Violence isn’t a disease, it’s a behavior. They only call it a disease as a willing participants in the gooberment attempts to acquire power to control the people
Why doctors are calling gun violence in the U.S. an epidemic.
A growing number of health care providers say gun violence is a public health issue……
When even the Washington Post calls you a liar…….
As a StunnedTater, SloJoe got away with his meandering windbag storytelling and lies because the caricature of the blowhard politician speechifying on the floor of Congress, who no one really pays attention to, is an accurate one.
He got used to it because there never were any consequences to it; He always got reelected, so why worry?
He’s now too far gone mentally to get out of the rut he dug for himself and also realize that the BS he spouts has a real effect, as people do pay attention to the President of the U.S….. even if he is a senile lying blowhard.
Biden: CEOs told me my plan would save $500 per household in utility costs. WaPo: Lie.
A Four Pinocchio lie, in fact, as Glenn Kessler reports this morning. Joe Biden has a very bad habit of exaggerating and confusing details, but this claim goes well beyond that into sheer fantasy. In his op-ed at the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Biden claimed that utility-company executives told him that his economic plan would save American households an average of $500 a year, starting immediately:
“A dozen CEOs of America’s largest utility companies told me earlier this year that my plan would reduce the average family’s annual utility bills by $500 and accelerate our transition from energy produced by autocrats.”
Not only do those numbers not add up, Kessler concludes, Biden’s flat-out lying about the conversation:
But when we located the transcript of Biden’s conversation with utility executives on Feb. 9, we found no reference to $500 in utility savings. The figure was also not mentioned in the White House readout of the meeting.
Biden’s also lying about the numbers. He pulled the $500 figure from a friendly analysis by the Rhodium Group that was prepared in October. That report predicted $500 annual savings in overall energy costs, not just utilities, and not until 2030. Most of that savings came from eliminating gasoline from family budgets as cars would go completely onto the grid. The actual projected utility savings would be, er …
Indeed, the report notes that, if the Biden climate plan were adopted, home electricity bills by 2030 would be between one dollar more and five dollars less than under current policy. That might pay for an extra ice cream cone over the summer.
This is fanciful for other reasons, too. Moving tens of millions of personal vehicles onto the electrical grid would create a vast spike in demand for electricity. We can’t keep up with current demand now, thanks to increasingly restrictive policies on sources for electrical generation. Several states right now are warning about plans for rolling brownouts and blackouts as a means to ration access to limited electricity, including car-happy California. Prices would go through the roof by 2030, as supply won’t match current demand without expanding the fossil fuels used for electrical generation. Expecting the transition to be cost-free to households ignores the large amount of kilowatt hours it will take to keep vehicles charged, too.
But even apart from that, the economic situation has changed since October. Much of the increase in energy costs for households has come with gasoline, but electricity costs are also rising — both in price and rationed access in a price-controlled environment. Energy costs money regardless of how it originates, and gas-powered vehicles at least allow consumers to operate independent of grid shortages.
Kessler drops four Pinocchios on Biden in his conclusion:
[H]e didn’t hear that from utility executives. And the report he is citing is not about household utility-bill savings. Most of the claimed savings comes from the reduced cost of driving. And the estimate is for 2030 — when he would no longer be president, even if he served a second term.
Is there any doubt the president earns Four Pinocchios?
No doubt at all. Four Pinocchios is the minimum allowance for Biden on a daily basis. And if Biden wants to keep the US from being dependent on “autocrats” for our energy needs, then he needs to work to expand exploration, extraction, and refining in the US, rather than doing the opposite over the last 17 months.
Democrats are selective in which shootings matter
Before I get started, let me make it clear that I know there are some pro-gun Democrats. I don’t think there are any left in Congress these days, but among the voters, there are. In what follows, I’m not talking about them and they should be excluded from this.
However, for the rest, which happens to be something like 90 percent-plus of all Democrats, this all applies.
What applies, you ask? How about the fact that while anti-gun Democrats will scream to high heaven about a Uvalde or a Buffalo, they only seem to care about certain tragedies. Why is that?
