Tucker Carlson is Working Among All Ages, Because He’s Not Supposed to.

This week, it was announced that Tucker Carlson Tonight recorded the highest-rated quarter for a cable news show ever. That statistic was overlooked by Fox News detractors who claim the channel’s audience is old, dying off, and not built for the future. That has long been the narrative for the channel. No one is going to deny the channel has millions of viewers over 60. However, the data quickly debunks the notion that the channel and its hosts are not popular with the younger, key demographics. It states the opposite.

As was the case in total viewership, Fox News led by Carlson, dwarfed the competition in the 25-54 demo.

Continue reading “”

Facebook on Project Veritas Video: Comments [made] are ‘Not Consistent with our Policies,’ ‘Reviewing Training and Oversight’
Facebook HR exec Leslie Brown has been FIRED after Veritas video debut

[San Francisco, CA – June 25, 2020] Leslie Brown, the woman who appeared in a Project Veritas video making incendiary comments that debuted today, has been fired according to a text message received by PV CEO James O’Keefe.

“I’ve often suggested stocking up on three metals: gold, silver, and lead.”
So have I.


At least one major mainstream media outlet, the LA Times, has been reportedly “angry” that gun sales have shot up because of the tyrannical takeover of government in response to the COVID-19 panic they induced. Apparently, fear can have effects on the public that the MSM and government do no want – more self-reliance.

According to a report by Big League Politics, the LA Times is “throwing a fit” that other humans are buying weapons to defend themselves against the obvious tyranny. Remember, this follows their theme. The more dependent you are on them and the system they set up against you, the easier you will be to control. Taking your self-defense into your own hands was never a part of their plans. In fact, the LA Times editorial board described the increase in gun sales as follows:

Since the start of the pandemic, Americans are buying more guns. The FBI says it conducted a record 3.7 million background checks for would-be gun buyers, a loose proxy for firearm sales, in March as lockdown orders spread across the nation. In April the checks dropped to 2.9 million but rebounded to 3.1 million in May. The monthly average for 2019 — itself a record year for background checks — was 2.4 million. So even as we get fresh studies connecting possession of firearms with increased risk of gun violence, accidental shootings (usually by children) and suicides, we are adding more firearms to the nation’s already numbingly large privately owned arsenal of some 300 million guns (no reliable count is available) owned by about a third of the population. -LA Times

The board goes on to say that this amount of gun sales can be considered “madness.”

Breitbart News reported Small Arms Analytics & Forecasting’s chief economist Jurgen Brauer noted “the ratio of handguns to long-gun sold…[set] a new record of 1.94” in April. That ratio “[broke] the previous high of 1.84 set just one month ago.” The uptick in handgun purchases are indicative of a populace feeling like an extra layer of self-defense in warranted.

I’ve often suggested stocking up on three metals: gold, silver, and lead.

Project Veritas Undercover Video: Facebook Content Moderator: ‘If Someone is Wearing a MAGA Hat, I Am Going to Delete Them For Terrorism’

The New Media Meme Rolls On: Police Violence is Due to Civilian Gun Ownership

As Ian Fleming opined, once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. What we have here is now clearly enemy action aimed at restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

The gun control industry has been suspiciously quiet over the last few months as millions of Americans have crowded gun stores, many of them buying their first firearms. That’s not a particularly receptive audience for the standard Bloomberg/Brady/Giffords agitprop arguments such as only police and the military should have guns and homes with firearms are more likely to spontaneously combust.

Then Derek Chauvin kneeled on George Floyd’s neck for almost nine minutes and police violence became a national issue. A firearm wasn’t used in Floyd’s murder, but, never ones to let an opportunity go to waste, it’s now clear that the made members of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex got on the horn to their compliant allies in the media and began peddling their latest messaging brainstorm: we can’t expect better police conduct as long as Americans are allowed to own firearms.

Continue reading “”

Why the Right Foresaw the Statues Coming Down


Conservatives saw all this coming, and they were relentlessly mocked for it. But they were right, and their foresight was based on the fullest understanding of the arguments that America’s historical revisionists tacitly endorsed but never scrutinized…………..

