Category: Deceit O’ The Day

If we can’t believe prohibitionist gunquacks, who can we believe?

Agenda Once More Bleeds Through in Latest National Gun Policy Survey

They left out “confiscation.” If they ever get these done and they’ll always be back for more. (Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The results are in! Our new National Survey of Gun Policy reveals that Americans broadly agree on many gun violence prevention policies,” Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions exclaims on X.com. “Check out the 2025 survey findings.”

They present those over at their website, where we find the Center is part of the “Bloomberg School of Public Health,” as in anti-gun (except for the government and his law-skirting security team) billionaire Michael Bloomberg. The use of the pejorative term “gun violence” to stigmatize the inanimate object instead of the willful human aggressor is our first clue as to what they mean by “solutions” and “prevention.”

We’re told it’s a “nationally representative survey” which “found wide support for gun violence prevention policies across political lines and among both gun owners and non-owners.” We’re told they’ve been doing this since 2013.  What we’re not told is any meaningful metric to prove any of their “solutions” have prevented anything except citizens being able to exercise a supposedly unalienable right with a government mandate that it “shall not be infringed.”

The questions, asked of “2,977 respondents, 1,001 gun owners and 1,976 non-gun owners and 959 Republicans and 1,419 Democrats” need to be viewed with two further caveats: The Bloombergians make no attempt on this page to share how the questions were worded (because doing so differently could produce different results), or to establish actual knowledge the respondents had – as opposed to what they’ve been told by the overwhelmingly prohibition-supporting media, and by the Democrat Party.

Why, if it’s “representative,” does the survey include significantly more Democrats than Republicans, especially after the popular and electoral victories Second Amendment-proclaiming Donald Trump attained over gun prohibitionist Kamala Harris? And don’t overlook that just because someone is a gun owner doesn’t automatically put them in the pro-Second Amendment camp, as the Fudds comprising Giffords’ “Gun Owners for Safety” amply demonstrate.

But on to the claims…

We’re told that “74% of Americans support laws that require a person to lock up the guns in their home when not in use.”  What they don’t tell us, and presumably didn’t tell the respondents, is that they also want ammunition locked separately from firearms, meaning if quick access is needed to defend against an intruder, he’ll be on you before you can load your gun. We’ve also seen cases where trained children have successfully defended themselves against intruders, and cases where they could not, with tragically outrageous results. It would also be helpful to see what percentage of homes where untrained children access unsecured guns include criminal residents.

Continue reading “”

If This Is Their Best Argument Against National Reciprocity, They Should Give Up Now

Concealed carry reciprocity at the federal level is more likely to happen now, before the midterms, than at any other point in history. It’s still an uphill fight, but President Trump has promised his support, and others are rallying to the cause. That’s the good news.

Unfortunately, there are still enough senators who can filibuster the bill that it makes it a challenge to get it to the president’s desk.

Still, gun control groups are digging in for a fight. They’re trying to lay the groundwork for their attacks on the bill, but if they look like this, they should just give up now.

Let’s start with the headline, because it matters. It reads, “More Than 2,800 Non-Self Defense Deaths Involving Concealed Carry Killers Since 2007, Latest Violence Policy Center Research Shows.”

Note the language here: “concealed carry killers” versus “non-self defense[sic] deaths.”

That’s an important point that will come up here in a bit.

Now, for the “argument”:

Concealed handgun permit holders are responsible for at least 2,817 deaths not involving self-defense since 2007, according to the Violence Policy Center’s (VPC) ongoing Concealed Carry Killers (concealedcarrykillers.org) project, an online resource that provides examples of non-self defense killings involving private citizens with permits to carry concealed handguns in public.

This latest update comes as legislation endorsed by the gun lobby and firearms industry has been introduced in the U.S. House (H.R. 38) and Senate (S. 65) to allow individuals with state-issued concealed firearm permits to carry their weapons in any state that issues carry permits or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. The bills are currently moving through the committee process.

Overall, Concealed Carry Killers documents 2,552 fatal, non-self defense incidents since May 2007 in 40 states and the District of Columbia, resulting in the deaths of 2,817 people. Thirty-eight of the incidents were fatal mass shootings as defined by federal law (three or more victims killed), resulting in the deaths of 186 victims. At least 24 law enforcement officers have died at the hands of concealed carry killers since May 2007.

VPC Government Affairs Director Kristen Rand states, “While the firearms industry and gun lobby push for coast-to-coast concealed carry, real-world facts show that concealed handgun permit holders are far more likely to kill themselves or innocent victims than use their gun in a justifiable homicide.”

Of course, they note that there are no official records keeping track of this, so they have to base all of their so-called research on news reports and whatever limited data they can get from the states, but let’s start off by looking at the raw numbers presented here. They maintain that the actual numbers are probably higher, which might be true, but probably isn’t. Still, let’s look at what they’ve got because that’s what we have.

It’s been 17 full years since 2007, and I’m making an assumption they’re not including any information from this year–which isn’t a safe assumption, to be fair, but for the sake of argument, I think this will be fine–which means we’re looking at 165.7 “deaths” by concealed carriers per year.

Sure, those are all tragic, to be certain, but when you look at nearly 46,000 “gun deaths” each year, it’s not even a drop in the bucket.

“But Tom, those ‘gun deaths’ include suicides. Isn’t that apples and oranges?”

A fair question, good reader, but it’s not. Why? Because the VPC does the exact same thing.

In the vast majority of the 2,552 incidents documented in Concealed Carry Killers (2,435, or 95 percent), the concealed carry permit holder either died by suicide (1,732), has already been convicted (614), perpetrated a murder-suicide (65), or was killed in the incident (24). Of the 77 cases still pending, the vast majority (61) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, five were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and 11 incidents are still under investigation. An additional 40 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder.

The fact that someone has a concealed carry permit has nothing at all to do with their suicide. Plenty of people take their own lives with guns while lacking carry permits. Others use different means of doing the same thing. Suicide numbers really shouldn’t be included in a look at “concealed carry killers,” now, should it? Not if you really want to make the case that national reciprocity will make people less safe.

Interestingly, the chart they include has a section for “self-defense/no verdict,” which makes no sense at all if you’re trying to claim these aren’t self-defense shootings.