Because only certain tragedies help advance their agenda:
Democrats are silent after more than 30 people lost their lives this weekend to violent crime waves that continually sweep through the nation’s cities.
Why hasn’t President Joe Biden, who recently visited Uvalde, Texas, after 19 children and two adults died in a school shooting, tweeted something or planned trips to Nebraska, Illinois, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania, where violence and shootings took the lives of dozens of people including children?
Why hasn’t Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke executed another political stunt at a local press conference somewhere to call attention to a rise in domestic altercations that escalate into shootings? Mostly because none of the violence was politically advantageous for them.
The violence that took the lives of dozens of Americans over Memorial Day weekend either did not involve firearms such as AR-15s, which the left has openly admitted they want to confiscate, or occurred under the wrong conditions for grandstanding. Democrats pick and choose which tragedies to milk for their anti-gun agenda based on how much political leverage firearm-related deaths grant them.
It’s not wrong, folks.
Think about how many people die every weekend in gun-controlled Chicago. The numbers tend to be staggering, and we hear relatively little in the mainstream national media about that. Why don’t we? Because it not only fails to advance their anti-gun agenda, it actually undermines it.
Illinois has many of the measures Democrats have pushed for at the federal level, and none of it has seemed to do a damn thing. While officials are quick to blame other states for their problems, the truth is that gun control simply doesn’t work.
So what happens is that Democrats become selective in their outrage. They lash out when it’s convenient and stick their heads in the sand when the incident isn’t.
Think about how quickly Sacramento dropped from the headlines. A couple of criminals who had guns illegally, one of which had a full-auto switch which is even more illegal. Everything about it proved that criminals will keep getting guns no matter what you do.
It was a big story before we knew it was one of gun control failing. Now, Democrats and their allies in the media like to pretend it never happened.
But Buffalo and Uvalde? Those aren’t going anywhere because they get to demonize the AR-15.
See, all tragedies are awful, but for anti-gun Democrats, it’s only awful enough to talk about when it advances the narrative.
A better term might be ‘willful ignorance‘. And the willfully ignorant take pride in their ignorance. They wear it like a medal. They don’t want to know anything about those icky guns. And in the case of politicians, they’re equal parts stupid and deceitful.
Certain Americans reveal their Second Amendment illiteracy
Biden capitalizes on every opportunity to broadcast how severely uninformed he is — but this Memorial Day, he settled on airing his ignorance via the gun debate, saying a 9mm bullet will blow a “lung out of the body.” Those of us who have seen a 9mm round know how emphatically wrong he is.
Yet, despite the gross magnitude of his blunder, it’s not the worst I’ve heard. As it turns out, many Americans are completely uneducated on every facet of the gun debate, and they share one common denominator — they’re all Democrats. Let’s take a look back at some of the top contenders for the Democrats’ stupidest moments regarding the right to bear arms.
Patricia Eddington, a former state legislator for the state of New York, once said:
Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat-seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do, you could cook it at the same time [emphasis added].
What does Eddington think? You could shoot a deer and then walk over with a knife and fork, ready to feast? Despite actually making this claim, Eddington said this prior to the introduction of a gun control package, including a bill she sponsored.
Next up, Mr. Thomas Binger, the prosecuting attorney in the Rittenhouse case. Although Binger’s registered political affiliation is unknown, FEC contribution data lists donations to ActBlue. Mr. Binger’s first blunder was picking up a rifle, immediately putting his finger in the trigger well, and aiming it at a room full of people.
Did Thomas Binger learn gun safety from Alec Baldwin? pic.twitter.com/uqjQupbugE
— Nick Adams (@NickAdamsinUSA) November 16, 2021
Binger’s second mistake was speculating that hollow point rounds “explode” upon impact. Again, for the educated among us, the appropriate word would be “expand,” as this type of bullet doesn’t detonate into fragments — it’s not a grenade.
This trial is such a clown show that the judge had to LITERALLY CORRECT the prosecutor on his understanding of ammunition types pic.twitter.com/cELfUElgrR
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 10, 2021
Now we have Dianne Feinstein, federal senator from California, who declared:
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
What? Hunting humans is not legal. The only legal way to kill humans is via abortion, which she unequivocally supports.
