Category: Corruption O’ The Day

Study: COVID-Vaxxed Kids SIX TIMES Likelier to Die Than Unvaxxed Peers

The ostensible takeaway, per the authors, of a poorly-publicized study from June of this year was that children vaccinated for COVID had much higher rates of asthma — almost double, in fact — post-COVID infection than their unvaccinated peers.

That’s compelling enough of a headline, but what should really have been the lede in any sane world got buried deep in the weeds.

Via Infection (medical journal) (emphasis added):

Two cohorts of children aged 5 to 18 who underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing were analyzed: unvaccinated children with and without COVID-19 infection, and vaccinated children with and without infection. Propensity score matching was used to mitigate selection bias, and hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI were calculated to assess the risk of new-onset asthma.

Our study found a significantly higher incidence of new-onset asthma in COVID-19 infected children compared to uninfected children, regardless of vaccination status.

In Cohort 1, 4.7% of COVID-19 infected children without vaccination developed new-onset asthma, versus 2.0% in their non-COVID-19 counterparts within a year (HR = 2.26; 95% CI = 2.158–2.367).

For Cohort 2,COVID-19 infected children with vaccination showed an 8.3% incidence of new-onset asthma, higher than the 3.1% in those not infected (HR = 2.745; 95% CI = 2.521–2.99). Subgroup analyses further identified higher risks in males, children aged 5–12 years, and Black or African American children. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of these findings.

The study highlights a strong link between COVID-19 infection and an increased risk of new-onset asthma in children, which is even more marked in those vaccinated. This emphasizes the critical need for ongoing monitoring and customized healthcare strategies to mitigate the long-term respiratory impacts of COVID-19 in children, advocating for thorough strategies to manage and prevent asthma amidst the pandemic.

However, as Alex Berenson — vindicated “conspiracy theorist” who turned out to be right about all of the things he was censored for since the start of the pandemic — explains, the truly shocking statistical finding, which somehow never made it into the conclusion, is a six-fold increase in death among vaxxed kids in the study as compared to the unvaxxed.

Via Alex Berenson (emphasis added):

The study about Covid and asthma in American kids and teens has gone mostly unnoticed. It hasn’t been cited once since it was published in June.

Which may be why no one has raised an alarm over the stunning figures buried in its appendix about deaths among mRNA Covid-vaccinated kids.

They show that 354 of the 64,000 children and teenagers who received a Covid mRNA shot died within a year after vaccination – a death rate of almost six kids per 1,000.

In contrast, only 309 out of 320,000 unvaccinated kids died, fewer than one per 1,000.

One might assume, again, that finding a drug is implicated in a six-fold increase in childhood mortality might be the headline — but, if it were, these researchers might not get another grant their whole careers. In fact, they might be working at McDonald’s or collecting unemployment within a week.

Why the researchers refused to focus on this statistic, or even mention it in passing in the summary of their work, is obviously a matter of speculation.

But speculate I will.

Scientists rely on grant money, either directly from the pharmaceutical industry or indirectly from the pharmaceutical industry by way of the government, which is often in bed with said industry.

There are, as such, clear financial interests at play, which is why you will notice that, virtually universally, scientists will downplay even the mildest negative effects of pharmaceutical products they study— especially blockbuster ones like the COVID-19 shots — or else rig the research design to produce rosier results, or else never publish any negative research findings in the first place.

Indeed, it’s mildly surprising that the data Alex Berenson unearthed ever made it to publication at all, when it would have been so easy just to scrub it out of existence.

Blue States Can’t Ban Your Guns So They’ll Punish You For Using Them.

Try as they might, blue cities and states can’t seem to ban their citizens’ guns. They’ve enacted handgun bans, “assault weapons” bans, registration mandates, taxes, and levied confiscatory fees on guns, ammo, and carry permits. As a result, they’ve been challenged at every turn by those who take the Second Amendment at its word. And then Bruen came along and made the job of civilian disarmament even more difficult for aspiring tyrants.

What’s a gun-banner to do then? Simple. Make life hell for anyone who dares to use a gun they own, particularly in self-defense. Look no further for an example than what happened last night in Newton, Massachusetts.

A group of people were holding a peaceful pro-Israel rally when a Hamas supporter began yelling at them from across the street. The Hamasnik, who apparently couldn’t abide free speech being exercised in his presence, ran through traffic and assaulted one of the Israel supporters, jumping on him as his back was turned.

Watch video of the altercation here . . .

