Category: Deceit O’ The Day

BLUF
Foreign entities are gaming the system to try to diminish American exceptionalism and influence. For now, they find trashing Israel and Jews as a convenient dividing line, but this is really about destroying Western civilization and ushering in Islamization. Don’t be the sucker who falls for it.

WHOA: Major Foreign Propagandists Utterly Exposed After X Glitch Reveals Account Locations.

A temporary glitch on X led to a credibility bloodbath for a variety of foreign propaganda accounts that were either posing as Americans or lying about their locations in other ways.

Days prior, Head of Product Nikita Brier had announced a new feature revealing the origin and current location of users. When it rolled out, though, only account owners could view it. That all changed on Friday night, though. In what is assumed to have been a mistake, everyone’s origins and current locations were made public for about an hour before disappearing.

In one instance, it was revealed that one of Hamas’ biggest simps has been lying about being in Gaza.

The above was posted when it was 65 degrees at night (and 80 during the day), just to give you an idea of the kind of propaganda being spewed. For years, the above account has claimed to be reporting from the ground in Gaza. He’s made hundreds of posts pushing fake claims about genocide, famine, and his own supposed hardships. In reality, his account was created in the United Kingdom, and he’s currently residing in Poland.

Continue reading “”

Democrats’ Favorite Talking Point About Children And Gun Deaths Is A Lie.

Gun control advocates often claim that guns are the leading cause of death among children — but that is false.

Earlier this year, Virginia’s new governor-elect, Democrat Abigail Spanberger, demanded new gun control laws, calling guns “the number one killer of kids in our country.” Other Democrats such as North Carolina’s Democrat Gov. Josh Stein also mentioned it. In June, the Ad Council launched a $10 million campaign touting the “alarming statistic — gun injuries at the number one killer of children and teens in this country.” And, of course, there were parting shots from Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, literally days before they left office earlier this year, pushing the claim.

Over the last couple of years, the media has continually pushed the assertion regarding children being at risk. The Washington Post’s headline warned: “Why guns are America’s number one killer of children.” An NPR headline wrote: “Firearms overtook auto accidents as the leading cause of death in children” and the BBC noted: “Gun deaths were the leading killer of US children in 2020.” Fact-checkers from Newsweek to Snopes also push these claims.

What defines a child? For those under 18, vehicle deaths consistently outnumber firearm deaths. But in 2023 they were essentially tied. The combined total of unintentional deaths, homicides, and suicides reached 2,580 for vehicles and 2,581 for firearms. Yet those firearm numbers make the two causes seem closer than they are, because they include “justifiable homicides” — cases in which civilians or police shot young offenders who posed deadly threats.

When we exclude those justified killings and use the FBI’s count of murders instead, the firearm total drops by more than four hundred, from 2,581 to 2,166 deaths.

About 72 percent of firearm homicides involving minors occur among 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds alone make up about 57 percent of those cases. These killings overwhelmingly stem from gang activity, and even a total gun ban would do little to stop gangs from obtaining weapons to protect their highly valuable drug supplies.

So even if we classify 17-year-old gang members as “children,” the gun control claim doesn’t hold up. In 2019 and 2020, more minors died from suffocation than from firearms, and the two causes were nearly equal in 2022 and 2023.

If we define children as those under 15, motor vehicle deaths far exceed firearm deaths. From 2019 through 2023, motor vehicle deaths were 64 percent to 153 percent higher than firearm deaths (excluding justified homicides), while suffocation deaths were more frequent in 2019 and 2020, and similar in later years.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
They gaslit America for years, censored the truth, and rewrote intelligence reports to keep Trump from being proven right. Now the cover-up is unraveling, but half the country still believes the lie. PJ Media has been sounding the alarm on Deep State corruption from Day One, and we’re not backing down.

Kash Patel Drops Covid Origin Bombshell

FBI Director Kash Patel dropped a bombshell during a recent interview with Glenn Beck, and anyone who has watched the federal bureaucracy sabotage President Trump at every turn will recognize the pattern instantly. Patel walked through how the Trump administration evaluated intelligence about the virus in the early days and how that assessment collided with a coordinated effort inside the bureaucracy and the media to protect China, shield Anthony Fauci, and deny Trump credit for getting it right.

Patel reminded Beck that the team briefed Trump based on the intelligence they had. Trump listened, weighed the facts, and acted. Then the usual suspects stepped in: “Then enter Fauci and the media. ‘No, no, no. The Chinese would never do this. It’s not about… No, no, it didn’t come from that.’ Then the wet bat thing came out and some other goofy whatever.”

We all remember what went down. Fauci played the patronizing scientist. The legacy media enforced the talking points. Big Tech censored any dissent. The establishment insisted the virus emerged from some Wuhan wet market and treated anyone who questioned that tale like a threat to democracy.

Patel then pointed out the bombshell that dropped just weeks ago. According to him, former CIA Director Gina Haspel “authorized six case officers and intelligence analysts to be paid off so that they would change their assessment on COVID originations.”

“That’s a CIA institutional decision to spend taxpayer dollars to lie to the world where COVID came from because it fit the narrative that Fauci and the media wanted out there, along with Gina Haspel, because she didn’t want Donald Trump to get the credit for reading the intel right and making the hard right decision,” he said.


Continue reading “”

Everytown Misfires in Attack on Defensive Gun Uses

When Everytown for Gun Safety announced it was holding online gun “training” classes, many anti-gun activists and volunteers with the organization were sharply critical of the move, declaring it was akin to the group normalizing gun ownership instead of advocating for a gun-free future.

Of course, the so-called training has proved to be mostly anti-gun talking points, but if the group’s anti-2A critics have any doubts that Everytown is still as opposed to our right to keep and bear arms as ever they just have to look at the organization’s latest report for reassurance.

Titled “Disarming Fear: Debunking Myths of Defensive Gun Use”, Everytown’s report starts with several incidents that they allege were reported as defensive gun uses even though there were elements of each incident that were immediately known that undercut any self-defense claim. One incident highlighted by Everytown, for example, was the shooting of teenager Ralph Yarl in Kansas City after he knocked on the wrong door of a home when he went to pick up his little brothers from a friend’s house. While Andrew Lester Lester told police that he believed that Yarl was trying to break in to his home and was “scared to death” of Yarl’s size, it only took prosecutors four days to file charges against him.

Everytown asserts that legitimate defensive gun uses are “exceedingly rare,” and that they are “often deployed against unarmed perpetrators, and often accompanied by underappreciated personal and social risks, including loss of life and property.”