And lastly, we have Donzella James, a state senator out of the great state of Georgia, who stated, “Yes, I believe in the Second Amendment. But why are we spreading the access to guns to everyone?”
Although we didn’t need a reminder, it is worth pointing out that somehow, being a Democrat politician apparently makes one incapable of understanding firearms, or the idea of a God-given right that is not to be infringed — and brings us a few laughs.
Deceit as a strategy by the Editors at Scientific American
The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives
“The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis, just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.”
They have to lie to justify their beliefs and agenda. You only need to click on their own reference to discover the lie. Guns kill more children than auto accidents? Only if you consider 24 year old people as “children”
“For much of the past few decades motor vehicle crashes were the most common cause of death from injury—the leading cause of death in general—among children, teenagers and young adults in the U.S. But now a new analysis shows that, in recent years, guns have overtaken automotive crashes as the leading cause of injury-related death among people ages one through 24.”
They are intentionally lying in an effort to deprive an entire nation of a specific enumerated right.
Classic gaslighting
Morning Joe: It’s ‘Paranoid’ To Say Gov. Coming For Guns, But Praises Beto Who Said Just That!
Can Joe Scarborough and the Morning Joe crew really be this clueless? On Thursday’s show, Scarborough and Willie Geist repeatedly claimed that it was “paranoid” for people to think that the government could be coming for their guns. But there’s just one problem: in that same segment, Scarborough praised Beto O’Rourke, who said just that, for the political stunt he pulled yesterday, in which he interrupted Texas Gov. Greg Abbott during his press conference on the Uvalde school shooting.
Beto O’Rourke, Joe. Surely you remember that in a Democratic presidential debate in 2019 during his failed, short-lived run, O’Rourke said:
“Hell yes! We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
As you’ll see in the linked clip, that line drew huge cheers from the Democrat crowd in attendance.
Yes, O’Rourke subsequently backed away from that statement when it became politically untenable. But does anyone doubt that if he and his fellow Democrats could, they would take guns away from law-abiding Americans?
Responding to a person on the stage with Abbott who called O’Rourke a “sick son of a bitch” for his stunt, Scarborough claimed that the real sick sons of bitches were Abbott and others who won’t pass more gun-control legislation. For good measure, Scarborough twice called Abbott and those with him “freaks.”
So, is Joe Scarborough suffering from short-term memory loss? Or was he consciously covering up that Beto O’Rourke, the object of his praise, had boasted that “hell yes,” he would be taking guns away from lawful owners? Remind us again, Joe: who’s the SOB and the freak?
BLUF
At least half of this country knows why Biden did this:
First, to focus Americans’ attention on “white supremacy” rather than on the inflation, looming recession, food crisis and energy crisis he and his party have created with their policies.
Second, to keep black Americans voting Democrat by saying to them, in effect: “You need protection from your fellow hate-filled Americans; we Democrats are your protectors.”
Meanwhile, 9,941 black Americans were killed in 2020. Nearly all were killed by other black people. But to Joe Biden, his party, and the mainstream, i.e., left-wing, media, those black lives don’t matter. At all. Why not? Because they weren’t killed by white supremacists, and they therefore don’t serve the Democrats’ deliberately divisive narrative.
Joe Biden’s Buffalo Speech Was the Speech of an Indecent Man
If an American president has ever given as mendacious, anti-American and hate-filled a speech as President Joe Biden did in Buffalo, New York, last week, I am not familiar with it. Nor are you.
Biden used the terrible mass shooting of black people in a Buffalo grocery store to smear America, divide Americans and foment race-based hatred. A decent man would have given an entirely different speech.
A decent man would have gone to Buffalo and said something like this:
“My fellow Americans, what happened here in Buffalo was pure evil. Let there be no equivocating about this moral fact. If evil exists, what happened here was evil. But, my fellow Americans, this young man and his race-based homicidal hatred represents an infinitesimally small number of Americans, white or otherwise. The overwhelming majority of Americans of every race, ethnicity, and religion get along with each other beautifully. We work alongside each other, date each other, socialize with one another and marry one another. We are the most successful experiment in creating a multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious country in world history. The actions of a deranged teenager do not change this fact.”