It’s hard to imagine a clearer case of self-defense after the Hamas supporter tackled a man who has been identified at 47-year-old Scott Hayes of Framingham, Massachusetts. It’s been reported that Hayes is a lawful gun owner and permitted carrier, though the police investigation is ongoing.

Continue reading “”

Courts Attacking Second Amendment Right to Legally Acquire Firearms

There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen test is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.”  Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.

That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
If you can give an innocent explanation for the mountain of evidence that this was allowed to happen, I really want to hear it, because a plot to get Trump killed is the worst-case scenario. I really don’t want to believe it.

Right now I believe it. Please prove me wrong.

Director Rowe Personally Crippled Trump’s Secret Service Team

The tap dancing, lies, and coverup of the Trump assassination attempt by the Secret Service, FBI, and now the mainstream media is so far beyond bureaucratic ass-covering that it’s hard to conclude that the events in Butler were not desired.

I still maintain that it is unlikely in the extreme that anybody inside the government recruited Crooks to take his shots at Trump because it seems so implausible that any sane person would recruit an untrained kid to do the deed, but it is now clear to me that the top levels of the Secret Service and Homeland Security wanted Trump in danger.

For weeks, I wanted to believe that massive incompetence led to the events in Butler. I really did because the alternative didn’t bear thinking of. I thought the lawfare campaign was banana republic stuff, but assassination? That is Putin-level evil.

But consider the facts: the security “breakdowns” were so massive and implausible when combined that any large police force could have done a better job than the most elite protection unit in the world. The shooter was identified, tracked, photographed, filmed on the roof, the Secret Service was warned multiple times, the shooter was in the line of sight of the snipers, and Trump was trotted out onto the stage and kept there as the shooter was lining up his shot in full view of the Secret Service snipers.

None of that is disputable.

Continue reading “”

Question O’ The Day
Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?
Answer O’ The Day:
Yes

If we can thank Senator McConnell for one thing, it’s keeping this moron hack off the Supreme Court

AG Garland slams dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case: ‘Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?’

Attorney General Merrick Garland suggested Tuesday that his lengthy legal career makes it unlikely that he illegally appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate alleged crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, ruling that the special counsel was not lawfully appointed by Garland – a determination that made the Biden administration official bristle.

“For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don’t think so,” Garland said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.”

The attorney general noted that his “favorite room” in the Justice Department is its law library to hammer down the point.

“Our position is, it’s constitutional and valid. That’s why we appealed,” Garland added.

“I will say that this is the same process of appointing special counsel as was followed in the previous administration, Special Counsel [John] Durham and Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller, in multiple special counsels over the decades going back to Watergate and the special prosecutor in that case,” he said.

“Until now every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment has upheld it.”

In her July 15 order, Cannon ruled that Congress was required to appoint “constitutional officers” and the legislature was also needed to approve spending for such a prosecution.

“That role cannot be usurped by the executive branch or diffused elsewhere — whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not,” she wrote in her 93-page ruling.

The judge determined that “Special Counsel Smith’s investigation has unlawfully drawn funds from the Indefinite Appropriation.”

“The Special Counsel’s office has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all drawn unconstitutionally from the Indefinite Appropriation,” Cannon wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, arguing that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed by the attorney general.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed,” she added.

Smith’s team is expected to file a brief related to their appeal in the case, which charged the 78-year-old Republican nominee for president with improperly hoarding sensitive and classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency, by the end of August.

Trump faced up to 450 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the case.

House Oversight Chairman Investigating White House Collusion in Chicago’s GLOCK Balk

The head of the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee isn’t playing games when it comes to The White House avoiding answers to questions about potential collusion with antigun groups to target GLOCK, Inc., with a frivolous lawsuit.

Last week, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee James Comer (R-Ky.) fired off a letter in response to The White House’s political gamesmanship. In short, Chairman Comer demanded that Stefanie Feldman, the Director of The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, quit stalling and provide answers over “potential collaboration” between Biden administration officials and Everytown for Gun Safety.

Chairman Comer announced an investigation into potential collusion between the Biden administration, gun control groups and the City of Chicago to bring a lawsuit against GLOCK, Inc., alleging the company is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals unlawfully attach an illegal “switch” to handguns. The Oversight Committee learned that White House officials met privately with GLOCK representatives to demand a design alteration to their handguns.

Special-Interest Backed Lawfare

“On the very day the suit was filed, Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt posted on X, ‘Federal officials recently contacted Glock to discuss implementing new ways to modify Glock pistols to make it harder for Glock switches to be installed. Rather than help, Glock falsely insisted there is nothing they can do.’”

