Category: Deceit O’ The Day

I briefly commented on this awhile back.
This is a better look into the flaws of the underlying ‘research’.

Fatal Flaw In Ph.D. Thesis On Second Amendment Suppressing First Amendment

The Atlantic has been on an anti-Second Amendment tear lately. After a couple of pieces by David Frum, which I’ve addressed before, they have an article (Archived) that employs the newfangled theory that the Second Amendment somehow threatens the First Amendment. We saw this in the ACLU amicus brief in the NYSRPA v. Bruen case, which Cam addressed recently.

This article goes one step further. It cites “research” by two parties to make broad claims about how open carry protests chill free speech. The crux of the article is as follows:

Some protests involving open carry firearms have resulted in violence. The presence of firearms at a protest causes some people to be scared. Due to this fear, they are unable to express their opinions freely. Therefore – you can guess where this is headed – open carry at protests must be ‘regulated’.

Lest we forget, this argument has already been employed in the Campus Carry debate, that concealed carrying of guns inside a classroom would somehow stifle discussions. There is no evidence that those fears materialized. Yet, that argument is being laundered and reused against open carry at public protests, with calls to “further study” the chilling effect of concealed carry.

The article states:

What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives. […] Diana Palmer, one of the authors of this article, conducted a study […] found that participants were far less likely to attend a protest, carry a sign, vocalize their views, or bring children to protests if they knew firearms would be present.

There are two underlying studies this article is based on. The first one is from Everytown/ACLED, and the second one is a Ph.D. dissertation by Diana Palmer, one of the authors of the article. Everytown’s research is shoddy; it has been taken apart thoroughly before. Their new “research” needs to be tackled, but I will focus on the Ph.D. dissertation, which you can download and look at yourself here.

The abstract of the dissertation states the following:

In this mixed-methods study, 1,205 participants were surveyed about their likelihood of engaging in First Amendment behaviors at a protest with and without firearms and asked to explain what factors they considered when selecting their answers. […] In the quantitative element of the study, differences in expressive behavior were analyzed in the condition with no firearms and the condition with firearms. The analysis showed that participants were less likely to engage in expressive behaviors when firearms were present.

The abstract only talks about public protest scenarios in which guns are either present or not present. I looked through the dissertation, and found that it lacks any questions on weapons that aren’t firearms. Participants were never asked what they would do if knives, swords, clubs, pepper spray, brass knuckles, bike locks, etc. would be present. Any chilling effect of non-firearms weapons on assembly is not considered in the dissertation.

Weapons aren’t the only things that people can react to negatively. Participants weren’t asked what they would do if there were head-to-toe incognito, masked protestors at an event. Anyone following the news knows that antifa mobs have been showing up at “protests” in all-black, covering their faces while violating journalists’ First Amendment right to record them. Likewise, would people show up to a protest if there were people wearing Klan hoods?

Another topic that wasn’t addressed is crowd density. Personally, I avoid crowds and wouldn’t be surprised if survey participants would factor in high crowd density as a deterrent… if they had been asked about it.

Lastly, the timing of a protest was not included in the surveys; there are people who avoid “protests” at 1 AM. Too bad the dissertation didn’t ask about that.

These are questions that should have been part of the research, and the Ph.D. advisor or members of the committee should have caught these misses. This is a fatal flaw, in my opinion, especially given what the dissertation lays out in conclusion:

The first recommendation is that the carrying of firearms at protests should be regulated separately from other forms of open carry.

Given all the important questions that were missed, I take objection to the singling out of open carry at protests. If it’s a matter of regulating open carry at protests with, say, having your gun unloaded, mag out, chamber flag in, that’s one thing. But I doubt that’s the sort of benign regulation the writers of The Atlantic piece are asking for.

Going back to the article in The Atlantic, the writers also want to study concealed carry:

Research thus far has focused on open display of firearms, but further study is needed to evaluate the public safety concerns that may still be present when protesters or counterprotesters bring concealed firearms to demonstrations.

Unfortunately, this looks like agenda-driven, or at a minimum, bias-distorted research to me. Watching the press amplify it is unfunny to say the least.

So the leftist media are deceitful…Cue the meme.

See the source image

Without False Claims About The Risk of Concealed Handgun Permit Holders, The Left Has Nothing

Preface: Last Friday, the National Law Journal ran an op-ed by Lisa Vicens and John Donohue with many errors in it regarding a case that the U.S. Supreme Court heard last Wednesday on New York’s concealed handgun law.