Instead, the hater-in-chief went to Buffalo and said:
“What happened here is simple and straightforward: terrorism. Terrorism. Domestic terrorism. Violence inflicted in the service of hate and the vicious thirst for power that defines one group of people being inherently inferior to any other group. A hate that, through the media and politics, the internet, has radicalized angry, alienated and lost individuals into falsely believing that they will be replaced. That’s the word. Replaced by ‘the other.’ By people who don’t look like them.
“Look, we’ve seen the mass shootings in Charleston, South Carolina; El Paso, Texas; in Pittsburgh. Last year, in Atlanta. This week, in Dallas, Texas, and now in Buffalo. In Buffalo, New York. White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison. It really is. Running through our body politic. And it’s been allowed to fester and grow right in front of our eyes. No more. I mean, no more. We need to say as clearly and forcefully as we can that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America. None …
“Look, the American experiment in democracy is in a danger like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. It’s in danger this hour. Hate and fear are being given too much oxygen by those who pretend to love America, but who don’t understand America. …
“Now is the time for the people of all races, from every background, to speak up as a majority in America and reject white supremacy …
“We have to refuse to live in a country where black people going about a weekly grocery shopping can be gunned down by weapons of war deployed in a racist cause …”
As noted earlier, this was not only a hate-filled speech; it was a speech of the Big Lie. The Big Lie of white supremacy as a major threat to America generally and to black America specifically.
Let’s examine each of the examples of white supremacist mass shootings he gave:
SloJoe isn’t up to the job
Jill Biden sent on diplomatic mission to save the Summit of the Americas.
Joe Biden is sending his wife to do what he can’t get done. Jill Biden boarded a plane on Wednesday headed to Latin America. She is on a six-day tour through the capital cities of Central and northwestern South America. Her mission is to charm foreign leaders into accepting invitations to the upcoming Summit of the Americas in June. So far, only about half of the invitees have accepted their invitations. Participation of only 50% would be the latest embarrassment for Team Biden.
Times are tough for the incompetent and inept Biden administration. In a nod to just how bad things are, Jill Biden looks to be the go-to person being called upon by the White House to handle this diplomatic tightrope. The summit is billed as “President Biden’s highest priority event for the region” on the State Department’s website but it is turning into a disaster. The president of Mexico is leading the calls for a boycott in reaction to the Biden administration’s plan to exclude leaders from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
The summit is to be hosted in the United States for the first time since the inaugural summit in Miami in 1994. It will be held in Los Angeles this year.
After Ignoring Waukesha, Biden to Visit Buffalo After Shooting.
Soon after the racially motivated mass shooting in Buffalo, N.Y. on Saturday, which left 10 people dead and several others injured, the White House announced that Joe Biden would be visiting Buffalo on Tuesday to meet with the families of the victims.
“A racially motivated hate crime is abhorrent to the very fabric of this nation. Any act of domestic terrorism, including an act perpetrated in the name of a repugnant white nationalist ideology, is antithetical to everything we stand for in America. Hate must have no safe harbor,” Biden said Saturday. “We must do everything in our power to end hate-fueled domestic terrorism.”
But Biden’s planned trip to Buffalo stands in stark contrast to his refusal to visit Waukesha, Wisc. after a black nationalist supporter of Black Lives Matter drove an SUV through a Christmas parade in a racially motivated attack that killed six people, including an 8-year-old boy. The driver, Darrell Brooks, had previously called for violence against white people and suggested “Hitler was right” for killing Jews in posts on social media.
Then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed that Biden wouldn’t be visiting Waukesha because the trip “requires a lot of assets.”