Chairman Comer said this indicates that Everytown had inside access to White House meetings. The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is staffed by a former Everytown lobbyist, Rob Wilcox. Letters demanding more information were sent to Steven Dettelbach, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Director Stefanie Feldman.

Chairman Comer sent these letters demanding answers on June 14. Instead of answering those questions, White House Deputy Counsel Rachel Cotton responded by making counteraccusations that Chairman Comer was shilling for the gun lobby. Cotton provided no answers, only listing off the Biden administration’s gun control efforts and goals, adding Congress “should open a real investigation into an actual danger to our communities: the proliferation of illegal devices that convert handguns into machineguns in a matter of seconds.”

That’s a purposefully misleading attack on not just the House Oversight Committee but also GLOCK. The illegal devices are “autosears,” which are illegal to possess, illegal to attach to a firearm and illegal to use without compliance with the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). Cotton, as an attorney, should know that these aren’t produced by GLOCK or any other firearm manufacturer. In fact, they are largely illegally imported from China or illegally manufactured by individuals.

Continue reading “”

NRA Trial Reveals Reformers Have More Work to Do

When a slate of reform-minded candidates won election to the NRA’s board of directors earlier this year, there was genuine hope that it would make a turning point for the organization, which has seen both membership and revenue plummet over the past few years. But testimony delivered during this week’s civil trial in New York has revealed that the board’s old guard still holds at least some sway over the direction of the organization, and there is much more work to be done to get the NRA back on track.

Take, for instance, the testimony of new NRA president Bob Barr, who was not the reformer’s pick to serve as the top elected official of the organization. While most of the reform-minded board members were cautiously optimistic that Barr would go along with the necessary changes to renew members’ confidence in the organization, Barr revealed that the NRA hasn’t even tried to collect the millions of dollars that Wayne LaPierre owes the group.

It wasn’t just the misspending on the part of top NRA officials like former executive vice president Wayne LaPierre that have caused many gun owners to let their memberships lapse or refuse to donate, it’s definitely a major factor. So why hasn’t the NRA tried to claw back the money the jury says is owed to the group? It’s not like they couldn’t use the cash.

Barr made another revealing comment; this one about new EVP Doug Hamlin, who was the choice of reformers. As John Richardon of Only Guns and Money relayed, Trace reporter Will Van Sant quoted Barr calling Hamlin a “placeholder” during testimony.

The National Rifle Association’s new chief executive Doug Hamlin is a placeholder, according to the testimony of former NRA president Charles Cotton that points to fault lines in the gun group’s leadership.

In May, board members chose Hamlin, who led the NRA’s publications arm, as Wayne LaPierre’s replacement. Hamlin is allied to a small, self-described reform bloc at the group.

“The intent is to try to get, frankly, some high-powered person to take it over,” testified Cotton, a LaPierre defender whom the reformers consider part of an old guard. Cotton made his remarks in a New York courtroom where the final phase of New York Attorney General Letitia James’s lawsuit against the NRA is underway. —Will Van Sant

When I spoke to Hamlin on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co a few weeks after his election, I asked him about whether he considered himself to essentially be a placeholder, or whether he planned on sticking around. Hamlin replied that he served at the pleasure of the board, but he certainly didn’t sound like someone who took the job on a short-term basis.

Hamlin and Barr have both taken the stand in New York this week, and Hamlin was far more willing to criticize his predecessor for his misuse of NRA funds.

The New York attorney general called each to the witness stand to show how their differences could hold the NRA back from making progress toward financial transparency — part of the state’s broader goal of having a court-appointed monitor oversee the NRA and banning LaPierre from its leadership for life.

For instance, Hamlin was more willing to criticize LaPierre’s reign during his testimony.

“Mr. LaPierre breached the trust of the NRA and its members, correct?” state attorney Monica Connell prodded.

“Yes,” Hamlin replied, adding that he agreed LaPierre’s conduct placed the NRA in a “very difficult decision” and was partly responsible for the group’s declining membership.

Meanwhile, Barr maintained that LaPierre discharged his duties to the NRA in good faith, conceding that LaPierre may have made a few mistakes along the way. He took issue with the attorney general calling LaPierre “corrupt” following the verdict against him in February.

“I believe it was, shall we say, a mischaracterization,” Barr testified Wednesday.

Hamlin and Barr also appeared to be on different pages about the NRA’s potential relocating of its headquarters, a move that Knox and other board members believe should only be done with significant input from the board.

Hamlin, who previously ran the NRA’s in-house publishing arm, testified that he wasn’t even aware of the NRA’s intent to sell its Virginia headquarters until a few weeks ago. He axed plans to sell the Fairfax property when he took the NRA’s reins earlier this year. Barr testified that he thought Hamlin’s decision was “rushed.”

Still, these disputes weren’t an issue for Barr, a former U.S. representative from Georgia, who told the court he could “absolutely” work productively with Hamlin. “It’s similar to working in the Congress,” Barr said. “You have disagreements.”

I’m not sure pointing to Congress as a model of efficiency and comity is a great example, to be honest.

Beyond the trial, Barr has also appointed former NRA president Charles Cotton, who, as Van Sant points out, is considered one of the leaders of the old guard, to serve as chairman of several key BoD committees, including the Ethics and Audit committees. Not only that, as Richardson pointed out, Barr named just one of the Four for Reform candidates to any of these key committees.

I find this disappointing as their election is being used by the NRA in its court filings to assert that things have changed and no special monitor was needed. While Rocky’s appointment is good and proper, why was not Jeff Knox put on Bylaws and Resolutions as he probably knows more about the Bylaws than any member of that committee. Likewise, would not it have been wise to put Judge Phil Journey, the only jurist on the Board, on the Legal Affairs Committee.

With the exception of the Finance Committee which has has four known reformers on it (out of 15 total members), the remaining committees have one and perhaps two known reformers on them. If Barr wanted to signal to the members of the NRA and to Judge Cohen that things had changed at the NRA, this certainly was not the way to do it.

While I don’t have a crystal ball on what will happen in the remedial phase of the New York trial, I think the odds are better than even that a special monitor will now be appointed to oversee the NRA’s finances. It should be noted that this monitor will have nothing to do with functions and programs of the NRA including its political functions.

While this will put me at odds with some friends on the Board who are reformers, I think that the special monitor will be a requirement if the NRA is ever to crawl out of the morass it finds itself in.

I said when Barr was elected that he wasn’t my first choice, but I was hopeful that with reformers elected by the board to every other leadership position he would be a part of the effort to regain the trust of members. After the revelations over the past week, I can’t say I still harbor those hopes.

And honestly, as much as I want to see the NRA succeed, why should any individual or company donate a penny in support so long as the NRA isn’t demanding the return of the millions of dollars LaPierre owes the organization and its dues-paying members? Barr wasn’t asked that question on the stand, but everyone who’s stood by the organization or felt it was time to return to the fold deserve an answer.

Former NRA CFO Wilson “Woody” Phillips Ripped Us Off & Now Owes Back Millions

As dedicated NRA supporters, we know it’s maddening to witness the betrayal from within our own ranks. The latest news reveals the agreed-upon settlement that Wilson “Woody” Phillips, the former CFO of the NRA, confessed to unethical conduct, further deepening the trust issues we’ve had with the organization’s leadership.

Phillips’ Deceitful Contract

Without disclosing their relationship, Phillips admitted to awarding a $1.36 million contract to HomeTelos, a tech company run by his then-girlfriend Nancy Richards. This was a blatant violation of NRA policies designed to prevent conflicts of interest. It took whistleblowers raising the alarm for Phillips to finally come clean about his actions long after the contract had ended.

Shielding LaPierre’s Extravagance

Phillips didn’t just stop at self-serving contracts. Among other things, Phillips was accused of approving invoices for LaPierre’s private jet flights to the Bahamas; facilitating payments to contractors owned by LaPierre’s friends; and allowing an arrangement through which the NRA paid back its longtime advertising agency, Ackerman McQueen, for travel, makeup and other expenses it covered for LaPierre and his wife. He was a key player in hiding Wayne LaPierre’s outrageous spending from the NRA’s internal controls. LaPierre, with Phillips’ assistance, misused millions of dollars on luxury travel, and even yacht trips. This was money meant to protect our Second Amendment rights, not fund their extravagant lifestyles.

$2 Million In Damages To The NRA

The Bigger Picture

This scandal is just the latest in a series of revelations about mismanagement at the NRA. We’ve seen how LaPierre, Phillips, and other top executives have abused their positions and our donations. The jury recently found LaPierre guilty of spending millions in NRA funds on personal luxuries and ordered him to repay almost $4.4 million. This betrayal cuts deep, especially for those of us who have invested our time, money, and trust in the NRA’s mission.

As the trial continues, Attorney General Letitia James is pushing for measures to ensure this kind of corruption doesn’t happen again. She’s seeking an independent monitor for the NRA’s finances and wants to ban LaPierre from any leadership roles in New York charities. Manhattan Judge Joel Cohen will decide the remaining issues in the case beginning July 15th, 2024, including whether former LaPierre and ex-general counsel John Frazer should be barred from charitable organizations in the state.

For us, the rank-and-file members. We need to reclaim our organization from these corrupt individuals and ensure our contributions are used to fight for our rights, not to bankroll the lavish lifestyles of a few dishonest leaders. It’s time for a thorough cleanup and a return to the principles that made the NRA a powerful defender of the Second Amendment. Let’s demand accountability and integrity from those who represent us.

The Message Is Plain

There are no property rights in the United States…at least, none that the State deigns to honor.

Do you remember Teresa Ghilarducci? I do. Any American who has a 401(k), an IRA, or some equivalent should know about her and her chief ambition:

     Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.
     Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.
     The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration….
     The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”…
     All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Socialists are forever talking about “inequality” (or in their more recent argot, “inequity”) because it affords them a pretext for seizing our money and property in pursuit of their agenda. It’s well established historically that “inequality” increases under socialism, but they’d rather we didn’t notice that. At any rate, they constantly seek rationales under which to “redistribute” what we’ve earned and saved. We must all be equally poor – except for our loving rulers, of course. Anything else would be “unfair!”

Continue reading “”

ATF Whistleblower Applauds Bump Stock Ruling, Warns of Threats Ahead

Retired ATF Deputy Assistant Director Pete Forcelli, who helped blow the whistle on the Operation Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, tells Bearing Arms the Supreme Court made the right decision in striking down the agency’s ban on bump stocks, but he’s still deeply concerned that the agency is going to continue to be used by the Biden administration as a way to enact new gun control laws without getting Congress involved… especially if Joe Biden gets another four years in office.

The left likes to attack things, and the problem that I have is when the ATF is tasked by the White House or the Justice Department to attack things rather than hold the people responsible [for their crimes]. It’s not an item that causes the damage. It’s the person misusing that item. How many bump stocks have been used in shootings in the United States aside from Las Vegas? I don’t know of any, to be honest.

Of course, the bump stock ban was implemented under Donald Trump’s watch, so the right can look for simplistic solutions as well, especially in the wake of a high-profile shooting like the Route 91 Harvest Festival murders that resulted in 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries. But the Biden administration has used the ATF to do an end-run around Congress on a regular basis; first by targeting unfinished frames and receivers, then pistol stabilizing braces, and most recently gun owners who offer to sell one or more of their firearms from their personal collection.

Those are just the rules the agency has implemented. According to Forcelli, the White House has been demanding even more.

Continue reading “”

Again, nothing unusual for demoncraps.

Biden Cherry Picks Crime Stats to Suit His Agenda

Joe Biden flipflops on violent crime rates – sometimes they’re going up, sometimes they’re going down – depending on who is in the audience. He uses two vastly different data sources to create his mixed messages.

Biden cites FBI data when trying to convince voters that crime is not out of control, so they feel safe in their communities and reelect him to office. But when he panders to the gun-ban industry, advocates for an “assault weapon” ban, or announces yet another infringement of the Second Amendment as part of his ongoing war on guns, Biden cites mass-shooting data from the Gun Violence Archive.

To be clear, the Gun Violence Archive, which has been widely debunked, collects much more than just mass-shooting data, but Biden never uses any of these statistics. He only cherry-picks GVA’s mass-shooting data, for obvious reasons. The other data shows violent crime has exploded during his presidency – especially when compared to President Donald J. Trump’s term in office.

“Crime is either up or it’s down, but Joe wants to have it both ways, depending upon who he’s talking to,” said nationally syndicated talk radio host, Mark Walters, who first spotted the trend. “And it was only a matter of time before the rest of that GVA data came back to bite him.”

Nearly every type of shooting death tracked by the GVA over the past 10 years increased substantially after Biden took office: Deaths (willful, malicious and accidental), mass shootings, deaths of children (age 0-11, age 12-17), unintentional shootings and suicide by firearms all increased under the Bide-Harris administration.

Continue reading “”

 

Yet they are doing exactly that to political opponents at this very moment. Steve Bannon for example.

