


It’s patently absurd that local teenagers can’t make a private agreement with a neighbor to mow a lawn without the government sanctioning the transaction by inserting themselves as the arbiter of who is allowed to legitimately cut grass.



Mowing grass in the summer is often one of the first jobs a motivated teenager will engage in during their summer break from school. But, with a business license costing $110 for a job that will likely be ongoing for a few short months in the summer, the cost will likely drive many ambitious entrepreneurial teens away from what would likely be a rewarding experience.


“I have never heard of a child cutting grass having to have a business license,” Elton Campbell, whose granddaughter, Alainna Parris, mows a few lawns around the neighborhood, told ABC-33/40.


“She charges one lady $20, and another lady $30, and another girl $40 besides what we pay her,” said Campbell.





The teen is disappointed as she felt like this was the perfect way for her to make some extra money during the summer.


“Just helping out and raising money for admissions and trips,” said Alainna Parris.


According to Campbell, Parris is allegedly being targeted by someone upset by the competition from the teen. That person is using the power of the state to eliminate his competition.


“One of the men that cuts several yards made a remark to one of our neighbors, ‘that if he saw her cutting grass again that he was going to call Gardendale because she didn’t have a business license,’” said Campbell.


Campbell called out the irony of trying to prevent a child from taking on a summer job, when they show an internal drive and take the initiative, as so many teenagers are not engaging in enterprising behavior, or taking on additional responsibilities, during their summer break.


“He’s coming after a kid when a kid is at least trying to do work. There’s kids at home on iPads and electronics and not wanting to go outside,” said Parris.


Mayor Stan Hogeland weighed in on the controversy, noting that when operating a business for pay within the city limits, you must have a business license. But, he also said that sending law enforcement after a child trying to earn extra money in the summer is not a priority. Unfortunately, however, if children do resist this tax on their entrepreneurial spirit — police force will most assuredly come. These children would most assuredly face at the very least, a fine, and possibly even arrest.


Hogeland stated he’s committed to finding a way to resolve this issue. But, of course, the government still wants its cut, so he will explore the possibility of a temporary license for summer months that targets entrepreneurial youth.



“I would love to have something on our books that gave a more favorable response to that student out there cutting grass. And see if there’s maybe a temporary license during the summer months that targets teenagers,” said Mayor Hogeland.


While it is heartening to hear Mayor Hogeland recognize that it’s unfortunate there are young people are complaining about the permits for cutting their neighbors grass for a few bucks and saying that he doesn’t want this to discourage kids from trying to earn money, the fact that he still believes that these kids should be licensed, speaks to the true insanity of government over regulation.


There is clear cognitive dissonance seen in Hogeland’s ability to recognize the foolish and petty nature of calling city authorities on these teenagers for trying to do something adults should be congratulating and supporting while at the same time failing to acknowledge that there is no legitimate reason for these kids to be licensed.


The formality of requiring teens to be licensed to cut grass is a simple revenue generation scheme, plain and simple. This type of regulation does nothing to keep anyone safe – and only serves to enrich the government coffers.


Once again the free market is being squeezed by unnecessary regulation, for the sake of revenue generation, which only serves to stifle competition and keep consumer prices higher.



Jay Syrmopoulos is an geopolitical analyst, freethinker, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at the University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs and holds a BA in International Relations. Jay’s writing has been featured on both mainstream and independent media – and has been viewed tens of millions of times. You can follow him on Twitter @SirMetropolis and on Facebook at SirMetropolis. You can support his work at Patreon. This article first appeared here at The Free Thought Project.

Top Republican To Use MILITIA For Personal Safety After Liberal TERRORISTS Issue Threats



Top Republican To Use MILITIA For Personal Safety After Liberal TERRORISTS Issue Threats



MAY 30, 2017 BY


Tensions continue to mount in Portland following the stabbing deaths of 23-year-old Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche and 53-year-old Rick Best.  The attack also left 21-year-old student Micah David-Cole Fletcher was injured after they tried to stop him from yelling anti-Muslim and racial slurs at two women on the MAX train.


The city is now a powder keg with protesters everywhere. As a result, a top Oregon Republican has stated he is considering using militia groups for security purposes.


Multnomah County Republican Party Chairman James Buchal states that the protests resulting from the recent events have prompted members of the Portland GOP to consider alternative security means and that may include arrangements that do not rely on the local police.


Buchal states –


“I am sort of evolving to the point where I think that it is appropriate for Republicans to continue to go out there and if they need to have a security force protecting them, that’s an appropriate thing too.


There are these people arising, like the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters,” he added. “We’re thinking about that. Because there are now belligerent, unstable people who are convinced that Republicans are like Nazis.”


[snip]


The Three Percenters are by definition and by practice –


…a national organization made up of patriotic citizens who love their country, their freedoms, and their liberty committed to standing against and exposing corruption and injustice.


 We are NOT anti-government. In fact, we are very pro-government, so long as the government abides by the Constitution, doesn’t overstep its bounds, and remains “for the people and by the people”. Our goal is to utilize the fail safes put in place by our founders to reign in an overreaching government and push back against tyranny. We are working to preserve the intent of our government as designed. “


The Oath Keepers by definition and by practice –


Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders,  who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  Oath Keepers reaches out to both current serving and veterans to remind them of their oaths, to teach them more about the Constitution they swore to defend, and to inspire them to defend it.


Sounds a lot like our Founding Fathers to me, like Americans.….you know the kind that loves their country and want to protect it from invasion and criminal corruption and governments run amok?  Meanwhile, the mayor of Portland gives a fantastic example of a government official run amok as he calls for a “Trump free speech rally” to be canceled after this most recent incident.  Mayor Ted Wheeler wants to revoke the 1st amendment for some portions of American because he claims Trump supporters could “peddle a message of hatred,” according to the AP.