Still, if we decide to accept the remaining numbers at face value–mostly because they don’t include any total on those “self-defense/no verdict” numbers–we end up with 1,085 deaths attributed to concealed carry permit holders. That’s an average of just under 64 killings per year. That’s versus an average of just under 18,000 murders with firearms.

That’s not a problem. That’s statistical noise.

Then we have their interpretation of these claims.

VPC Government Affairs director Kristen Rand is quoted as saying, “While the firearms industry and gun lobby push for coast-to-coast concealed carry, real-world facts show that concealed handgun permit holders are far more likely to kill themselves or innocent victims than use their gun in a justifiable homicide.”

Except that’s not the case at all, and even the anti-gun The Trace knows that’s not true.

How do I know that? Because look at their report on defensive gun uses, which looked at both Gun Violence Archive numbers and numbers from The Heritage Foundation.

Gun Violence Archive, the Kentucky-based nonprofit that tallies gun-related incidents in near-real time, also counts DGUs. But it only captures incidents that make the news or are reported to police. And GVA includes incidents involving illegal gun possessors as well as legal owners, including shootouts as well as stand-your-ground shootings. GVA recorded 8,394 DGUs from 2017 to 2021, which works out to an average of 1,678 a year. But that’s likely a massive undercount.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, launched a DGU tracker in 2019 that relies on media reports, but counts only defensive gun use by lawful owners. Heritage tallied 2,106 shootings from 2019 to 2021, for an average of 702 per year. The group cautions that it’s “not intended to be comprehensive” because “most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.” That’s a common belief among pro-gun advocates, some of whom believe the 2.5 million figure is, in fact, too low.

Both of these totals are much lower than the 165.7 per year average noted above. It’s worth noting, though, that these are compiled through media reports, just as VPC’s numbers are. If their estimates are low, then it stands to reason that we’re right about the defensive gun use totals also being low, especially since a lot of them never make the news.

And if you remove suicides from the equation, as you should, the difference is even more stark.

However, then we need to consider concealed carry holders versus society as a whole, since this whole report was intended to imply that they’re a danger to society.

Joe LoPorto, the Director of Legal Operations for the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate, did a little math, passed along to me, comparing per capita rates overall. Here’s what he told me:

The VPC, financially backed by the Joyce Foundation, itself a President Obama pet project with over $1 billion in assets has been running its Concealed Carry Killers database for years. We all know the numbers they are producing are massively inflated. However, even when taken at face value and considering the most conservative estimate of the number of Americans with a concealed carry permit (rounded down to just 20 million), their own data support our point.

Based on their own data, presented by VPC in a way to look as inflammatory as possible, the murder rate amongst the population of concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. would be 2.7 per 100,000 people, or less than half the murder rate of the overall U.S. population at 5.9 per 100,000. Again, based on their inflated numbers, the suicide rate of concealed carry permit holders would be 5.0 per 100,000 or about 1/3rd that of the overall U.S. population at 14.2 per 100,000.

Even accepting their inflated statistics, their own data show that concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. are substantially safer than the overall U.S. population.

New Jersey is the perfect example.  Before Bruen, virtually no one was able to obtain a concealed carry permit. In the years since Bruen, nearly 100,000 New Jerseyans obtained concealed carry permits… and the violent crime and gun crime rates in the state declined.

Peaceable people exercising their core constitutional rights in the U.S. are not the problem.

That last bit, especially, is absolutely correct.

On every level, their entire premise falls apart. The attempt to demonize concealed carry permit holders fails in the face of literally any other evidence. It only works in a vacuum, and there’s no such thing in the world of media today.

Seriously, this is so absolutely pathetic that they should hide in shame for the next thousand years or so.

But, or course it’s a deceitful scam.

Gun Control Group Now Offering Firearms ‘Instruction’

The term “gun safety” has different meanings depending on where you stand on the Second Amendment. For those who despise our right to keep and bear arms, “gun safety” translates to “gun control”, and the best way to practice gun safety is to not own a gun at all. T

Those of us who respect and appreciate the Second Amendment, though, “gun safety” means being safe and responsible around firearms. It doesn’t have nearly the negative connotation that “gun control” has, which is precisely why anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg named his group Everytown for Gun Safety, not Everytown for Gun Control.

According to National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel Larry Keane, Everytown is now trying to move into the realm of actual gun safety, by launching a new firearms training initiative.

The program was recently outlined at the National Conference of State Legislatures, and NSSF staff had a first-hand view of what the gun control group is pushing; a broad initiative called “Train Smart”, which includes a “Gun Ownership 101” class… and eventually, a full eight-hour training course.

Everytown’s “Train Smart” initiative will also host “Raise Standards in Your State” classes, which isn’t even an attempt to hide their efforts to convince people to press for permits and licenses, and instructor certifications, which amazingly can now be provided by the newest firearm training program in town.

Lastly, if those aren’t enough, Everytown’s “Train Smart” plans to offer a “Train Smart Gun Safety & Marksmanship” class, which ought to be hoot, since the gun control group has yet to shoot straight on anything they say. That’s going to be an eight-hour class to teach people how to handle and use firearms responsibly and serve as a role model for others. Topics covered in this class are the same as the other two shorter classes, except they’ll also talk about suicide prevention, de-escalation tactics, pistol marksmanship and… wait for it… “and much more.”

There’s no word if those classes will include any range time – or that any gun range would want to host Everytown to do it.

As Firearms Policy Coalition’s Rob Romano pointed out, the goal here seems to be to force gun ranges to host these Everytown courses, and to force would-be gun owners to get their mandated instruction from a group that doesn’t believe you have a right to keep and bear arms.

We’ve already seen states like California move to disqualify classes taught by NRA certified firearms instructors from satisfying training requirements and substituting state certified instructors instead. It’s not hard to imagine lawmakers in Sacramento (and Trenton, Boston, Albany, and other blue-state capitals) mandating that folks have to go through training taught by Everytown instructors before they can purchase or carry a firearm.

In fact, by making their pitch to attendees at the National Conference of State Legislatures conference, Everytown is already laying the groundwork for their plan to force their way into gun stores and ranges. There’s a reason why the anti-gun group wanted to let state-level lawmakers know about their new offerings; so they can start making laws that mandate attendance in an Everytown taught “gun safety” course before you can exercise your Second Amendment rights.