“Well, I would say first: As you saw the president convey last week, our hearts go out to this community, to the people in Waukesha, that we’ve been in touch, obviously, with officials there, and we’re all watching as people are recovering,” Psaki claimed. “And this is such a difficult time of year for this to happen. It’s a difficult anytime. Obviously, any president going to visit a community requires a lot of assets, requires taking their resources, and it’s not something that I have a trip previewed at this plan— point in time, but we remain in touch with local officials. And certainly, our hearts are with the community as they’ve gone through such a difficult time.”
What assets were required to visit Waukesha that aren’t required to visit Buffalo?
Obviously, the issue of visiting Waukesha had nothing to do with assets and resources and everything to do with the fact that the massacre didn’t fit the preferred narrative of the media or the Biden administration.
In fact, the mainstream media has been desperately trying to get the Buffalo shooting to fit the preferred narrative of the left by insisting that the shooter is a radical right-winger when all evidence says that is not the case. For example, Rolling Stone magazine claimed the Buffalo shooter was a “mainstream Republican,” even though he allegedly referred to himself as “authoritarian left-wing” in his manifesto. Others have tried to claim he was radicalized by Fox News, but he attacked Fox News in his hate-filled manifesto as one of several networks he faults for hiring Jewish people.
Biden has still never visited Waukesha, nor has he visited Brooklyn after black nationalist Frank Robert James went on a shooting rampage in the subway last month. There is also no word as to whether Biden plans to visit Orange County, Calif., where a church shooting on Sunday left one dead and five wounded.
Well, he’s always been known as a liar
I know gas prices are painful. My plan will help ease that pain today and safeguard against it tomorrow.
I'll continue to use every tool at my disposal to protect you from Putin’s price hike. And I’m calling on Congress to put aside partisanship. Let’s meet this moment together.
— President Biden (@POTUS) April 1, 2022
The Biden administration has canceled one of the most high-profile oil and gas lease opportunities pending before the Interior Department. The decision comes at a challenging political moment when gas prices are hitting painful new highs. https://t.co/9WzYVxEPYX
— CBS News (@CBSNews) May 12, 2022
Question O’ The Day:
Having found out how weak, unprepared and frankly defenseless the Soviet Union was — i.e. driving trucks with long tubes around to pretend to have a lot more missiles — I’ve begun to wonder if anything — any story ever told by international media — was ever true?–Sarah Hoyt
Now the smoke is dissipating, and the mirrors are broken. What comes next?
I’m traveling for work, with limited internet access. A couple things though:
(a) A former mercenary with the Kremlin-linked Wagner Group, quoted on the Telegraph’s live blog today:
Russian forces were “caught by surprise” by the fierce resistance of the Ukrainian army, according to a former mercenary who fought with the Kremlin-linked Wagner Group.
Marat Gabidullin took part in Wagner Group missions on the Kremlin’s behalf in Syria and in a previous conflict in Ukraine, before quitting the group in 2019.
“They were caught completely by surprise that the Ukrainian army resisted so fiercely and that they faced the actual army,” Mr Gabidullin said about Russia’s setbacks in Ukraine.
He said people he spoke to on the Russian side had told him they expected to face rag-tag militias when they invaded Ukraine, not well-drilled regular troops.
“I told them: ‘Guys, that’s a mistake’,” said Mr Gabidullin, who refused a call from a recruiter inviting him to go back to fighting as a mercenary in Ukraine several months before Russia launched its invasion.
(b) The head of GCHQ, the British equivalent of the NSA (and the successor organization to the GCCS which cracked Enigma) says out loud what has been obvious for weeks: Western SIGINT [signals intelligence .ed] agencies like GCHQ are passing tactically relevant info to Ukraine in real time.
(c) Russian vlogger Roman, who has fled to Georgia, calls himself a “Bernie Bro” in US political terms (most unlike this blogger here — OK, he has the excuse he’s young enough to be my son ;)), and used to think Russian propaganda abroad only panders to “the right-wingers”. Then he discovered that Russian propaganda efforts actually are Janus-faced: different propaganda trolls pander to left-wing and right-wing audiences. The former carp on again Western imperialism, “Palestine”, social “justice”, a… and sandwich their Russian propaganda ham between slices of that; the latter instead put the ham between slices of anti-woke, anti-CRT, pro-nationalism,… bread.