 Read more here AFF


Man Convicted For “Liking” Apparently Slanderous Facebook Comments

(ANTIMEDIA) In the United States, a crazed racist is currently facing murder charges for stabbing multiple men who attempted to stop him from harassing two teenage girls. In a court appearance, he justified his murder of two Americans, one a military veteran, by citing “free speech.”





On the other end of the spectrum, in Switzerland, a man was just convicted of liking Facebook comments that implied the plaintiff was racist, highlighting the potential dangers of regulating speech.



The Guardian reported:







According to a statement from the Zurich district court, the 45-year-old defendant accused an animal rights activist, Erwin Kessler, of racism and antisemitism and hit the ‘like’ button under several comments from third parties about Kessler that were deemed inflammatory.


“The comments were made in 2015 during heated discussions on a range of Facebook groups about which animal welfare groups should be permitted to take part in a vegan street festival, the Swiss daily Tages Anzeiger reported.”


Kessler was previously convicted under an anti-racism law almost twenty years ago and received a short prison sentence for “comparing Jewish ritual slaughter methods to Nazi practices,” a conviction already questionable in and of itself.







Kessler sued over a dozen Facebook commenters over their 2015 statements. The unnamed man convicted of liking comments was the only defendant found guilty without actually posting his own Facebook comments. The court ruled that “[b]y clicking the like button, ‘the defendant clearly endorsed the unseemly content and made it his own,’” as noted by the Guardian.


The court also determined that the defendant had insulted Kessler’s “honor” and, by liking the “unproven” comments, exposed their content to large numbers of people. The court ruled the defendant failed to prove the allegations were true.


The comment-liking defendant was fined 4,000 Swiss francs ($4,129 USD). Amr Abdelaziz, a lawyer for one of the defendants, said those convicted can appeal but it’s unlikely they will put in the time and resources to do so.


Though the conviction was made by a lower court, Abdelaziz believes it could still have profound implications across the country. He said the court needs to clarify whether liking Facebook comments “should be given the same weight as other forms of speech more commonly cited in defamation cases,” the Guardian reported.


If the courts want to prosecute people for likes on Facebook, we could easily need to triple the number of judges in this country,” Abdelaziz said. “This could also obviously easily become an assault on the freedom of expression.


Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo






Kabul Bomb Blast Could Be Used to Justify Increase in U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

A powerful bomb hidden inside a sewage tanker truck exploded during the morning rush hour in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, on May 31, killing at least 80 people, wounding hundreds more, and damaging nearby embassy buildings. Some have speculated that this bomb attack might influence U.S. policy on increasing troop strength in Afghanistan.


The area in which the blast occurred is one of the most secure parts of the city because of the large number of foreign embassies. Vehicles must pass through several checkpoints to enter that section of the city. Captain Bill Salvin, a U.S. military spokesman in Kabul, told CNN that a checkpoint had prevented the bomber’s truck getting closer into the diplomatic quarter.


The victims appeared to have been mostly Afghan civilians, noted reports.


Both the German and French embassies sustained damage from the blast, but a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy said it did “not appear to have been the target of the blast.”





CNN reported that the Taliban denied responsibility for the attack in a statement and that no other group has yet claimed it. However, the Russian government-funded RT network, without naming the sources, reported that ISIS is reported to have claimed responsibility for the attack.


Though several reports about this bombing mentioned that the United States was already considering boosting it military presence in Afghanistan, it was the RT network that pointedly asked whether this attack might prompt the United States and its allies to go back into Afghanistan with more troops. RT quoted two individuals who thought such a troop increase was a possibility, including Middle East expert Ali Rizk, who told RT:


Currently, discussions are taking place in the White House. We have Trump’s National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster [a member of the interventionist Council on Foreign Relations] — he has been advocating a plan to have a significant increase in troop levels in Afghanistan. On the other hand, we have the Chief Strategist in the White House Steve Bannon, who has been against such a plan. So there has been this discussion even before the attack; there has been this discussion in the White House of once again increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.


The May 31 bomb attack, Rizk continued, “might tilt the balance in favor of those who support an increase in the troop levels.”


Rizk also told RT:


This could have a great impact on U.S. troops going back to their former levels, establishing a larger presence for themselves in Afghanistan. We’re also not sure how this will have an impact on NATO. But when it comes to American strategy itself it could contribute to fulfilling the wishes of those in the White House, who support generally speaking a troop increase in Kabul and Afghanistan in general.


RT also quoted Marwa Osman, a Beirut-based political analyst and lecturer at Lebanese International University, who suggested the attack — particularly given that it hit the diplomatic area of Kabul — might be retaliation for the “mother of all bombs” that the United States dropped on eastern Afghanistan in a strike against ISIS in April.


Osman does not rule out an increase of Western troops on the ground in Afghanistan. She told RT:


Now, the Pentagon will have “the green light, which “they give to themselves” to bring back troops to Afghanistan. The country “has been war-torn for the past 30 years because of the U.S. involvement to begin with.


In her opinion, President Trump might also ask NATO allies to increase their troops" presence in Afghanistan.


As the Trump administration — like the previous Obama and Bush administrations — considers whether to increase the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, we might review why our troops were sent there in the first place, and whether that was a good decision. We should also consider why we still have troops there almost 16 years later.


The United States (along with the United Kingdom) invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 in what was called Operation Enduring Freedom. The invasion was in response to the Taliban government’s refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda and supposed mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Though the invasion wrested control of most of the country from the Taliban, bin Laden fled the country and went into hiding in Pakistan until captured and killed by U.S. special forces in 2011.


