Category: Deceit O’ The Day

Comment O’ The Day

As much as I was starting to enjoy Ms. Stadtmiller’s anti-trannies on women’s teams rant, she completely ruined it when she wrote:

“If you’re a female athlete you are defying the patriarchal odds.”

It was then that I thought to myself: nonsense, sister, you’ve missed the point entirely. It was the patriarchy that had men and women competing in separate sports leagues in the first place. And it’s feminism and its logical conclusions that have led us to our present situation, in which women are forced to compete with athletes with penises and substantial strength and hormonal advantages over them, and to refer to such athletes with penises as “she” or get kicked off the team, and in which women’s sports are being destroyed.

As the patriarchy might say (if it were a human individual): “Miss me yet?”
—JPL

University of Pennsylvania Systemically Abuses Young Women By Forcing Them to Compete with and Undress In Front Of a Man Who Physically Humiliates Them and Makes Them Call Him a Woman.

I’m doing my best to be kind. –Mandy Stadtmiller

This is a man. I am a woman who knows what a man looks like. You cannot scare me out of my instincts into saying otherwise. I know what reality is. This is what a cheating man who enjoys cheating against women looks like.

Do you remember what it is like at all to be a young woman?

Just how overwhelming and mortifying and embarrassing so much of it all is?

Embarrassment can feel like death. Banishment from a social circle is death. Sex and puberty and bodily changes cause so much shyness and nerves and uncertainty and stimulation.

And then sometimes…a miracle occurs.

Sometimes a young woman finds something instead of consumerism and hypersexuality and the light glossy sociopathy of modern life.

Sometimes she becomes a female athlete.

If you are a young woman who competes in sports, there is a certain thrilling power that comes with it.

You learn confidence and leadership and even where you are weaker and where it might be up to you to work harder, to see if you can push yourself that much more, to get out of your own way.

If you’re a female athlete you are defying the patriarchal odds.

You’re standing out as a woman for physicality that is not sexual but instead based on pure force and performance and strength and POWER that comes from taking your own biological body to the limits of training and perseverance and domination and self-belief.

Fair competition is an indisputably glorious thing.

Fair competition is female bodies competing against female bodies.

As everyone knows and understands, women compete against women because otherwise competition would be patently unfair.

Women do not have the same athletic advantages as the male body and the benefits of a male puberty and the strength that comes from a male body.

“Male bodies have 10-30 percent greater muscle strength, greater bone density, better oxygen efficiency, larger heart and lungs, more efficient pelvic Q-angle and elbow angles, as well as 10 percent more overall body mass,” explains Ross Tucker, of the Science of Sport podcast.

Can you imagine the psychological travesty if we were to force young women to compete with men and tell them to simply “try harder”?

And that their eyes and inner knowledge is wrong?

That the man with the penis undressing in front of them is actually a woman?

What institution could be so torturous and cruel as to punish elite female athletes by forcing them to shower and change next to a man who doesn’t cover up his intact penis and is stealing medals that rightfully belong to women—and then also be forced to call that man with the penis undressed in front of you a “woman”?

That would be abusive and insane, cruel and unusual.

Except it’s exactly what is happening in the Ivy League right now.

That’s what Penn is doing. They don’t want you to know.

I’m begging you: Know.

Continue reading “”

It wasn’t for the benefit of the children, but the state

Why Government Schooling Came to America.

In the first two essays in this series on the relationship between government and the education of children (“How the Redneck Intellectual Discovered Educational Freedom—and How You Can, Too” and “The New Abolitionism: A Manifesto for a Movement”), I established, first, how and why the principle of “Separation of School and State” is both a logical and moral necessity grounded in the rights of nature, and then I demonstrated how and why America’s government schools should be abolished as logical and moral necessities.

In this essay, I’d like to drill down more deeply into the nature and purposes of government schooling in order to further demonstrate how and why a system of government-run education is anathema to the tradition of American freedom and therefore immoral. Let me be clear (if I haven’t been so already): I regard the government school system to be the single worst and most destructive institution in America. It cannot be “reformed,” and it cannot be tolerated. Period. It must, therefore, be abolished.

To that end, it is important to understand how and why government schooling came to the United States in the first place. Most Americans today assume that the “public” school system is as American as apple pie, that it has been around since the first foundings of Britain’s North American colonies in the seventeenth century or at least since the founding of the United States of American in 1788. But this is not true.

In the longue durée of American history from the early seventeenth century to the present, the government school system is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. A system of nation-wide government schools was not fully implemented in this country until about 100 years ago.

Let’s begin with a brief journey through the early history of American education to see when, why, and how the American people gave up their unalienable right to educate their children and turned it over to government officials.

Early America’s System of Education

For almost 250 years, the education of children, first in England’s North American colonies and then in the United States of America up until the Civil War, was almost an entirely private affair. Parents had the freedom to choose the education, ideas, and values that they wanted for their children. The government was not involved in educating children. This is the great forgotten story of American history.