When Donald Trump wondered whether it would be “George Washington next week” and “Thomas Jefferson the week after,” he was treated to haughty and dismissive dispatches in the mainstream press explaining why these Founders were more than just their proximity to slavery. These were valuable missives, but Trump wasn’t the right audience. They should have been directed at the activists who have taken their campus-based maximalism with them into the workforce.

The failure on the part of polite liberal opinion makers to anticipate this attack on America’s foundations is a failure of imagination and an act of hubris. They assumed they spoke for the mob when it was the mob that spoke for them. But their revisionism was only ever as myopic as the South’s hidebound dead-enders.

Continue reading “”

USA Today should apologize to Wisconsin.

Newsweek reported, “In Wisconsin, One of the First States to Reopen, Corona Virus Cases Are Declining.”

That’s nice, but Wisconsin did not re-open. Its Supreme Court refused to let it fascist Democrat governor shutter the state.

First the governor tried to use covid-19 to cancel the primary election and replace it with a mail-in substitute.

The court read the state constitution and state law, and told him to pound salt. The election went on as planned. Democrats predicted death, destruction, and carnage.

Continue reading “”

The Media Said Trump Didn’t Have a COVID Testing Strategy. The Media Was Wrong.

The White House had the idea of opening hundreds of ambitious mobile testing sites at the outset of the coronavirus crisis. But there was a problem: Officials quickly realized that creating that many sites would use up an inordinate amount of the nation’s limited supply of testing swabs.

“We had 1.2 million swabs in the country for the month for everything,” recalls Admiral Brett Giroir, the HHS official who became the administration’s testing czar in mid-March and soon will be returning to his regular duties.

Continue reading “”

NYT Article Pushes Idea That Guns Cause Suicide – Why They Are Wrong

The New York Times recently published yet another article pushing the narrative that owning a firearm increases the risk of suicide.  To most people, this seems logical – but I know that the reasoning leading to this conclusion is false.  I have a great deal of experience with suicide, thanks to 10 years experience in EMS.  As a result, I absolutely know that every study I have ever seen on the issue of guns and suicide is pure bunk, as is this article.  Here’s why.

1) As anyone who has ever been a first responder knows, the vast majority of so called “suicide attempts” are not in fact attempts to commit suicide.

Never the less, that will be the admission diagnosis.  So when is a suicide attempt not a suicide attempt?  Answer: When it is done to manipulate someone or as a “cry for help” – and this intent affects the method chosen.

This is something that I, as an EMT and Paramedic saw all the time.  For instance, we would get a call for an “overdose”.  Arriving at the scene, we would find the person who had overdosed, usually on some over the counter medication.  They had then called the person they wished to manipulate and informed them that they had taken pills in an effort to kill themselves.  Of course, this person then either rushes over to the overdose “victim” or calls 911.  We would arrive and typically find a fully awake patient who now would be placed on a mental health hold due to “attempt suicide”.  Frequently they would be interacting with the person they called.  In many cases they claimed to have taken such a small quantity of pills that it was clear there was no attempt to harm themselves.  Of course, everyone goes forward as if the person really wanted to die.  We would then transport the person to the county hospital on a mental health hold.  They would be admitted as “attempt suicide”, method “medication overdose”.  For every actual suicide attempt I responded to in my 10 years in EMS, I responded to 50 to 100 of these “non-suicide suicide attempts”. 

The problem arises when someone does a statistical study for suicide attempts and methods.  All of these “non-suicide suicide attempts” are counted as actual suicide attempts that did not succeed.  The false conclusion is reflected in the following quote from the NYT article:

“Many suicide attempts are impulsive, and the crisis that leads to them is fleeting,” Dr. Miller said. “The method you use largely determines whether you live or die. And if you use a gun, you are far more likely to die than with other methods, like taking pills. With guns, you usually do not get a second chance.”

That conclusion is written based on faulty information.  The vast majority of people who take pills do not want to die.  Those who use firearms or other deadly methods do.

2) People chose a suicide method based upon their desire to live or their desire to die.

The second lesson I learned as an EMT/Paramedic is that people who really want to die choose a method that is quick and sure.  They do not want to be found and saved.  While the act seems impulsive to those left behind, it has been considered and likely planned for a long time.

In the US, where firearms are available, they are frequently chosen. however, they are not the only method of ending one’s life quickly.  People use rope to hang themselves, they jump from high places and use many other methods.