The article gave readers very inaccurate information on the academic research regarding the risk of crime by concealed handgun permit holders. This false claim of public safety is really all the state of New York has to base its case on. The left-leaning National Law Journal, a business partner with Michael Bloomberg, is unwilling to respond to repeated requests to correct the record on these extreme inaccuracies, so we are publishing our response here at Townhall. Unfortunately, all the judges, lawyers, and law professors who read the National Law Journal won’t hear the other side of the argument.

Our Piece: “The last thing we need is the infusion of additional guns into New York City,” said New York City Police Commissioner Dermot Shea on Sunday. After the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen last Wednesday. New York’s legal team argued to the Court that this would worsen gun violence.

 New York is one of seven “May-Issue” states where officials can turn down carry permit requests for any reason (or no reason) at all. The Court is considering replacing this discretionary process with objective “Shall-Issue” rules. That way, people can get a permit as long as they reach a certain age, have no criminal background, pay the fees, and complete any required training.

Since 1976, 18 states eliminated “proper cause” requirements, and gun control advocates have consistently predicted disaster. But in state after state, concealed handgun permit holders have proved to be extremely law-abiding, and Right-to-Carry states have never even held a legislative hearing to consider moving back to “proper cause.”

Those same fears were raised again and again during Wednesday’s oral arguments. Justice Stephen Breyer speculated: “People of good moral character who start drinking a lot and who may be there for a football game or — or some kind of soccer game can get pretty angry at each other. And if they each have a concealed weapon, who knows?”

But, with 21.5 million permit holders and laws over many decades, you should have seen that example at least once. We haven’t. 

Continue reading “”

Hit a search engine for ‘White House Walks Back Biden….”.

White House walks back Biden comments on payments to migrant families

White House walks back comments Biden made at CNN town hall

White House walks back Biden vow to use National Guard to drive trucks

White House walks back Biden’s plan to let pandemic payments stop

White House Walks Back Biden’s Statement About Defending Taiwan

White House walks back Biden’s predictions about Afghanistan withdrawal

White House walks back Biden comments on cybercriminals with Russia

White House walks back Biden’s commitment to gun control legislation

I could go on and on and on like the Eveready Bunny, but I think you get the point.
The question isn’t whether or not SloJoe is in charge – he’s not.
The question is ‘ Just who is actually running things in the White House?

Remember this?

Then this?

It’s clear that SloJoe got taken to the woodshed and schooled about what he was going to say.

Of course he’s lying and it’s clear he’s not in charge.

Indiana Educator Warns Parents: ‘We’re Lying’ About Not Teaching CRT, ‘Keep Looking’

On Thursday, a science coach who works in the Indiana public school system issued a video in which he countered the narrative that Critical Race Theory is not being taught in schools, warning parents, “When we tell you Critical Race Theory isn’t being taught in our schools, we’re lying. Keep looking.”

 

Welcome to the Party, Pal!

Polimath (and others) are feeling the same oppressive weight of the government boot on their necks that America’s gun owners have been feeling ever since the introduction of the Sullivan Act.

“Just give up a little bit of your rights, and you’ll make the rest of us feel safer” has been the motto of the gun control movement since day one. Now that same logic, (if you want to equate emotion of feeling safe as logic) is being applied to public health as a whole, and people aren’t liking what they’re hearing.

Stephen Kruiser once said that firearms are the gateway drug to freedom. In this case, however, firearms ownership is the canary in the coal mine. What big government and runaway political corruption have been doing to our freedoms under the Second Amendment, they’re now doing to every other civil right as well.

Welcome to the party, everyone. Don’t say we never tried to warn you.

When dishonesty is their stock in trade, it’s only logical to conclude these people want to disarm you because they want to do something they know they would likely be shot for.

Everytown Lies Their Tongues Off With Claim on Child and Teen Deaths

Everytown is one of the largest deep-pocketed anti-Bill of Rights organizations out there. They do serious lobbying and litigation. Their “reporting” arm is The Trace, a publication whose bias should be obvious from who is buttering their bread.

Everytown has a documented history of lying to advance their cause. Those of us on the pro-Rights side are jaded by their behavior, but if you thought that their boldness and daring in peddling falsehoods had peaked, you would be wrong.

Back in August, Everytown posted the following tweet:

 

“Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens in America ages 0-19. Our kids shouldn’t have to die like this.”

Really? Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens in America? That sounded off, so I went straight to the motherlode of statistics: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC has a page where you can get detailed information on Leading Causes of Death and Injury.

Trying to get a quick answer, I checked out their “Ten Leading Causes of Death and Injury” infographic images. For both 2018 and 2017, the top cause of death is “unintentional injury,” not firearms, as Everytown claimed above. So, I dug in further to see if Everytown’s claim was buried somewhere, and it was all just a misunderstanding. For both 2018 and 2017, the top categories of “unintentional injury” were dominated by traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation. So, again, I decided to give Everytown the benefit of the doubt and dug into an even smaller subset of “violence-related injury deaths.” And yet again, for both 2018 and 2017, I found that the top causes were dominated by traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation. Firearms were clearly not the “leading cause of death” as Everytown claimed.

But what if the infographic images were not providing the accurate picture because the range of years covered (2017-18) was too narrow?

So, to be sure, I ran a custom report on the “Ten Leading Causes of Death.” This report includes all the data available from 2001–2019. Once again, I didn’t see firearms as the leading cause in the report data. Drilling down, the same pattern of traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation persisted. For the 15-24 age range, poisoning made a cameo; diving into that revealed that drug overdoses are listed as poisoning and were the leading cause of death in the poisoning category.

What if the above report was inaccurate because the age groups were too broad? After all, the CDC’s 15+ range went from 15-year-olds all the way to 24-year-olds.

So, I ran another custom report, this one covering data from 1999–2019. (Note that this custom report was not available for 2001–2019.) Under the “Advanced Options,” I was able to set a custom age range from “<1” to 19, which was the age range that Everytown claimed in their tweet. Yet again over this 20-year period, unintentional injury deaths (184,060) – the top cause – were almost 3.5 times higher than homicides (53,628), and almost twice as high than homicides and suicides (44,595) combined. Homicides and suicides included all means, not just those committed using firearms. Again, this report didn’t substantiate Everytown’s claim. Out of curiosity, I limited the age range from “<1” to 17, because 18- and 19-year-olds are voting-age adults; homicides and suicides dropped even lower with these criteria.

I still wasn’t giving up on Everytown; what if I messed up somehow and Everytown was actually correct. So, I ran a final report with the data the CDC has going back to the 1981–1998 period. And yet again, unintentional injury deaths (257,110) vastly outnumbered homicides (60,768) and suicides (38,215); note that the homicide and suicide numbers include all means, firearms, cutting instruments, blunt objects… you name it.

Based on the CDC’s reports and readily available infographics, I was not able to substantiate Everytown’s claim. If Everytown has any data that’s not conjured out of thin air, they need to come clean and disclose it. Until then, their deliberate misinformation needs to be stopped by those of us on the pro-Rights side, using free speech and facts, not by calling for censoring or silencing them.

Steve Kirsch speaks at FDA hearing;   Jump to 4:20:17 for Kirsch

FDA Panel Member on COVID Vaccines: ‘Heart Attacks Happen 71 Times More Often….’

“I had a heart attack….”

A bit more than a month ago I wrote about “My troubling COVID vaccine story experiences.” Aside from citing a friend who developed heart inflammation after taking a coronavirus genetic-therapy agent (GTA, a.k.a. a “vaccine”; more on this later), I mentioned that I’d had some unusual experiences: I encountered two men within a relatively short period of time, at the same recreational facility, who told me they’d had heart attacks — after taking SARS-CoV-2 GTAs.

One man suspected the GTA induced his coronary; the other fellow was oblivious, though his attack occurred the month after his shot.

At the time, I mentioned that though I’d been reporting on GTA-coincident complications for a while, I aimed to be objective and thus had to consider that my experiences *could* have been mere coincidences. All the men in question are over 60, at ages where heart issues are more common, after all. On the other hand, I pointed out that I wasn’t looking for these stories or asking related questions, and I’m not a social butterfly who regularly interacts with large numbers of people.

But then it happened again. At the same recreational facility approximately two weeks ago, I saw a man I’d met there previously. After extending mutual greetings, one of the first things he said was, “I had a heart attack.”

Sure enough, I learned that he’d taken a GTA.

He didn’t connect the two occurrences; in fact, when I mentioned I’d met other men suffering the same fate, he suggested it was a coincidence.

But this thesis appears to have gone out the window.

Consider the testimonial of Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund and also identified as a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel member. In an eight-hour virtual discussion of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee released Friday by the FDA, Kirsch said there “are four times as many heart attacks [as is normal] in the treatment group in the Pfizer six-month trial report — that wasn’t bad luck.”

What’s more, “The VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] shows heart attacks happen 71 times more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine,” he continued (video below. It should automatically start at 4:20:17; if it doesn’t, you’ll have to fast-forward to that point).

Among other things, Kirsch presents the following table:

Kirsch is, of course, not the only informed person warning about or wary of the GTAs. Though the shot-hesitant are portrayed as knuckle-dragging, medieval scientific obscurantists, a study found that the education-level-defined group least likely to be vaccinated is Ph.D. holders. Even more strikingly, it emerged in May that at least 40 percent (this figure may be different now) of FDA employees and those at Anthony Fauci’s NIAID hadn’t yet been vaccinated. Did they know something Fauci wasn’t telling?
Continue reading “”

Just 3 Percent of Afghan Evacuees in U.S. Are Special Immigrant Visa Holders.

During contentious testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas claimed that only “approximately three percent” of the 60,000 Afghan evacuees already brought to the United States are individuals who possess special immigrant visas (SIVs).

The majority of Afghans who qualified for SIVs are people who worked with our military as interpreters and therefore placed themselves in grave danger if and when the Taliban returned to power.

As additional background, the U.S. military recruited Afghans to assist U.S. forces, and “part of that pitch when asking Afghans to trust us and put their lives on the line for us was that if this day ever came, we would do right by them and bring them out,” Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), a combat veteran, explained earlier this month. “That was part of that promise — that we will not leave you behind. That was implicit in the legislation establishing Special Immigrant Visas for Afghan allies, and that was conveyed by folks on the ground to those who chose to work with us.”

As of May, 90 percent of the 20,000 Afghans who worked with U.S. troops and diplomats had applied for SIVs, according to government figures reported by NBC.

“When their family members are included, the pool of Afghans in the SIV program was at least 70,000 and probably higher, according to refugee advocacy groups,” NBC added.

Mayorkas’s full statement yesterday about these appallingly low numbers reads:

Of the over 60,000 individuals who have been brought into the United States [from Afghanistan]—and I will give you approximate figures and I will verify them, approximately 7 percent have been United States citizens. Approximately 6 percent have been lawful permanent residents. Approximately 3 percent have been individuals who are in receipt of the special immigrant visas. The balance of that population are individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval who may qualify as SIVs and have not yet applied, who qualify or would qualify—I should say—as P-1 or P-2 refugees who have been employed by the united states government in Afghanistan and are otherwise vulnerable afghan nationals, such as journalists, human rights advocates, et cetera.

Between incoherent, haphazard border policies, and this dereliction of duty, Mayorkas seems more inept each day.

I’ve written multiple times on this troubling situation. It is yet another betrayal of America’s allies by the Biden administration.

Demoncraps were going to sneak in a new immigration amnesty for illegal aliens by putting it in a appropriation bill that can be passed by a simple majority vote of ‘reconciling’ the differences of a bill supposedly already passed by both houses of Congress.

Senate parliamentarian deals blow to Democrats’ immigration plan

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on Sunday dealt a significant blow to Democrats’ plan to provide 8 million green cards as part of a sweeping spending package, warning it doesn’t comply with tight rules that determine what can be in the bill.

MacDonough’s guidance, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, likely closes the door to Democrats using the spending bill to provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of immigrants.

MacDonough, in her guidance, called the Democratic plan “by any standard a broad, new immigration policy.”

“The policy changes of this proposal far outweigh the budgetary impact scored to it and it is not appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation,” she wrote in the ruling obtained by The Hill.

Democrats pitched MacDonough earlier this month on their plan to use the $3.5 trillion spending bill to provide 8 million green cards for four groups of immigrants: “Dreamers,” temporary protected status (TPS) holders, agricultural workers and essential workers. Getting legal permanent resident status allows an individual to eventually apply for citizenship if they can meet other qualifications.

Continue reading “”

If this is happening in the U.K., why would you think it’s not happening here as well?

Hyping the Covid Burden on Hospitals.

A Doctor Writes: The NHS Is Concealing Important Information from the Public

On Thursdays, the NHS release the weekly summary data in relation to Covid patients. Normally this is a more granular version of the daily summaries – it has some hospital level detail and figures on non-Covid workload for comparison. Usually interesting but not especially informative.

Yesterday was an exception. Placed down at the bottom of the page, almost like a footnote, was a “Primary Diagnosis” Supplement. Graph One shows the information contained in that spreadsheet. I find it astonishing. In essence, it shows that since June 18th, the NHS has known its daily figures in relation to ‘Covid inpatients’ were unreliable at best and deliberately untrue at worst.

The Yellow bars are what the NHS has been informing the nation were Covid inpatients. The Blue bars are the numbers of inpatients actually suffering from Covid symptoms – the difference between the two are patients in hospital who tested positive for Covid but were being treated for something different – where Covid was effectively an incidental finding but not clinically relevant.

For example, on July 27th, the total number of beds occupied by Covid patients was reported as 5,021. However, until today, we were not permitted to know that only 3,855 of those were actually admitted with Covid as the primary diagnosis. There has been a fairly consistent overestimate of the true number by about 25% running back to mid June – figures before that date are ‘not available’.

Why does this matter?

Well in one way it doesn’t matter very much. Whether the burden of Covid inpatients is 5% of the available beds or 3.5%, isn’t massively significant – it’s still a relatively small proportion. NHS managers are already arguing that even patients with Covid being treated for another condition still need isolation procedures and present an extra burden on the system. They may argue that the NHS is still under strain from staff absences, stress levels and the waiting list backlog – so it doesn’t really matter if the published figures are somewhat inaccurate.

But it matters hugely.

Firstly, it clearly shows that the NHS has been exaggerating the burden of Covid on hospitals by 25% since at least the June 18th and almost certainly for longer. All the senior NHS leaders and politicians quoting the number of Covid inpatients for the last six weeks have been painting a seriously exaggerated picture, significantly worse than the true position. Were they in ignorance about the true numbers, or were they deliberately misleading the public?

Continue reading “”

Question O’ The Day.
So was Milley lying to Trump, or was he actually that clueless?

General Milley told Trump the George Floyd protests were no big deal.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley dismissed the George Floyd riots as “penny packet protests” — insisting they weren’t an insurrection because the mobs only “used spray paint,” according to a new book.

The under-fire general — accused of going behind President Donald Trump’s back to contact his Chinese counterpart — wildly downplayed the riots when Trump raised fears they were “burning America down,” according to Fox News excerpts from the new book, “Peril.”

“Mr. President, they are not burning it down,” he told the alarmed commander-in-chief, according to authors Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

“They used spray paint, Mr. President, that’s not an insurrection,” he told Trump.

It was not immediately clear when the conversation happened, but violent, fiery protests broke out in cities across the US soon after Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police in May 2020.

New York City saw mass looting and fires in the street, including torched police vehicles, while other cities saw deadly shootings within days, and thousands of National Guard members were ultimately deployed in at least 15 states, Fox News also noted.

Milley, however, gestured to a portrait of President Abraham Lincoln as he tried to dismiss Trump’s clear fears over the violence.

“We’re a country of 330 million people. You’ve got these penny packet protests,” he said, using a term for something insignificant, according to the book being published Sept. 21.

Milley insisted it was not an issue for the US military — and instead said the protests were understandable given systemic racism, according to the Fox excerpts.

“That’s pent up in communities that have been experiencing what they perceive to be police brutality,” Milley reportedly told Trump.

But when the Jan. 6 Capitol riot happened, Milley believed it “was indeed a coup attempt and nothing less than ‘treason,’” the book said.

He feared that Trump might be looking for a “Reichstag moment” and believed the attack “so unimagined and savage, [it] could be a dress rehearsal for something larger,” the authors wrote.

Milley’s spokesperson told Fox News that his office was not commenting on the book.

Biden Urges Action on Climate Change: ‘We Don’t Have Much More Than 10 Years, For Real’

After decades of failed climate predictions, one would think the president of the United States would steer clear of making one. But this week, President Biden did just that when discussing what he claims is a global climate crisis.

While out West touring wildfire-ravaged areas, Biden tried to sell some of the climate change measures tucked into spending packages but which “appear increasingly at risk,” according to The New York Times.

“A drought or a fire doesn’t see a property line,” he said during at a stop at a federal renewable energy laboratory. “It doesn’t give a damn for which party you belong to. Disasters aren’t going to stop. That’s the nature of the climate threat. But we know what we have to do. We just need to summon the courage and the creativity to do it.”

He spoke of goals like investing in a modernized electric grid, electric busses, charging stations, and more.

“When I rejoined the Paris Climate Accord after we had been pulled out of it, the goal set when our last administration, the Obama-Biden administration, when that was set, they were set that we had more time. We don’t have the time now. The goals are different because the necessity is there. We don’t have a lot of time. We don’t have much more than 10 years for real,” he said.