How the government covers for anti-gun media
I tend to be pretty critical of media bias. After all, I used to actually believe that media bias wasn’t really a huge thing, that those who saw it were really just upset that the news wasn’t biased in their direction.
Then I grew up. I saw all the examples of bias as supposed journalists went out of their way to push slanted reporting as hard fact.
Yet over at Ammoland, they’re looking at someone else’s bias, a bias that helps the media get away with stuff you or I never would.
A broadcast journalist using a hidden camera enters a gun show, purchases two “80-percent” gun kits, then goes to the state attorney general’s office where two agents help complete and assemble the guns before firing them on a range—allegedly violating state and federal gun laws in the process—while the camera records it all.
During a Sunday morning interview with a network news anchor, a nationally-known gun rights leader is challenged to discuss a 30-round magazine held by the anchor, on a show broadcast from the nation’s capital, where such magazines are known to be illegal.
A nationally-known broadcast journalist produces a special about gun control during which the video is edited to make it appear several gun rights activists are speechless when asked how felons or terrorists might be prevented from purchasing guns without background checks.…
A look back over the years suggests a pattern of “gotcha” journalism that seems to invariably get a pass, and gun rights activists are calling foul, as there is the perception that news agencies are using the First Amendment to undermine the Second Amendment. Grassroots activists contend that if private citizens did the same things depicted on screen, they would almost certainly face prosecution.
In other words, it seems government officials are heavily biased as well and are benefiting the media when they conduct actions that would destroy anyone else.
Time and time again, some in the media have outright broken laws, broadcast it, and gotten away with it because they’re advancing the narrative that certain parties in the government actually agree with.
For example, Katie Couric got away with deceptively editing a “documentary” so it appeared gun rights activists had no answer for a question because the judge argued it “demonstrated the sophistry” of the plaintiffs. Yet to call the actual response–the one Couric removed and pretended didn’t exist–sophistry is to take a position on the validity of those arguments.
That’s an act of bias that has no place in a courtroom.
Yet time and time again, government officials–either law enforcement or in the courts–have taken a side.
That means it’s imperative that such officials be targeted for removal from office. Lawsuits, campaigns, petitions, whatever it takes, we need to hold these people accountable for their blatantly biased actions in favor of a blatantly anti-gun media.
It’s also called ‘gas lighting’
Obama: Hey, I warned you that Putin “was always ruthless”
One of the advantages that clairvoyants and eminences grises have is the ability to remind us of the accuracy of their forecasts. Barack Obama took advantage of that Wednesday at the University of Chicago, discussing his prescient alarms over the threat that Vladimir Putin posed to world order. It’s a couple of days old but worth watching to recall his brilliance at the time:
Oh, wait — sorry, that wasn’t the correct clip, was it? My bad. I seem to have had a mix-up in my Official Barack Obama Brilliance Media Catalog. That was from 2012, when Obama lectured Mitt Romney on the dangers of al-Qaeda shortly after bailing out of Iraq and allowing the AQ affiliate there to turn into ISIS and necessitating a return of our military in 2014.
Let me look again. I think this is the one where Obama explains how tough he was on Putin:
Doggone it — I clearly need an intern to go back through my indices and reorganize. I’m pretty sure that this is the one that demonstrates Obama’s firm resolve to deal with Putin and his allies, especially when committing atrocities:
Ahem. Sorry, dear readers, I’m just having one hell of a time finding where Barack Obama ever took Putin seriously as a threat … at least while in office. The New York Post finally helps out with this clip of Obama lecturing Jeffrey Goldberg about his leadership in dealing with the Russian tyrant. Ironically, one of the themes of this event was — wait for it — “disinformation”:
I’m sorry, when something is pushed this hard (now a 5th shot?) with so much goobermintbux being made off it, and the CEO of one of the companies making the money makes such statements, it pegs both my Horse and Bull $#!+ meters. Excuse my French.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Describes Vaccine Skeptics as ‘Criminals’
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla described people who question his company’s experimental vaccine as “criminals” during an interview earlier this week. The Pfizer CEO recently lobbied the FDA to approve a fifth shot in the fall, which is expected to be approved.