Even the flawed research supports this conclusion.  Again referring to the NYT article we learn this on paragraph TWELVE:
“Another possibility was so-called reverse causation: that many buyers were bent on suicide before they bought the gun. The findings did provide some evidence of that. In the month immediately after first-time owners obtained their weapons (California has a 10-day waiting period), the risk of shooting themselves on purpose was nearly 500 per 100,000, about 100 times higher than similar non-owners; after several years it tapered off to about twice the rate.”
3) The data from the rest of the world completely refutes the article’s conclusion.
First, the nations that have the highest suicide rates frequently have very low to no legal firearms availability.  These nations include Russia 26.5 (93% higher than US), Belarus 21.4 (56% higher) and South Korea 20.2 (47% higher).  Somehow, people in these nations are able to commit suicide at very high rates without access to firearms.

Second, when we compare similar English speaking nations, that widely differ in their access to firearms, we do not see a huge difference in the suicide rates:

UK (2018) suicide rate of 11.2 per 100k population – firearms in 4% of homes.
US (2017) suicide rate of 14.0 per 100K  population – firearms in 45% of homes.
Canada (2017) suicide rate of 11.3 per 100k population – firearms in 28% of homes.
(Stats from Wikipedia or other official sources)
It is especially notable that Canada has seven times the firearms availability as the UK and virtually the same suicide rate.  If firearms are the factor this article claims, Canada’s suicide rate should be much, much higher.

4) Finally, it is a practical impossibly to eliminate all suicide methods that those who truly wish to die might use.

Even this chart from an anti-gun rights source
shows that as firearms are made less available
suicides do not go down.  People simply use
other methods.
In the UK the most common method is hanging – yet no one is trying to eliminate access to rope and other cordage.  We cannot eliminate access to every high place, or to traffic, or quick acting poisons, and the list goes on.  If we are going to reduce the suicide rate in the US, gun control is not the answer.  That’s why some mental health professionals are speaking out against the idea.
Why do gun control advocates push gun control as the answer to suicide?  Well, as gun ownership and concealed carry have skyrocketed, the murder rate has dropped by 50% and violent crime has plummeted.  Their answer has been to push their own “gun death” figure that combines all firearms related deaths.  However, about 66% of these deaths are suicides.  If people realize that gun control has no hope of reducing suicides, those who are anti-gun rights lose their most powerful argument.   That is why they will continue to push this lie.

NY Times editorial page editor James Bennet resigns amid staff fury over Tom Cotton op-ed.

The New York Times announced Sunday that Editorial Page Editor James Bennet is resigning — amid reports of anger inside the company over the publication of an op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton about the George Floyd unrest last week.

Bennet had apologized late last week after previously defending the piece, titled, “Send in the Troops.” Cotton, R-Ark., called for the government to deploy troops to help


It’s no secret that some groups on the left have long sought to silence Fox News. Media Matters for America raises $10,000,000 a year, mostly to bash Fox. The Obama administration once declared war on the network. Rival networks routinely attack. (Just so you know, I should note up front that I am a Fox News contributor.)

In recent weeks, Fox has faced another assault — and won. It happened in Washington State. A group called WASHLITE — the Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics — filed suit against Fox. The group alleged that Fox “willfully and maliciously engaged in a campaign of deception and omission regarding the danger of the international proliferation of the novel Coronavirus.” Fox’s reports, the suit alleged, were “deceptive because they caused consumers to fail to take appropriate action to protect themselves and others from the disease, mitigate its spread, and contributed to a public health crisis and a subsequent statewide shutdown causing damage to businesses and the loss of employment by persons located in Washington State.” The complaint added that “one member of WASHLITE has contracted the virus,” for which the group apparently blamed Fox. Therefore, WASHLITE somehow concluded that the network had violated the Washington State Consumer Protection Act.


It was all ridiculous, of course. For one thing, the suit grossly misrepresented Fox’s reporting. For another, WASHLITE’s claims were impossible to prove. And then the group came up with a crazy — and dangerous — theory that Fox, as a cable network, was somehow not entitled to the same First Amendment protections as a newspaper or a broadcast news network.

“These assertions do not hold up to scrutiny,” wrote Judge Brian McDonald. Even if WASHLITE’s characterization of Fox’s report was true — and it was not — Fox still enjoyed the free speech protections of other American media. “As the Supreme Court recognized, ‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,'” McDonald wrote.