During this quarter millennium, children were typically educated in one of four ways. They were either homeschooled or they attended one of three different kinds of schools: 1) tuition-charging private schools; 2) charitable or “free” private schools established by philanthropists and religious societies; or 3) semi-public “district” schools (later known in the nineteenth century as “common schools”).

The so-called “district” schools of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries are held up today by proponents of government schooling to suggest that government-run education has existed in America since the seventeenth century. But this is not true.

Existing mostly in New England, these “district” schools were what we might call “neighborhood” schools that were built and monitored by the parents of the children who attended them, and they were financed by a combination of tuition charges, local taxes, and mutual-aid societies. These neighborhood schools were controlled entirely by parents, who chose and supplied the textbooks and who hired and fired teachers. Though partially funded by local taxes, these neighborhood schools were not government schools in any meaningful way. The government did not determine who was hired, nor did it determine what was taught.

In all instances, schooling in America until the twentieth century was highly decentralized. Many if not most of the tuition-charging or “free” schools, particularly those in more populous areas, were run by individual men or women who simply hung out a shingle, advertised for students, and ran a school out of their home. Some of these schools taught only the Three R’s, while others offered classical curricula where students were taught classical Greek and Latin. It was in one of these “home” schools that John Adams first learned the ancient languages.

This decentralized, parent-driven form of schooling was how the generation of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison was educated. Not a single one of America’s founding fathers attended a government school. The very idea is and was anathema to a free society.

It is therefore imperative that we understand why government schools were ever established in the United States.

One thing is certain: America’s system of government schooling was not established because the extant system of private schooling was failing to educate America’s children. Quite the opposite.

American schooling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was highly democratic, in the sense that virtually all children received some kind or degree of education. They did so because that’s what their parents wanted for them, thereby dispelling the calumny that parents won’t do whatever it takes to make sure their children are educated in a free-market system of education or schooling. In economic terms, the supply met the demand.

Not surprisingly, Americans educated their children to a very high degree—indeed, to such a high degree that America had the highest literacy rates of any country in the world!  European visitors to the United States were astonished by the levels of education achieved in the United States. In his National Education in the United States (1812) published forty years before the introduction of government schooling, Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours expressed his astonishment at the extraordinary literacy rate he saw amongst ordinary Americans.

Likewise, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the Americans were “the most enlightened people on earth.” Even on the frontier where schools and libraries were in short supply, Tocqueville noted that one-room cabins hidden deep in the woods typically contained a copy of the Bible and multiple newspapers.

All of this was achieved without government schools.

And then, everything changed.

Government Schooling Comes to America

America’s experiment with universal compulsory education (i.e., government schooling), which began in earnest in the years immediately before the Civil War and picked up steam in the postbellum period, was created with different purposes in mind than just teaching children the Three R’s and a body of historical, moral, and literary knowledge to help them live productive, self-governing lives.

The early proponents of government schooling in nineteenth-century America imagined new and different goals for educating children. The advocates for forced schooling took the highly authoritarian, nineteenth-century Prussian model as their beau idéal.

The leading proponent of government schooling in Prussia and the man from whom the Americans learned the most was the philosopher Johann Fichte (1762-1814), who, in his Addresses to the German Nation (1807), called for “a total change of the existing system of education” in order to preserve “the existence of the German nation.” The goal of this new education system was to “mould the Germans into a corporate body, which shall be stimulated and animated in all its individual members by the same interest.” This new national system of education, Fichte argued, must apply “to every German without exception” and every child must be taken from parents and “separated altogether from the community.” Fichte recommended that the German schools “must fashion [the student], and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will,” so that the pupil might go “forth at the proper time as a fixed and unchangeable machine.” Children should therefore be taught “a love of order” and the “system of government must be arranged in such a way that the individual must . . . work and act, for the sake of the community.”

The highest purpose of Prussian education was summed up by one of its later proponents, Franz de Hovre:

The prime fundamental of German education is that it is based on a national principle. Kulture is the great capital of the German nation. . . . A fundamental feature of German education; Education to the State, Education for the State, Education by the State. The Volkschule is a direct result of a national principle aimed at the national unity. The State is the supreme end in view.

This kind of education was virtually unknown to Americans until the nineteenth century, and it was anathema to everything that the founders’ liberalism stood for.

We know America’s earliest proponents of government schooling were enamored with the Prussian model because they were explicit in saying so. Some of them went to Germany to see exactly what the Germans were doing, and they became advocates of Prussian schooling when they returned to America.

Continue reading “”

Oh to those people pushing the vaxx because it ‘safe’ or something? This is from The Lancet, which is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal.

Comment O’ The Day (from a GP MD)

1% of those who had a reaction to the vaccine are dead.
Sorry if that was not made clear. But remember the cut off at the CDC for pulling a vaccine or medicine from the market is 50 deaths. Hit that magic number and it is off the market.