With support from the United States and the UN-created International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Hamid Karzai was installed to head Afghanistan’s transitional government, and was popularly elected in 2004. Karzai remained as president for 10 years. 


Toward the end of Karzai’s term, the Taliban reorganized and began to control more of the country. They have continued to wage an insurgency against the central government ever since. At the end of 2014, the U.S. and NATO combat mission in Afghanistan officially ended and the supposed withdrawal of troops was completed in December 2016. However, the United States still keeps 8,400 troops in the country to bolster the Afghani government against attempts to counter the Taliban resurgence. As with Iraq, our “withdrawal” of troops there was never quite completed. Though there is no constitutional authority to do so, our interventionist foreign policy has continued to make U.S. forces the world’s policemen.


When President Bush first sought congressional authorization to send troops to Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), the leading non-interventionist in Congress, made a statement on the floor of the House on September 14, 2001. In his statement, Paul noted that the Taliban were not a country and “to declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.”


Rather than going to war, Paul advocated using “the best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances … the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties.”


After stating his objections, Paul voted to give the president the authority to use force in Afghanistan. In the end, he supported the resolution to use force because it was the only option available and he believed doing nothing was unthinkable.


As a writer in The Political Guide observed:


After the military victory over the Taliban was achieved, Congressman Paul began attempting to reign in U.S. military presence there to avoid the vague and prolonged war he cautioned against in 2001. In 2002, Congressman Paul noted in a floor speech that war with Afghanistan was simply no longer necessary. He noted that the people who attacked us had already been defeated and to further destroy Afghanistan only to rebuild it out of some misplaced sense of duty was simply not necessary.


For years after the initial U.S.-led invasion, Congressman Paul continually noted that no war has been constitutionally authorized within Afghanistan — only the use of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. 


Paul retired from his House seat in 2013, but has continued to voice his opinions about U.S. foreign policy on a regular basis. His son, Rand Paul, became a U.S. senator representing Kentucky in 2011 and also has been outspoken on foreign policy and other issues.


In an October 2015 interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the younger Paul — who was a presidential candidate at the time — maintained that the United States should no longer be fighting the war in Afghanistan and that “the Afghans need to step it up and defend themselves.”


“I think this goes to a bigger question and this is the question President Obama should have to answer: Why are we still at war in Afghanistan? What is the U.S. objective, what’s the U.S. mission and why are we bombing anybody in Afghanistan?”


Paul — continuing the same argument his father had long used — said that while the United States “had a clear cut mission” in Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11, 2001, “that’s been long gone for many years now.”


The Kentucky senator, in true non-interventionist fashion, said the United States should avoid a “perpetual war” in Afghanistan and said Afghans “should be able to defend themselves” as the United States has poured billions of dollars in aid into Afghanistan.


Those who share Paul’s noninterventionist principles will hope that President Trump (who sounded noninterventionist during his presidential campaign) will consider the senator’s opinions more valuable than those of his CFR-member National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster.


The Kabul bombing, like the Baghdad and Manchester bombings, was tragic. But it does not justify sending more U.S. troops overseas. 


Image of Kabul explosion: Screenshot of a video posted on YouTube by Bookcountries



Related article:


Obama Secretly Authorizes U.S. Combat Extension of Afghan War

Super Bowl Champ Patriots to Sponsor Homosexual Football Tournament

A “gay”-themed sports website is reporting that the New England Patriots, the NFL"s defending Super Bowl champs, will sponsor a homosexual flag football tournament called the “Gay Bowl” this October in Boston.


OutSports.com reported that the Patriots office had confirmed that the team will sponsor “Gay Bowl 2017,” and that earlier this year team owner Bob Craft had appeared at the homosexual group"s annual awards banquet, during which at least one self-identified homosexual high school athlete was honored with a scholarship.


“The Gay Bowl was created in 2002 as an annual national championship tournament for LGBT flag football teams,” reported OutSports. “About 40 teams are expected to compete in several divisions, including a women’s division, from across North America. The San Diego Bolts are the five-time defending champion.”





The National Gay Flag Football League (NGFFL) said that the point of the “Gay Bowl” is to “foster and augment the self-respect of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [LGBT] persons and to promote respect and understanding from the larger community.”


Boston last hosted the tournament in 2003, with former Patriots player Andre Tippet on hand to officiate the “Gay Bowl” ceremonial coin toss.


OutSports noted that the New England Patriots “have been one of the most LGBT-inclusive NFL teams, signing an amicus brief several years ago in support of same-sex marriage.”


The Washington Post added that the NFL has been diligent in its efforts to position itself as the nation"s premier homosexual-friendly sports entity. “Reversing the reputation the league earned last year when it refused to move the owners’ meeting from North Carolina despite the state’s bathroom law that many saw as anti-LGBT, the league began the year by inviting Lady Gaga, an icon in the LGBT community, to perform at the Super Bowl,” reported the Post. “The league followed up her performance with a warning to Texas in February about a proposed bill that would restrict people from using select restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.”


In February NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy declared that “the NFL embraces inclusiveness. We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events, and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard.”


Among the conservative and Christian leaders to express their disappointment at the move by the Patriots was evangelist Franklin Graham, who said that while the  Super Bowl champs “have the right to do whatever they want ... I’m disappointed that a great team from such a wonderful area of the country would promote a sinful lifestyle like this. Shame on them. Let the Patriots know that you don’t support this move.”

Starving And Dying, They Did The Unthinkable …

Starving And Dying, They Did The Unthinkable …


It was October 28, 1846, and the Donner Party was in trouble. Ahead of them towered the rugged Sierra Nevadas. White snow was falling all around, and from what they could see of the mountain pass ahead, much more blocked their path.


