Watch: Dallas Nurse Reveals Shocking Hospital Blunder That Exposed Her And Others To Ebola

Ebola Nurse

A nurse who cared for one of the recently infected Ebola patients told NBC’s Matt Lauer Thursday that she “couldn’t believe” the lack of protocols in place at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, and could “no longer defend” her place of employment.

Appearing on Today Thursday in an interview with Matt Lauer, Briana Aguirre said officials at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital did not properly treat patient Thomas Eric Duncan.

“I watched them violate basic principles of nursing… I would try anything and everything to refuse to go there to be treated. I would feel at risk by going there. If I don’t actually have Ebola, I may contract it there.”

Aguirre asserted that no one in the hospital’s administration stressed education on the Ebola virus.

“We never talked about Ebola and we probably should have… [Instead], they gave us an optional seminar to go to. Just informational, not hands on. It wasn’t even suggested we go… We were never told what to look for.

“I can no longer defend my hospital at all.

The Texas nurse did not care for Duncan, but did provide care for Nina Pham, who will be soon transferred to a National Institutes of Health (NIH) facility in Bethesda, Maryland. Aguirre said Duncan was placed in an area with “up to seven other patients,” and co-workers who did care for Duncan said the scene was “chaotic.”

“It was just a little chaotic scene. Our infectious disease department was contacted to ask, ‘What is our protocol?’ And their answer was, ‘We don’t know. We’re going to have to call you back.’”

While providing care for Pham, Aguirre said she “couldn’t believe” the lack of protection she was issued to provide care for the patient. While every other part of her body was protected, the front part of her neck was exposed.

“I’ll be honest, I threw a fit. I just couldn’t believe it… In the second week of an Ebola crisis at my hospital, the only gear they were offering us at that time, and up until that time, is gear that is allowing our necks to be uncovered?

“Why would I be wearing two pairs of gloves, three pairs of booties, a plastic suit covering my entire body, and then leave my neck hanging out this much so that something can potentially go close to my mouth or nose?”

Aguirre told Lauer that, when she expressed her concern to an infectious disease nurse, she was advised to place tape around the exposed area to cover up.

Aguirre is the second nurse to reveal questionable on-goings at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital after a group of nurses who have not revealed their identities released a statement through National Nurses United.


H/T The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Boom: This Thug Instantly Realized That Robbing This Army Vet Was The Worst Mistake Of His Life


When Dondi DeCosta approached a couple in Philadelphia recently, he likely thought the sight of his 13-inch knife would sufficiently intimidate them. To his detriment, however, one of the 37-year-old’s would-be victims was Army veteran and firearms instructor William Lawler.

Packing a 9mm handgun, Lawler initially intended to drive DeCosta away merely by brandishing the weapon.

“At least a half dozen times I ordered him to stop,” Lawler recalled. “The last time, I said, ‘I don’t want to shoot you, but I will.’”

As someone extensively trained in the proper use of firearms, the 38-year-old noted that just producing a gun is a sufficient deterrent.

“Nine times out of 10,” he explained, “all the gun owner has to do is show the firearm and the threat goes away.”

DeCosta, it appears, represented that one-in-10 exception. Instead of fleeing at the sight of Lawler’s Glock pistol, he reportedly continued approaching the couple, threatening to cut them. When it became clear that the use of force was his only remaining option, Lawler explained that he shot the man in his groin.

“My intent was to stop him, not kill him,” he said. “I hope he’s OK; and hopefully he will be prosecuted.”

With a lengthy rap sheet and surveillance video depicting the entire confrontation, DeCosta is headed for jail upon his release from the hospital. Initially listed in critical condition, he will likely face aggravated assault charges against Lawler and his girlfriend. Other counts could be added later.

Even after being shot, Lawler noted, DeCosta remained defiant, explaining that he “fell to his knees and tried to throw the knife at me.”

While the North Philadelphia area in which Lawler lives and this incident took place has been home to its share of violence, he said his support of legal gun ownership transcends any potential threat from his neighborhood.