The jabs in all their glory are far above that. And this is all being done under a EUA for a disease that is not that lethal. So you get a reaction to the jab, depending on the type of one given, you stand a 1% chance of dying. Remember, the VAERS data is skewed to make those numbers lower. The vaccine is not safe given the usual definition per the CDC.

My biggest problem is they had this data and it was not disclosed to people in terms of informed consent. How many people would have taken the jab if they were told: “The vaccine is considered safe, but 1% of those who get a reaction are dead.”

Mind you, the vaccine failed to contain the disease and was considered not effective in preventing morbidity after 6 months. Why was this data not discussed earlier? Well that is pretty clear in that when it came to consent time, most would have said “I’ll just take my chances.”

Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe

PDF download

Table 1 Characteristics of reports received and processed by VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines
Both mRNA vaccines (n=340 522)

 BNT162b2 vaccine (n=164 669) mRNA-1273 vaccine (n=175 816)
Category
Non-serious 313 499 (92·1%) 150 486 (91·4%) 162 977 (92·7%)
Serious, including death 27 023 (7·9%) 14 183 (8·6%) 12 839 (7·3%)
Serious, excluding death 22 527 (6·6%) 12 078 (7·3%) 10 448 (5·9%)
Death 4496 (1·3%) 2105 (1·3%) 2391 (1·4%)

Summary

Background

In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA.
We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme.

Continue reading “”

This red tape right here:

Biden’s U.S. Oil Embargo
His assault on domestic energy works against his ban on Russian imports.

President Biden made the right decision Tuesday in banning Russian oil and natural gas imports. Yet at the same time he declared full-steam ahead on his green energy “transition” that includes an assault on U.S. fossil fuels. The contradiction is maddening.
Banning Russian energy imports is fine as far as it goes, which isn’t very. The U.S. imports only 3% of its petroleum supply and less than 1% of coal from Russia. About 70% of Russian oil currently can’t find buyers because of sanctions risk. That’s the main reason crude prices have shot up to $130 per barrel.
Once uncertainty about the scope of sanctions clears up, Russia will probably find global buyers for its energy at a discount. Imposing so-called secondary U.S. sanctions on institutions that finance Russia’s energy trade would be more effective. But the White House won’t do that because it fears it could drive gasoline prices even higher.
If that’s the worry, then here’s a better idea: Stand at the White House and declare that his Administration will support the development of U.S. oil and gas. Rescind all regulations designed to curb production, development and consumption. Announce a moratorium on new ones. Expedite permits, and encourage investment. Our guess is the price of Brent crude would fall $20 a barrel in anticipation of higher production.
Yet Mr. Biden is doing precisely the opposite. On Tuesday he even blamed U.S. companies—not his policies—for not producing more. There are 9,000 available unused drilling permits, he claimed, and only 10% of onshore oil production takes place on federal land. Talk about a misdirection play.
First, companies have to obtain additional permits for rights of way to access leases and build pipelines to transport fuel. This has become harder under the Biden Administration. Second, companies must build up a sufficient inventory of permits before they can contract rigs because of the regulatory difficulties of operating on federal land.

Continue reading “”

Insurance Companies Increase U.S. Mortality Expectations by 300,000 Due to Covid and “INDIRECT Covid,” aka The Jabs

Since the beginning of the plandemic, the powers-that-be have told us to “follow the science.” But perhaps a better indicator of what’s really happening would be to follow the money. And if you really want to get an accurate view, the money to follow is in life insurance. They know about death better than anyone. It’s what they do.

We reported in January about the insurance executive caught admitting there had been an inexplicable 40% increase in mortalities in 2022. They tried to walk that back, but the cat was out of the bag and it has been verified as being true. Now, a former Blackrock portfolio manager has taken the insurance cover-up and blown it wide open.

During an interview with Kristi Leigh, Edward Dowd gave us multiple bombshells. One that may have been missed came at around the 27-minute mark when he revealed plenty of evidence of mortality dramatically increasing.

“Bottom line is, they saw an acceleration in mortality in the second half of 2021, okay. Given the ‘miracle vaccines,’ that should not have occurred.”

He detailed how OneAmerica CEO Scott Davison revealed the facts during a Chamber of Commerce meeting. The information was not supposed to get out to the public, but it did and it blew up.

“In fact, he put some meat on the bones,” Dowd said. “He said a 10% increase would be a three-standard deviation event. 40% is a once-in-200-year flood. And what you need to understand about insurance companies is they make their money giving whole life policies because they can predict death rates, which are pretty steady.

“They can retract it all they want. That doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what they say. Deaths are rising. Now, you can debate why. I know why. You know why.”

He then went over some details that his team had collected regarding the increase in mortalities reported in the 4th quarter of 2021 by the insurance agencies. Here’s a breakdown he posted to Twitter:

Continue reading “”

The Collapsing Covid Narrative is Being Replaced with Putin and Ukraine

Game-changing news has emerged out of Iceland.