Already worn out from a long trail, the migrants decided to retreat. They backed out 12 miles to wait out the early storm at Truckee Lake. With supplies running low, and months on the trail beginning to show its toll, the group sat tight for a break in the storm. Had they known the fate that was to befall them, it’s likely the group would have exited the mountains altogether. As it was, they were running late and the permanent snows were setting in. However, running late was nothing new to the Donner Party.


The “Donner Party” is the name given to one of the most haunting groups of Oregon Trail migrants. This group of pioneers originally came from Springfield, Ill., and were led by Jacob and George Donner, who had set their eyes west on the rich lands of California. In a time before the Gold Rush, these folks were looking for the golden soil California had to offer. In only a few short years, it would become precious metal that drove a wave of migration.


Their First Big Mistake


By the time the group had plodded down to Independence, Mo., and bought the necessary equipment, it was already May 12. This was considered exceptionally late to begin the trek west. Most of the big trains had been gone for two or three weeks at that point. In fact, the Donner Party was the last big party to leave Independence in the spring of 1846.


Just 30 Grams Of This Superfood Provides More Nutrition Than An Entire Meal!


Traveling across the plains went well enough for the group. Golden grass would have blanketed the expansive prairie, although no doubt most of the forage close to the trail was gone. Eventually they arrived at Fort Bridger in southeast Wyoming – at which point they made a disastrous decision. Rather than take the traditional route, the Donners decided to strike straight west out of the fort. They were seeking a new route that had been dubbed “The Hastings Cutoff” – a supposed shortcut named for Lansford Hastings, the man who had written about it in a new guidebook. Little did the group know, Hastings himself had never made the trip and was only speculating on the route. Rather than a shortcut, the Donner Party ran headlong into the Wasatch Mountains. In order to make it over, the group hacked their way through the timber and painstakingly made their way through the mountains. Eventually, they would exit the other side, but the “shortcut” had cost the group an extra 18 days.


At this point, their two biggest mistakes — a late start and 18 days going through a “shortcut” — were beginning to catch up. Had they either left earlier, or taken the traditional route, the group would have missed the Oct. 28 snow. But they did hit the snow, and what happened next is one of the most narrated stories of western history.


No Way Out


As soon as the group retreated down to Truckee Lake, the real problems began. Snow fell and fell, and soon the group had no way forward. Ominously, they had no possible exit, either. To protect against the falling snow and the dropping temperatures, the members constructed makeshift shelters and cabins from what they could gather around camp. They began to dig in for a long winter, and made the best survival preparations they could.


Starving And Dying, They Did The Unthinkable …Most of their food had been eaten on the trail, and most of their loose stock animals were run off not long before they became snowbound. With only 100 miles to the end of the trail, the group would have had enough supplies to last had the snows not caught them. Now the group faced a long winter in the high Sierras, and the supplies would certainly not last all winter.


Within just the first few weeks they had blown through what was left of their foodstuff. They then began slaughtering what stock animals remained. After that was devoured, the group was reduced to eating dirt, grass, tree bark and hides.


As supplies diminished by mid-December, 15 of the strongest group members decided to strike out over the pass in search of help. They fashioned snowshoes from the forest and began their trek. In later days, this search group would be called Forlorn Hope. The name suggests the party’s dire straits.


The Survival Lantern That’s Far Safer Than Candles


Soon, the Forlorn Hope group became lost in the white peaks of the high Sierras. They staggered around in the winter landscape, with no bearing as to where they were headed. After just a few days, several in the group were on the verge of death. The legend goes that on Dec. 25, Patrick Dolan went mad, stripped naked, ran into a storm, and collapsed dead in the snow. Imagine the scene.


A Shocking Decision


Towering pines encrusted in snow bent stubbornly to the howling wind. All around the Forlorn Hope lay a vast expanse of white. They didn’t know where they were going, where they had been, or how far they had to travel. The hunger pains that had begun cramping their stomachs weeks earlier were once again noticeably prevalent. They had been marooned in the high country for nearly 60 days, and no help had been contacted. This group was the only hope the Donner Party had of contacting somebody from the outside world. It was at that point, when Patrick Dolan collapsed, that members of Forlorn Hope made a decision that would become the focal point of the Donner story. They butchered and ate Patrick Dolan.


Starving And Dying, They Did The Unthinkable …Patrick Dolan was not the only group member who was eaten. Two Native Americans also happened to be traveling with Forlorn Hope in search of help. When they saw the cannibalized body, they separated from the group out of fear that they, too, might be eaten. After several days, the duo was found by the rest of Forlorn Hope. At that point, William Foster is reported to have shot the two Native Americans in order to cannibalize them. Eventually, the battered search group exited the mountains alive. They soon notified local residents that the majority of their party was still stranded at Truckee Lake.


With heavy snows in January and February, the search effort was not able to commence right away. By mid-February, the first relief effort punched through the deep snow to reach the stranded party. Unable to bring pack animals, they brought whatever supplies they could carry and ushered out those who could make it. Over the next two and half months, rescuers guided out what remained of the Donner Party. In mid-April, the final effort was made to save the last survivors. Legend says that Lewis Keseberg was the last to be rescued. When rescuers arrived, Lewis was surrounded by half-cannibalized people lying all around him. Some speculated he had murdered the remaining party members in order to eat them. In the end, no charges were ever proven against him.


The Donner Party is a well-known part of western history. Had the group arrived at the now aptly named Donner Pass just one day earlier, odds are all of them would have lived. But of the original 81 pioneers who started the winter at Truckee Lake, only 45 survived to tell the tale. More than 150 years later, their story still shocks those who hear it.