How rare? Everytown says it used National Crime Victimization Survey data and came up with a figure of about 69,000 DGUs every year between 2019 and 2023. That’s far below the estimates of 1 million or more DGUs from researchers like Gary Kleck and William English, but even so, that’s about three times the number of homicides in the United States. If DGU’s are “rare”, then murders involving firearms are even more rare, which undercuts Everytown’s entire ideology.

Everytown also takes issue with using a gun to defend yourself against someone who doesn’t have a firearm.

In the majority of these uses, suspected perpetrators are unarmed. In fact, 58 percent of perpetrators are not armed with any weapon. In eight out of 10 DGUs, the suspected perpetrator is not armed with a gun.

So what? An unarmed individual can still pose a threat to life and limb. Just look at the recent DGU in Los Angeles where a 79-year-old Vietnam veteran shot and killed a man who had thrown him to the ground and broke both his legs and continued to assault him while he was writhing in pain. Does Everytown believe George Karkoc should be charged for acting in self-defense since his attacker wasn’t armed with any kind of weapon?

If not, it sure looks like they at least believe Karkoc would have been better off without a gun.

Crime victims who responded with a gun were less likely to get away from the offender than those who responded without one (7 percent with a gun compared to 18 percent without) and less likely to avoid injury (39 percent compared to 44 percent).

So… in either case the vast majority of individuals who were the victim of a violent crime were unable to get away from their attacker, and the difference in the injury rate is honestly negligible. If that’s true, then I would definitely prefer to be armed if someone decides to invade my home, carjack my vehicle, or assault me on the street.

Everytown also notes that violent crime is trending down across the United States, but as FPC’s Rob Romano notes, they still claim that an armed society is a more dangerous place.


Giffords has also recently complained about the number of justifiable homicides, which makes me wonder if this going to be a new talking point for the gun control lobby. “Too many people are defending themselves from violent attackers” doesn’t sound like a great argument to me, but maybe their focus groups are telling them differently.

Everytown’s conclusion, of course, is that you’re better off not owning a gun at all. I’d say the gun control group gave us 69,000 reasons to disregard that advice. In reality the number of defensive gun uses is likely much higher than what the anti-gun org is wililng to admit, but even using their numbers hundreds of people are protecting themselves with firearms each and every day across the United States; proof positive that DGUs aren’t uncommon or unnecessary.

BLUF:
As with the Ad Council, the federal funding these Agree to Agree “funding partners” enjoy isn’t gun control specific. However, taxpayers should be aware that organizations that receive significant federal resources are involved in propaganda to undermine their fundamental rights.

Why are Tax Dollars Funding a Civilian Disarmament Industry Anti-Gun Agitprop TV Ad Campaign?

The idiot box has been living up to the nickname.

In recent months television viewers have been subjected to a series of anti-gun propaganda pieces produced by the Ad Council. Dubbed the Agree to Agree campaign, the ads typically feature a misleading talking point about “children” and firearms followed by an invitation to go to the Ad Council effort’s website where visitors are bombarded with further gun control agitprop. The website even invites visitors to learn about how to secure red flag gun confiscation orders.

The name might suggest an effort to bridge political disagreements, but the campaign’s list of “stakeholder partners” shows it’s a gun control effort through and through. So-called “stakeholder partners” include: Brady: United Against Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.); Giffords (formerly Americans for Responsibly Solutions and the Second Amendment-denying Legal Community Against Violence); Everytown for Gun Safety; and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Bloomberg School of Public Health (named for billionaire gun control financier Michael Bloomberg). Handgun prohibition organization Violence Policy Center is not listed, although their longtime benefactor the Joyce Foundation was involved.

The campaign’s headline factoid is the following: “Gun injuries are now the leading cause of death for children and teens ages 1‑17, surpassing car crashes for the first time in two decades.” To justify the claim, the Ad Council cites a report from the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

For decades, gun control advocates and their allies in “public health” have pushed misleading talking points about children and firearms and NRA-ILA has repeatedly called them out for it.

Continue reading “”

I just took Everytown’s online firearm training course …
It’s anti-gun propaganda. It’s certainly not firearm training.

by Lee Williams

Everytown’s new firearm training classes are about as honest and realistic as the journalism produced by its paid staffers at the Trace. In fact, the amount of anti-gun propaganda produced by Everytown’s Train Smart instructors may actually exceed the anti-gun propaganda shoveled out by the kids at the Trace. Suffice it to say, it’s a close race.

The fun began with a 1.5-hour video class called “The Smart Guide to Buying a Gun.” Cost was $20. Students can take the class live or on-demand. There are two additional classes, including an 8-hour trip to the range, which you watch from home.

Nellis and Jake were the instructors. None of Everytown’s trainers provide their last names, which is very telling. Most real instructors provide all of their training and experience in addition to their full names.

Nellis, according to her bio, is “a mother and advocate, she is committed to building safer environments and believes that all children deserve a future free from gun violence.”

Jake’s bio is about as bad: “As an instructor, Jake strives to create welcoming spaces where everyone can learn to feel safer and more confident with firearms.”

Neither of the instructors ever mentioned what their kids actually deserve or how they create “welcoming spaces.”

Besides their missing last names, none of Everytown’s training staff list their actual instructor credentials or even where they were trained, but they are all beautiful people and very diverse, which is probably much more important to the folks at Everytown than their CVs.

Before Nellis and Jake were even on screen, Everytown unleashed a massive liability warning.

“By participating in this training and viewing this recording, you acknowledge and agree that Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and its affiliated organizations are not responsible for any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising from, in connection with, or as a result of your use of firearms, and you agree to release and hold harmless Everytown of Gun Safety Support Fund from any claims related to your participation in the training.

If you require specific advice or expertise about your use, possession or ownership of a firearm, please consult a qualified professional or consult your local law enforcement.”

Does this mean Everytown’s firearms instructors aren’t “qualified professionals?” Can’t real firearm training serve as a defense if you ever have to use a firearm to defend yourself or your loved ones?

Instructor Jake began by cautioning viewers that no students should have access to a firearm during the course.

“We’ll be talking about tough topics like firearm homicides and suicides,” he warned the class.

If anyone wanted to learn more about gun ownership than Jake and Nellis were willing to teach, they were told to go to Everytown.org.

The instructor duo then presented an incredibly fictional group of statistics, which the site claimed came from the “Annals of Internal Medicine and American Journal of Public Health.”