The biggest problem Everytown will face is coming up with instructors who are willing to work with them. As Keane notes, right now there’s no word on whether the group’s eight-hour course will include any range time, but I’m betting that it won’t. In order to satisfy the training requirements they’ve helped to put on the books in states like Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts, though, Everytown will need instructors who provide range instruction, not just anti-gun talking points. My guess is that it’ll be far easier to get anti-gun legislators to sign on than actual firearm instructors, but that could end up being a feature, not a bug, if it means that it becomes much harder to get access to the training required to bear arms in public or even keep a gun in the home.

Cynical Publius

Dear Democrats:

Hey. How’ve you been?

It’s been a rough 25 years. It feels like ever since that hanging chad election in 2000, we have been at each others’ throats. Mostly this is because we’ve let the hyperbole and the wild conspiracy theories control us on both sides. Now I say that is 80% you and 20% us (because you control the media), and we’ve done our fair share with Birthers and Big Mikers, but the bottom line is that neither side trusts what the other side says.

That’s a shame.

I get why you may not trust us. But you are going to have to on what we are about to tell you. Sometimes objective truths need to be said, and we’re about to say them.

Buckle up Buttercups. What you are about to read is 100%, verifiably true:

1. In the 2016 presidential election, the Hillary Clinton campaign fabricated out of the ether a wholly fictional “dossier” alleging that Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian Federation.

2. This “dossier” was shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the friendly Obama Administration, and treated as reliable intelligence even though those agencies knew it was highly suspect.

3. This wholly-fabricated “dossier” was then used as a legal basis for surveillance and wiretaps on members of the Trump Team before and after the election, and the communications equipment in the Trump Transition Team HQ in New York was in fact wiretapped by the Obama Administration.

4. After the election was over and Trump had won, the intelligence community determined that there was no material Russian interference in the election. Barack Obama directed them to reverse that finding.

5. This new, false finding, coupled with the ongoing concerns regarding the dossier became the bases for a concerted effort by the Obama Administration to prevent Donald Trump from ever taking office, even though the American people had just elected him. The ongoing Potemkin Villages of the dossier and the IC report were the bases for numerous unlawful warrants on the Trump team, the creation of interview traps where Trump members might incriminate themselves by making a false statement to the FBI, and generally encircling the entire Trump transition team via subterfuge and placing them in a public aura of an illegal enterprise and not a validly-elected administration.

6. With the Obama plan unable to prevent Trump from taking office, his loyalists who remained in the new Trump Administration did their very best to work towards removing Trump via scandal, with James Comey being the chief bagman via the bogus dossier.

7. While everything described above was happening, it was all being leaked to the media in an effort to discredit and cripple the Trump Administration. Often bogus information would be fed to a media source, the source would report it, and then the fact that the media reported the bogus information was used by Democrat operatives as a basis for legitimizing it, i.e. “the wrap up smear.”

8. All of the above became such a burden on the new Trump Administration that a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, was appointed to cut through to the truth. Unfortunately Mueller was relying on the same fake dossier and bogus IC reports, so bogus data led to a bogus investigation that served no other purpose than to cripple the Trump Administration for two years.

9. To summarize points #1 through #8 above, the Obama/Hillary plan had three steps: (i) spread Russia lies so Trump loses the election; (ii) if Trump wins the election, spread Russia lies so he is never inaugurated; and (iii) if he is inaugurated, spread Russia lies to cripple his ability to govern.

10. After Trump lost in 2020 and he started indicating that he would run again, the Obama team, now with Biden installed in the White House as a puppet, knew they could not let him win as he would unravel what they had done, make it public, and potentially cause a bunch of them to end up in prison. So they coordinated lawfare attacks on Trump across the nation using Democrat operatives, thinking that Trump would end up in prison or his reputation would be in such tatters that he could never be elected. That backfired.

11. Trump got elected in 2024.

12. On July 18, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a treasure trove of heretofore hidden information which, alongside already-public information about the fake dossier, shows that everything we say above is 100%, inarguably, reliably, factually, objectively accurate.

We repeat, everything written above is VERIFIABLY, OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

We know you love to say how much you “love democracy.”

Do you? Do you REALLY “love democracy”?

What is described above is the most undemocratic thing imaginable.

Forget any arguments about whether something was criminal or the statute of limitations or whatever other technicality distractor gets thrown out there, we have a very simple question for you:

HOW CAN YOU TOLERATE THIS?

Please consider this letter a peace offering. If you are willing to acknowledge what transpired and offer an apology, we might be able to begin to trust each just a teeny bit. We are all Americans, after all.

Sincerely,

The American Coalition of Non-Smoothbrained Conservatives

Jack Nicholson Nodding GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

Did Joe Biden’s Doctor Just Confirm a Cover-Up of His Health?

In a move that should obliterate whatever remains of the myth of transparency in Washington, Joe Biden’s longtime physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, finally showed up for a interview with the House Oversight Committee—and proceeded to not answer a single question.

But while O’Connor may have refused to talk, his silence said plenty.

According to Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), O’Connor was asked two simple but devastating questions: “Were you ever told to lie about the president’s health?” and “Did you ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duties?”

O’Connor didn’t say “No,” he pleaded the Fifth both times—choosing constitutional protection over basic accountability.

“This is unprecedented,” Comer said. “And I think that this adds more fuel to the fire that there was a cover-up.”

He’s right. When a sitting president’s personal doctor refuses to answer whether he was told to lie to the American people, it’s not just troubling—it’s damning.

This isn’t some minor bureaucratic hiccup or a routine legal maneuver—this is the doctor who, for years, stood between the American people and the truth about Joe Biden’s fitness for office. Now, when given the chance to clear the air, he chooses silence.

Although O’Connor had previously refused to cooperate, somehow, pleading the Fifth now instead of answering those two questions looks worse.

Let’s not pretend this is normal. O’Connor’s refusal to answer even basic questions about Biden’s condition raises the obvious question: What, exactly, is he trying to hide?

Of course, we all know the answer. For years, the Biden White House dismissed legitimate concerns about the president’s health as partisan attacks, hiding behind carefully worded reports from O’Connor. Those glowing annual assessments were the backbone of the cover-up, reassuring the public while Biden visibly declined.

