DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE. SMART GUN TECH STILL NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME

By Larry Keane

There is a media blitz afoot, pitched by developers of authorized user recognition technology equipped firearms; what the media refers to as so-called, “smart guns.” Several of these companies herald that this is the year when they will finally bring their product to market. It might be a little premature to start popping corks, though.

Despite reports praising companies preparing to launch options for consumers, and polling showing Americans may be open to considering this concept, one critical question remains: Are buyers willing to risk their life on authorized user recognition technology?

So long as the answer from firearm purchasers remains “No,” retailers will not sacrifice shelf space for an unreliable product consumers don’t want to buy.
Prove It
Morning Consult released polling of Americans’ relative “acceptance” of “smart guns” and pitches a rather optimistic outlook.

“After decades of delays and controversy over smart guns, 2022 could be the year that the new weaponry is brought to market.”

The article reports Americans are “interested” in “smart” gun technology and “support the development” of the firearms. Less than half, 43 percent, of those surveyed say they are “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in personalized guns equipped with authorized-user technology, while more than half, 54 percent, aren’t. NSSF’s polling in 2019 showed that just five percent said they were inclined to purchase a so-called “smart gun” with 70 percent saying they still had concerns about reliability.

Firearms equipped with authorized-user technology involves adding electronics that in theory only allows a gun to be fired by a verified, authorized user after unlocked by using either a fingerprint, a pin code or through embedded field communication (RFID) connected to a smartphone or other Bluetooth device. Firearm owners know that guns must work as designed each and every time. There’s no room for failure. Adding in electronics to guns adds points of failure and could have horrific consequences for those who rely on them for self-defense.

LodeStar Works Inc., is one developer working to hit the market this year. President and CEO Gareth Glaser is hopeful. Glaser said, “It’s been around a long time now. Everybody uses one form or another of authentication technology on their smartphone.”

The problem for developers lies in the fact that support for “technology development” does not equate to, “I will buy a smart gun.” Not to mention a firearm is incomparable to an iPhone or Bluetooth speaker. Phones and guns are completely different products and equivocating them is beyond tone-deaf to the firearm market that has seen elevated sales largely driven by concerns for personal safety. If the facial or fingerprint recognition on your iPhone doesn’t recognize you, you’re inconvenienced. If your firearm doesn’t unlock in a time of need, you could be dead.

Failing Track Record

The hype for “The Year of the Smart Gun” began early. Leading up to SHOT Show® 2022 in Las Vegas, these new companies were pitching their products as the “hot” new thing.

“Exclusive: Smart guns finally arriving in U.S., seeking to shake up firearms market,” read a Reuters headline. “‘Smart Gun’ Companies Aim For 2022 Commercial Release,” said another. “Are ‘smart guns’ finally arriving in the U.S.? Here is what we know,” was the headline from The Deseret News. The article began, stating as fact, that “Smart guns…will finally become available to American consumers after decades of questions regarding reliability.”

The Reload was the most measured and accurate. “‘Smart Guns’ Come to the Industry’s Trade Show Amid Hype and Skepticism.”

The history of this technology is not one of success, including hacked and failing test runs. A demonstration by LodeStar prior to SHOT Show® 2022 failed too. A demonstration to show off the technology to shareholders shows an individual loading, chambering and clicking the fingerprint keypad on the side of the 9 mm handgun equipped with the authorized-user technology.

“Alright, ready? Everybody got ears? Alright. Two rounds coming,” he says before firing. Only one round successfully fired while the demonstrator is visibly seen and heard pulling the trigger multiple times for the remaining round before the video abruptly ends. That’s during a controlled test under ideal conditions and in front of the media.

Continue reading “”

When Demand for Racism Exceeds Supply, Fake It! Guess Who Scribbled an ‘N’ Bomb on a High School Wall This Time.

These stories have become as ubiquitous and annoying as that 1-877-Kars 4 Kids jingle.

A “white supremacist” writes something racist on a school wall. The students are SHOCKED! How could a drooling, white nationalist goober infiltrate their scholastic utopia? (Was it the janitor???) The angry students skip class to protest the hatred! White students tearfully rally around their black friends and vow to protect them from the tiki-torch-wielding bushwhackers who are likely patrolling the streets at night, nooses in hand, looking for a minority to lynch.

The school’s principal or dean valiantly vows to oust the seething bigots and restore the racial equilibrium that has so violently been shattered.

Finally, there’s a break in the case! A black kid did it. Again.

There has been yet another Jussie Smollett copycat caper of racial hatred that doesn’t exist, this time at Our Lady of Mercy School for Young Women in Rochester, N.Y.

The following message was scribbled on a restroom wall: This school is filled with a bunch of [plural of N-bomb]. Get out or else!

It was not immediately clear who was expected to “get out or else!”

Form the battle lines! True racism has come to Lady of Mercy! Cue up the virtue signaling! Take to the streets and protest before looking into the situation! We need tears, LOTS of tears!

“I cried a lot,” Janna Smith, a senior at the school, stated. “I felt ‘what am I doing if things like this keep happening every day?’ I talked to my mom and she said this happened for a reason, use this to make change.”

Quick, get a BLM flag from your Aunt Tifa!

Apparently, Lady of Mercy is a hotbed of bigotry!

“I’ve seen my fair share of racist acts, microaggressions, things like that that happen at Mercy,” said former student Morgan Reese. “I have never seen anything to the level of what I saw today and it scares me that my two younger sisters have to go to school somewhere where they don’t necessarily feel welcome.”

Has Morgan learned nothing in the last four years? Fake hate crimes are all the rage. Surely the school staff smells the oldest hoax in history, right?

Wrong! The faculty, not to be out-duped by a bunch of young girls, fell hard for the fake hate bait as well and sent this email to parents of the defiantly not racist students:

Dear Mercy Parents and Guardians,

This morning, just before Advisement, we interrupted classes with an overhead announcement. We informed the students of graffiti that was found in one of the students’ bathrooms. This was our message to the students:

“Please pardon this interruption for this important announcement. This morning, we found graffiti in a high school bathroom that wrote out the n-word and said, ‘Get out or else.’ We are investigating this and will hold those responsible, whether they are Mercy people or not.

Let us be clear, anyone who uses this language and is disparaging to our Mercy girls and Mercy community is not welcome at Mercy. We are unequivocally a school that embraces diversity and inclusion. We are a Catholic school, committed to gospel values of faith, hope, and love. The world is full of hate and violence. We want all of you to reflect on how Mercy can be a place of love and peace. What role do you play in creating such an environment?

Counselors, administrators, and Mrs. Dickey will be available in the Wellness and Counseling Center during Advisement and throughout the day to support anyone who feels unsafe. We will convene assemblies on this topic this week and will be notifying your parents of this. Thank you; that is all.”

Tears, flags, and protests: the mostly white students did their jobs. The faculty vowed swift justice and volunteered the soft shoulders of counselors, administrators, and even Mrs. Dickey, in case frightened students needed reassurance of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Lady of Mercy. Not to mention, there would be programming, meetings, and even more diversity training.

Police response was swift and the investigation went quickly. A black kid did it.

Imagine going to a school so free of racism, you feel the need to invent some. Poor lambs. The struggle is NOT real.

Hey, wait a minute! The school stated the following: “Let us be clear, anyone who uses this language and is disparaging to our Mercy girls and Mercy community is not welcome at Mercy.”Does this mean the hoaxer will get booted out of the school? HAHAHAHAH! I’m guessing not.

If only there was a way for the school administrators to have seen this coming! Wait, I know: fakehatecrimes.org lists over 460 incidents, and a ton of these hate hoaxes took place in schools and colleges.

Below The Radar: Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act

Second Amendment supporters often have to make difficult decisions. Not in the sense of Glock vs. Colt vs. Springfield Armory, but more along the lines of how to address a given piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation.

Take for instance the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act, known as S 3776 and HR 6997. The legislation purports to prohibit the importation, sale, or manufacture of firearms “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

On the face of it, this seems unobjectionable. Nobody wants to be sold a firearm on the basis of misrepresentation or a false promise, right? But there are red flags when Second Amendment supporters think things through some more.

For starters, the Senate bill is sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, a long-standing enemy of our Second Amendment rights. So that is a red flag right there. Her co-sponsors include Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, also committed opponents of the Second Amendment.

Aside from who sponsors it, there is one other question: Who decides what constitutes “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?”

This is a big deal on multiple fronts. Remember how the CDC is getting back into the gun-control business? They worry that it will be used to justify censorship by Silicon Valley is big, but this legislation could add another threat.

Suppose some anti-Second Amendment extremist decides that those who advertise firearms for self-defense are making ““false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?” That now becomes a new way to hit someone with a five-year jail term and a felony conviction.

This also is a way to “legalize” suits like the one brought against Remington over Sandy Hook. Never mind that the rifle used was stolen (after the shooter killed the rightful owner), the claim from the suit was centered around the advertising. In other words, prove there was “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises” in the advertising, and all of the sudden, it becomes easier to sue gun manufacturers.

This is a dangerous end run around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Again, we need to remember what Feinstein said so long ago on 60 Minutes. She wants an Australia-style ban, but if she can’t have it, she’ll figure out what she can get legislatively (see the Age 21 Act). Or she’ll enable other attacks outside the legislative process.

What makes it doubly hard is that this bill seems very reasonable, so Second Amendment supporters have to be very careful about the optics while opposing it. After all, nobody wants to support those who sell anything (including firearms) with “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act. Then. They need to work to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box this November.

How do you know the numbers of Hispanic voters are increasingly seen as going Republican?
The lieberal media hauls out the broadest smear brush they can find.


The rise of white nationalist Hispanics.

Nick Fuentes, identified as a “white supremacist” in Justice Department filings, made headlines last week for hosting a white nationalist conference in Florida. His father is also half Mexican American.

Driving the news: Cuban American Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, a group the Anti-Defamation League calls an extremist group with a violent agenda, was arrested Tuesday and charged with conspiracy in connection to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

What they’re saying: Experts tell Axios far-right extremism within the Latino community stems from three sources: Hispanic Americans who identify as white; the spread of online misinformation; and lingering anti-Black, antisemitic views among U.S. Latinos that are rarely openly discussed.

Blah, blah, blah, blah…………

Yes, they know. They’ve always known. They just approve.


Project Veritas Torches the New York Times and Explodes the January 6 Narrative
Serious journalists know that our oligarchs used Jan. 6 as a Reichstag fire, to target political dissidents.

A Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporter has been caught in a video by the conservative group Project Veritas admitting his colleagues vastly exaggerated the danger of the election integrity protest on Jan. 6.

The reporter, Matthew Rosenberg, also called his colleagues names that questioned their courage and manliness.

January 6 Was in Fact “No Big Deal”

Rosenberg, the national security correspondent for the New York Times, said the media’s coverage of the Capitol riot was “overblown” and that the events of Jan. 6, 2021 were “no big deal,” according to undercover video released Tuesday by Project Veritas.

In print, Rosenberg and his colleagues have described the claim that there were FBI plants instigating the protestors outside of the U.S. Capitol a year earlier as a “reimagining” of the “attack.” But in the Project Veritas video, which appears to have been recorded without his knowledge, Rosenberg paints a different picture. Here he admits that “there were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”

warning, some foul language

BLUF:
The problem, in an age of political polarization, is that about 40% of the population will automatically believe anything a Democrat tells them, even if it contradicts the most basic principles of economics, and there is a vast media establishment which won’t even question Biden’s bizarre counterfactual claims about inflation, energy policy, etc. All that matters to them is the cynical question, “Cui bono?” Who benefits from a particular belief — Democrats or Republicans?……..

Thus does “truth” become a partisan prize, over which one party claims a monopoly. By selling their souls to advance this belief system, the media destroy their own credibility. Then they wonder why we don’t trust them.

‘Simply Not True.

Joe Biden believes he is honest, and that anyone who disagrees with him is lying, or is ignorant, or has been deceived by liars.

So deeply convinced is Joe Biden of his own honesty that he thinks his very name is synonymous with truth-telling:

“I give you my word as a Biden: I will never stoop to President Trump’s level.”
— Nov. 20, 2019

“I give you my word as a Biden: If I am elected president I will do everything in my power to protect our children from gun violence.”
— March 10, 2020

“I give you my word as a Biden: When I’m president, I will lead with science, listen to the experts and heed their advice, and always tell you the truth.”
— March 18, 2020

When I first noticed him using this “my word as a Biden” phrase during the 2020 campaign, I was puzzled. Has the Biden family been so prominently associated with honesty that when Joe says this, most Americans say, “Well, that settles it”? Of course not. In fact, Biden’s first presidential campaign, in 1988, collapsed in disgrace specifically because of Joe’s dishonesty, when he was caught plagiarizing others — most notably British Labour leader Ne0l Kinnock — in his speeches:

Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr., a U.S. senator from Delaware, was driven from the nomination battle after delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also contributed to Biden’s withdrawal: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator’s boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.

Joe Biden lies about a lot of things, including his own biography. It is fair to say he is notoriously dishonest, and yet he seems to believe that nobody knows this, and that he enjoys a reputation as a truth-teller.


[Well, that ‘he seems to believe’ goes along with the delusions of senile dementia and SloJoe believing his own propaganda. Sucks for us to have a Commander In Chief who for the time, is no more than a meat puppet, It makes you wonder what might happen if one day Joe decides that his handlers are wrong and he’s going to do something other than what they want him to, and Jill – and the secret service – decide to back him up.]


Continue reading “”

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 “”