DOJ Won’t Prosecute Merrick Garland For Contempt of Congress Over Biden Audio Tapes

The Justice Department won’t prosecute Merrick Garland for contempt of Congress over the Biden audio tapes.

The House of Representatives on Thursday voted to hold Merrick Garland in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena.

Last month two GOP-led House committees passed resolutions recommending US Attorney General Merrick Garland be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over audio of Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur.

Merrick Garland has reportedly “classified at the highest level” the audio tapes of Joe Biden’s embarrassing interview with Special Counsel Hur. The tapes have been locked away in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), according to investigative journalist Paul Sperry.

The Myth That Biden Had Nothing to Do With the Prosecutions of Trump

The five criminal and civil prosecutions of former President Donald Trump all prompt heated denials from Democrats that President Joe Biden and Democrat operatives had a role in any of them.

But Biden has long let it be known that he was frustrated with his own Department of Justice’s federal prosecutors for their tardiness in indicting  Trump.

Biden was upset because any delay might mean that his rival Trump would not be in federal court during the 2024 election cycle. And that would mean he could not be tagged as a “convicted felon” by the November election while being kept off the campaign trail.

Politico has long prided itself on its supposed insider knowledge of the workings of the Biden administration. Note that it was reported earlier this February that a frustrated Joe Biden “has grumbled to aides and advisers that had (Attorney General Merrick) Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded…”

If there was any doubt about the Biden administration’s effort to force Trump into court before November, Politico further dispelled it — even as it blamed Trump for Biden’s anger at Garland: “That trial still could take place before the election and much of the delay is owed not to Garland but to deliberate resistance put up by the former president and his team.”

Note in passing how a presidential candidate’s legal right to oppose a politicized indictment months before an election by his opponent’s federal attorneys is smeared by Politico as “deliberate resistance.”

Given Politico was publicly reporting six months ago about Biden’s anger at the pace of his DOJ’s prosecution of Trump, does anyone believe his special counsel, Jack Smith, was not aware of such presidential displeasure and pressure?

Note Smith had petitioned and was denied an unusual request to the court to speed up the course of his Trump indictment.

And why would Biden’s own Attorney General, Garland, select such an obvious partisan as Smith? Remember, in his last tenure as special counsel, Smith had previously gone after popular Republican and conservative Virginia governor Bob MacDonald.

Yet Smith’s politicized persecution of the innocent McDonnell was reversed by a unanimous verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court. That rare court unanimity normally should have raised a red flag to the Biden DOJ about both Smith’s partiality and his incompetence.

But then again, Smith’s wife had donated to the 2020 Biden campaign fund. And she was previously known for producing a hagiographic 2020 documentary (“Becoming”) about Michelle Obama.

Selecting a special counsel with a successful record of prior nonpartisan convictions was clearly not why the DOJ appointed Smith.

The White House’s involvement is not limited to the Smith federal indictments.

Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis’s paramour and erstwhile lead prosecutor in her indictment of Trump, Nathan Wade, met twice with the White House counsel’s office. On one occasion, Wade met inside the Biden White House.

Subpoenaed records reveal that the brazen Wade actually billed the federal government for his time spent with the White House counsel’s staff — although so far no one has disclosed under oath the nature of such meetings.

Of the tens of thousands of local prosecutions each year, in how many instances does a county prosecutor consult with the White House counsel’s office — and then bill it for his knowledge?

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s just-completed felony convictions of Trump were spearheaded by former prominent federal prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. He is not just a well-known Democratic partisan who served as a political consultant to the Democratic National Committee.

Colangelo had also just left his prior position in the Biden Justice Department — reputedly as Garland’s third-ranking prosecutor — to join the local Bragg team.

Again, among all the multitudes of annual municipal indictments nationwide, how many local prosecutors manage to enlist one of the nation’s three top federal attorneys to head their case?

So, apparently, it was not enough for the shameless Bragg to campaign flagrantly on promises to go after Trump. In addition, Bragg brashly drafted a top Democratic operative and political appointee from inside Joe Biden’s DOJ to head his prosecution.

Not surprisingly, it took only a few hours after the Colangelo-Bragg conviction of Trump for Biden on spec to start blasting his rival as a “convicted felon.” Biden is delighted that his own former prosecutor, a left-wing judge, and a Manhattan jury may well keep Trump off the campaign trail.

So, it is past time for the media and Democrats to drop this ridiculous ruse of Biden’s White House “neutrality.” Instead, they should admit that they are terrified of the will of the people in November and so are conniving to silence them.