What do you think? Share your thoughts about the Donner Party in the section below:

The individual beyond the collective culture

The individual beyond the collective culture


Notes that clarify freedom


by Jon Rappoport


“The mind has no obligation to be a container.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)


ONE: The elite men who manipulate the masses do stand outside The Collective, but they’re not free. Their only power comes from diminishing the power of others.


They don’t know any other kind of power.


The idea that, within themselves, as individuals, they have creative fire is completely and utterly foreign to them.


TWO: Every major covert op has the same objective: “defeat the enemy and thereby gain more control.”


But control over what?


Beyond the usual answers, the root answer is: “control over the mind.”


Why? Because if perception and thought can be channeled, directed, reduced, and weakened, then it doesn’t matter what humans do to resist other types of control. They will always go down the wrong path. They will always operate within limited and bounded territory. They will always ignore their own authentic power.


I’m talking about power that exceeds the “normal” and “average” ability to influence the stream of cause and effect.


The “prison” of cause and effect is a concept that is floated as part of the basic covert op to convince people they are small, diminished, and at the mercy of larger forces.


But underneath it all, humans have the capacity to “jump the chain” and become, as it were, “first causes.”


And not in some minor way.


Unfortunately, the popular view of how this can be accomplished is often rooted in New Age notions: the instantaneous fix; the Disneyesque manifestation; the “surrender to the universe.”


These are psy-op versions of the real thing, floated as part of the overall covert op to engage the gullible among us.


“Jumping the chain” is actually a matter of reversing the op. In other words, instead of accepting the mural of reality that has been created for us, each person creates his own. And puts it into the world.


Without compromise.


The degree to which an individual believes this is impossible mirrors his acceptance of the basic covert op on planet Earth.


THREE: When people speak about “hope for all of us,” they rarely refer to the power of the individual.


That’s because they are blinded by the Group. They have no other option.


They’re looking through the lens of the collective.


They judge their work solely by the effect it has on others, and they judge themselves solely by the effect others have on them.


FOUR: When the individual sets a direction that is outside the consensus and the status quo, he himself is outside the consensus.


The degree of organization he creates, in order to achieve the goal, doesn’t have to be traditional, symmetrical, balanced. Organization should be a function of the actions that will achieve the goal. The actions should dictate the organization.


FIVE: Freedom means the individual can change his mind at any moment. It also means that, if he doesn’t change his mind, and instead follows a straight path, he is going to have to keep referring back to the original vision that gave birth to the enterprise he’s engaged in. He’s going to have to keep inspiring himself in that way. Otherwise, his energy will stagnate. He will become less important than “the pattern.”


SIX: Storyline, when applied to a person’s life, makes no sense unless he is inventing it. Otherwise, the only forward motion is like something a machine would produce as it grinds ahead.


SEVEN: Many people are slaves of pattern. They believe if they do A, they must then do B, and then C. They see no other options. It makes sense to them to follow pattern and only pattern. But the pattern doesn’t necessarily lead to a desired outcome.


EIGHT: If “things as they are” has any life at all, it comes from anticipating that imagination is going to transform it.


NINE: So-called Enlightenment isn’t a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. It’s the ongoing result of the individual freely creating new realities.



Advertisements



How To Deal With Open Wounds When Help Is Not On The Way

How To Deal With Open Wounds When Help Is Not On The Way | injury | General Health PreparednessSurvival


If there is one area that I feel singularly unprepared for it is with dealing with physical trauma following a disruptive event.  Basic first aid?  Sure, I can handle that and have a decent first aid kit to back me up.  But serious wounds, broken bones, and other physical traumas? Not so much.


The thing about physical traumas, and especially open wounds, is that they can occur anytime including right in your own home.  An accident in the kitchen or the yard can begin with a bloody mess and end with an unwelcome infection.  Who wants that?



As far as I am concerned, the moment is now.  It is time to become educated and to start learning how to deal with more serious medical matters. To help us along, I welcome contributing author Joe Alton who is allowing me to share his expertise on how to deal with open wounds.


The Open Wound


Years ago, we held the first suture class for non-medical people in the preparedness community. Our purpose in doing this was to provide education that might be useful in a post-apocalyptic setting. We felt that teaching people medical skills may save some lives in long-term survival scenarios. To us, any unnecessary death in times of trouble is one too many.


Nowadays there are a lot of folks that put on these classes.  The main goal, however, is not simply to learn the mechanics of throwing a stitch but to develop the judgment necessary to understand when a wound should be closed and, more importantly, when it should be left open.


When the medically-responsible person evaluates a wound, the following question must be asked:  What am I trying to accomplish by stitching this wound closed?


Your goals when performing wound closure are simple.  You close wounds to:


  • Repair the defect in the body’s armor

  • Eliminate “dead space” that can lead to infection

  • Promote healing.

  • Provide a pleasing cosmetic result (less scarring).

Sounds like every wound should be closed, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it’s more complicated than that.  Closing a wound that should be left open can do a lot more harm than good, and could possibly put your patient’s life at risk.


Take the case of a young woman injured in a “zipline” accident.  She was taken to the local emergency room, where 22 staples were needed to close a large laceration.  Unfortunately, the wound had dangerous bacteria in it, causing a serious infection which spread throughout her body.  She eventually required multiple amputations.


We learn an important lesson from this tragic case: Namely, that the decision to close a wound is not automatic but involves serious considerations.


Infected Cut


The most important of these is whether you are dealing with a clean or a dirty wound.


Most wounds you will encounter in a wilderness or collapse setting will be dirty.  If you try to close a dirty wound, you sequester bacteria and dirt into your body.  Within a short period of time, the infected wound will become red, swollen, and hot.  An abscess may form, and pus will accumulate inside.