By owning a gun, you double your chances of dying by homicide, they falsely claimed. And access to a firearm inside a home triples your chances and everyone in your home’s chances of dying by suicide. These, however, were not the worst claims.

“The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that the woman will be killed,” Nellis claimed. “And according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, when a male abuser has access to a firearm, the risk that he’s going to shoot and kill a female increases by 1,000 percent.”

Everytown has always had problems with the truth. Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns have decried hundreds of school shootings, but when the shootings are actually examined, they consist of a list of incidents that often doesn’t involve actual bad guys or students or schools or guns.

One so-called shooting involved a school bus being hit with a BB. Others involved negligent discharges. Many never even happened during school hours. When the list was examined thoroughly, many of the claims were found to be seriously overinflated.

Nellis, too, had real problems with overinflation, in addition to numbers, tactics and the truth.

“Since 2020, guns have been the leading cause of death for children age 1 to 17,” she falsely claimed.

All weapons, she said, should be kept unloaded—period. Her reasoning was nonsensical.

“That might be a little controversial. It might even defeat the point but hold on. Every second matters when you need a gun. Some people believe it’s okay to keep a gun on a nightstand. If you’re moving so fast that you don’t have time to access your gun, you likely don’t have time to confirm your target before shooting. Once that bullet leaves your gun, it ain’t coming back, and you may actually live in a state that requires you to lock up your gun,” she said.

Jake even brought racist police officers into the training.

“Police interactions may be risky for black gun owners,” he said. “We want to acknowledge that. Gather more information about police in your area.”

The two instructors stressed the false benefits of home security systems—alarms, signs, decals, doorbell cameras, fences, landscaping and other external barriers such as cacti and thorny plants. These are great ideas, until the bad guy enters the victim’s home.

Their solution?

“Adopt a dog,” they said. “A lot of self-defense instructors say dogs are better defense against intruders than guns. Consider getting a dog.”

When the instructor duo described the types of guns available, the forgot to even mention the country’s most popular rifle. The video does not show a single photo of an AR or any other popular semi-automatic rifle.

Continue reading “”

FBI Continues To Publish Inaccurate Data On Armed Citizens Stopping Active Shooters

Few gun owners were surprised when we learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under President Joe Biden had fudged the numbers when reporting active shooters stopped by armed citizens. Now, however, the Trump Administration FBI is continuing the practice, far underreporting the number of incidents where armed citizens are the real heroes.

According to an October 2 report by John Lott posted at realclearinvestigatiins.com, the past trend of the FBI underreporting armed citizens who stopped active shooters continues to be a problem. And Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), said it’s not just a small discrepancy; the FBI is grossly underreporting the numbers.

“Even though the FBI acknowledged the issue at the time, it never corrected the error involving the politically fraught issue,” Lott wrote. “In the years since, the problem has only gotten worse. Since RCI’s 2022 article, the FBI has acknowledged just three additional incidents of armed good Samaritans stopping active shooters from 2022 to 2024, and none in the last two years. In contrast, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head, has documented 78 such cases over that same period—a 26-fold difference.”

The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual kills or attempts to kill people in a public place, excluding shootings that are related to other criminal activity, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf. They include instances from one person being shot at and missed all the way up to a mass public shooting.

“In 2022, the FBI reported that only 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021, or 4.4%, were stopped by an armed citizen,” Lott wrote. “However, an analysis by my organization identified a total of 281 active shooter incidents during that same period and found that 41 of them—or 14.6%—were stopped by an armed citizen.”

As Lott further pointed out, the FBI report compiled for the Biden administration for 2023 and 2024 contains worse errors.

“It asserts that armed civilians stopped none of the 72 active shooting cases it identified,” he wrote. “The CPRC, by contrast, identified 121 active shooter cases—45 of which were ultimately halted by armed civilians. Those incidents included eight cases that likely would have resulted in mass public shootings with four or more people murdered.”

Ultimately, Lott said that the FBI has the ability to set the record straight in at least some cases, providing a clearer view of remedies to crime.

“But its unwillingness to correct errors—or its efforts to fix them on the sly, as RCI reported last year—and improve its methodology raises more concerns. Its shortcomings regarding armed citizens thwarting active shooters illuminate many of these problems.

Lott’s report at realclearinvestigations.com also delves into the dangerous fallacy of so-called “gun-free” zones. Those interested in learning more about the FBI’s underreporting of armed heroes and the danger of “gun-free” zones should give it a good read.

If we can’t believe prohibitionist gunquacks, who can we believe?

Agenda Once More Bleeds Through in Latest National Gun Policy Survey

They left out “confiscation.” If they ever get these done and they’ll always be back for more. (Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The results are in! Our new National Survey of Gun Policy reveals that Americans broadly agree on many gun violence prevention policies,” Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions exclaims on X.com. “Check out the 2025 survey findings.”

They present those over at their website, where we find the Center is part of the “Bloomberg School of Public Health,” as in anti-gun (except for the government and his law-skirting security team) billionaire Michael Bloomberg. The use of the pejorative term “gun violence” to stigmatize the inanimate object instead of the willful human aggressor is our first clue as to what they mean by “solutions” and “prevention.”

We’re told it’s a “nationally representative survey” which “found wide support for gun violence prevention policies across political lines and among both gun owners and non-owners.” We’re told they’ve been doing this since 2013.  What we’re not told is any meaningful metric to prove any of their “solutions” have prevented anything except citizens being able to exercise a supposedly unalienable right with a government mandate that it “shall not be infringed.”

The questions, asked of “2,977 respondents, 1,001 gun owners and 1,976 non-gun owners and 959 Republicans and 1,419 Democrats” need to be viewed with two further caveats: The Bloombergians make no attempt on this page to share how the questions were worded (because doing so differently could produce different results), or to establish actual knowledge the respondents had – as opposed to what they’ve been told by the overwhelmingly prohibition-supporting media, and by the Democrat Party.

Why, if it’s “representative,” does the survey include significantly more Democrats than Republicans, especially after the popular and electoral victories Second Amendment-proclaiming Donald Trump attained over gun prohibitionist Kamala Harris? And don’t overlook that just because someone is a gun owner doesn’t automatically put them in the pro-Second Amendment camp, as the Fudds comprising Giffords’ “Gun Owners for Safety” amply demonstrate.