As of this week, Iceland is the first country in the world to completely drop ALL Covid measures. There will be no lockdowns or social restrictions. There will be no mandatory Covid testing and if you happen to catch Covid you do not have to isolate. There will be no vaccine passports and no vaccine mandates. Anyone regardless of their vaccination status can travel to the country with no test required. The unvaccinated will not face any form of discrimination or exclusion from society.

Iceland is returning to going back to life as it was before Covid.

This by itself would be astounding enough given that Iceland is in the midst of a massive Covid surge and posting record cases even as we speak.

If you did not know, the vaccination rate in Iceland is some 80% of the total population which means that around 90% of the adult population is fully vaccinated.

Obviously, the vaccines have done absolutely nothing to stop or even slow down the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Quite on the contrary, they seem to have led to its increase.

Not only has the government of Iceland decided to drop all Covid restrictions and vaccine requirements, but the Ministry of Health issued remarkable new guidelines on how to deal with the virus. The country’s health authorities have advised the Icelanders that “as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus as the vaccines are not enough.”

Do you hear this?

Iceland’s government now tells its people that it is good to contract Covid. In other words, Iceland’s government has decided to handle Covid through herd immunity derived from natural infection.

This marks the complete negation of the official Covid narrative which was accepted as the conventional wisdom by nearly every government for the last two years.

Continue reading “”

News networks ignore Ukraine’s gun rights push

Ukraine is dealing with a lot right now, but one of the smarter things they did was recognize that an armed populace is an asset. They expanded gun rights in the Eastern European nation leading up to the invasion, though, in fairness, guns weren’t completely forbidden there, either.

However, the major news networks seemed to have completely ignored this during their coverage of the buildup.

On Wednesday, hours before the start of the Russian invasion of Ukrainian, the Rada (parliament) advanced legislation that would allow more Ukrainian civilians to own firearms as they stared down the bear that was eager to wage war on and conquer them. It’s another obvious example of why civilian firearm ownership is important and vital for a free people, yet it wasn’t worth any airtime on the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) that night or Thursday.

Citing local Ukrainian reporting, The Reload’s Stephan Gutowski reported: “274 of the country’s 450 elected representatives voted for the bill, according to local media outlet Ukrinform. The bill would formalize the country’s gun laws, allow more civilians to own and carry guns, and allow them to be used for self-defense in more places.”

The Canada-based CTV noted the move came on the eve of, “[o]ne of Europe’s worst security crises in decades” after “Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized two areas of eastern Ukraine as independent and ordered troops to be deployed to eastern Ukraine.”

NBC Nightly News did note this distribution of weapons but not the expansion of gun rights on Thursday. Yet reporter Erin McLaughlin spoke with a member of the Ukrainian parliament who’s never shot a weapon before but was among those ready to take up arms:

And most of the media failed to note the legal moves prior to the invasion. Why?

Well, the answer is pretty simple. These are the same networks that play host to people who tell us our AR-15s are useless against tanks and attack helicopters. They don’t want us to see that, on the eve of the invasion, a sovereign nation turned to armed citizens to help defend their homes.

They don’t want people seeing the kind of scenarios the Second Amendment was meant for play out on their television screens.

In truth, they’d much rather keep us ignorant of how Ukraine recognized that they needed those armed citizens if they were going to have any hope of fending off the invasion of a more powerful neighbor.

If we recognize that fact, many would be far less hesitant to back things like assault weapon bans or magazine restrictions.

They’d see one of the scenarios the Founding Fathers feared and recognized the role armed citizens can play. They’re doing so in Ukraine, but they could just as easily have to do so here.

Our right to keep and bear arms is something that any invader has to fear.

The networks, however, would rather you not think about that because they want people to view guns only as something to fear, not something that can be used to protect.

Constitutional Carry in doubt after Indiana committee guts legislation

The good news for Indiana gun owners is that Constitutional Carry legislation passed out of a key Senate committee on Wednesday. The bad news is that it’s no longer a Constitutional Carry bill.

HB 1077 had already passed out of the House with an overwhelming majority, but its future is very much in doubt in the state Senate after an eight-hour hearing of the Judiciary Committe left the bill stripped of its original intent.

As amended, House Bill 1077 would keep the permit requirement in place to carry a handgun in Indiana. However, it would enable qualified candidates who have applied for a permit to carry a handgun without a license until they receive their permit. The idea is that this would end complaints about delays in the permitting process.

The amendment to gut the bill just narrowly passed by a 6-5 vote, splitting the Republicans on the committee. Every Democrat voted to gut the bill. Shortly after, the committee unanimously voted to advance the bill to the floor. Some were unhappy with the bill, but voted to keep it moving.

Now, this doesn’t mean that Constitutional Carry is officially dead in the Indiana legislature. It’s possible that the bill will be amended once again to restore the permitless carry provisions once the legislation comes up for debate on the Senate floor, though many law enforcement agencies and gun control groups are going to continue their efforts to kill the bill, even if many of their arguments don’t make much (gun)sense.

Critics say there should be a vetting process.