Let’s be clear: O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions isn’t about medical ethics—it’s about political damage control. This is the same doctor who repeatedly vouched for Biden’s fitness while the public watched a very different reality unfold. If there’s nothing to hide, why not answer questions? Why invoke your right not to incriminate yourself?

Comer said it is “clear there was a conspiracy to cover up” Biden’s cognitive decline.

New York Post:

The only question O’Connor did answer before the deposition concluded was confirming his name, according to an Oversight spokesperson, who pointed out that doctor-patient privilege would have allowed the witness to answer at least some questions.

Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as physician to the president during Barack Obama’s first term, agreed with that interpretation.

“In my opinion, [the first question] doesn’t involve HIPAA,” Kuhlman told The Post.

As for the second question, Kuhlman advised, “I don’t think that’s covered by HIPAA,” because it “doesn’t sound like that’s specific health information that they’re seeking.”

When asked whether he would answer questions under oath that don’t directly relate to a patient’s health, Kuhlman said: “In my role as a physician caring for a patient, I probably would.”

Dr. O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions about Biden’s health isn’t just a legal tactic—it’s an admission that there’s something worth hiding. The American people have every right to demand answers. The time for stonewalling is over.

Dr. O’Connor’s silence isn’t just suspicious—it’s a warning sign for anyone who cares about transparency in our government.

Joe Biden’s Doctor Just Plead the Fifth – What Is He Hiding?

It appears former President Joe Biden’s doctor desperately does not want to testify before Congress about his former boss’ mental deterioration.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who served as Biden’s physician while he was in office, has refused to testify in closed-door proceedings as House Republicans investigate how the former president’s cognitive decline affected his presidency, according to Politico.

O’Connor asserted doctor-patient privilege and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a statement from his attorneys. He had repeatedly argued his duties as a doctor complicated his testimony and prevented him from sharing some sensitive information. But House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who is leading the investigation, has rejected those claims.

“On the advice of his legal counsel, Dr. O’Connor refused to answer questions that invaded the well-established legal privilege that protects confidential matters between physicians and their patients,” the statement read. “His assertion of his right under the Fifth Amendment to decline to answer questions, also on the advice of his lawyers, was made necessary by the unique circumstances of this deposition.

The statement also cited President Donald Trump’s own invocation of his Fifth Amendment right before his deposition with New York State Attorney General Letitia James, quoting Trump’s suggestion that only “an absolute fool” would refuse to take the Fifth.

O’Connor requested that Congress delay his appearance, citing concerns about sharing information protected by doctor/patient privilege. The Associated Press reported that he is seeking a delay to ensure that privileged information is not shared. He recently asked to delay his requested testimony because he hopes to hammer out an agreement that will protect doctor-patient confidentiality.

Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who served as Biden’s physician at the White House, requested a delay until the end of July or early August “to reach an accommodation that will protect the very substantial privilege and confidentiality interests of Dr. O’Connor and former President Biden,” according to a letter from his lawyer sent to Rep. James Comer of Kentucky on Saturday. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.

A spokesperson for Oversight Republicans said the committee will follow the House’s deposition guidelines, which allow for witnesses to assert privilege on a question-by-question basis, with the committee chair ruling on each claim. But O’Connor is not allowed, in the committee’s view, to delay or decline a congressional subpoena due to concerns over questions about potentially privileged information.

The back-and-forth is part of a broader struggle over the scope of the House Republican inquiry into Biden’s age and mental fitness, with serious implications for both politics and policy. Republicans have also claimed that some policies carried out by the White House “autopen” may be invalid if it is proven that Biden was mentally incapacitated for some part of his term.

Here’s what’s happening: House Republicans are trying to show that Biden’s cognitive issues severely impacted his presidency to the point that his staffers essentially ran the country during his term. O’Connor and his legal team know this and are trying to prevent lawmakers from getting to the truth.

This probably won’t work.

Even with O’Connor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment, it is likely that Congress might just find what they are looking for even without his help. It was abundantly clear that Biden’s mental acuity was lacking all throughout his presidency. There have already been indications that he was not up to the job and that several executive orders were signed with the autopen without his knowledge.

With Republicans in charge of the White House and the legislature, there won’t be enough roadblocks preventing them from ascertaining what was going on in the White House over the past four years. At some point, America will find out the truth — and it will probably be uglier than we think.

Jeff Clark

Conservative constitutionalists believe the President is a *singular* official — the only branch of our three federal branches of government that consists of only one man.

In important ways, widespread use of the autopen— and certainly abuse without knowledge by the singular President — functionally creates a *multiplicity* of cloaked Presidents.

Thus, Biden Administration’s massive use of the autopen for the Presidential John Hancock, including multiple versions of the purported Biden signature is itself a microcosm of progressive theories of the Constitution: Reliance not on one man to be President — the system of government bequeathed to us by the Founders — but on a profuse coterie of advisors clustered around the actual sitting President who are all able to use the autopen to — let’s not sugarcoat it — impersonate the President as they might see fit.

Even in the small things, the inversion of the true Constitution in the minds of those that hate it in the progressive movement becomes ever more apparent.

Summarized: We do not have a *multiplicity* of Presidential impersonators, in the real Constitution, we have a *singular* President.

Japan Releases Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Data on 18 Million People

The data speaks for itself—and the 3 to 4 month spike is impossible to ignore.

A COVID vaccine database covering 18 million citizens has just been released for the first time.

After reviewing the data, a top professor warned: “The more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die.”

The most terrifying finding was a deadly spike just 3 to 4 months after the final shot.

Let’s break down the data.

On June 15th, a group of brave Japanese truth seekers did what their government wouldn’t—they released a bombshell broadcast exposing vaccine data from over 18 million people.

Continue reading “”

JAMA? What else is new?

JAMA Pediatrics Publishes Extremely Flawed Studied Titled: “Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US”

A new study in JAMA Pediatrics asserts that states with “permissive” gun control laws experienced higher pediatric firearm mortality rates following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago. The study analyzed data from 49 states spanning 1999 to 2023. This has to be one of the dumbest studies done in a long time. After Public Health officials fumbled the COVID response, you’d expect some hesitation before trusting their research on crime, a field far outside their expertise. The fact that they don’t even mention policing and law enforcement in discussing crime rates should provide some warning to the media.

We have previously written extensively on the false claim made in the first sentence of this study: “Firearm deaths are now the leading cause of death among US children and adolescents” (see here and here).

Unlike typical research, which compares crime or suicide rates before and after states change their laws and contrasts those changes with states that didn’t alter their laws, this study ignores how laws change over time. It takes what could be panel data which allows one to account for average differences across states and years (so-called fixed effects). The paper limits there discussion to a purely cross-sectional comparison. The purely cross sectional comparison cannot be used for any discussion of causation. They don’t even try to account for basic factors like law enforcement practices—such as arrest and conviction rates, imprisonment rates, or the death penalty—that influence crime. Nor do they account for any factors that might explain changes in suicides or accidental gun deaths in the 2011 to 2023 period.

The study categorizes the level of gun control laws in each state into one of three broad categories and assumes that there laws remain constant over time, and lumps many different laws together in an arbitrary manner. Are these additive? Do we simply add a concealed-carry law to a safe-storage law to universal background checks? For these gun control advocates, is a red flag law twice as important as having lots of gun-free zones? There is so much arbitrariness in how a measure that combines these different laws and even what laws to include. How did they decide to have eight strict gun-control law states, eleven permissive states, and 30 most permissive states? Why not 1/3rd in each of these different categories?

The methodology falters in several ways. It relies on the epidemiological concept of “excess deaths,” commonly used to gauge the impact of diseases like Covid-19. The authors applied Poisson regression, using only a time trend as a control variable, to estimate expected deaths for three state groups. They labeled the gap between predicted and actual deaths as “excess deaths,” attributing these to permissive state laws. This gap, however, could simply reflect error or residuals, encompassing random error, omitted variables, heteroskedasticity, serial correlation, measurement errors, and other statistical challenges inherent in such analyses.

Continue reading “”

The Truth Is, They Do Want a King

I just returned from a wonderful week away enjoying time with my family and dear friends to find a lot of chatter about “No Kings” from the predictable group of left-wing Marxists, and their good friend Bill Kristol. It would seem laughable if this rebrand of revolutionary angst were not proven deadly already. Rather than burning urban areas under BLM flags, the revolutionaries are now shooting elected officials at home under the banner of contempt that pretends to dislike monarchies. As I noted recently, these dark and satanic ideologies imported openly into the American polis through the writings of Marx are deadly and should be removed from society as poison is drawn from a wound.

Those who wish death to America are not limited to the ayatollahs of Tehran. The tragic reality is that those inside the United States who hate this nation likely outnumber those who feel the same way from the Middle East. This is the product of generations of successful indoctrination imparted by the government schooling system. Education is not just about reading, writing, and arithmetic. It has always been about transmitting values. Those who hate the American way know it and act accordingly. This must be dealt with if ordered liberty is to stand a chance beyond our lifetimes.

The “No Kings” protest movement is organized and aimed at resurrecting the terror that gripped this nation during the 2020 summer of rage. The majority of Americans finally tired of the fictional, manipulative narratives of the Black Lives Matter and allied transgender movement over the last couple of years and voted accordingly in 2024. As Dr. Ben Carson shared with me recently, the results of the last election lulled too many conservatives into believing that political evil is defeated in our time—when the reality is that those who wish death to our way of life have been regrouping and plotting a counterassault. That counter assault was attempted in several U.S. cities recently through allegedly anti-immigration law enforcement, most notably in Los Angeles. Even in that city defined in our time as a protest center, the deep blue governing officials couldn’t get away with aiding and abetting lawlessness as usual. So they quickly rebranded the movement to “No Kings.” In doing so, they signal the brainless and fictional narrative that Donald is ruling as a dictatorial king, who curiously allows protests against him. The hypocrisy of that argument requires an entire volume to dissect.

As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. The protestors hope to tap into a patriotic root with this iteration of rhetorical schema, rallying a wider coalition based on the nation’s rejection of monarchial rule in the 18th century. They will fail because the branding can’t get even skin deep.

Look around at who is showing up to these supposed “No Kings” events. It’s the same Randi Weingarten-esque group bussed in to every other anti-American protest. The iconography of their signs remains intact from the previous protests, sporting the usual color patterns associated with Ukraine and the sexual liberation movement. What you won’t find is a Betsy Ross flag, which served as the nation’s colors at the time of our ancestors’ rebellion against an *actual* king. America’s left wing decided it, and the nation’s founding, is racist. Given such logic, honest activists would demand to become subjects of King Charles III.

But let’s lay all that aside for a moment and talk about how to respond to one of these “No Kings” protestors from a position that grants a basis of dignity in approach. I offer this: the left wing is desperate for a king. Everything about progressivism yearns for someone who will make all things safe, who will guarantee the right to all self-centered behavior, who will provide all things needed for one to live in equity rather than through what one earns. Progressivism demands a king who will uphold its cause zealously, and punish people who dare to assert that the law should provide rights and reasonable limitations equally to all citizens for the purpose of a virtuous society.

Their king will tell you what you can drive, what you can say, what you can eat, and how you may use your land. They want a king who will literally cover your face and inject your body, a king who will take your children if you deny transgender ideology, a ruler who will terminate your bank accounts and your job if you stray from depraved thinking. The progressive left wing wants what it has always wanted: power. It needs—no, demands—a dark lord who will, as the great novelist J.R.R. Tolkien wrote, rule them, find them, and bind them in darkness.

No, the protestors we see now do not reject a king. They demand one.

Scripture assures that those who want to live under dark rule will eventually get their wish. But we dare not hasten those days. So long as God gives us the strength, we must be sure to prevent that coronation from happening.

May be? It may be the worst scandal since Woodrow Wilson, and over the same type of incapacity. Watergate was a criminal conspiracy to cover up a dirty political campaign trick. Bidengate involves the hijacking of the presidency itself, with a conspiracy that involves senior leaders of a major political party and Cabinet officials, not to mention Vice President Kamala Harris herself. And let’s not forget that the Protection Racket Media didn’t just fail to uncover it, they actively acted to cover it up — for four full years.
Watergate was a bungled frat prank in comparison.
– Ed Driscoll

Of course, Tapper is still trying to CYA because the media – lapdogs of the demoncraps – conveniently neglected to do their purported jobs.

Neuroscientist Accidentally Reveals Democrats’ Dark Strategy Behind Biden’s Mental Health Cover-Up.

Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris recently admitted he was misled about President Joe Biden’s cognitive health, conceding that he once believed claims that Biden remained sharp behind closed doors—but now doubts that assumption, citing what he describes as an “effective” cover-up.

In a candid discussion, Harris acknowledged he used to defend Biden’s mental acuity by separating the president’s communication struggles from his decision-making abilities.

“It’s at least intelligible to say, ‘Okay, he’s not a good communicator. He was never a good communicator, he’s only getting worse,’” Harris said. “You can’t reliably stick him in front of a microphone and trust that something good is gonna come out of his mouth.”

Harris once accepted the idea that while Biden fumbled public speaking engagements, he was still competent when it came to deliberating important issues in private.

“The truth is… when you sit with him and deliberate about the war in Ukraine or anything else, he is compos mentis, he clearly understands the issue as well as he ever did,” Harris claimed he previously believed. “He’s just not a fluid speaker, and less and less fluid by the hour. Neurologically speaking, that is an intelligible claim to make about a person. That’s what I assumed was true.”

However, Harris now says he doubts Biden was ever as mentally fit as some insiders had claimed. “Because of how effective this cover-up was, I no longer believe that to have been true,” he admitted. “I think it’s quite possible that he was just checked out to a degree that I did not suspect at the time.”

Now, we’re supposed to believe this explanation, which is basically the same thing that Democrats and their allies in the media are saying. According to them, they were duped. But, Harris, like everyone else on the left who defended Biden’s mental acuity, was lying.

How do I know? Because he flat-out contradicted himself moments later, and it wasn’t subtle.

While you might assume that Biden’s obvious mental decline would be a deal-breaker for a neuroscientist, Harris made it clear that it didn’t matter one bit. The truth is, Biden’s cognitive state was irrelevant to him. His only real concern was stopping Trump—no matter the cost.

“Even that is preferable to me and to, I think, many Democrats, than having someone who we consider to be genuinely evil—genuinely 100% purposed to serving himself in the office of the presidency,” he said, drawing a sharp contrast between Biden’s frailty and Trump’s leadership.

Harris went even further, laying bare the mentality behind the left’s support of Biden in 2024: “I would rather have a president in a coma, where the duties of the presidency are executed by a committee of just normal people,” he said. “And that’s the choice that many of us believe was before us.”

In doing so, Harris admitted that Biden’s competency wasn’t just misunderstood—it was irrelevant. The real goal, for many Democrats, was to stop Trump at any cost. “Not much materially changes once you reveal just how insane and despicable this cover-up of Biden’s infirmities actually was,” Harris concluded, suggesting that the deception—however egregious—was worth it to keep Trump out of office.

Here we have a neuroscientist—someone with the education and expertise to spot cognitive decline a mile away—claiming he was duped by the Biden White House. But then, in the same breath, he admits it wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

Why? Because he’d rather see a cabal of unelected leftist operatives quietly steer the country into a constitutional crisis than let Trump win.

Spare me the victim act. He wasn’t fooled—he willingly ignored what was right in front of him because his hatred for Trump clouded his judgment.

Just like every other partisan on the left, he helped prop up a mentally unfit president and now wants to pretend he was misled.

He wasn’t. He was complicit.

Anna Matson

I knew the Covid vaccine was dangerous, but after listening to this hearing- it’s so much worse than we thought. We heard from top experts who have been censored- until now. Here is what we know about the vaccine

First I want to point out that the panel was placed under oath. If they lied, it would be a federal crime.

First, @Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® who is one of the most published people in the world on Covid vaccine myocarditis spoke. He saw warning signs as early as August of 2021 that the vaccines can cause myocarditis…

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart. Before Covid, Dr. McCullough saw two patients with this problem. Now there are over 1000 peer reviewed studies on Covid vaccine myocarditis.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
They knew he was mentally aloof—a cancer diagnosis would be the ballgame. The latter happened no matter what, so I think it’s time to own it. We all know how this movie ends, kids. This con job is over. You lied. You tried to keep a mentally degraded man suffering from cancer in office. Not only that, but you were also preparing for him to die if re-elected.
A sacrifice on the altar of Democratic politics. These people are savages.

There’s No Way This Latest Statement From Biden’s Team About the Cancer Diagnosis Is True

Former President Joe Biden revealed that he was diagnosed with stage four metastatic prostate cancer on Sunday. It set off another wave of scrutiny regarding a man whose health issues were covered up by Democrats and the media. It’s why this story isn’t going away—cancer diagnosis or not. The levels of this scheme to deceive the public and perpetuate fraud are beyond criminal. We knew the mental health cover-up was sinister, finally exposed for all to see when Biden imploded against Donald Trump in the CNN debate last June.

Now, we have this cancer news. Was Joe sick when he was president? The answer is ‘yes.’ There’s no way prostate cancer that metastasizes to your bones is on a 100-200-day timeline. That’s scientifically impossible; Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel even noted on MSNBC that Biden likely had cancer at the start of his presidency. The former president was not only mentally cooked but had cancer, and no one knew.

The Biden team is trying to do damage control now, adding that Joe was not diagnosed while serving as president. Yeah, because you people never tested him. His last prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was done in 2014. I’m sure you know the obvious problem: These people lie. They’ve lied for years, and we’re supposed to trust them now. Please. This little statement will do nothing since it’s clear Biden wasn’t tested in office for an obvious reason: they didn’t want a paper trail.

Continue reading “”

If it’s that advanced, it means he likely was suffering from it YEARS ago Maybe even before 2020!
And his physical exams (PSA) lab work should have indicated it.
So…. what else is new about covering up for SloJoe?

Joe Biden diagnosed with ‘aggressive form’ of prostate cancer with metastasis to the bone

Former President Joe Biden’s office confirmed on Sunday that he was diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer.

“Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms,” Biden’s team shared in a statement. “On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone.”

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management. The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians,” the statement said.

ALEX BERENSON: Why we need to humiliate Joe Biden
It may seem cruel, but we must prevent similarly addled men from clinging to power

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. was even more demented than we knew.
Last night, excerpts leaked from Biden’s October 2023 interview with Robert Hur, the federal prosecutor who investigated him for possessing classified documents.

They are awful. They show a man in severe cognitive decline. Biden couldn’t recall even basic facts, like when elections are held. Yes, Joe Biden — who had lusted for the presidency his entire life — thought Donald Trump had won in November 2017, not 2016. It wasn’t a verbal slip. He didn’t know. An aide had to correct him.

BIDEN REPEATEDLY SAYS ‘I DON’T REMEMBER’ REGARDING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS IN NEWLY RELEASED HUR INTERVIEW AUDIO

Even that summary doesn’t capture Biden’s struggles.

What he says is bad. How he says it is worse. His voice is weak and whispery. He goes silent for stretches, loses his train of thought, offers oddly emotional asides about his son Beau — though he could not remember when Beau died. He seems not to remember being vice president; he speaks of being a senator and then jumps to running for president.

In the end, the classified documents investigation went nowhere. (Like the similar case involving Donald Trump, it shouldn’t have). But along the way, Hur — a well-respected prosecutor who had been the U.S. Attorney for Maryland in Trump’s first term — discovered something far more important: proof of Biden’s incapacity.

The Hur interview is so crucial because Biden and his handlers went to such lengths to protect Biden from press or public scrutiny even before the 2020 election.

Biden used teleprompters for his speeches, of course. His press conferences were rare and closely scripted. He had been told what questions would be asked in advance. Biden’s few unscripted, live interactions visible to the public generally came when he left the White House to walk to Marine One. He would occasionally stumble over to the “gaggle” of reporters yelling questions at him and speak for a few seconds.

Hur’s interview with Biden was likely the only time during Biden’s entire presidency when he faced lengthy questioning he could not control. It shows why Biden and his handlers tried so hard to avoid similar situations.

Hur wrote in his report on the investigation last year that Biden was “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” The audio suggests that description was kind.

You wouldn’t trust the guy in this interview to drive to the grocery store.
Biden had the nuclear codes.

Still worse, Hur interviewed Biden in 2023. If Biden and the people around him had had their way, he would have been president through January 2029. The interview suggests he’ll be nearly vegetative by then — if he lives that long.

When the Justice Department released Hur’s report on his investigation in February 2024, the legacy media immediately downplayed its importance and attacked Hur’s motives.

… the legacy media is only the second-most important villain here. It was Biden and the people around him, most notably his wife Jill and son Hunter, who insisted that he was fit to serve, and would continue to be until he was 86. 

“In what is supposedly a legal document, these inclusions certainly looked gratuitous—to say the least,” the New Yorker wrote in an article about Biden’s “righteous fury” over the report.

Two days later, the Washington Post would claim in a headline Hur had a “five-hour face-off” with Biden and write:

“Hur’s description of Biden’s demeanor as that of a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” would infuriate Biden’s aides, who saw it as sharply at odds with what occurred as the president sat for voluntary questioning.”

Sharply at odds, huh?

I have written before about the media’s dereliction of duty in covering Biden’s decline, both before and after the Hur report, which continued until his disastrous June 27 debate in Atlanta made covering for him impossible. And I will come back to the media’s failure. Hur’s report made clear that Biden’s cognitive impairment was severe and the White House was covering it up. That scheme should have been the story of the 2024 campaign from the moment the report became public.

This is not 20/20 hindsight on my part. On Feb. 9, 2024, the day the report came out, I wrote that it actually might be WORSE for Biden than an actual indictment.

Most of the media looked the other way, even as Biden’s flubs and lapses visibly worsened in the spring of 2024 despite the protective cocoon around him. But the legacy media is only the second-most important villain here.
It was Biden and the people around him, most notably his wife Jill and son Hunter, who insisted that he was fit to serve, and would continue to be until he was 86. Both Jill and Hunt had their reasons. Jill’s lust for the trappings of power would be almost comic in its nakedness if it weren’t so dangerous; Hunter has champagne taste and a beer budget (or, more accurately in his case, cocaine taste and a meth budget).

But, of course, all of them, including Biden, knew the truth. If they hadn’t, they wouldn’t have gone to such great lengths to hide it.

Imagine if Biden had won. Imagine if he had somehow found his way through his debates with Trump and then gone back to the presidential cocoon. Imagine if the media had insisted through Election Day that the videos showing his decline were merely “cheap fakes” – as it did throughout the spring. We’d be approaching a Constitutional crisis. Our system is not parliamentary; it has no way to replace an unfit President quickly or easily. And in running for a second term when he did not have to, Biden showed that he would not give up power unless he was forced to do so.

Robert Hur spoke truth to power. He’s a hero.

Biden and the people around him lied about his basic ability to function as he tried to convince American voters to give him the world’s most important job for four more years. He shouldn’t be forgiven. His misdeeds belong in the first line in his obituary.

We need to remember what he did, even if he can’t.

Try “well known but – poorly – covered up, before the 2020 election”

Yes, Our President Was Senile for a Long Stretch.

On the menu today: Before we dive into the latest detailed anecdotes of President Joe Biden’s undeniable senility in his final year in office, we ought to look back at the on-the-money prediction of these all-too-late tell-all books from back in 2022. I knew this was coming and there’s an extremely good chance you knew this was coming, too. Democrats can’t wait to move on; it’s humiliating to learn Biden couldn’t function in the evenings, his staff told Democratic donors that Kamala Harris was incompetent and unelectable, and that Tim Walz was terrified of debating JD Vance. But how do you learn from a mistake if you refuse to ever admit them?

Everyone Recognizes George Clooney . . . Except Biden

The Morning Jolt, June 20, 2022:

I think the single most predictable “bombshell” of the coming years is that sometime in 2025, someone like Bob Woodward or Robert Costa will publish a book with a title like “Perpetual Crisis: Inside the Biden White House,” and we will “learn” something like:

The president’s official health report said he was in fine shape for his age. But behind the scenes, Jill Biden, Ron Klain, and Susan Rice were deeply concerned the president’s health was rapidly declining, and that he would soon be unable to perform his duties.

His speech was becoming less and less coherent, his thinking more erratic, his mood shifts more intense, and he angrily lashed out at routine advice or recommendations. He insisted he had not been told things he had been briefed on and that his wrong statements were correct. He repeatedly insisted the U.S. had committed to protecting Taiwan, when no treaty required it.

When asked about this, Biden insisted no policy had changed. At almost every public appearance, no matter how much he had been instructed to stick to the teleprompter’s prepared remarks, Biden would go off script and add some comment or outburst — like “for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power!” — that undermined his message and created new foreign-policy headaches.