Substitute “leftist activists” for “society,” and that was the WASHLITE lawsuit. In the end, McDonald ruled that the scheme “runs afoul of the protections of the First Amendment.” The suit is another example of why the press — everyone in the press — has an interest in protecting the rights that protected Fox.

I think the Biden campaign doesn’t care what he says.

BAM: Trump Signs Executive Order to Strip Big Tech of ‘Liability Shield’ for Censoring Content

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to strip social media companies of their “liability shield” if they engage in censorship or political content. Trump’s order came two days after Twitter decided to issue an extremely biased “fact-check” on two of the president’s tweets, supporting vote-by-mail practices that are at the center of a lawsuit between the California Republican Party and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.). Trump has condemned the “fact-check” as an attack on free speech.

“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” Trump declared. “Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they’re a neutral platform, which they are not, not an editor with a viewpoint.”

“My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield,” the president explained. “My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices regarding commerce.”

The president also directed Attorney General William Barr to work with the states “to enforce their own laws against such deceptive business practices.”

Echoing other critics of Big Tech, Trump said, “What they’re doing is tantamount to monopoly, you could say. It’s tantamount to taking over the airwaves.”……………

What have we learned from – at least – the last 4 years about ‘research’?
Can you say ‘propaganda‘?
I thought you could.

Pew Research Serves up the Mother of All Spin on Red vs. Blue District Virus Deaths

I can’t imagine why so many on the right don’t trust polling companies, can you?

One of the cornerstones of the coverage of the Wuhan virus pandemic has been the relentless spin. Red states that have handled the outbreak with great results are trashed because people are daring to go outside without masks. Meanwhile, New York shoved sick people into nursing homes, killing thousands, and you can’t even get CNN to ask the Governor about it.

Pew Research apparently wanted to get in on the act.

(what they did was put this tweet in the ‘feed’ that most people see .ed):

(when you pull out the full tweet, you get the whole graph ed.)

This framing is just incredible. What you are actually seeing here is that Democrat districts have a death rate nearly 3x that of Republican districts, yet Pew chooses to present it as a victory for Democrats because their rate of decline is higher. Correct, when you do such an awful job that you end up with a much larger outbreak, you’ve then got a lot more room to decline……..

And while people can argue over why there are these disparities, what can’t be argued is that this chart shows far better news for the red districts than the blue districts. To spin it the other way is laughable, yet completely expected in the current environment. We should just be handling this as Americans, but the media simply won’t allow there to not be red/blue divisions stoked.

Quote O’ The Day and winner of the Freudian Slip Award

“….I think that the dangerous – you know – edges here are that he’s trying to undermine the media. Trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that is the, that is our job.”


Thunberg hasn’t finished high school because she dropped out. She dropped out because she probably doesn’t have the intellectual capability to pass the final exams.

Anderson Cooper: Criticism for Inviting Greta Thunberg to Corona Town Hall Was “Phony Online Outrage”

It’s easy to remain unaccountable when you dismiss valid criticism as “phony online outrage.”

This Thursday’s CNN town hall had quite an emotional ending with Anderson Cooper ranting about “the phony online outrage machine”.

Why the outrage you ask? Because CNN invited Greta Thunberg as a guest to the coronavirus town hall.

Naturally, inviting a climate change activist who is no way qualified as an expert in science or a medical profession (Thunberg hasn’t even finished high-school) ended up attracting widespread criticism and pushback from viewers……….

PBS Stations That Received Millions In Federal Funds Partnered With Chinese Foreign Agent On Pro-Beijing Film.

PBS affiliates that receive millions of dollars in federal funding each year are airing a pro-Beijing documentary produced in conjunction with CGTN, a Chinese-government controlled media outlet that is registered as a foreign agent with the Justice Department.

The film, “Voices from the Frontline: China’s War on Poverty,” did not disclose CGTN’s links to the Chinese government. Nor did it detail the ties that the film’s producer, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, has to Chinese officials and the government’s State Council Information Office, which specializes in foreign propaganda.

PBS affiliate KOCE, known as PBS SoCal, helped produce the film and premiered it Monday. KCET, which merged with KOCE in 2018, will air the show on Saturday. Other PBS affiliates, including in Idaho and Las Vegas, have either already aired the film or plan to do so later this month.