“We will have people walking on our street never vetted by law enforcement, never receiving a background check with loaded firearms around our children,” Jennifer Haan with Moms Demand Action in Indiana said last month.

There are already people doing that right now in Indiana, and if they’re not legally allowed to own a gun they’re not legally allowed to carry it. That wouldn’t change under the Constitutional Carry language in HB 1077. The only difference would be that those who can legally possess a gun in their home could also lawfully carry it in public without the need for a government-issued permission slip.

Gun control activists weren’t the only ones making some odd arguments in opposition to the bill.

Officers also said individuals would have to background check themselves if the permit requirement was nixed, and might not know they aren’t qualified to carry a handgun. Detective Matt Foote from the Fort Wayne Police Department, said 14% of those who applied for permits in his community in 2021 were denied.

That’s actually already an issue. If you don’t know that you’re a prohibited person and you fail a NICS check, you could be charged with a crime for attempting to purchase a firearm (though under federal law prosecutors must prove that you knowingly tried to purchase a gun you weren’t allowed to possess). The responsibility of ensuring that you can lawfully carry already lies with the gun owner, and that wouldn’t change if HB 1077 became law.

Constitutional Carry still has a chance in Indiana this year, but if it’s going to get across the finish line gun owners and Second Amendment activists need to contact their senators and urge them to restore HB 1077 to its original intent when it reaches the Senate floor.

More than 20 states have already adopted Constitutional Carry, and none of them have seen any cause to repeal the law and return to requiring a license to carry (though every Constitutional Carry state with the exception of Vermont still maintains a “shall issue” licensing system for gun owners who want to be able to legally carry in states with reciprocity agreements). Indianans are no less responsible than the residents of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia, and the other states that have permitless carry laws already in place. The big question now is whether Indiana lawmakers are as supportive of the 2A rights of residents as their counterparts in nearly half of the states across the nation.

Gaslighting: CBS News Wants You to Think Ukraine-Russia Caused Our Economic Problems.
CBS News thinks we’re stupid enough to believe inflation, supply-chain issues, and high gas prices started right now because of Ukraine and Russia.

Propaganda at its finest. CBS News thinks we’re stupid enough to believe inflation, supply-chain issues, and high gas prices started right now because of Ukraine and Russia.

They think we forgot all three started in 2021.

It’s no wonder the Biden administration has pushed for war. It’s no wonder Biden all of a sudden started caring about Ukraine. Wag the dog, you guys.

They know a war would make it worse so why not? It’ll deflect the blame from them to Putin. Or so they think.

Continue reading “”

Gun crimes grab most media attention, while gun use in self-defense gets merely a fraction: experts
People using guns in self-defense overwhelmingly don’t even lead to a criminal being killed or wounded, one crime watcher says

Americans across the country have used legal guns to defend themselves and thwart crimes, but the reports often fly under the radar and most people are unaware how often guns are used in self-defense cases.

“Having a gun is by far the safest course of action when people are facing a criminal by themselves,” Dr. John Lott, an economist and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, told Fox News Digital. He pointed to women in particular, who “behave passively” and are “about 2.4 times more likely to end up being seriously injured than a woman who has a gun to protect herself.”

As crimes skyrocketed in major cities since 2020, instances of women using guns to protect themselves and stop crimes have repeatedly played out.

“Thank God I had my gun, or I’d probably be dead right now,” a Chicago woman with a concealed carry permit said in October after two would-be carjackers approached her outside a bank.

“Thank God I had my gun, or I’d probably be dead right now.”

— Chicago crime victim

In New Orleans just last week, a mom and Air Force veteran pulled a gun on a man who tried to get into her car while she was sitting in gridlocked traffic with her 2-year-old son. She wasn’t forced to fire the weapon and the suspect took off.

‘Dramatic undercount’

Lott said that, in a typical year, the media reports about 2,000 defensive gun use stories, but he added “that is a dramatic undercount, because the vast majority of successful self-defense cases don’t make the news.”

STUDY SHOWS CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS SOARED DURING PANDEMIC, RECORD YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE

Lott said there are about 2 million defensive gun uses per year, according to the average of 18 national surveys.

The Heritage Foundation, which launched a database tracking how often guns are used in self-defense cases, cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which looked at various studies and found “that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.”

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day

“Anything that threatens to remove power from a leftist is terrorism in their minds. Because they’re a crazed cult who believe it’s foreordained that they win. In their indoctrinated minds, there can be no dissent from this. Why, Marx foretold it.” –Sarah Hoyt

Canadian Public Safety Minister Claims, Without Proof, That Protestors Were Really Violent Terrorists Attempting to Overthrow Canadian Government.

Worth watching this entire diatribe from start to finish.  In his public statements today, Trudeau’s Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino, definitively says the people charged by federal RCMP officials are tied to far-right extremist groups who are funded by international terrorist organizations with an intent to overthrow the government.