But on to the claims…

We’re told that “74% of Americans support laws that require a person to lock up the guns in their home when not in use.”  What they don’t tell us, and presumably didn’t tell the respondents, is that they also want ammunition locked separately from firearms, meaning if quick access is needed to defend against an intruder, he’ll be on you before you can load your gun. We’ve also seen cases where trained children have successfully defended themselves against intruders, and cases where they could not, with tragically outrageous results. It would also be helpful to see what percentage of homes where untrained children access unsecured guns include criminal residents.

Continue reading “”

If This Is Their Best Argument Against National Reciprocity, They Should Give Up Now

Concealed carry reciprocity at the federal level is more likely to happen now, before the midterms, than at any other point in history. It’s still an uphill fight, but President Trump has promised his support, and others are rallying to the cause. That’s the good news.

Unfortunately, there are still enough senators who can filibuster the bill that it makes it a challenge to get it to the president’s desk.

Still, gun control groups are digging in for a fight. They’re trying to lay the groundwork for their attacks on the bill, but if they look like this, they should just give up now.

Let’s start with the headline, because it matters. It reads, “More Than 2,800 Non-Self Defense Deaths Involving Concealed Carry Killers Since 2007, Latest Violence Policy Center Research Shows.”

Note the language here: “concealed carry killers” versus “non-self defense[sic] deaths.”

That’s an important point that will come up here in a bit.

Now, for the “argument”:

Concealed handgun permit holders are responsible for at least 2,817 deaths not involving self-defense since 2007, according to the Violence Policy Center’s (VPC) ongoing Concealed Carry Killers (concealedcarrykillers.org) project, an online resource that provides examples of non-self defense killings involving private citizens with permits to carry concealed handguns in public.

This latest update comes as legislation endorsed by the gun lobby and firearms industry has been introduced in the U.S. House (H.R. 38) and Senate (S. 65) to allow individuals with state-issued concealed firearm permits to carry their weapons in any state that issues carry permits or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. The bills are currently moving through the committee process.

Overall, Concealed Carry Killers documents 2,552 fatal, non-self defense incidents since May 2007 in 40 states and the District of Columbia, resulting in the deaths of 2,817 people. Thirty-eight of the incidents were fatal mass shootings as defined by federal law (three or more victims killed), resulting in the deaths of 186 victims. At least 24 law enforcement officers have died at the hands of concealed carry killers since May 2007.

VPC Government Affairs Director Kristen Rand states, “While the firearms industry and gun lobby push for coast-to-coast concealed carry, real-world facts show that concealed handgun permit holders are far more likely to kill themselves or innocent victims than use their gun in a justifiable homicide.”

Of course, they note that there are no official records keeping track of this, so they have to base all of their so-called research on news reports and whatever limited data they can get from the states, but let’s start off by looking at the raw numbers presented here. They maintain that the actual numbers are probably higher, which might be true, but probably isn’t. Still, let’s look at what they’ve got because that’s what we have.

It’s been 17 full years since 2007, and I’m making an assumption they’re not including any information from this year–which isn’t a safe assumption, to be fair, but for the sake of argument, I think this will be fine–which means we’re looking at 165.7 “deaths” by concealed carriers per year.

Sure, those are all tragic, to be certain, but when you look at nearly 46,000 “gun deaths” each year, it’s not even a drop in the bucket.

“But Tom, those ‘gun deaths’ include suicides. Isn’t that apples and oranges?”

A fair question, good reader, but it’s not. Why? Because the VPC does the exact same thing.

In the vast majority of the 2,552 incidents documented in Concealed Carry Killers (2,435, or 95 percent), the concealed carry permit holder either died by suicide (1,732), has already been convicted (614), perpetrated a murder-suicide (65), or was killed in the incident (24). Of the 77 cases still pending, the vast majority (61) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, five were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and 11 incidents are still under investigation. An additional 40 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder.

The fact that someone has a concealed carry permit has nothing at all to do with their suicide. Plenty of people take their own lives with guns while lacking carry permits. Others use different means of doing the same thing. Suicide numbers really shouldn’t be included in a look at “concealed carry killers,” now, should it? Not if you really want to make the case that national reciprocity will make people less safe.

Interestingly, the chart they include has a section for “self-defense/no verdict,” which makes no sense at all if you’re trying to claim these aren’t self-defense shootings.

Still, if we decide to accept the remaining numbers at face value–mostly because they don’t include any total on those “self-defense/no verdict” numbers–we end up with 1,085 deaths attributed to concealed carry permit holders. That’s an average of just under 64 killings per year. That’s versus an average of just under 18,000 murders with firearms.

That’s not a problem. That’s statistical noise.

Then we have their interpretation of these claims.

VPC Government Affairs director Kristen Rand is quoted as saying, “While the firearms industry and gun lobby push for coast-to-coast concealed carry, real-world facts show that concealed handgun permit holders are far more likely to kill themselves or innocent victims than use their gun in a justifiable homicide.”

Except that’s not the case at all, and even the anti-gun The Trace knows that’s not true.

How do I know that? Because look at their report on defensive gun uses, which looked at both Gun Violence Archive numbers and numbers from The Heritage Foundation.

Gun Violence Archive, the Kentucky-based nonprofit that tallies gun-related incidents in near-real time, also counts DGUs. But it only captures incidents that make the news or are reported to police. And GVA includes incidents involving illegal gun possessors as well as legal owners, including shootouts as well as stand-your-ground shootings. GVA recorded 8,394 DGUs from 2017 to 2021, which works out to an average of 1,678 a year. But that’s likely a massive undercount.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, launched a DGU tracker in 2019 that relies on media reports, but counts only defensive gun use by lawful owners. Heritage tallied 2,106 shootings from 2019 to 2021, for an average of 702 per year. The group cautions that it’s “not intended to be comprehensive” because “most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.” That’s a common belief among pro-gun advocates, some of whom believe the 2.5 million figure is, in fact, too low.

Both of these totals are much lower than the 165.7 per year average noted above. It’s worth noting, though, that these are compiled through media reports, just as VPC’s numbers are. If their estimates are low, then it stands to reason that we’re right about the defensive gun use totals also being low, especially since a lot of them never make the news.

And if you remove suicides from the equation, as you should, the difference is even more stark.

However, then we need to consider concealed carry holders versus society as a whole, since this whole report was intended to imply that they’re a danger to society.

Joe LoPorto, the Director of Legal Operations for the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate, did a little math, passed along to me, comparing per capita rates overall. Here’s what he told me:

The VPC, financially backed by the Joyce Foundation, itself a President Obama pet project with over $1 billion in assets has been running its Concealed Carry Killers database for years. We all know the numbers they are producing are massively inflated. However, even when taken at face value and considering the most conservative estimate of the number of Americans with a concealed carry permit (rounded down to just 20 million), their own data support our point.