But the first lady, Klain, and Rice all concurred that Biden’s problems could be hidden from the public, at least for now, and that Vice President Harris taking over was unthinkable — both because it would be too traumatic for the country and because they had little faith in Harris’s ability to defeat Trump or DeSantis in 2024.

Either man entering the Oval Office in January would put nothing less than all of American democracy at risk. For the good of the country, Biden had to stay in place, and his cognitive decline hidden — much as FDR’s disability, JFK’s back pain, and Woodrow Wilson’s stroke had been hidden before. 

Biden’s public appearances grew less and less frequent, and he virtually stopped doing sit-down interviews. Late at night, Klain and Rice would get together, satisfied they had kept the ship sailing for another day. All the while, the public had no idea that Biden was in such rough shape.

Though it will be treated like a bombshell revelation, the fact is we all have eyes and ears and can see and hear Biden.

I just wish the lottery numbers were so easy to predict.

Enjoy these days of Joe Biden getting knocked around like a piñata, because after Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson have sold all the books they can, the story of the coverup of Joe Biden’s failing physical and mental health is going to disappear like the subject of a David Copperfield prime-time special. It’s just too embarrassing, too harmful to the Democrats’ priorities now, too much of a benefit to Donald Trump and Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer yesterday, on CNN:

Continue reading “”

BBC Pushes Firearm Falsehoods, Then Quietly Changes Article

A BBC article published on Monday, in the wake of recent mass shootings, included a graphic that contained blatant lies about the fire rates of different types of firearms.

BBC later removed the graphic from the article, but they provided no editor’s note in the article and failed to announce the correction on Twitter.

The graphic, conducted by “BBC research,” claimed that a “modified semi-automatic assault rifle (AR-15)” could fire up to 1,200 rounds per minute. This ludicrous assertion was even more astonishing when they claimed that an M16 had a maximum fire rate of 950 rounds per minute, and that a semi-automatic AK-47 only fired a mere 120 rounds per minute.

 

 

A PolitiFact fact check debunked a similar claim in 2016 after the Orlando shooting when Democrat Alan Grayson said an AR-15 could fire 700 rounds per minute. PolitiFact found that “the 700-round-a-minute figure is only a theoretical benchmark, not something achievable in reality.” This is because the cyclic fire rate of these guns is around 700.

Essentially, they found that, in a perfect world with infinite capacity magazines and without the gun overheating, that a 700-900 rounds a minute fire rate would be possible. This isn’t reality, and the BBC is trying to push that figure into the stratosphere.

The BBC researchers may have missed the mark by a monumental amount on the AR-15, but they gave a much more realistic, but still implausible, figure for a semi-automatic AK-47 with 120 rounds a minute. So, why lie about the AR-15? Who fact checked this research and who were the researchers they even employed in the first place? This is at best lazy and incompetent journalism, and at worst a malicious attempt to misinform the populace about the capability of firearms.

The article has a number of further oddities in it, citing odd figures for the prices of firearms, as well as claiming that the NRA is one of “the most powerful special interest lobby groups in the US” despite their lobbying efforts being dwarfed by organizations like Planned Parenthood.

The article may have been rife with falsehoods, obfuscation, a lack of transparency, and head-scratching statistics, but the BBC’s readers need to worry. They were sure to add a handy link to the end of the article on “why you can trust BBC News.”

How Democrats used NGOs to end-run voters: A ‘parallel government.’

I’m often darkly amused by common examples of inherently false nomenclature: “Jumbo shrimp.” “Government ethics.” “Unbiased news media.”

And one of our society’s biggest falsehoods-in-a-name: “Non-governmental organizations.”

Until recently these groups have been widely seen as international, idealized versions of domestic non-profits.

We thought of them as do-good organizations set up by people who really care — about the environment, or poor people, or children, or freedom.

We imagined they raise money, help the downtrodden, send out press releases and engage in other private activities to promote the causes they favor.

Trump is deworming Washington — now to keep the parasites out for good
They’re not government entities, we thought — the very name says that — but a species of private charity whose good intentions deserve the benefit of any doubt.

Perhaps some NGOs do operate in that way.

But as we’ve learned recently, partly as the result of Department of Government Efficiency digging, many “non-governmental” entities are really just fronts for government activities that Americans would never stand for if Washington attempted them directly.

For example, America’s border crisis was funded in large part by Joe Biden’s government, which sent large sums of money in the form of grants to various NGOs that helped train migrants on how to get to the United States — and how to claim asylum when they arrived.

NGOs helped the illegal immigrants with expenses on their way, and then provided legal resources and more than $22 billion worth of assistance for them — including cash for cars, home loans and business start-ups — once they got in.

This was US taxpayer money, laundered through “independent” organizations that served to promote goals contrary to US law, but consistent with the policy preferences of the Biden administration.

Under President Donald Trump, this funding halted — and, unsurprisingly, the flow of illegal immigrants did, too.

Likewise, the weird wave of sudden global enthusiasm for “trans rights” and novel ideas about gender turns out to have been largely funded by the US government through USAID grants.

Federally funded NGOs spent millions on everything from a transgender opera in Colombia, to a campaign promoting “being LGBTQ in the Caribbean,” to an LGBTQ community center in Bratislava, Slovakia.

As data expert Jennica Pounds (“DataRepublican” on X) put it, “Over the last few months, we’ve come to a realization that should have landed much harder: NGOs weren’t just adjacent to government.”

They were tools of government, “the parallel government,” Pounds wrote, specifically doing things that Washington bureaucrats knew full well they couldn’t easily do themselves.

The big surprise is that we’re so surprised this has been going on.

The lack of accountability also made NGOs a perfect conduit for funneling money to Washington insiders.

It’s been a profitable cycle: Politicians fund agencies; agencies make grants to NGOs; NGOs hire politicians’ wives and offspring — and sometimes the politicians themselves, once they’ve left office.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), for example, voted to award $14.2 million to Ocean Conservancy since 2008, Fox News reported — and the NGO, in turn, paid his wife Sandra Whitehouse and her firm $2.7 million for consulting work.

No wonder the Washington establishment went crazy when Trump and DOGE started cutting off such funds.

Continue reading “”