According to the statements, the Canadian government is under attack from thousands of highly organized terrorists within the country.  Their goal is to overthrow the government and install an entirely new form of national assembly.  This is what he is claiming.

Specifically, Mendicino claims the protestors, charged with firearms offenses in Coutts, are the first wave of a well known domestic terrorist group directly connected to the trucker protest group in Ottawa.  However, when challenged to give the name of the terrorist organization he is speaking about, Mendocino completely walks back the claim to an unrecognizable point.

Look! Another Issue Dems Want to Sweep Under the Rug Until After the Midterms.

It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats always feel like they can’t show their true colors until after an election.

With their party expected to take a huge beating at the ballot box in November, Democrats fighting tough battles to save their careers are distancing themselves from the unpopular Joe Biden as well as key issues in their party platform. House Democrats are actually being advised to deny supporting amnesty and open borders, critical race theory, or defunding the police in order to salvage their campaigns.

And yet, there’s still another issue Democrats won’t touch with a ten-foot pole, either … at least, not until after the midterms. You know, when it’s safer.

That issue is gun control.

Despite Joe Biden calling for more gun control legislation, members of his party have “little appetite” for pursuing it before November, reports The Hill. Two gun control measures passed the House in March of 2021, but have gathered dust in the Senate since.

And with good reason: it’s a political loser for them. Most adults want existing laws to be enforced, not new laws to be passed.

Even Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke, who once boasted, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15,” now says that he’s “not interested in taking anything from anyone.”

And Democrats really think we don’t know what they’re doing.

BLUF:
You want to talk about disgusting, immoral, extremist rhetoric that helps fuel violence? Look no further than the Sun’s editorial itself. The individuals responsible for this garbage should be ashamed of themselves, and frankly, they should be looking for new employment. The fact that the editorial is still posted without correction (or better yet, a complete retraction) on the Las Vegas Sun website speaks volumes about the contempt the paper’s publisher has not just for conservatives, but its readers as well.

Paper blames “right wing rhetoric” for blue-on-blue political violence

What’s behind the attempted assassination of Louisville, Kentucky mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg earlier this week? Authorities in the city haven’t announced a potential motive, but the editors of the Las Vegas Sun newspaper think they’ve cracked the case: far-left activist Quintez Brown shot at Greenberg because of the “the talk coming from the right about civil war and political violence.”

No, seriously. Despite the fact that the political preferences of the alleged shooter were already well-known by the time the Sun published its editorial on Tuesday morning, the Sun really decided to pin the blame for the shooting on “right-wing rhetoric“.

The alleged shooter, a 21-year-old political activist, was arrested near the scene and later charged with attempted murder along with four counts of wanton endangerment.

While there’s been no indication yet that the activist had ties to any right-wing organizations, the shooting comes amid a rise in threats against politicians fueled by increasingly violent rhetoric coming from extremist Republicans.

The New York Times documented this trend in a story last week based on a review of more than 75 indictments related to threats against lawmakers since 2016.

“In recent years, and particularly since the beginning of (Donald) Trump’s presidency, a growing number of Americans have taken ideological grievance and political outrage to a new level, lodging concrete threats of violence against members of Congress,” the newspaper wrote, adding that the threats “surged during Trump’s time in office and in its aftermath, as the former president’s own violent language fueled a mainstreaming of menacing political speech, and lawmakers used charged words and imagery to describe the stakes of the political moment.”

What breathtaking dishonesty on the part of the Sun’s editors here. If they knew that the suspect was a “political activist,” then they damn sure knew the politics of his activism, yet they apparently chose to completely ignore the facts in order to insinuate to their readers that this was a case of some angry right-wing nut job taking a shot at a Democrat.

Continue reading “”

The author makes a small mistake:
“There are no NEWLY MANUFACTURED ‘assault rifles’ [machineguns] being sold to private individuals in the United States.” is wrong.
All the ones that were transferable before May 1986 are still transferable and – at increasingly higher prices due to the market principle of ‘supply and demand’- are still being bought and sold. Other than that, he’s written well.

After 30 Years Of Lies, NY Times Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth”

In a stunning op-ed released Friday, the NY Times finally admitted that “assault weapons” are a made-up political term fabricated by anti-gun Democrats.

Op-ed writer Lois Beckett also admitted that once the term was manufactured and used to outlaw a class of weapons that dishonest anti-gun Democrats had used to con an entire nation, nothing happened.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. But the law allowed those who already owned these guns — an estimated 1.5 million of them — to keep their weapons.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.

They created and then banned a class of weapons.

“Assault weapons” is a made-up term, used to scare citizens into thinking that military weapons were commonly being sold and used on the streets of the United States. Thanks to a dishonest and incompetent media, millions of Americans thought (and still think) that machine guns could simply be purchased at the local gun store. The reality that the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons for the civilian market in 1986, was always hushed up.

Yes, it has been 28 years since a single machine gun was manufactured for the American public. There are no assault rifles being sold in the United States. There are only firearms that look like weapons of war, but which lack their ability to fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.