Based on their own data, presented by VPC in a way to look as inflammatory as possible, the murder rate amongst the population of concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. would be 2.7 per 100,000 people, or less than half the murder rate of the overall U.S. population at 5.9 per 100,000. Again, based on their inflated numbers, the suicide rate of concealed carry permit holders would be 5.0 per 100,000 or about 1/3rd that of the overall U.S. population at 14.2 per 100,000.

Even accepting their inflated statistics, their own data show that concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. are substantially safer than the overall U.S. population.

New Jersey is the perfect example.  Before Bruen, virtually no one was able to obtain a concealed carry permit. In the years since Bruen, nearly 100,000 New Jerseyans obtained concealed carry permits… and the violent crime and gun crime rates in the state declined.

Peaceable people exercising their core constitutional rights in the U.S. are not the problem.

That last bit, especially, is absolutely correct.

On every level, their entire premise falls apart. The attempt to demonize concealed carry permit holders fails in the face of literally any other evidence. It only works in a vacuum, and there’s no such thing in the world of media today.

Seriously, this is so absolutely pathetic that they should hide in shame for the next thousand years or so.

But, or course it’s a deceitful scam.

Gun Control Group Now Offering Firearms ‘Instruction’

The term “gun safety” has different meanings depending on where you stand on the Second Amendment. For those who despise our right to keep and bear arms, “gun safety” translates to “gun control”, and the best way to practice gun safety is to not own a gun at all. T

Those of us who respect and appreciate the Second Amendment, though, “gun safety” means being safe and responsible around firearms. It doesn’t have nearly the negative connotation that “gun control” has, which is precisely why anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg named his group Everytown for Gun Safety, not Everytown for Gun Control.

According to National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel Larry Keane, Everytown is now trying to move into the realm of actual gun safety, by launching a new firearms training initiative.

The program was recently outlined at the National Conference of State Legislatures, and NSSF staff had a first-hand view of what the gun control group is pushing; a broad initiative called “Train Smart”, which includes a “Gun Ownership 101” class… and eventually, a full eight-hour training course.

Everytown’s “Train Smart” initiative will also host “Raise Standards in Your State” classes, which isn’t even an attempt to hide their efforts to convince people to press for permits and licenses, and instructor certifications, which amazingly can now be provided by the newest firearm training program in town.

Lastly, if those aren’t enough, Everytown’s “Train Smart” plans to offer a “Train Smart Gun Safety & Marksmanship” class, which ought to be hoot, since the gun control group has yet to shoot straight on anything they say. That’s going to be an eight-hour class to teach people how to handle and use firearms responsibly and serve as a role model for others. Topics covered in this class are the same as the other two shorter classes, except they’ll also talk about suicide prevention, de-escalation tactics, pistol marksmanship and… wait for it… “and much more.”

There’s no word if those classes will include any range time – or that any gun range would want to host Everytown to do it.

As Firearms Policy Coalition’s Rob Romano pointed out, the goal here seems to be to force gun ranges to host these Everytown courses, and to force would-be gun owners to get their mandated instruction from a group that doesn’t believe you have a right to keep and bear arms.

We’ve already seen states like California move to disqualify classes taught by NRA certified firearms instructors from satisfying training requirements and substituting state certified instructors instead. It’s not hard to imagine lawmakers in Sacramento (and Trenton, Boston, Albany, and other blue-state capitals) mandating that folks have to go through training taught by Everytown instructors before they can purchase or carry a firearm.

In fact, by making their pitch to attendees at the National Conference of State Legislatures conference, Everytown is already laying the groundwork for their plan to force their way into gun stores and ranges. There’s a reason why the anti-gun group wanted to let state-level lawmakers know about their new offerings; so they can start making laws that mandate attendance in an Everytown taught “gun safety” course before you can exercise your Second Amendment rights.

The biggest problem Everytown will face is coming up with instructors who are willing to work with them. As Keane notes, right now there’s no word on whether the group’s eight-hour course will include any range time, but I’m betting that it won’t. In order to satisfy the training requirements they’ve helped to put on the books in states like Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts, though, Everytown will need instructors who provide range instruction, not just anti-gun talking points. My guess is that it’ll be far easier to get anti-gun legislators to sign on than actual firearm instructors, but that could end up being a feature, not a bug, if it means that it becomes much harder to get access to the training required to bear arms in public or even keep a gun in the home.

Cynical Publius

Dear Democrats:

Hey. How’ve you been?

It’s been a rough 25 years. It feels like ever since that hanging chad election in 2000, we have been at each others’ throats. Mostly this is because we’ve let the hyperbole and the wild conspiracy theories control us on both sides. Now I say that is 80% you and 20% us (because you control the media), and we’ve done our fair share with Birthers and Big Mikers, but the bottom line is that neither side trusts what the other side says.

That’s a shame.

I get why you may not trust us. But you are going to have to on what we are about to tell you. Sometimes objective truths need to be said, and we’re about to say them.

Buckle up Buttercups. What you are about to read is 100%, verifiably true:

1. In the 2016 presidential election, the Hillary Clinton campaign fabricated out of the ether a wholly fictional “dossier” alleging that Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian Federation.

2. This “dossier” was shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the friendly Obama Administration, and treated as reliable intelligence even though those agencies knew it was highly suspect.

3. This wholly-fabricated “dossier” was then used as a legal basis for surveillance and wiretaps on members of the Trump Team before and after the election, and the communications equipment in the Trump Transition Team HQ in New York was in fact wiretapped by the Obama Administration.

4. After the election was over and Trump had won, the intelligence community determined that there was no material Russian interference in the election. Barack Obama directed them to reverse that finding.

5. This new, false finding, coupled with the ongoing concerns regarding the dossier became the bases for a concerted effort by the Obama Administration to prevent Donald Trump from ever taking office, even though the American people had just elected him. The ongoing Potemkin Villages of the dossier and the IC report were the bases for numerous unlawful warrants on the Trump team, the creation of interview traps where Trump members might incriminate themselves by making a false statement to the FBI, and generally encircling the entire Trump transition team via subterfuge and placing them in a public aura of an illegal enterprise and not a validly-elected administration.

6. With the Obama plan unable to prevent Trump from taking office, his loyalists who remained in the new Trump Administration did their very best to work towards removing Trump via scandal, with James Comey being the chief bagman via the bogus dossier.