“I firmly believe that in order to maintain a free society, people need to take personal safety into their own hands,” he reasoned. “You should walk around ready and able to protect yourself and others in your community.”

H/T: Mad World News


Share this article on Facebook if you believe law-abiding Americans deserve the right to defend themselves.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Fighting Our Way Out Of The Darkness


Your freedoms are under assault as Communists disguised as Democrats are leading the attack!

There are natural consequences that come when we personally abuse our Constitutional rights and freedoms – or at least this was so….. Here’s a few examples of how it often used to go:

* Free Speech – It’s a freedom that can swiftly turn on us if we abuse it by engaging in verbal abuses, slanders, and mockeries at the expense of our fellow man.

* Bear Arms – The majority of gun owners are highly responsible and seek only a means of personal protection, while many others, especially in the rural South and Midwest, are serious outdoorsmen who hunt for sport or meat. Regardless, it’s a right which, when we legitimately abuse it, can have serious consequences for the gun owner. The safety benefits (safe communities where the right to bear is prominently exercised) and historical significance (standing firm against political tyranny) far outweigh a few random abuses (as tragic as they may be).

* Free Press – A free people must rely on an impartial, nonpartisan watchdog and reporter of factual truth and breaking development. We depend on a free press to keep us citizens informed, prepared, and safe from the impending storms (figurative and literal). But once the press becomes controlled, its purpose and value is ultimately sacrificed for skewed propaganda. In our worst case scenario, the ‘press’ merely regurgitates political disinformation. When they do so, the talking heads not only render themselves unreliable, but culpable.

We understand that our behaviors have consequences. Former generations have fought for the freedom for it to be so. We don’t need anyone telling us how to think, how to live, how to worship, or how to spend….especially the government!

When we indulge in strong drink we reserve the right to become drunkards. When we lust for another we may commit adultery, and there will be consequences in some form or another. When we lie, cheat, and steal, in business and in life, we soil our reputation. When we deceive others for personal gain, we prove ourselves untrustworthy. Scoundrels are they who do inflict great harm upon their neighbor as a means to elevate their own personal status and social standing……But eventually we fall. Like Icarus, we eventually plummet forcefully and violently to a tragic end. The law of averages finally catches up to us. It’s the consequence of reckless behavior. Sooner or later our bad deeds will come and claims us.

Today’s Democrats are so drunk off their own Carnal-Kool-Aid, that they fail to fully understand how a manipulation of conscience and consequence has its own grave consequences (not only for us but for them!).

A select few have grown rich and powerful off of the citizens they serve and represent. One person’s tax dollar is another’s personal gain…with interest!

In addition, they have appointed themselves moral arbiter, liberty barterer, and fiscal withholder. They continue to eye up your income, and much that you possess, as they supplement (and eventually replace) it with skewed predictions, blind naturalism, and foolhardy scientism. They elevate nature (earth, sea, atmosphere) and sketchy preservation practices to instill further controls/priorities to align with a united, elite ruling class.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Devolution Trumps Secession

Photo credit: Jordi Escuer (Flickr)

The 1996 Salzburg Seminar was a prestigious international gabfest organized to discuss “cross-cultural perspectives on conservatism.” Worldwide political parties and movements designated “conservative” at home or considered as such by Westerners were invited to explain their views on conservatism, to discuss what they held in common. With representatives from across Europe to Turkey, and even from China, obviously there was little commonality.

Playing by the rules, this U.S. representative suggested that localism and community could be a unifying ideal for the right, at which the French representative nearly swooned, furiously insisting that conservatism was precisely the opposite. It was love of the patria and of its representative the national state, whose point was seconded immediately by the Turkish representative. The Spanish, Italian, Belgian, and several Eastern European national representatives actually denounced local nationalistic movements as threats. But when I suggested that sub-national movements were alive even in Britain, the idea was so preposterous the room immediately broke into laughter, with the Englishmen questioning my very sanity.