These firearms—AR-15s, AKMs and similar rifles—while incredibly popular with America’s law-abiding gun culture, simply aren’t used in many crimes. This should be surprising, since they are now among the most popular firearms sold in the United States in the past decade. The AR-15, in particular, is the most popular rifle sold in the United States year after year, and there are ten times as many in civilian hands as there are visually similar M4/M16 assault rifles in the entire U.S military.

But career criminals don’t want long guns. They want firearms that are compact and easy to conceal.

The op-ed concludes that violent homicides are primarily a poverty issue disproportionately concentrated among small groups of particularly violent young men, a stunning and rare admission that poverty and the drug trade are the primary problem driving murder, not access to firearms.

Don’t expect this sort of stunning admission of the facts to mark a change in cover from the Times, however. The brief bout of lucidity will quickly fade behind the veil of Alzheimer’s liberalism, and we’ll hear the rest of the deranged gaggle of op-ed writers to quickly fall back into the mantra of “Guns are bad, the NRA is evil, we need more taxes, government, citizen control, etc.”

Still… it’s nice to see that every once in a while a real and honest thought can escape from the morass of Manhattan, however fleeting that honest thought may be.

Will the ‘Unvaxxed’ Have the Last Laugh?

For over a year now, the messaging from our “health experts” and government leaders has been as dreary as it has been monotonal: Take the covid “vaccine” or die.

That talking point was reiterated by President Biden* just a few weeks ago when he warned the “unvaxxed” would face “a winter of severe disease and death.” And that was before New Jersey’s resident rodent meteorologist, Milltown Mel, shuffled off this mortal coil just prior to Groundhog Day. So I guess that means, in New Jersey at least, another six weeks of severe disease and death.

Originally, of course, we were told the mRNA injections would prevent people from contracting the disease. “If you get vaccinated, you won’t get covid” was the mantra recited for months, in various forms and multiple forums, by Drs. Fauci, Walensky, and Murthy, President Biden*, and many others. We were also assured that sufficiently jabbed people don’t spread the virus, with Fauci claiming the injections constitute a “dead end for covid.”

It’s important not to forget those statements, as the same people now insist they never promised any such thing. Perhaps that’s because, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they’ve been forced to admit jabbed people can and do get covid and can and do give it to others. Said Walensky just a few weeks ago, “what [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” Even Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla was forced to acknowledge that his products now offer “limited, in any, protection.”

But what about the vaunted “death benefit” from the mRNA injections? They still protect against serious illness and death, right? Well, yes, that does seem to be the case—but the effect is waning fast. Moreover, the claim itself comes with several asterisks.

There have always been questions about how we count “covid deaths,” as both the CDC and the UK’s National Health Service have recently acknowledged. But if anything, those problems have been amplified in the way we differentiate between “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” deaths.

For one thing, the most commonly cited number to prove “vaccine efficacy”—“90 percent of covid deaths are among the unvaccinated”—is fundamentally flawed because it goes back to the earliest days of the injections when almost no one had gotten them. Obviously, nearly all who died of (or with) covid in January and February of 2021 were “unvaccinated.”

Moreover, our health officials have been engaged for over a year in a kind of statistical sleight of hand, categorizing people who have taken the injections as “unvaccinated” up until 14 days after their second shot, which means at least five or six weeks have passed since their first shot. In doing so, they ignore evidence that the shots actually make people more susceptible to the virus in the short term. So if you contract covid after getting both shots, but prior to the closing of the 14-day window, and then die, you are considered an “unvaccinated” death. (They’re playing this same trick with the booster shots, too.)

This method also does not account for those who die as a result of immediate adverse reactions to the shots. Such deaths are generally numbered among the “unvaccinated,” even though it was the “vaccine” that killed them. But that’s a topic for another day.

Continue reading “”

Well, he’s a politician which means he’s a professional liar.

Beto’s about-face on AR-15s: “I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone”

Virtually every poll in the state of Texas shows Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s gubernatorial campaign is in serious trouble, but the biggest sign that the Democrat is failing to make inroads with Texas voters came on Tuesday, as O’Rourke was stumping for votes in Tyler.

Here we are in 2022, and suddenly O’Rourke has a very different message for Texas voters.

Speaking to reporters, O’Rourke also took a question about his controversial stance on guns and remarks made in 2019 about taking away AR-15s and AK-47s.

“I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone. What I want to make sure that we do is defend the Second Amendment,” he said. “I want to make sure that we protect our fellow Texans far better than we’re doing right now. And that we listen to law enforcement, which Greg Abbott refused to do. He turned his back on them when he signed that permitless carry bill that endangers the lives of law enforcement in a state that’s seen more cops and sheriff’s deputies gunned down than in any other.”

So the guy who said he was coming for our guns now claims he wants to defend the Second Amendment, yet in the same breath declares that protecting our right to keep and bear arms means criminalizing carrying a gun without a government permission slip? Does he actually think anyone is going to buy his supposed newfound respect for the Second Amendment when he keeps belittling it?