7. While everything described above was happening, it was all being leaked to the media in an effort to discredit and cripple the Trump Administration. Often bogus information would be fed to a media source, the source would report it, and then the fact that the media reported the bogus information was used by Democrat operatives as a basis for legitimizing it, i.e. “the wrap up smear.”

8. All of the above became such a burden on the new Trump Administration that a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, was appointed to cut through to the truth. Unfortunately Mueller was relying on the same fake dossier and bogus IC reports, so bogus data led to a bogus investigation that served no other purpose than to cripple the Trump Administration for two years.

9. To summarize points #1 through #8 above, the Obama/Hillary plan had three steps: (i) spread Russia lies so Trump loses the election; (ii) if Trump wins the election, spread Russia lies so he is never inaugurated; and (iii) if he is inaugurated, spread Russia lies to cripple his ability to govern.

10. After Trump lost in 2020 and he started indicating that he would run again, the Obama team, now with Biden installed in the White House as a puppet, knew they could not let him win as he would unravel what they had done, make it public, and potentially cause a bunch of them to end up in prison. So they coordinated lawfare attacks on Trump across the nation using Democrat operatives, thinking that Trump would end up in prison or his reputation would be in such tatters that he could never be elected. That backfired.

11. Trump got elected in 2024.

12. On July 18, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a treasure trove of heretofore hidden information which, alongside already-public information about the fake dossier, shows that everything we say above is 100%, inarguably, reliably, factually, objectively accurate.

We repeat, everything written above is VERIFIABLY, OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

We know you love to say how much you “love democracy.”

Do you? Do you REALLY “love democracy”?

What is described above is the most undemocratic thing imaginable.

Forget any arguments about whether something was criminal or the statute of limitations or whatever other technicality distractor gets thrown out there, we have a very simple question for you:

HOW CAN YOU TOLERATE THIS?

Please consider this letter a peace offering. If you are willing to acknowledge what transpired and offer an apology, we might be able to begin to trust each just a teeny bit. We are all Americans, after all.

Sincerely,

The American Coalition of Non-Smoothbrained Conservatives

Jack Nicholson Nodding GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

Did Joe Biden’s Doctor Just Confirm a Cover-Up of His Health?

In a move that should obliterate whatever remains of the myth of transparency in Washington, Joe Biden’s longtime physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, finally showed up for a interview with the House Oversight Committee—and proceeded to not answer a single question.

But while O’Connor may have refused to talk, his silence said plenty.

According to Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), O’Connor was asked two simple but devastating questions: “Were you ever told to lie about the president’s health?” and “Did you ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duties?”

O’Connor didn’t say “No,” he pleaded the Fifth both times—choosing constitutional protection over basic accountability.

“This is unprecedented,” Comer said. “And I think that this adds more fuel to the fire that there was a cover-up.”

He’s right. When a sitting president’s personal doctor refuses to answer whether he was told to lie to the American people, it’s not just troubling—it’s damning.

This isn’t some minor bureaucratic hiccup or a routine legal maneuver—this is the doctor who, for years, stood between the American people and the truth about Joe Biden’s fitness for office. Now, when given the chance to clear the air, he chooses silence.

Although O’Connor had previously refused to cooperate, somehow, pleading the Fifth now instead of answering those two questions looks worse.

Let’s not pretend this is normal. O’Connor’s refusal to answer even basic questions about Biden’s condition raises the obvious question: What, exactly, is he trying to hide?

Of course, we all know the answer. For years, the Biden White House dismissed legitimate concerns about the president’s health as partisan attacks, hiding behind carefully worded reports from O’Connor. Those glowing annual assessments were the backbone of the cover-up, reassuring the public while Biden visibly declined.

Let’s be clear: O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions isn’t about medical ethics—it’s about political damage control. This is the same doctor who repeatedly vouched for Biden’s fitness while the public watched a very different reality unfold. If there’s nothing to hide, why not answer questions? Why invoke your right not to incriminate yourself?

Comer said it is “clear there was a conspiracy to cover up” Biden’s cognitive decline.

New York Post:

The only question O’Connor did answer before the deposition concluded was confirming his name, according to an Oversight spokesperson, who pointed out that doctor-patient privilege would have allowed the witness to answer at least some questions.

Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as physician to the president during Barack Obama’s first term, agreed with that interpretation.

“In my opinion, [the first question] doesn’t involve HIPAA,” Kuhlman told The Post.

As for the second question, Kuhlman advised, “I don’t think that’s covered by HIPAA,” because it “doesn’t sound like that’s specific health information that they’re seeking.”

When asked whether he would answer questions under oath that don’t directly relate to a patient’s health, Kuhlman said: “In my role as a physician caring for a patient, I probably would.”

Dr. O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions about Biden’s health isn’t just a legal tactic—it’s an admission that there’s something worth hiding. The American people have every right to demand answers. The time for stonewalling is over.

Dr. O’Connor’s silence isn’t just suspicious—it’s a warning sign for anyone who cares about transparency in our government.

Joe Biden’s Doctor Just Plead the Fifth – What Is He Hiding?

It appears former President Joe Biden’s doctor desperately does not want to testify before Congress about his former boss’ mental deterioration.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who served as Biden’s physician while he was in office, has refused to testify in closed-door proceedings as House Republicans investigate how the former president’s cognitive decline affected his presidency, according to Politico.

O’Connor asserted doctor-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a statement from his attorneys. He had repeatedly argued his duties as a doctor complicated his testimony and prevented him from sharing some sensitive information. But House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who is leading the investigation, has rejected those claims.

“On the advice of his legal counsel, Dr. O’Connor refused to answer questions that invaded the well-established legal privilege that protects confidential matters between physicians and their patients,” the statement read. “His assertion of his right under the Fifth Amendment to decline to answer questions, also on the advice of his lawyers, was made necessary by the unique circumstances of this deposition.

The statement also cited President Donald Trump’s own invocation of his Fifth Amendment right before his deposition with New York State Attorney General Letitia James, quoting Trump’s suggestion that only “an absolute fool” would refuse to take the Fifth.

O’Connor requested that Congress delay his appearance, citing concerns about sharing information protected by doctor/patient privilege. The Associated Press reported that he is seeking a delay to ensure that privileged information is not shared. He recently asked to delay his requested testimony because he hopes to hammer out an agreement that will protect doctor-patient confidentiality.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who served as Biden’s physician at the White House, requested a delay until the end of July or early August “to reach an accommodation that will protect the very substantial privilege and confidentiality interests of Dr. O’Connor and former President Biden,” according to a letter from his lawyer sent to Rep. James Comer of Kentucky on Saturday. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.

A spokesperson for Oversight Republicans said the committee will follow the House’s deposition guidelines, which allow for witnesses to assert privilege on a question-by-question basis, with the committee chair ruling on each claim. But O’Connor is not allowed, in the committee’s view, to delay or decline a congressional subpoena due to concerns over questions about potentially privileged information.

The back-and-forth is part of a broader struggle over the scope of the House Republican inquiry into Biden’s age and mental fitness, with serious implications for both politics and policy. Republicans have also claimed that some policies carried out by the White House “autopen” may be invalid if it is proven that Biden was mentally incapacitated for some part of his term.

Here’s what’s happening: House Republicans are trying to show that Biden’s cognitive issues severely impacted his presidency to the point that his staffers essentially ran the country during his term. O’Connor and his legal team know this and are trying to prevent lawmakers from getting to the truth.

This probably won’t work.

Even with O’Connor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment, it is likely that Congress might just find what they are looking for even without his help. It was abundantly clear that Biden’s mental acuity was lacking all throughout his presidency. There have already been indications that he was not up to the job and that several executive orders were signed with the autopen without his knowledge.

With Republicans in charge of the White House and the legislature, there won’t be enough roadblocks preventing them from ascertaining what was going on in the White House over the past four years. At some point, America will find out the truth — and it will probably be uglier than we think.

Jeff Clark

Conservative constitutionalists believe the President is a *singular* official — the only branch of our three federal branches of government that consists of only one man.

In important ways, widespread use of the autopen— and certainly abuse without knowledge by the singular President — functionally creates a *multiplicity* of cloaked Presidents.

Thus, Biden Administration’s massive use of the autopen for the Presidential John Hancock, including multiple versions of the purported Biden signature is itself a microcosm of progressive theories of the Constitution: Reliance not on one man to be President — the system of government bequeathed to us by the Founders — but on a profuse coterie of advisors clustered around the actual sitting President who are all able to use the autopen to — let’s not sugarcoat it — impersonate the President as they might see fit.

Even in the small things, the inversion of the true Constitution in the minds of those that hate it in the progressive movement becomes ever more apparent.

Summarized: We do not have a *multiplicity* of Presidential impersonators, in the real Constitution, we have a *singular* President.

Japan Releases Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Data on 18 Million People

The data speaks for itself—and the 3 to 4 month spike is impossible to ignore.

A COVID vaccine database covering 18 million citizens has just been released for the first time.

After reviewing the data, a top professor warned: “The more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die.”

The most terrifying finding was a deadly spike just 3 to 4 months after the final shot.

Let’s break down the data.

On June 15th, a group of brave Japanese truth seekers did what their government wouldn’t—they released a bombshell broadcast exposing vaccine data from over 18 million people.

Continue reading “”

JAMA? What else is new?

JAMA Pediatrics Publishes Extremely Flawed Studied Titled: “Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US”

A new study in JAMA Pediatrics asserts that states with “permissive” gun control laws experienced higher pediatric firearm mortality rates following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago. The study analyzed data from 49 states spanning 1999 to 2023. This has to be one of the dumbest studies done in a long time. After Public Health officials fumbled the COVID response, you’d expect some hesitation before trusting their research on crime, a field far outside their expertise. The fact that they don’t even mention policing and law enforcement in discussing crime rates should provide some warning to the media.

We have previously written extensively on the false claim made in the first sentence of this study: “Firearm deaths are now the leading cause of death among US children and adolescents” (see here and here).

Unlike typical research, which compares crime or suicide rates before and after states change their laws and contrasts those changes with states that didn’t alter their laws, this study ignores how laws change over time. It takes what could be panel data which allows one to account for average differences across states and years (so-called fixed effects). The paper limits there discussion to a purely cross-sectional comparison. The purely cross sectional comparison cannot be used for any discussion of causation. They don’t even try to account for basic factors like law enforcement practices—such as arrest and conviction rates, imprisonment rates, or the death penalty—that influence crime. Nor do they account for any factors that might explain changes in suicides or accidental gun deaths in the 2011 to 2023 period.

The study categorizes the level of gun control laws in each state into one of three broad categories and assumes that there laws remain constant over time, and lumps many different laws together in an arbitrary manner. Are these additive? Do we simply add a concealed-carry law to a safe-storage law to universal background checks? For these gun control advocates, is a red flag law twice as important as having lots of gun-free zones? There is so much arbitrariness in how a measure that combines these different laws and even what laws to include. How did they decide to have eight strict gun-control law states, eleven permissive states, and 30 most permissive states? Why not 1/3rd in each of these different categories?

The methodology falters in several ways. It relies on the epidemiological concept of “excess deaths,” commonly used to gauge the impact of diseases like Covid-19. The authors applied Poisson regression, using only a time trend as a control variable, to estimate expected deaths for three state groups. They labeled the gap between predicted and actual deaths as “excess deaths,” attributing these to permissive state laws. This gap, however, could simply reflect error or residuals, encompassing random error, omitted variables, heteroskedasticity, serial correlation, measurement errors, and other statistical challenges inherent in such analyses.

Continue reading “”

The Truth Is, They Do Want a King

I just returned from a wonderful week away enjoying time with my family and dear friends to find a lot of chatter about “No Kings” from the predictable group of left-wing Marxists, and their good friend Bill Kristol. It would seem laughable if this rebrand of revolutionary angst were not proven deadly already. Rather than burning urban areas under BLM flags, the revolutionaries are now shooting elected officials at home under the banner of contempt that pretends to dislike monarchies. As I noted recently, these dark and satanic ideologies imported openly into the American polis through the writings of Marx are deadly and should be removed from society as poison is drawn from a wound.

Those who wish death to America are not limited to the ayatollahs of Tehran. The tragic reality is that those inside the United States who hate this nation likely outnumber those who feel the same way from the Middle East. This is the product of generations of successful indoctrination imparted by the government schooling system. Education is not just about reading, writing, and arithmetic. It has always been about transmitting values. Those who hate the American way know it and act accordingly. This must be dealt with if ordered liberty is to stand a chance beyond our lifetimes.