An interviewer first drew attention to the “challenges” being faced by big tech companies in combatting “vaccine information” during a sit-down with Bourla. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe I’ve heard you talk about those who would deliberately peddle misinformation as ‘criminals.’ Is that something that you stand by?” Bourla was asked.
“Yes, I do,” replied the Pfizer CEO. “Because they are literally [costing] lives. They know what they are saying is a lie, but they do it despite that.” Bourla then referenced a vaccine injury story and characterized all vaccine injuries as “lies.”………….
My whole utility bill isn’t even close to $500. SloJoe’s senility strikes again
Another Day, Another Clean-up on Aisle 46: Biden Drops a Whopper on Renewable Energy
As sure as the sun rises in the east every day, two things are certain: First, Joe Biden — whose relationship with the truth is arm’s length at best — is going to say something that makes no sense at all, make up something really stupid, exaggerate or minimize the hell out of something, or purposely lie his ass off.
Bank it.
Second, there will be another clean-up in aisle 46. A White House staffer or a senior member of the administration is going to “correct” or explain what Joe meant to say, or didn’t mean to say, while the lapdog media flies wingman.
Bank that, too.
In today’s case in point, as reported by the New York Post, the White House was forced to correct the claim Biden made during his remarks announcing the planned release of 180 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next six months: Americans who use renewable energy to power their homes could save “about $500 a month on average.”
If your home is powered by safer, cheaper, cleaner electricity, like solar or heat pumps, you can save about $500 a month on average.
Just one problem. Not even close to the truth. Biden overstated the estimated savings by $5,500.
Within hours — why hours? — the administration was forced to make a correction: it sent out a transcript of the bumbling Biden’s remarks with the word “month” crossed out and the word “year” added in brackets. According to the Post, the fact sheet sent to reporters prior to the speech contained the correct numbers.
If I were a cynic, I’d suggest Lyin’ Biden does this crap on purpose, knowing full well that more people will see him say “it” than will see a corrected transcript. Nah, that’s giving Corn Pop’s pal far too much credit.
SloJoe lies through his teeth and ‘walks back’ what he said previously even as he denies doing so.
Which likely means he got his chocolate ice cream ration threatened for going off script and was told what to say when the question came up.
17 Inconvenient Facts For the Gun-Control Movement
Imagine if you only read The Washington Post and only watched MSNBC and like-minded media outlets. If you did that, you might be deceived into thinking America is a regular Wild West Show of daily mass shootings. You might think guns themselves are evil and that crime is the fault of people who legally own firearms. You might even believe that an American citizen could simply go online and buy a machine gun, as former President Barack Obama (D) once told us. You might also think that suppressors are the tools of assassins, and that semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips are commonly used by criminals. Perhaps you’d even surmise that President Joe Biden (D) was making a good point when he suggested a ban on pistols chambered in 9 mm.
At best, many of these gun-control narratives are simply based on ignorance of firearms. At their worst, a considerable percentage of the mainstream media’s storylines regarding the Second Amendment are outright falsehoods meant to convince people to vote away their freedom.
Every issue of America’s 1st Freedom is filled with sourced facts and honest perspectives designed to arm citizens with the truth, but sometimes these kinds of list articles are needed to refute the shotgun patterns of anti-Second Amendment propaganda coming from the mainstream media and gun-control groups.
The lies the media refuses to call out
The media isn’t exactly friendly towards gun ownership. We all know this, so I’m not exactly breaking news here.
However, they will still occasionally take issue with outright lies, even if they ultimately agree with the position.
There are some lies they won’t bother to call out, and this is one of them:
What is known about the links among gun prevalence, gun purchasing trends and gun violence?
We’ve known for a long time that the more access there is to firearms in a society, the more firearm violence there is likely to be. It’s been shown in comparisons of societies and U.S. states with different levels of firearm ownership.
During the pandemic, as purchasing picked up across the country, we learned there was – at least early on – a relationship between an increase in gun purchases above expected levels and a later increase in violence above expected levels.
As 2020 went on, that signal was lost, except for domestic violence, because many other things were contributing to increases in violence.
We’ve known no such thing about access to firearms.
We’ve been told that such a link exists, but when you look at the studies that claim this, you can see serious problems with every single one of them.
For example, when comparing societies or even different states, it’s impossible to truly control for other variables that may somehow impact violent crime. While the prevalence of guns may exist, so do numerous other factors that can easily contribute to the problem.
Issues like jobs, education, population density, and a host of other factors all have been argued to contribute to crime. So why wouldn’t they also be a factor where guns are easily accessible?
That’s a question the media never answers.
Nor do they seem to consider why this knowledge is so unquestionable despite crime skyrocketing someplace like Los Angeles, which doesn’t have easy access to firearms?
It’s because the media simply doesn’t care about the truth.
They’ve pushed the gun control narrative with every fiber of their being. They’ll have a gun-control advocate on the primetime talk shows to calmly discuss their point of view, but gun rights advocates are often paired with another gun-control activist so they can debate the issue, tilting the balance so people are really getting inundated with one side.
Media personalities have to know what they’re doing, just like they have to know that this idea that we know definitively that increased access to guns somehow makes violent crime higher is bogus.
They know and they don’t care.
They like these kinds of lies because they can hold up those flawed studies and say they’re only spitting facts, trusting that most people wouldn’t understand why those studies are complete and utter BS. They’re hoping you’re too stupid to learn how to read a study, learn to find the flaws in a given study, then criticize it for being what it is, an attempt to push a narrative.
Frankly, I’m kind of sick of seeing this nonsense from our media. The thing is, I don’t expect to ever see them do better, either.
Deceit and Media, but I repeat myself
The picture on the left is photo of Lia Thomas after he won his race, this is what it looked like when NBC reported it….they’re laughing at us. pic.twitter.com/W1adVTBTMf
— BernardBag and 259 others (@bernardbagship1) March 19, 2022
The Road to Serfdom—We’re Almost There
We are learning March 18 something that apparently slipped under the radar for a few days.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “quietly” made some changes to its data tracker website on March 15, removing tens of thousands of deaths from COVID-19, nearly a quarter of which were those for young people under 18.
They tell us this occurred because of a “coding logic error.”
I wonder how many they would have had to remove if they included those who were registered by hospitals—for profit or otherwise—as having died from the virus when they had multiple other of what we have learned to call co-morbidities. (If there’s one thing we can say for the pandemic, it built our vocabularies.)
In other words, they didn’t necessarily die of COVID-19, but the hospitals said they did, a different kind of coding error, I guess.
The number would likely be staggering.
This supposed “coding logic error”—whatever that may be; the CDC doesn’t precisely tell us—could indeed be symbolic of, or even actually encompass, the entire pandemic.
From this we can make the assumption, if we haven’t already, the pandemic was, and is, extraordinarily overblown, an event that figuratively and literally threw us back to the Middle Ages with people locked down, masked, force vaccinated, businesses shut, schools closed, and science turned inside out, leaving the entire globe in chaos.
And yet, to adopt the title of Neil Sheehan’s book about the Vietnam War, the whole thing was “A Bright Shining Lie.”
Of course, people died, but they do for myriad reasons under varying circumstances. That’s been the condition on planet Earth from time immemorial. More died in this instance because simple and immediate treatments were abjured in favor of far more expensive ones dangerous in themselves.
But that is only one of the reasons the pandemic became as pervasive as it did, taking over all our lives. How did it come to pass that what could have been an unpleasant, even severe, but containable health problem evolved into a civilization-destroying pandemic?
Even now, at this early stage, we must ask the age-old question, cui bono—who benefits? The answer lies in a statement with which we have recently become all too familiar:
“You will own nothing, and you will be happy.”
Happy that COVID is over? Oh, no. Not really. They didn’t mean that.
Many now recognize that sentence for what it is—the marching mantra of the “Great Reset.”