Continue reading “”

‘Mayoral Myth’ Exposed—Most States Have Preemption Laws

UPDATED, 2/7/22 @ 5:56 P.M. – Bruce Harrell, the recently-installed mayor of Seattle, tried to invent a myth when he told reporters—without challenge—that Washington is one of a handful of states with a firearms preemption statute, a claim that is demonstrably false.

“We have too many guns pouring into the cities, and into our country,” Harrell asserted at just over 31 minutes into a 41-minute press event last Friday. “And you will hear this year me lead efforts on trying to get relief from the exemption RCW 9.41.290. You’ll hear me talking about that. I don’t know how many lives have to be lost before we realize we’re one of the few states that has that kind of restriction allowing the state to govern the laws we need for our city of Seattle.”

Contrary to Harrell’s claim, there are at least 42 states with preemption laws, which place sole authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the state legislature.

Harrell was referring to Washington’s nearly-40-year-old preemption law, which was adopted in 1983, strengthened in 1985 and has become a model for similar laws in other states, something the Seattle Times failed to mention in its coverage.

Continue reading “”

US Government Left As Many As 9,000 American Citizens In Afghanistan After Withdrawal, Senate Report Reveals

As many as 9,000 American citizens were left in Afghanistan when the U.S. military withdrew from the country Aug. 31, according to a report released Thursday by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In public statements, Biden administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, claimed that only 100-150 Americans remained in Afghanistan and had contacted the U.S. government with a desire to leave. The State Department and Defense Department officials stuck to that number, even as the government publicly admitted that large numbers of American citizens were still leaving the country.
The report, signed by Foreign Relations ranking member Jim Risch of Idaho, reveals that State Department officials believed that between 10,000 and 15,000 Americans were in Afghanistan as late as Aug. 17. In the next two weeks, only 6,000 Americans were able to escape the country ahead of the Taliban takeover. In testimony in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, however, Blinken claimed that “approximately 100-150 remained in Afghanistan who still wished to depart.”

While there’s disagreement over the policy to leave Afghanistan, Americans share outrage over how the admin. withdrew, & what that failure has done to America’s reputation. This morning I released a report that details what went wrong & why.

Continue reading “”

Racism is a Moving Target

Fortunately, the ADL is happy to continue providing new redefinitions, as events happen to require:

The definition of racism has been rewritten for a second time by advocacy group the Anti-Defamation League after actress Whoopi Goldberg claimed the Holocaust was not about race.

The organization had initially changed its definition of racism in 2020 following months of Black Lives Matter demonstrations, quietly redefining the term in what appeared to be a response to the movement to mean “the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”

That was a far cry from the ADL’s original definition, which defined racism as “the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another” or that “a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.”

The new ‘interim’ definition that appeared on Wednesday, however, was more closely aligned with the original description. The ADL website now explains that racism occurs “when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.”

How embarrassing to discover one has literally redefined Hitler as not-racist!

CCRKBA: KING COUNTY, WA GUN MURDERS, SHOOTINGS PROVE ANTI-GUNNERS LIED

BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s “Shots Fired” report from the King County (WA) Prosecutor’s Office on the number of gun-related homicides and injuries last year is more proof that gun control laws and anti-rights initiatives adopted over the past few years in Washington State have been abject failures, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today in reaction.

“Proponents of these laws, and especially the gun control initiatives passed in recent years, sold the public a bill of goods, and now everybody knows it,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Voters were told in 2014 that Initiative 594 would reduce gun-related violence, and today’s data proves they were misled. Four years later, the Seattle-based gun prohibition lobby promised Initiative 1639 would prevent gun-related homicides, and they lied again. In Olympia, anti-gun politicians are pushing more gun restrictions right now, with the same promises.

“The billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobby and their allies in Olympia claim that so-called ‘gun violence’ is an epidemic,” he said. “Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty of the gun control crowd is the real public health crisis.”

King County authorities reported Monday that 88 people were murdered and another 372 were wounded in shootings last year. Law enforcement agencies in the county reported a startling 1,405 shooting incidents, surpassing the 1,025 posted in 2020.

Gottlieb opposed both initiatives, and he has been an outspoken critic of other gun laws pushed through the Legislature. CCRKBA’s national headquarters are in Bellevue, just east of Seattle. A check of the FBI annual Uniform Crime Reports shows the number of murders in Washington, and especially Seattle, have gone steadily upwards since the current gun control crusade started eight years ago.

“We warned the public these gun control schemes were wishful thinking at best,” Gottlieb said. “The data provides all the evidence necessary to say anti-gun-rights initiatives and legislation have amounted to snake oil, giving the public a false sense of security while their rights are being steadily eroded.

“Instead of pushing more restrictions like they’re doing right now,” he said, “it is time for gun control zealots to admit they’ve been wrong all along. Extremist gun control has failed miserably for Evergreen State citizens, and the rising body counts prove it.”