The “No Kings” protest movement is organized and aimed at resurrecting the terror that gripped this nation during the 2020 summer of rage. The majority of Americans finally tired of the fictional, manipulative narratives of the Black Lives Matter and allied transgender movement over the last couple of years and voted accordingly in 2024. As Dr. Ben Carson shared with me recently, the results of the last election lulled too many conservatives into believing that political evil is defeated in our time—when the reality is that those who wish death to our way of life have been regrouping and plotting a counterassault. That counter assault was attempted in several U.S. cities recently through allegedly anti-immigration law enforcement, most notably in Los Angeles. Even in that city defined in our time as a protest center, the deep blue governing officials couldn’t get away with aiding and abetting lawlessness as usual. So they quickly rebranded the movement to “No Kings.” In doing so, they signal the brainless and fictional narrative that Donald is ruling as a dictatorial king, who curiously allows protests against him. The hypocrisy of that argument requires an entire volume to dissect.

As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. The protestors hope to tap into a patriotic root with this iteration of rhetorical schema, rallying a wider coalition based on the nation’s rejection of monarchial rule in the 18th century. They will fail because the branding can’t get even skin deep.

Look around at who is showing up to these supposed “No Kings” events. It’s the same Randi Weingarten-esque group bussed in to every other anti-American protest. The iconography of their signs remains intact from the previous protests, sporting the usual color patterns associated with Ukraine and the sexual liberation movement. What you won’t find is a Betsy Ross flag, which served as the nation’s colors at the time of our ancestors’ rebellion against an *actual* king. America’s left wing decided it, and the nation’s founding, is racist. Given such logic, honest activists would demand to become subjects of King Charles III.

But let’s lay all that aside for a moment and talk about how to respond to one of these “No Kings” protestors from a position that grants a basis of dignity in approach. I offer this: the left wing is desperate for a king. Everything about progressivism yearns for someone who will make all things safe, who will guarantee the right to all self-centered behavior, who will provide all things needed for one to live in equity rather than through what one earns. Progressivism demands a king who will uphold its cause zealously, and punish people who dare to assert that the law should provide rights and reasonable limitations equally to all citizens for the purpose of a virtuous society.

Their king will tell you what you can drive, what you can say, what you can eat, and how you may use your land. They want a king who will literally cover your face and inject your body, a king who will take your children if you deny transgender ideology, a ruler who will terminate your bank accounts and your job if you stray from depraved thinking. The progressive left wing wants what it has always wanted: power. It needs—no, demands—a dark lord who will, as the great novelist J.R.R. Tolkien wrote, rule them, find them, and bind them in darkness.

No, the protestors we see now do not reject a king. They demand one.

Scripture assures that those who want to live under dark rule will eventually get their wish. But we dare not hasten those days. So long as God gives us the strength, we must be sure to prevent that coronation from happening.

May be? It may be the worst scandal since Woodrow Wilson, and over the same type of incapacity. Watergate was a criminal conspiracy to cover up a dirty political campaign trick. Bidengate involves the hijacking of the presidency itself, with a conspiracy that involves senior leaders of a major political party and Cabinet officials, not to mention Vice President Kamala Harris herself. And let’s not forget that the Protection Racket Media didn’t just fail to uncover it, they actively acted to cover it up — for four full years.
Watergate was a bungled frat prank in comparison.
– Ed Driscoll

Of course, Tapper is still trying to CYA because the media – lapdogs of the demoncraps – conveniently neglected to do their purported jobs.

Neuroscientist Accidentally Reveals Democrats’ Dark Strategy Behind Biden’s Mental Health Cover-Up.

Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris recently admitted he was misled about President Joe Biden’s cognitive health, conceding that he once believed claims that Biden remained sharp behind closed doors—but now doubts that assumption, citing what he describes as an “effective” cover-up.

In a candid discussion, Harris acknowledged he used to defend Biden’s mental acuity by separating the president’s communication struggles from his decision-making abilities.

“It’s at least intelligible to say, ‘Okay, he’s not a good communicator. He was never a good communicator, he’s only getting worse,’” Harris said. “You can’t reliably stick him in front of a microphone and trust that something good is gonna come out of his mouth.”

Harris once accepted the idea that while Biden fumbled public speaking engagements, he was still competent when it came to deliberating important issues in private.

“The truth is… when you sit with him and deliberate about the war in Ukraine or anything else, he is compos mentis, he clearly understands the issue as well as he ever did,” Harris claimed he previously believed. “He’s just not a fluid speaker, and less and less fluid by the hour. Neurologically speaking, that is an intelligible claim to make about a person. That’s what I assumed was true.”

However, Harris now says he doubts Biden was ever as mentally fit as some insiders had claimed. “Because of how effective this cover-up was, I no longer believe that to have been true,” he admitted. “I think it’s quite possible that he was just checked out to a degree that I did not suspect at the time.”

Now, we’re supposed to believe this explanation, which is basically the same thing that Democrats and their allies in the media are saying. According to them, they were duped. But, Harris, like everyone else on the left who defended Biden’s mental acuity, was lying.

How do I know? Because he flat-out contradicted himself moments later, and it wasn’t subtle.

While you might assume that Biden’s obvious mental decline would be a deal-breaker for a neuroscientist, Harris made it clear that it didn’t matter one bit. The truth is, Biden’s cognitive state was irrelevant to him. His only real concern was stopping Trump—no matter the cost.

“Even that is preferable to me and to, I think, many Democrats, than having someone who we consider to be genuinely evil—genuinely 100% purposed to serving himself in the office of the presidency,” he said, drawing a sharp contrast between Biden’s frailty and Trump’s leadership.

Harris went even further, laying bare the mentality behind the left’s support of Biden in 2024: “I would rather have a president in a coma, where the duties of the presidency are executed by a committee of just normal people,” he said. “And that’s the choice that many of us believe was before us.”

In doing so, Harris admitted that Biden’s competency wasn’t just misunderstood—it was irrelevant. The real goal, for many Democrats, was to stop Trump at any cost. “Not much materially changes once you reveal just how insane and despicable this cover-up of Biden’s infirmities actually was,” Harris concluded, suggesting that the deception—however egregious—was worth it to keep Trump out of office.

Here we have a neuroscientist—someone with the education and expertise to spot cognitive decline a mile away—claiming he was duped by the Biden White House. But then, in the same breath, he admits it wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

Why? Because he’d rather see a cabal of unelected leftist operatives quietly steer the country into a constitutional crisis than let Trump win.

Spare me the victim act. He wasn’t fooled—he willingly ignored what was right in front of him because his hatred for Trump clouded his judgment.

Just like every other partisan on the left, he helped prop up a mentally unfit president and now wants to pretend he was misled.

He wasn’t. He was complicit.