Two decades later, Scotland massed 45 percent of its population willing to break 300 years of ties to become independent of England. Inspired, a million Catalans went to the street to demand independence; and its regional legislature voted to hold a (non-binding) referendum. Basques threatened the same. Flanders nationalists in Belgium promised that if Scotland received European Union representation, so would they. The Italian Northern League, organized around the ideal of separation, cheered Scotland on. Even Bavaria every so often threatens splitting from Germany. Norway and Sweden did separate in 1905, as did the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.

All Europe was centralized under divine right kings and nationalisms at great cost in blood and treasure throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, forcing previously independent nations and peoples into the larger units we know today. Germany and Italy were not unified until the 1870s. Hundreds of independent states were dissolved over the period, but most of the successors retained local customs and institutions, many nursing old and developing new grievances against an often remote and unresponsive state. Even France still has restive Basques, Bretons, Savoyans, and others demanding local rights or independence.

Americans certainly have not been immune to the secession impulse, of course, including a great civil war costing millions of lives. While that war presumably settled the matter, even today a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 23.9 percent of Americans would like to see their state pull away from the union, up from 18 percent in 2008. In the previous year under George W. Bush, 32 percent of liberals thought breaking away would be a good idea, compared to 17 percent of conservatives. Today under Barack Obama, 30 percent of Republicans and even 20 percent of Democrats would have their state secede.

Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul even claimed a recent “growth of support for secession” inspired by Scotland and demonstrated by the one million Californians who supported dividing the state into six entities, saying this “should cheer all supporters of freedom.” He was congratulated for raising the issue by Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative, but McCarthy responded that secession is not a principle of liberty. Not only does secession often trade one master for another—as Scotland would do under the European Union and NATO—but there is no guarantee the new state would foster internal liberty. McCarthy argues persuasively that for Scotland and America, secession and union are questions of security and power, which undergird prosperity, self-government, and individual freedom. For much of the rest of the world, poisoned by ethnic and sectarian hatreds, secession means nationalism and civil strife. In both cases, breaking up existing states to create new ones is a revolutionary and dangerous act, one more apt to imperil liberty than advance it.

Indeed, Paul’s own original article on the matter viewed secession sentiments mostly as pressure on a national government to limit its power over local units as opposed to being valuable in itself. He specifically urged “devolution of power to smaller levels of government,” which can be a very different thing from secession. While secession is problematical as McCarthy argues, devolution of power within a national government is essential to liberty.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Texas Lawmaker Says CDC Has Their “Heads Up Where The Sun Doesn’t Shine”

Louie Gohmert

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) says that the American people should have no trust in the Center for Disease Control after their handling of Ebola in Dallas.

Instead of coming out and handling the outbreak, the CDC is laying blame on the nurses for a “breach in protocol”–without naming what protocols were broken.

“Clearly there were protocols breached, but it wasn’t by the nurses,” Gohmert said on WBPA radio. “It was by the CDC collectively having their heads up where the sun doesn’t shine.”

“It is outrageous that we have a CDC, and the best they can do is blame people that get the disease for breaching non-existent protocols,” he continued.

“How can we have faith in a Centers for Disease Control that immediately blames people with the disease without even knowing how they got it?” he asked. “I mean, you can’t have faith in a group like that.”

Gohmert would later go on to blame Obama for his lax engagement with the situation; it was he who said that the chances of Ebola making it to the U.S. was very, very low.

“I think that in his own mind he’s not lying,” Gohmert said of Obama and his promise to the U.S. that Ebola wouldn’t make it to the country. “He really does believe that if he says something, that it must be true, even though there were no protocols in place.”

Gohmert criticized the CDC for their tactics after the first confirmed case of Ebola. Instead of getting ahead of the disease, they started pointing fingers.

“Their [CDC] idea is, let’s immediately do damage control, let’s get our first response team out there at the press conference blaming the nurse, blaming others so that we can say it’s not our fault.”

H/T The Blaze

Photo Credit: site:. gov

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom