Category: Deceit O’ The Day

CDC, FBI Hiding Data Showing Good Guys With Guns Save Lives

The federal government no longer enacts the will of the people. It enacts the will of some people, most of whom seem to be unelected bureaucrats who side with an anti-gun agenda. They do not care about our rights. They simply want to see guns restricted, most likely because an armed populace isn’t one that can be run roughshod over.

Advertisement

But good guys with guns cause them a problem. How can you paint the use of guns as an unmitigated evil if good people use them to stop bad people?

What’s more, the federal government has numbers that back up the claim that good guys with guns save lives. However, as John Lott notes over at The Federalist, the feds are hiding them from us.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under the Biden Administration has sought to suppress data proving that armed citizens help prevent crime by removing its estimates of defensive gun uses from its website. For almost a decade, the CDC referenced a 2013 National Academies of Sciences report noting that people used guns to stop crime anywhere from about 64,000 to 3 million times a year.

This decision was taken after gun control activist Mark Bryant, founder of the Gun Violence Archive, lobbied the CDC to remove “misinformation” regarding defensive gun use estimates because of they are cited by “gun rights folks” to stop gun control legislation. Soon after, the CDC took down these estimates and now lists no numbers.

This is probably the most profound case of bias I’ve ever seen. The CDC has the numbers and had enough faith in them to post them, then an anti-gun activist took issue with them and said they prevented gun control from passing, so the CDC took them down.

And they wonder how the Dickey Amendment came into being in the first place.

They knew the truth and suppressed it simply because activists saw the truth as a barrier and asked them to take it down. Would they have done the same with COVID-19 numbers? Would they do the same with drunk driving deaths or childhood drownings?

Of course not. Nor should they. If they believe in the numbers enough to post them, they should have stuck to their guns on this.

But the issue isn’t just the CDC.

Oh no, the FBI has to have its own problems.

The FBI has also shown itself to be susceptible to political pressure. The FBI defines an active shooter attack as occurring when an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. This measure includes everything from just one person shot at, even if the target isn’t hit, to a mass public shooting. It doesn’t include, however, shootings involving other crimes, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf.

To compile its list, the FBI hired researchers at Texas State University. Police departments don’t record these cases, so the researchers relied on Google searches to find news stories about these incidents. As such, the FBI’s evidence relies on a dataset that is actively hostile to the truth.

During 2020 and the beginning of 2021, I worked as the senior advisor for research and statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice. My job included evaluating the FBI’s active shooting reports. During my time with the DOJ, I discovered that the FBI either missed or misidentified many cases of civilians using guns to stop attacks. For instance, the FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 350 active shooter cases that it identified in the ten years from 2014 to 2023.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I run, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list. As such, the CPRC numbers tell a much different story: Out of 515 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2023, armed citizens stopped 180, saving countless innocent lives. Our numbers even excluded 27 cases where a law-abiding citizen with a gun stopped an attacker before he could fire a shot.

Overall, the CPRC estimates that law-abiding citizens with guns have stopped over 35 percent of active shootings over the last decade and 39.6 percent in the last five years. This figure is eight times higher than the four percent estimate made by the FBI.

Now, 35 percent isn’t a massive number, but we need to remember that a lot of active shootings are happening in places where there are issues with law-abiding citizens being armed.

Potential mass murderers, for example, tend to favor gun-free zones for their attacks, such as schools like Apalachee High School in Winder. They also like malls, movie theaters, and other places where a large number of people are in one place and are generally disarmed by force of law. That means these incidents are less likely to be met with armed resistance not because good guys with guns don’t stop attacks but because the law makes sure there aren’t any good guys with guns.

Then we have the fact that a lot of other active shooter incidents happen in inner cities. These are often places where gun ownership is discouraged and, in the case of anti-gun states, where the government is outright hostile to the idea of citizens with guns. Before recently, getting a permit might have been impossible, thus making it far less likely a good guy with a gun could be anywhere near the scene of such a shooting.

And this is interesting because Lott wrote this well before the events in Winder.

In that case, school resource officers–good guys with guns, even if it was their job–reacted to the attack and ended the threat with an armed response. They didn’t have to kill the shooter, either. People like that tend to be cowards. Armed resistance scares them and so they surrender, run away, or just about anything else, even if the good guy doesn’t kill them.

For all the talk about gun control in the wake of Winder, I think the more important discussion is putting guns in school staff members’ hands.

Guns save lives, after all.

Most Variation in All-Cause Mortality Explained by Mass COVID-19 Vaccination
Australian Ecological Analysis Points to Vaccine Campaign Causing Rising Death Counts

After a pandemic, all cause mortality should go down due to a culling effect of the frail and vulnerable. We saw acute COVID-19 become the proximate cause of death in many seniors who were in the final year of natural life.

Now an analysis from Allen indicates that all-cause mortality is up in heavily vaccinated Australia and that at least two thirds in the variation per region is explained by mass COVID-19 vaccination. There are numerous well-documented fatal vaccine serious adverse events which are piling up months and years after the shots. Cumulative toxicity is another factor as a single person is not vaccinated just with the primary series (first two injections), but continued dosing every six months. Continue reading “”

Walz Says He Lied About Going To War Because He Struggles With Grammar

Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., has made a political career out of “misspeaking.” Why stop now?

The No. 2 on the Democratic Party’s forced dream team campaign ticket, featuring the joyous empty vessel Vice President Kamala Harris, was back to doing what he seems to do best Thursday night. After several weeks of evading actual questions, Harris and her running mate sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash for the first semi-substantive interview of their honeymoon campaign — more than a month after President Joe Biden’s political wake.

Bash was anything but browbeating in an edited, open-notebook test that was anything but adversarial. This is CNN after all, the network where journalistic ethics go to die. But when Bash wasn’t watching Harris peeking at her notes to answer basic policy questions, the host of CNN’s “Inside Politics” was attempting to show she could still ask a tough question or two.

“I want to ask you a question about how you described your service in the National Guard. You said that you carried weapons in war but you had never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said you misspoke. Did you?” Bash posed.

First of all, Walz didn’t misspeak about his military bravado. He lied. And, as The Federalist has reported, he has done so in the name of politics.

‘I’m Incredibly Proud’

In 2018, Walz, while talking about gun violence, said, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.”

Problem is, Walz never served in a combat zone. His unit was called up early in the war in Iraq — to Italy. Later, in 2005, he abandoned his National Guard unit as it was preparing to deploy to Iraq. Walz, who opted to run for Congress at the time, retired not long before the deployment. He claimed to be a “retired Command Sergeant Major,” a top rank for an enlisted soldier. Except he wasn’t.

Walz looked like he was tired of answering the question. He shook his ruddy head as if he hadn’t used the lie for political currency and delivered what some have described as a “bizarre” reason for why he “misspoke.”

“Well, first of all, I’m incredibly proud. I’ve done 24 years of wearing the uniform of my country. I’m equally proud of my service in a public school classroom, whether it’s in Congress or the governor,” the VP candidate blathered. Spoiler Alert: Walz has no intention of answering this question.

He goes on to say that his “record speaks for itself.” It sure does. It’s a record of lies and of extreme left-wing policies in a proud Midwest state shredded by such policies. A record of tyrannical rule during his draconian Covid lockdowns and of Minnesota’s largest cities being set on fire during the 2020 race riots. But no one in the accomplice media wants to ask Walz about any of that.

He told Bash that he speaks “candidly.” Clearly he does not know what the word “candid” means. He “wears his emotions” on his sleeve. So, that’s where the lying comes from? He’s passionate about children being shot in schools. Understandable. Still, no reason for the lies.

“I think people know me, they know who I am. They know where my heart is and, again, my record has been out there for more than 40 years to speak for itself,” Walz said.

So … about the gun in a combat zone thing?

Bad Grammar, Awful Person

To her credit, Bash didn’t demure on this one. She pressed.

“And the idea that you said you were in war, did you misspeak as the campaign has said?” the CNN anchor asked again.

Frustrated and caught in his obfuscation, Walz blustered, “Yeah, I said we were talking in this case, this was after a school shooting, the ideas of carrying these weapons of war.”

And this is where the bizarre comes in.

“And my wife, the English teacher, told me my grammar is not always correct,” he said.

Grammar?! It’s not like Walz mixed up the usage of lay and lie. He LIED.

Because he’s an awful liar and an awful human being, he blamed his political enemies — like some of the National Guard soldiers who served with him — for his shortcomings in “grammar.”

“But, again, if it’s not this it’s an attack on my children for showing love for me or it’s an attack on my dog,” the governor deflected. “I’m not gong to do that. And the one thing I’ll never do is demean another [service] member’s service in any way. I never have and I never will.”

He demeaned the service of members of the military for years by claiming he was something he wasn’t, in places he had not been. It’s called stolen valor, and it’s a really lousy thing to do.

Just ask Kathy Miller, the mother of forever 19-year-old Sgt. Kyle Miller, who was killed in 2006 by roadside bomb in Iraq. He was member of the Guard unit Walz left behind.

“My son wasn’t even 21 years old. He couldn’t even buy alcohol. Yet he took the step to serve our country while Walz found the best way to run away,” Kathy Miller told the Daily Mail earlier this month.  “It was the coward’s way out.”

‘In Common Use’ Can Ultimately be Used to Make the Second Amendment a Moot Point

Far-fetched? Who knows what will be available to the military and law enforcement in 100 years, and what it means to “the people” of the Second Amendment if the government can deny future technology because it’s “dangerous and unusual,” and not “in common use”?

“The Second Amendment Allows a Ban on the AR-15,” Harvard University Professor of Law Noah Feldman once declared in a Bloomberg/Washington Post “opinion” piece.

That it’s an “opinion” is the one truthful admission in this otherwise absurd act of academic gaslighting. Harvard, Bloomberg, and WaPo are all for eviscerating the right of the people to keep and bear arms and routinely spread whatever lies they can get away with (despite the disingenuous caveat that “This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.”)

“Under current law, the Second Amendment extends only to weapons that are not ‘unusual’ and are ‘in common use’ by law-abiding citizens,” Feldman asserts. “Whether that includes AR-15s is a question the Supreme Court has not yet resolved, although the justices have recently been asked to weigh in. A key question today — though not when the Bill of Rights was ratified — is whether a weapon is ordinarily used for self-defense.”

“To give you a sense of how different things were with respect to gun issues 84 years ago, the court held unanimously that the Second Amendment didn’t protect [short barreled shotguns],” Feldman misstates, citing the case of U.S. v. Miller. That’s actually not what they said at all. In the opinion for that case, Justice McReynolds noted:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

They didn’t have evidence because the case wasn’t argued in front of them. Had it been, the military utility of such weapons could have been decisively established, starting with the flintlock blunderbuss:

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Walz isn’t just lying about his military record. He has no problem lying to advance his gun control goals. For someone who frequently says he is a hunter, he knows the statements that he is making about “weapons of war” are a lie.

Behind Tim Walz’s ‘Hunter’ Facade Is A Plan To Take Your Guns

In just a few sentences, Gov. Tim Walz made false claims about assault weapons, background checks, CDC research, and reciprocal carry.

“I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt,” Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., declared in 2018. “I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks, we can do CDC research, we can make sure that we don’t reciprocal carry among states. And we can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are allowed to be carried.” In just a few sentences, Walz made false claims about assault weapons, background checks, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) research, and reciprocal carry.

First, take his claims about “weapons of war.” Put aside that Walz never was in war, let alone carried a weapon in war. The term “assault weapon” is nonsensical. Even the Associated Press Stylebook, which carries water for Democrat narratives, recognizes that fact. As the AP acknowledges, the term conveys “little meaning” and is “highly politicized.”

Politicians will continue calling AR-15s “weapons of war” and “assault weapons,” as Walz does. Many seem to think “AR” means assault rifle when it stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. But at least some of the media is now recognizing that “AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market,” as the AP Stylebook says, are fundamentally different than military weapons.

“The preferred term for a rifle that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and automatically reloads for a subsequent shot, is a semi-automatic rifle,” according to the AP Stylebook. “An automatic rifle continuously fires rounds if the trigger is depressed until its ammunition is exhausted. Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon, which are highly politicized terms that generally refer to AR- or AK-style rifles designed for the civilian market, but convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon.”

AR-15s and AK-47s are frequently called “military-style weapons.” But the key is “style” — they are like military guns in how they look, not in how they operate. The guns are not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but rather semi-automatic versions of those guns.

For someone who says he is a hunter, Walz surely knows this. The weapons he wants to ban operate exactly the same as any hunting rifle he would use. The civilian AR-15 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles. It also fires at the same rate (one bullet per pull of the trigger), the bullet travels at the same speed, and does the same damage. Still, no military anywhere uses the civilian versions of either of these guns.

But hunting isn’t the critical issue here. Semi-automatic weapons protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles require manual reloading after every round, and people may not have the time to reload their gun when they face multiple attackers or fire and miss.

Most mass public shootings don’t use any type of rifle. Fifty-three percent involve only handguns, and only 17 percent solely involve rifles of any variety.

It should be little wonder that banning “assault” rifles did very little. During the 1994-2004 ban, the number of attacks with “assault weapons” didn’t fall, and there was virtually no change in total mass shootings.

Continue reading “”

The Ignominy Of Master Sergeant Timothy Walz

If Tim Walz could not be trusted to fulfill the duties he had to his nation in 2005, how can he be trusted to be vice president in 2025?

The last couple of days have been a whirlwind of controversy regarding the military service record of Democrat vice presidential candidate Tim Walz. My X account has seen the most traffic it has ever known as I have discussed this issue at length, and I thought it would be a good idea now to take a deep breath and kind of recap where we are at in this controversy. I know for sure that the veteran community is fired up over this issue, but I sense that many from the non-veteran community do not know what to think given the competing arguments from both sides of the political aisle.

I would like to share my own personal experiences and thoughts as a retired Army colonel and veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan. What I hope for civilians to understand is this: The issue is not the number of years Walz served, or when he submitted his retirement paperwork, or what his final rank was, or even — just as a stand-alone proposition — whether he ever went to combat. No, the issue is the unique and special position of trust he held when he decided to walk away from his soldiers, his unit, and his nation. I’ll explain.

But first, some facts. There are all sorts of facts and disinformation flying around on this matter, so I want to highlight the most basic and most important facts, ones that not even the most rabid Democrat can dispute:

Walz served for 24 years in the Minnesota Army National Guard, retiring at the rank of master sergeant (an “E-8” in the Army).
In the spring of 2005, Walz was serving as the command sergeant major (an “E-9”) of the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery, a Minnesota Army National Guard battalion that is part of the 34th Infantry Division.
Also in the spring of 2005, Walz and his battalion received a warning order that the battalion would be deploying to Iraq. (We know this because Walz’s own congressional campaign told us at the time.)
Knowing that his unit was deploying, Walz nevertheless chose to retire from the National Guard in May of 2005 to pursue his congressional campaign.
Serving members of the National Guard and the Reserve routinely also serve in Congress, and always have. Tulsi Gabbard is an excellent recent example. Walz did not necessarily need to retire to run for Congress. However, an Iraq deployment he might have instead chosen to participate in would, in fact, have prevented him from campaigning.
Walz’s retirement meant he did not fulfill a contractual service commitment he willingly entered into when the Army selected him to attend the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. As a result, the Army reduced his official retirement rank from E-9 to E-8.
These are facts. Now let’s explain what was so egregious in what Walz did.

So Walz retired when he was allowed to and ran for Congress instead — what’s the big deal, right? Well, had Walz been some slug E-8 holding down some clerical job in the 34th Infantry Division Headquarters, counting his days until retirement, and had he opted to take a lawful retirement rather than go to Iraq, no one would care. But that’s not what happened. Walz was a COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR (“CSM”), and that makes all the difference in the world.

Continue reading “”

The 2A Question Walz Can’t Answer

Tim Walz is one of those “I’m a Second Amendment supporter, but…” politicians, though that wasn’t always the case. Until 2018, when Walz announced he wouldn’t run for re-election to Congress and instead run for governor, he was a dependable vote in favor of protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Since then, Walz has championed “universal” background checks, “red flag” laws, and of course, bans on “weapons of war”; which in Walz’s view encompasses commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles.

The Harris campaign has been highlighting Walz’s support for the Democrats’ anti-gun agenda, which has been coupled with the vaguest and most vacuous “support” for the right to keep and bear arms.

As has been noted elsewhere, Walz never served in combat, though that’s not stopping the Harris campaign from describing him as “battle-tested.” Nor did it stop Walz from falsely claiming that he carried a semi-automatic rifle “in war”; a statement with multiple layers of duplicity, given that the last time I checked the Minnesota National Guard didn’t issue AR-15s to citizen soldiers. 

The Firearms Policy Coalition’s Rob Romano would like to hear more from Walz about his votes to protect the Second Amendment.

I’m sure if you comb through Walz’s record in Congress there’ll be some pro-2A votes. But I have another question for Walz: given his change of heart on things like a semi-auto ban, and his opposition to common-sense measures like right-to-carry reciprocity, I’d like to know if there’s any major proposal from gun control groups like Everytown, Giffords, and Brady that the governor believes goes too far and actually does represent an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

We already know that Walz believes that mandating background checks on transfers of a firearm, even to longtime friends or neighbors, doesn’t violate our Second Amendment rights. We know that, according to Walz, we can ban the sale of commonly-owned firearms without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Limiting magazine capacity is no limitation on the Second Amendment, at least according to the governor. Barring gun sales to young adults is also no burden on the Second Amendment, according to Walz. Neither is requiring a one size fits all storage law for gun owners that makes it nearly impossible to use a firearm in self-defense.

So what, if any, proposal from the gun control lobby is a bridge too far for Walz? That shouldn’t be a difficult question for someone who claims to support the Second Amendment while also supporting “common sense” gun control efforts, but I doubt it will ever be asked… at least by the mainstream media. At this point the Harris/Walz campaign is so tightly scripted I’m not sure either of them will ever actually get around to taking questions from the press, but if and when they do, any gun-related questions are likely to be softballs lobbed Walz’s way instead of a genuine inquiry into his views on the contours of our right to keep and bear arms.

From what I can tell, however, there’s virtually no difference between Walz’s current stance on the Second Amendment and the views of Everytown, Giffords, Brady, March for Our Lives, Moms Demand Action, and other major gun control organizations. Though he might have been a Second Amendment supporter in the past, it’s what comes after the “but” that seems to be far more important to him now.

Biden Didn’t Tell Us Why He Withdrew From Presidential Race
It was a short State of the Union, I guess.

President Joe Biden didn’t tell us why he withdrew from the presidential race in his speech he said he would explain why he withdrew.

It was a 10-minute State of the Union.

Look, I would truly believe nothing happened behind closed doors, and no “soft coup” would have happened if Biden had stuck to his word that he would be a “transitional” president and only served one term.

But Biden didn’t! It’s insane. Biden even sounded mean at times when he asserted he would stay in the race.

The speech left us with even more questions. We end every single day with more questions than answers.

The left will point to this part to prove Biden explained why he dropped out:

BIDEN: “A cause of American democracy itself. We must unite to protect it. You know, in recent weeks it’s become clear to me that I need to unite my party in this critical endeavor.

I believe, my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America’s future, all merited a second term, but nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy. That includes personal ambition.

So I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. It’s the best way to unite our nation.”

So, Biden has to drop out because his record is so good? His record is so good that the only way to unite everyone is for him to drop out.

The most popular, noble, and spectacular president ever just has to pass the torch to a new generation.

Um, what? That makes no sense. That does not explain why he had to drop out.

Again, we have more questions.

Speech

So how about the speech? So many lies.

The biggest lie? America is not involved in any war across the world.

Except..we are. We don’t have boots on the ground in Ukraine, but Biden has sent so much money and weapons to Ukraine.

We are in a proxy war with Russia due to the support we’ve given Ukraine.

Secured the border? Biden’s administration has not done that at all.

A Major Lie From the Secret Service About the Trump Assassination Attempt Just Got Busted

The Secret Service is hiding in the bunker. They haven’t held a press conference on the July 13 assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. There’s been a code of silence on his harrowing and historic event, and we know why: they got busted for peddling a lie. Shocker—but we have another Biden-era scandal emerging, one where the agency appears to have hidden from the public because there was no spinning what was inevitably going to be asked by the media: the allegation that the Biden Department of Homeland Security denied requests for more resources. After initially denying it, the agency finally had to admit this was true.

The Washington Post and New York Times confirmed it. However, it was The Federalist’s Sean Davis who first reported that a source told him this was the case in the initial aftermath of the assassination attempt against the former president. It only adds to the incompetence of this administration, along with dousing the fires of a cover-up. At this point, there are too many coincidences, security failures, and now lies to dismiss this narrative outright (via NYT):

The Secret Service acknowledged on Saturday that it had turned down requests for additional federal resources sought by former President Donald J. Trump’s security detail in the two years leading up to his attempted assassination last week, a reversal from earlier statements by the agency denying that such requests had been rebuffed.

Almost immediately after a gunman shot at Mr. Trump from a nearby warehouse roof while he spoke at a rally in Butler, Pa., last weekend, the Secret Service faced accusations from Republicans and anonymous law enforcement officials that it had turned down requests for additional agents to secure Mr. Trump’s rallies.

“There’s an untrue assertion that a member of the former president’s team requested additional resources and that those were rebuffed,” Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said last Sunday, the day after the shooting.[…]

On Saturday, Mr. Guglielmi acknowledged that the Secret Service had turned down some requests for additional federal security assets for Mr. Trump’s detail. Two people briefed on the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, confirmed that the Trump campaign had been seeking additional resources for the better part of the time that Mr. Trump had been out of office. The denied requests for additional resources were not specifically for the rally in Butler, Mr. Guglielmi said.

U.S. officials previously said the Secret Service had enhanced security for the former president before the Butler rally because it had received information from U.S. intelligence agencies about a potential Iranian assassination plot against Mr. Trump.[…]

The service never held or took part in a public briefing the night of the shooting, while other law enforcement officials held a news conference a few hours after the fact. The service did not hold a public briefing to answer questions in the week after the assassination attempt.

Continue reading “”

Who are they trying to kid? SloJoe has been POTUS (Puppet of the United States) since day one.

BLUF  The President Has Lost All Independence

Biden staff “miserable,” alarmed as pressure builds

Many White House, Biden campaign and Democratic officials are increasingly worried that President Biden isn’t up to continuing his campaign or finishing a second term, despite his insistence that he won’t be pushed out.

Why it matters: Outside pressure for Biden to drop his re-election bid grew wider and louder on the Fourth of July, especially from major donors. Doubts also are rising inside the house.

The big picture: “Everyone is miserable, and senior advisers are a total black hole,” a White House official told Axios. “Even if you’re trying to focus on work, nothing is going to break through or get any acknowledgment” from bosses.

  • A high-ranking Democratic National Committee official told Axios: “The only thing that can really allay concerns is for the president to demonstrate that he’s capable of running this campaign.”
  • “Everything else feels like ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ by his inner circle to prop him up.”

Between the lines: Some Biden aides believe those closest to the president have created a cocoon around him that initially seemed earnestly protective, but now appears potentially deceptive in the debate’s aftermath.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
Are you surprised the gooberment lied in a report? – Jessica J

Citing Fake Mass-Shooting Data, US Surgeon General Declares ‘Gun Violence’ a Public Health Crisis

United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared that “gun violence” constitutes a public health crisis Tuesday but cited fake mass-shooting data from the long-debunked Gun Violence Archive to support his spurious claims.

Murthy presented his finding in a 40-page Surgeon General advisory, titled “Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America.”

“While mass shooting deaths represent only about 1% of all firearm‑related deaths in the U.S., the number of mass shooting incidents is increasing. According to data published by Gun Violence Archive, the U.S. experienced more than 600 mass shooting incidents each year between 2020 and 2023, compared to an average of less than 400 annual mass shooting incidents between 2015 and 2018,” the Surgeon General’s advisory states.

In his report, Murthy cites data from the Gun Violence Archive more than four times.

Founded in 2013, the GVA quickly became the administration’s source of choice for mass-shooting data because they hype the numbers. The small nonprofit came up with its own extremely broad definition of a mass shooting, which says anytime four or more people are killed or even slightly wounded with a firearm regardless of the circumstances, it’s a mass shooting. For example, according to the GVA there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower and more realistic definition, which excludes gang-related and drug-related shootings, which the GVA includes in its data.

Murthy is not the only member of the Biden-Harris administration to use fake data from the GVA. Biden and his handlers have cited GVA’s mass-shooting data throughout his presidency in speeches, written statements and social media.

Continue reading “”

Still No TRACE of the Truth

In our first installment of a critical analysis of an anti-gun propaganda podcast series from The Trace, we covered the lies, misinformation, and deceptive emotional arguments made in the first four episodes. Here, we will delve into the fifth episode, which continues the previous format, but adds embarrassing incidents where The Trace contradicts itself in an attempt to push its anti-gun messaging.

The intro to the transcript of the 5th installment of the podcast, which is titled “How a SCOTUS Decision Led to an Unprecedented Gun Sales Boom,” kicks off with the completely discredited claim popular among the anti-2A crowd;

“For most of American history, gun ownership was understood to be a collective right tied to militia membership. But that changed in 2008, when The U.S. Supreme Court established for the first time that gun ownership is an individual right.”

In fact, American history—judicial and otherwise—is replete with proof that our Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms that is in no way dependent on citizens being affiliated with a militia.

While there have not been many rulings on the Second Amendment from our highest court since the Founding Era, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894) and U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court recognized that the amendment protects an individual right. It has never taken a different position.

Of course, it comes as no surprise that anti-gun fanatics would ignore history and court precedent to further their desire to disarm as many law-abiding Americans as possible. But the rewriting of history is something we’ve begun to see as a weirdly-common trope with those who oppose the Second Amendment.

The Trace, seemingly fixated on the Heller decision and the year 2008, implies the ruling led to that “unprecedented gun sales boom” mentioned in the title of its fifth episode of the propaganda podcast series. One of the “journalists” is so vested in this new “gun sales boom” connection to Heller that she forgets that last year she seemed to attribute the 2008 “boom” in the manufacture and importation of firearms in the U.S. to the election of Barrack Obama. In that earlier piece, she went with the term “surge” instead of “boom,” and attributed another “surge” between 2011 and 2012 to Obama’s reelection, then attributed another “surge” from 2015 to 2016 to the election of Donald Trump, and finally noted the “biggest year-over-year jump on record” was between 2019 and 2020. That “surge” she attributes to the pandemic.

Continue reading “”

Again, nothing unusual for demoncraps.

Biden Cherry Picks Crime Stats to Suit His Agenda

Joe Biden flipflops on violent crime rates – sometimes they’re going up, sometimes they’re going down – depending on who is in the audience. He uses two vastly different data sources to create his mixed messages.

Biden cites FBI data when trying to convince voters that crime is not out of control, so they feel safe in their communities and reelect him to office. But when he panders to the gun-ban industry, advocates for an “assault weapon” ban, or announces yet another infringement of the Second Amendment as part of his ongoing war on guns, Biden cites mass-shooting data from the Gun Violence Archive.

To be clear, the Gun Violence Archive, which has been widely debunked, collects much more than just mass-shooting data, but Biden never uses any of these statistics. He only cherry-picks GVA’s mass-shooting data, for obvious reasons. The other data shows violent crime has exploded during his presidency – especially when compared to President Donald J. Trump’s term in office.

“Crime is either up or it’s down, but Joe wants to have it both ways, depending upon who he’s talking to,” said nationally syndicated talk radio host, Mark Walters, who first spotted the trend. “And it was only a matter of time before the rest of that GVA data came back to bite him.”

Nearly every type of shooting death tracked by the GVA over the past 10 years increased substantially after Biden took office: Deaths (willful, malicious and accidental), mass shootings, deaths of children (age 0-11, age 12-17), unintentional shootings and suicide by firearms all increased under the Bide-Harris administration.

Continue reading “”

Even CDC Admits Latest Anti-gun Report is Misleading and Full of Holes

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

Three teenage girls were alone in their Lawrence County, Kentucky home one hot summer day in 2019.

Suddenly, a white car pulled up and two men got out. One man started kicking in the front door. The second suspect circled around to the backyard and began breaking out a window with a shovel. The youngest of the girls, who was 14-years old at the time, found and loaded the family’s 9mm pistol and fired a round at one of the suspects, who both quickly left.

In 2021, a 12-year-old boy armed himself after two masked home invaders broke into his grandmother’s home demanding money. One of the suspects shot the 73-year-old woman, which prompted the youth to return fire in self-defense. Police later found one of the suspects curled up on his side in an intersection near the home. He was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. The grandmother survived her wounds.

In February, a 14-year-old Houston-area teen fired six rounds at an intruder who was trying to break into his home through the front door. Police found the suspect, who was wearing gloves and carrying a backpack, in the front yard where he was pronounced dead.

None of these defensive gun usages or any others were even mentioned in a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which purported to examine firearm storage data behaviors. Defensive gun usages weren’t the only data set omitted from the report. The CDC needed so many disclosures and disclaimers to tell readers what other data was missing from its research that it’s a miracle the report even was published.

The report, titled “Firearm Storage Behaviors — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Eight States, 2021–2022,” was based on telephone interviews. The researchers called the respondents using a “random-digit–dialed landline and mobile telephone survey.” However, the authors immediately encountered four significant problems that limited the validity of their work:

  1. They were unable to determine whether firearms were stored loaded or unloaded during the phone interviews.
  2. They were only able to obtain data from the eight states, which is statistically meaningless.
  3. Some respondents did not want to disclose whether they had a firearm in their home.
  4. All of the data was self-reported to the researchers, and therefore “subject to social desirability and recall biases.”

As a result, the findings were statistical gibberish. In the handful of states that participated, the authors concluded, “18.4% – 50.6% of respondents reported the presence of a firearm in or around their home, and 19.5% – 43.8% of those with a firearm reported that at least one firearm was stored loaded.”

Continue reading “”