The one-hour documentary touts Chinese President Xi Jinping’s initiative to alleviate poverty in China by this year.

“In the last forty years, China’s economic development has lifted more than 700 million people out of poverty,” reads the introductory script in the film.

“To President Xi Jinping, ending poverty is his most important task,” the script states.

The closing credits of the documentary show that it was produced by “The Kuhn Foundation and PBS SoCal in association with CGTN.” One PBS SoCal employee is listed as an executive producer of the film and another is listed as a production assistant.

PBS and other publicly-funded news outlets like NPR have come under fire in recent years, with conservatives pushing to defund the organizations over a perceived liberal bias. Other news outlets have come under scrutiny for publishing propaganda promoted by the Chinese government.

President Donald Trump has proposed defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides the federal dollars that go to PBS affiliates and NPR.

Just to point out the gun control script that leaked a while back.
It’s all about how they should use emotion and manipulate terminology and facts
Again, apply Sun Tzu advice:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”

Just a few significant parts of this. Peruse the whole file at your convenience.


1. Alarming facts open the door to action. And powerful stories put feeling and emotional energy behind those facts.

2. It’s not helpful to try to drown your audience in a flurry of facts and statistics. It is far more effective to zero in on a handful of simple facts that are both compelling and memorable.

3. Here are some of the facts that met that test in the research:

There are no background checks or ID requirements in most states for private sales, including private sales at gun shows.

There are virtually no restrictions on the type of weapons available for purchase in America, including assault weapons and ammunition magazines that store up to 100 bullets and can shoot 20 rounds in 10 seconds.

Police and law enforcement officers are more at risk, due to the availability and power of new weapons.
Reinforcing example: Police forces in places like Chicago and Miami are outfitting officers with assault weapons so that they aren’t outgunned by criminals.

4. It’s not just about words. Powerful and emotionally-engaging images are vitally important reinforcers of strong messages. For example, intimidating images of military-style weapons help bring to life the point that we are dealing with a different situation than in earlier times.


It’s critical that you ground your messaging around gun violence prevention by making that emotional connection. Don’t skip past emotional arguments and lapse into a passionless public policy voice. And don’t make the gun violence debate seem as if it is a political “food fight” between two interest groups.
There is a reason why the NRA falls silent at times of high-profile gun violence incidents. The last thing they want is an American conversation centered on the terrible toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence. Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.
WARNING: Don’t break the power and undermine the value of emotionally powerful images and feelings by appearing squeamish or apologetic in presenting them

We should emphasize that one fundamental freedom every American should have is the freedom to be safe in our homes and neighborhoods – freedom to live our lives without the constant threat of gun violence hanging over our heads.
The NRA likes to talk about its work as the defense of American freedom. Recognize that, depending on the audience, both sides of the debate have the opportunity to claim moral authority. But, don’t yield that ground. Fight for it by emphasizing that a reckless disregard for the gun violence that plagues so many people’s lives is morally bankrupt and doesn’t have anything to do with protecting freedom.

We have to make clear to people that this isn’t a conversation about your grandfather’s hunting rifle. The fact that military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are routinely available to people in most states is alarming – and surprising – news to many Americans.

It is important to emphasize that current laws allow easy access to guns for criminals, mentally unstable people, and even terrorists. Generally speaking, the public makes the assumption that our nation’s gun laws are much stronger than is actually the case.
The truth is, it is far worse than most people think. And when they learn what is really true about our gun laws, it raises serious concerns.

We will discuss the NRA in more detail in the next section. But, at the very outset, it is important to emphasize two critical points:

Whether to spend much time talking about the NRA depends upon whether we are talking to our base (where an NRA focus is often worthwhile) or broader audiences (where an NRA focus is far less likely to be helpful).

Even with the base, we need to always connect our comments to the NRA’s role in exposing people to needless violence.
Simply “taking on” the NRA as if “defeating the NRA” is our mission never serves our interests. Pointing out the direct link between laws the NRA promotes or blocks and the tragic human impact of gun violence is almost always more effective.
It’s effective to emphasize that the vast majority of NRA members are law-abiding gun owners who agree with common sense laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people—the NRA’s officials and lobbyists are the problem.