No matter how urgent Biden believes the “climate crisis” is, that doesn’t change the fact that such predictions and warnings have been notoriously wrong over the years.

In a 2019 column, the late Walter Williams recalled just some of them.

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Dr. Paul Erhlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable […] By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” (Townhall)

The major difference between predictions made in the past and those of today is how much more gullible Americans are now, Williams argued, meaning we’ll spend into oblivion to combat climate change. “The only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free,” he said.

Forbes Deletes Article by Education Expert Asserting That Forcing Children to Wear Masks Causes Psychological Trauma

Forbes deleted an article written by an education expert who asserted that forcing schoolchildren to wear face masks was causing psychological trauma after the piece began to go viral.

The article (archived here) was written by Zak Ringelstein, who has a a PhD in education from Columbia University and founded Zigadoo, an educational and development app aimed at helping children.

Ringelstein explains how he worked hard to remove standardized testing from schools but that this was derailed when the pandemic began, a process that “transformed the American public education system into something unrecognizable: a system of restrictions and mandates far more repressive than standardized testing ever was.”

Ringelstein attacked the notion that “kids are resilient” and can overcome the onerous COVID rules imposed on them by asserting, “Masks and social distancing induce trauma and trauma at a young age is developmentally dangerous, especially for children who are experiencing trauma in other parts of their lives.”

He went further, noting how the new measures were creating classrooms full of lonely, atomized kids.

Continue reading “”

It is always someone else’s fault with demoncraps

Right on Cue, the President’s Mistakes Are Our Fault Again

You can tell a Democrat is president, because we’re starting to see pieces blaming “us” for his mistakes. In The Atlantic a couple of weeks ago, Tom Nichols wrote that “Afghanistan Is Your Fault.” “American citizens,” Nichols suggested, “will separate into their usual camps and identify all of the obvious causes and culprits except for one: themselves.” Today, Max Boot makes the same argument in the Post. “Who’s to blame for the deaths of 13 service members in Kabul?” he asks. Answer: “We all are.”

This is of a piece with the tendency of journalists and historians to start muttering about how the presidency is “too big for one man” when the bad president in question is a Democrat. Under these terms, Republicans just aren’t up to the job, while Democrats are the victims of design or modernity or of the public being feckless. Last year, coronavirus was Trump’s fault. Now, it’s the fault of Republican governors and the unvaccinated (well, only some of the unvaccinated).

Still, this has happened pretty quickly with Joe Biden. Usually, it takes a couple of years before the press starts to sound like a bunch of hippies sitting around a fire saying, “you know, in a sense, you’re me and I’m you, and all of us are we — and so when the president makes a mistake, it’s really, like, the universe making a mistake, isn’t it? And, y’know, we’re in the universe, so we are the presidency. That’s democracy, man.”

The FDA did NOT grant full approval to the Pfizer shots

You may have heard that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot received FDA approval this past Monday.  Politicians, national health officials, and journalists are breathless with excitement about how this approval will finally induce the remaining “vaccine-hesitant” into stepping forward to receive their jab.  The FDA even has a press release on its website about it.

There’s just one problem.

If you read the actual letters that the FDA sent to Pfizer on August 23, 2021, you’ll see that the FDA did no such thing.  In the sense that the term “FDA approval” is generally understood, this drug is not approved by the FDA.  It is still under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization).  It is still an experimental drug.

The FDA sent two letters.  The first one was a letter of BLA (Biologics License Application) approval, and the second was a letter of EUA extension to COMIRNATY.

The BLA approval letter approves Pfizer’s application for a license to label its COVID-19 drug with the brand name COMIRNATY.  This letter also spells out the terms and requirements for nine additional clinical trials over five years, and yearly status reports, to study the acknowledged occurrences of myocarditis and pericarditis that have followed the administering of the Pfizer shots.  This license to label and manufacture is not a full approval of the drug, which clearly is still subject to many years of clinical trials.

The EUA extension letter extends the term of the EUA for the current drug and authorizes (licenses) the experimental use of the brand-name drug COMIRNATY.  In the first paragraph on page 2, this letter references the license approval letter.  In the second paragraph on page 2, the August 12 EUA is re-issued to include the name-branded drug in the emergency use authorization, and to add “language regarding warnings and precautions related to myocarditis and pericarditis.”  In the last paragraph on page 4, the EUA nature of the drugs is re-iterated, and COMIRNATY is additionally authorized for use for individuals aged 12 through 15 years.

The mRNA gene therapy shots are still experimental.  Mandating them is still wrong — by a wide variety of ethical standards.

Dr. Meryl Nass, M.D. found the truths that the FDA buried in the blather of these letters and offers a theory about why it was done this way.  The drug-manufacturers were granted immunity from liability for the drugs produced under the EUAs.  The granting of the license re-applies the customary liability for injury and death caused by the product.  Pfizer, the health officials, and the politicians get to take a fictitious victory lap for the “approval,” while Pfizer-BioNTech continues to stealthily enjoy immunity from product liability because there are many millions of the unlicensed doses on the shelves and in the manufacturing pipeline that will be administered first.  The licensed version will not arrive on shelves or be jabbed into arms for many months to come.

Of great concern, considering the factual content of the FDA EUA letters to Pfizer, is the breezy way the press release on the FDA website repeatedly uses the words “approve” and “approval” in reference to the Pfizer drug.  If only there were a word for intentionally saying things to the public that do not match reality…

COMIRNATY seems like an unusual name for anything, much less a cutting-edge-technology gene therapy.  Out of idle curiosity, I ran the name through an anagram solver.  For a result, it gave TIROMANCY, which is divination or prophecy by examining how curds form during the coagulation of cheese.  How apropos.  That’s something I’m willing to try for forecasting the results of the next election!

‘Stupid is as Stupid does’

Scoop: Investigation finds fired Tennessee vaccine official mailed dog muzzle to self.

A Tennessee investigation found evidence that the state’s fired vaccine chief, Michelle Fiscus, purchased a dog muzzle that she previously claimed someone had mailed in an attempt to intimidate her.

Why it matters: Fiscus, who denied sending herself the muzzle in a Monday tweet, has characterized her firing as a political move driven by Republican state officials after she shared a memo citing state law about whether adolescents can seek medical care, including a COVID vaccine, without their parents’ permission.

  • Fiscus and her husband, Brad, had said in multiple interviews, including with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, that the muzzle was sent anonymously to her state office through Amazon shortly before her firing.
  • “Someone wanted to send a message to tell her to stop talking, they thought it would be a threat to her,” Brad Fiscus told the Tennessean.

Details: The Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security found through a subpoena that the Amazon package containing the muzzle traced back to a credit card in Fiscus’ name, according to an investigation report obtained by Axios.

  • When asked by investigators, Fiscus provided information for an Amazon account in her name. It was a different account than the one used to purchase the muzzle.
  • The investigation concluded that “the results of this investigation that purchases from both Amazon accounts were charged to the same American Express credit card in the name of Dr. Michelle D. Fiscus.”
  • Fiscus told investigators she felt the muzzle was a threat and she should “stop talking about vaccinating people.” The investigation was launched after health department official Paul Peterson alerted the Department of Safety about the apparent threat to Fiscus.

The backdrop: Fiscus was fired amid criticism from Republican lawmakers who were upset about the health department’s efforts to convince teenagers to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

  • Republican lawmakers criticized Fiscus on multiple fronts, highlighting a memo she sent explaining how providers in Tennessee could vaccinate some teenage patients without a parent’s approval.
  • The health department released a memo last month stating Fiscus was fired for poor interpersonal communication skills, ineffective management and attempting to steer state money to a nonprofit she founded.
  • Fiscus denied the allegations in the memo and shared years of sterling performance evaluations. She claims she was fired for attempting to do her job well.

What they’re saying: In a statement distributed by her husband, Fiscus said she was not aware of the report until Axios shared it.

  • “We have now learned that a second Amazon account had been established under my name using what appears to be a temporary phone, possibly in Washington state,” Fiscus said.
  • “I have asked Homeland Security for the unredacted report so that I can investigate further and am awaiting their response,” she added.
  • Fiscus did not discuss the use of the American Express card in her name.

‘Fudd for Chipman’ Democrat Ploy to Manipulate Low-Information Gun Owners

“Guest view: David Chipman can unite us on Second Amendment issues,” an August 5 testimonial appearing in, among other outlets, the Montana Standard, declares. The author is Dave Stalling, a self-described “past president of the Montana Wildlife Federation, … gun owner, former Force Recon Marine and avid hunter who lives in Missoula.”

The only surprise is that such a piece hasn’t appeared earlier. Gun owners have long been subjected to sudden appearances of Democrat citizen disarmament enablers trying to pass themselves off as fellow “tribe” members when there is a political goal to be attained. In the last presidential election, two groups tried to make their mark, “Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden — a coalition of more than 50 prominent hunters and anglers from across the country, who have come together to endorse Joe Biden for President of the United States,” and the Giffords’-bankrolled Gun Owners for Safety.

Yeah, they’re Fudds for Biden. If you’re inclined to take offense at that word, hold on a second: It’s not a pejorative for all hunters and sport shooters – just the ones who throw their fellow gun owners under the bus and support citizen disarmament edicts that don’t impact their hobbies. But a Fudd is what Stalling proves himself to be, particularly when he accuses Donald Trump Jr. of lying when he says Montana Sen. Jon Tester is not “staunchly pro-Second Amendment.” He’s not.

Tester’s a prime example of a self-serving opportunist who recognized that he had to vote “pro-gun” in order to be elected in that state, and was allowed to get away with it by Democrat Party leadership because it served their purposes to have him advance the rest of the agenda. Revealingly, Tester showed his true nature when he voted to keep Post Offices “gun-free zones.” The last straw for NRA was Tester’s Supreme Court confirmation votes (for Kagan and Sotomayor, against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) when they downgraded his one-time “A” to a “D.”

“As a gun owner, former ATF special agent, and internationally recognized gun safety expert, David Chipman is hardly ‘anti-Second Amendment,’” Stalling continues. “As a Montana citizen, gun owner, former Force Recon Marine, and hunter, I fully support Chipman’s nomination, and urge my fellow Montanans to do the same.”

“Hardly”? And “recognized” by who? As for being a gun owner, so is Dianne Feinstein – who was reported to have a concealed carry permit that you or I couldn’t get to save our lives –literally. What does that prove? With all the evidence of his personal penchant for infringements that’s been amassed to the contrary (just enter the search term “Chipman” in the AmmoLand search bar), you wonder what more the guy has to do.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
If people are suspicious of Islam, Rizwan Wadan could fight that by confronting, rather than perpetuating, the perception that claims regarding Islam being peaceful are disingenuous and based on an incomplete reading of the relevant texts. Instead, he has produced yet another deceptive endeavor that is just going to create more of the “Islamophobia,” in the sense of suspicion of Islam, that he claims to be trying to stamp out.

Star Wars Filmmaker Makes Documentary Slamming ‘Islamophobia,’ Ends Up Showing Why There Is ‘Islamophobia’

Here’s something you’ve all been waiting for: A Muslim filmmaker has produced a documentary hitting “Islamophobia.” Rizwan Wadan, who was part of the technical crew for Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Churchill and The Favourite, has directed a documentary entitled Error In Terror about “Islamophobia,” and is now traveling around with it, spreading peace and tolerance. The only problem is that Error in Terror itself only reinforces why some people are suspicious of Islam in the first place and wary regarding its growth in Western countries.

The problem starts with the term itself. “Islamophobia” is a fraught word, because while it is thrown around all the time these days, few of those who use it to defame and smear others bother to explain what they mean by it. It is most commonly used for two quite distinct phenomena: vigilante crimes against innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which is always necessary. Islamic advocacy groups and their leftist allies have been insisting for years that such analysis, too, constituted “Islamophobia,” and continue to try to drive such analysis outside the bounds of acceptable discourse by conflating it with those attacks on innocent Muslims.

Rizwan Wadan doesn’t appear to take any pains to explain what he means by the term, either. According to a report from Britain’s ITV News Saturday, Wadan is “a talented filmmaker who has worked on blockbusters including Star Wars and The Favourite,” and has now “produced a hard-hitting film which highlights terrorism and Islamophobia in the UK. It is part of his Error In Terror campaign, which he is bringing to different parts of the country to inspire communities and effect change.”

“Growing up as a Muslim, living in the UK,” Wadan explained, “I’ve seen our relationships within the communities deteriorate. And that’s kind of happened – from my perspective – through how Islam and Muslims have been perceived. A lot of that has come through our representation in films, in the news, in newspapers.”

Now come on, Rizwan. Honestly, when did you last see a negative portrayal of Muslims in films, in the news, or in newspapers, except in the case of jihad terror attacks in which the identity of the perpetrator was impossible to conceal? The international media goes to immense lengths to make sure that no one gets a negative view of Islam or Muslims.

One notorious example of this is the fact that in the British media, gangs of Muslims who sexually abused and exploited thousands of British girls for years were universally referred to as “Asians,” despite the protests of non-Muslim Asian groups and the fact, which some of the rapists openly confessed, that this activity was based on Islamic principles.

Continue reading “”