Here’s an article I wrote about infected wounds: Infected Wounds



The infection may spread to the bloodstream and, when it does, you have caused a life-threatening situation.  Leaving the wound open will allow you to clean the inside frequently and observe the healing process.  It also allows inflammatory fluid to drain out of the body.  Wounds that are left open heal by a process called “granulation”; that is, from the inside out. The scar isn’t as pretty, but it’s the safest option in most cases.


Other considerations when deciding whether or not to close a wound are whether it is a simple laceration (straight thin cut on the skin) or whether it is an avulsion (areas of skin torn out, hanging flaps).


If the edges of the skin are so far apart that they cannot be stitched together without undue pressure, the wound should be left open.  If the wound has been open for more than, say, 6-8 hours, it should be left open; even the air has bacteria, and the injury may already be colonized.


IF you’re certain the wound is clean, you should close it if it is long, deep or gapes open loosely. Also, cuts over moving parts, such as the knee joint, will be more likely to require stitches.


Remember that you should close deep wounds in layers, to prevent any un-approximated “dead space” from occurring.  Dead spaces are pockets of bacteria-laden air or inflammatory fluid in a closed wound that may lead to a major infection.  An exception to this is a puncture wound from an animal bite.  These are loaded with germs and should never be sutured.


If you are unsure, you can choose to wait 72 hours before closing a wound to make sure that no signs of infection develop.  This is referred to as “delayed closure”.  Some wounds can be partially closed, allowing a small open space to allow the drainage of inflammatory fluid.  Drains, consisting of thin lengths of latex, nitrile, or even gauze, should be placed into the wound for this purpose.  Of course, you should place a dressing over the exposed area as it can get messy.


Improvised Butterfly Closure with Duct Tape


If you must close a wound, use the least invasive method.


If you can approximate the cut edges of skin with butterfly closures, it is better than puncturing the skin again and again with sutures or staples. Use an adhesive such as tincture of benzoin to hold the tapes in place. Even Super-Glue may be a better option in certain cases, and is used routinely in underdeveloped countries like Cuba with good effectiveness.


Irrigating the Wound


The safest method, though, is to leave that questionable wound open.


Using a 60-100cc irrigation syringe, flush the area aggressively with a dilute solution of Betadine (Povidone-Iodine) or sterilized saline solution. If you don’t have commercial sterile solutions, studies show that clean drinking water can keep a wound clean in an austere environment.


Place a sterile moist (not soaking wet) dressing in the wound and then cover with a dry sterile gauze dressing. Replace the dressing at least daily, more often if possible.


If you have antibiotics, this may be a good time to use them. Check out the link in this article about infected wounds to see which are most useful.


About hydrogen peroxide, undiluted Betadine, or Alcohol as a cleaning agent for open wounds:  If it’s all you have, it’s ok for the first cleaning before you place the dressing.  These substances, however, tend to dry out newly forming cells and may actual hinder healing.  As such, stick with milder solutions or clean drinking water for long-term wound care.


Learning how to suture is a useful skill. Knowing when to suture, however, is much more important.


Joe Alton, M.D., aka Dr. Bones “Doom and Bloom” Survival Medicine


Takeaway: Many Wounds Should Be Left Open


Before now, I was under the false impression the all serious wounds should be closed up or sutured to prevent infection. Little did I know that closing a wound, especially while out in the field, should be carefully evaluated if there is any hint of dirt or bacteria. Sometimes, closing a wound will foster an infection and make it worse.  Who knew?


Here is the takeaway for determining whether a wound should be left open:


1.  If the wound has been open for longer that 6 to 8 hours, leave it open.  During that period, bacteria will have had time to work its way through the body, potentially causing a massive infection.


2.  If the flaps of the wound cannot be closed without using a lot of pressure, leave it alone.


3.  To repeat: dirt and bacteria will cause an infection if allowed to fester in a closed up wound.  If there is any suspicion of such, leave the wound open!


The Final Word


After digesting Joe’s advise on open wounds,  I pulled out my copy of his book, The Survival Medicine Handbook (written by Joe and his wife, Amy) to see what else it had to say on the subject.



Note: this is a big fat book of over 500 pages.  I keep in next to my desk and use it as a reference, but I have not read it cover to cover.



In chapter six, I found lot of information on open wounds including photos and extensive details on the use of commercial hemostatic agents (such as Quickclot and Celox) and suture instructions for those hopefully rare times when suturing will be needed.


The book also mentions something I already knew and that is that it is a good idea to apply some triple antibiotic ointment to a healing wound or, as I prefer, raw honey, lavender oil or to Melaleuca (tea tree) essential oil.  Lavender, especially, is something I always carry with me in my portable survival kit (see 8 Essential Items: The Perfect Portable Survival Kit).


At the end of the day, I am more than a little bit discouraged by how ignorant I am about wound control and other physical traumas.  That said, as with everything preparedness related, there is always something new to learn and of course, it is never too late to start.


Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation!

LA Mayor Warns Immigration Crackdown Could Spark Riots: “That’s A Very Dangerous Situation”


riots-gear


It’s been 25 years the since the Rodney King riots, and it seems like another wave of civil unrest in Los Angeles has never been more likely. Even LA Mayor Eric Garcetti thinks that his city could be a “tinderbox,” ready to blow. During a recent interview with Latino USA, he admitted that he thinks President Trump’s tough immigration policies could spark LA’s next riot.



On Friday’s NPR’s “Latino USA” podcast, Garcetti said it is dangerous when “ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] calls themselves police,” adding that “it’s bad for ICE and it’s bad for LAPD” because “people open that door expecting to see LAPD.” He said “if something goes wrong” when ICE agents try to deport illegal immigrants, “I fear a tinderbox out there, where people will suddenly say no and try to defend… keep that person from being taken. That’s a very dangerous situation.”


“We just commemorated 25 years since the urban unrest and we know how quickly things can explode,” Garcetti said, referring to the 1992 L.A. riots.



Obviously, Garcetti is seriously biased here. He’s a liberal mayor who is highly sympathetic to illegal immigration, and he wants to preserve his city’s sanctuary status. But I don’t think we should take this statement as a shallow attempt to scare voters away from Trump’s immigration policies. Regardless of how you feel about Garcetti’s politics, it’s still very likely that we could see riots stemming from Trump’s immigration crackdown.


Garcetti painted a scenario for how this riot could be sparked, based on an incident that happened in March when an illegal immigrant parent was taken by ICE after dropping his daughter off at school.



“Imagine a parent who’s dropping off their child. As we’ve seen, ICE officers, ICE agents take that parent away, and it’s videotaped. Imagine if that’s on the sidewalk and students start swarming, and they’re teenagers. It’s dangerous for those agents. It’s dangerous for our city.”



Of course, there’s one fact that Garcetti is leaving out. Because he’s so sympathetic to the sanctuary city status of Los Angeles, he doesn’t want to admit that the vast majority of illegal immigrants who are being detained by ICE under Trump, are dangerous criminals.



Garcetti’s criticism of ICE comes after the agency recently announced more than 41,000 arrests during President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office – a 37.6% increase from that same period last year. According to ICE, nearly 75 percent of those detained “are convicted criminals, with offenses ranging from homicide and assault to sexual abuse and drug-related charges.” ICE agents were also part of a recent operation in Los Angeles targeting MS-13 gang members – some of whom have links to the Mexican Mafia. 50 predawn raids on May 17 resulted in 44 arrests. More than half of those detained were in the country illegally.



So we have to ask ourselves, will Trump’s immigration crackdown cause riots in LA, even if most of the immigrants being deported are violent criminals?


The unfortunate answer to that question, is yes. Even if 99% of the illegal immigrants being deported were violent criminals, we could still see a riot in LA. When people are emotional about a subject they tend to ignore statistics, and LA is a very liberal city that hates Trump and his policies. All it will take is one controversial ICE operation, caught on film, and the people in that city will jump on it, statistics be damned.


And that’s the sad reality of our current situation. We now live in a country where the president can work toward enforcing the law and deporting criminals who came here illegally, and his lawful actions will result in riots.


Read More:


Poll Reveals Los Angeles Residents Fear Major Riots Are on the Horizon


Americans Are Fleeing Major Cities: “Only A Matter Of Time Before Widespread Rioting, Looting, And Civil Unrest Becomes Commonplace”


Riots, Fear, Anger Predicted By AI: Simulation “Detects Your Emotion Under Stress”


“Threat Of Civil Unrest” – Preppers Who’ve Relaxed Under Trump Have No Idea the Hell That is Coming”


Martin Armstrong Warns: “This Will ONLY End In Bloodshed…Biggest Spike In Civil Unrest In American History”



Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Advanced Tactical Gas Mask

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post






Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 192 people
Date: May 31st, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com


Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.


How To Deal With Open Wounds When Help Is Not On The Way

How To Deal With Open Wounds When Help Is Not On The Way | injury | General Health PreparednessSurvival


If there is one area that I feel singularly unprepared for it is with dealing with physical trauma following a disruptive event.  Basic first aid?  Sure, I can handle that and have a decent first aid kit to back me up.  But serious wounds, broken bones, and other physical traumas? Not so much.


The thing about physical traumas, and especially open wounds, is that they can occur anytime including right in your own home.  An accident in the kitchen or the yard can begin with a bloody mess and end with an unwelcome infection.  Who wants that?



As far as I am concerned, the moment is now.  It is time to become educated and to start learning how to deal with more serious medical matters. To help us along, I welcome contributing author Joe Alton who is allowing me to share his expertise on how to deal with open wounds.


The Open Wound


Years ago, we held the first suture class for non-medical people in the preparedness community. Our purpose in doing this was to provide education that might be useful in a post-apocalyptic setting. We felt that teaching people medical skills may save some lives in long-term survival scenarios. To us, any unnecessary death in times of trouble is one too many.


Nowadays there are a lot of folks that put on these classes.  The main goal, however, is not simply to learn the mechanics of throwing a stitch but to develop the judgment necessary to understand when a wound should be closed and, more importantly, when it should be left open.


When the medically-responsible person evaluates a wound, the following question must be asked:  What am I trying to accomplish by stitching this wound closed?


Your goals when performing wound closure are simple.  You close wounds to:


  • Repair the defect in the body’s armor

  • Eliminate “dead space” that can lead to infection

  • Promote healing.

  • Provide a pleasing cosmetic result (less scarring).

Sounds like every wound should be closed, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it’s more complicated than that.  Closing a wound that should be left open can do a lot more harm than good, and could possibly put your patient’s life at risk.


Take the case of a young woman injured in a “zipline” accident.  She was taken to the local emergency room, where 22 staples were needed to close a large laceration.  Unfortunately, the wound had dangerous bacteria in it, causing a serious infection which spread throughout her body.  She eventually required multiple amputations.


We learn an important lesson from this tragic case: Namely, that the decision to close a wound is not automatic but involves serious considerations.


Infected Cut


The most important of these is whether you are dealing with a clean or a dirty wound.


Most wounds you will encounter in a wilderness or collapse setting will be dirty.  If you try to close a dirty wound, you sequester bacteria and dirt into your body.  Within a short period of time, the infected wound will become red, swollen, and hot.  An abscess may form, and pus will accumulate inside.


Here’s an article I wrote about infected wounds: Infected Wounds



The infection may spread to the bloodstream and, when it does, you have caused a life-threatening situation.  Leaving the wound open will allow you to clean the inside frequently and observe the healing process.  It also allows inflammatory fluid to drain out of the body.  Wounds that are left open heal by a process called “granulation”; that is, from the inside out. The scar isn’t as pretty, but it’s the safest option in most cases.


Other considerations when deciding whether or not to close a wound are whether it is a simple laceration (straight thin cut on the skin) or whether it is an avulsion (areas of skin torn out, hanging flaps).


If the edges of the skin are so far apart that they cannot be stitched together without undue pressure, the wound should be left open.  If the wound has been open for more than, say, 6-8 hours, it should be left open; even the air has bacteria, and the injury may already be colonized.


IF you’re certain the wound is clean, you should close it if it is long, deep or gapes open loosely. Also, cuts over moving parts, such as the knee joint, will be more likely to require stitches.


Remember that you should close deep wounds in layers, to prevent any un-approximated “dead space” from occurring.  Dead spaces are pockets of bacteria-laden air or inflammatory fluid in a closed wound that may lead to a major infection.  An exception to this is a puncture wound from an animal bite.  These are loaded with germs and should never be sutured.


If you are unsure, you can choose to wait 72 hours before closing a wound to make sure that no signs of infection develop.  This is referred to as “delayed closure”.  Some wounds can be partially closed, allowing a small open space to allow the drainage of inflammatory fluid.  Drains, consisting of thin lengths of latex, nitrile, or even gauze, should be placed into the wound for this purpose.  Of course, you should place a dressing over the exposed area as it can get messy.


Improvised Butterfly Closure with Duct Tape


If you must close a wound, use the least invasive method.


If you can approximate the cut edges of skin with butterfly closures, it is better than puncturing the skin again and again with sutures or staples. Use an adhesive such as tincture of benzoin to hold the tapes in place. Even Super-Glue may be a better option in certain cases, and is used routinely in underdeveloped countries like Cuba with good effectiveness.


Irrigating the Wound


The safest method, though, is to leave that questionable wound open.


Using a 60-100cc irrigation syringe, flush the area aggressively with a dilute solution of Betadine (Povidone-Iodine) or sterilized saline solution. If you don’t have commercial sterile solutions, studies show that clean drinking water can keep a wound clean in an austere environment.


Place a sterile moist (not soaking wet) dressing in the wound and then cover with a dry sterile gauze dressing. Replace the dressing at least daily, more often if possible.


If you have antibiotics, this may be a good time to use them. Check out the link in this article about infected wounds to see which are most useful.


About hydrogen peroxide, undiluted Betadine, or Alcohol as a cleaning agent for open wounds:  If it’s all you have, it’s ok for the first cleaning before you place the dressing.  These substances, however, tend to dry out newly forming cells and may actual hinder healing.  As such, stick with milder solutions or clean drinking water for long-term wound care.


Learning how to suture is a useful skill. Knowing when to suture, however, is much more important.


Joe Alton, M.D., aka Dr. Bones “Doom and Bloom” Survival Medicine


Takeaway: Many Wounds Should Be Left Open


Before now, I was under the false impression the all serious wounds should be closed up or sutured to prevent infection. Little did I know that closing a wound, especially while out in the field, should be carefully evaluated if there is any hint of dirt or bacteria. Sometimes, closing a wound will foster an infection and make it worse.  Who knew?


Here is the takeaway for determining whether a wound should be left open:


1.  If the wound has been open for longer that 6 to 8 hours, leave it open.  During that period, bacteria will have had time to work its way through the body, potentially causing a massive infection.


2.  If the flaps of the wound cannot be closed without using a lot of pressure, leave it alone.


3.  To repeat: dirt and bacteria will cause an infection if allowed to fester in a closed up wound.  If there is any suspicion of such, leave the wound open!


The Final Word


After digesting Joe’s advise on open wounds,  I pulled out my copy of his book, The Survival Medicine Handbook (written by Joe and his wife, Amy) to see what else it had to say on the subject.



Note: this is a big fat book of over 500 pages.  I keep in next to my desk and use it as a reference, but I have not read it cover to cover.



In chapter six, I found lot of information on open wounds including photos and extensive details on the use of commercial hemostatic agents (such as Quickclot and Celox) and suture instructions for those hopefully rare times when suturing will be needed.


The book also mentions something I already knew and that is that it is a good idea to apply some triple antibiotic ointment to a healing wound or, as I prefer, raw honey, lavender oil or to Melaleuca (tea tree) essential oil.  Lavender, especially, is something I always carry with me in my portable survival kit (see 8 Essential Items: The Perfect Portable Survival Kit).


At the end of the day, I am more than a little bit discouraged by how ignorant I am about wound control and other physical traumas.  That said, as with everything preparedness related, there is always something new to learn and of course, it is never too late to start.


Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation!

Russia Successfully Tests ‘unstoppable’ 4,600mph Hypersonic Weapon Faster than ANY Global Anti-missile System

Russia has launched five successful flights of a hypersonic jet that is capable of destroying an aircraft carrier with a single impact, according to a new report.

The Zircon cruise missile travels between 3,800mph and 4,600mph – five to six times the speed of sound – and puts Russia ‘half a decade’ ahead of the US’, the report says.


This makes it faster than any anti-missile system, including those that are expected to appear in the next two decades.


Russian military analyst Vladimir Tuchkov said: ‘In Russia, the testing of actual weapons is already underway.


Read more