Category: Deceit O’ The Day

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 “”

We were right! The ONS lied about covid vaccine safety.

IN 2021 when the Office for National Statistics (ONS) started releasing its vaccine by mortality status reports we revealed that there were large spikes in the non-covid death rates in the ‘unvaccinated’. These spikes in mortality coincided with the first main vaccine rollout and did so for each age group (see this report, for example).
Here is the chart for non-covid mortality rates in weeks 1-38 of 2021 for the 60-69 age groups:

The charts for the other age groups looked much the same.

We asserted that these obvious anomalies were a result of the standard ONS procedure of categorising anyone within 20 days of their first dose as ‘unvaccinated’. However, in our own discussions with the ONS they maintained that, although that method was used for their efficacy calculations, it was not used when it came to mortality. They clearly said that a person dying any time after vaccination was correctly categorised as a vaccinated death in the mortality data they regularly released to the public and which formed the basis of a massive public communication campaign encouraging vaccination.

Continue reading “”

Former NIH Director Admits Government Was Top Source Of Covid Misinformation

Four years ago, U.S. state, local, and federal goverments pushed “social-distancing” policies separating Americans six feet away from other people everywhere they went. Now former National Institute of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins has admitted no “science or evidence” ever backed these heavy-handed, comprehensive restrictions — another key proof the left’s war on so-called “disinformation” is so dangerous.

A memo National Review obtained, from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, details Collins’ closed-door testimony earlier this year. It reveals that Collins had not seen evidence on March 22, 2020, to support the widely obeyed federal policy when the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) instituted six-foot social distancing rules.

“Do you recall science or evidence that supported the six-foot distance?” Collins was asked.

“I do not,” Collins said. “I did not see evidence, but I’m not sure I would have been shown evidence at that point.”

“Have you seen any evidence since then supporting six feet?”

“No,” Collins responded.

So Collins admits the federal government lacked any scientific basis for this massive social policy it pushed on Americans, including by colluding with Big Tech to shut down public debate about Covid-19 responses. Such debate could have revealed that many Covid policies weren’t backed by good research. Instead, numerous federal officials pressed Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to shut down skepticism and contrary information it falsely labeled “misinformation” and “disinformation,” including articles from The Federalist.

This censorship effort effectively secured an information monopoly for federal agencies, including the CDC and NIH, to spread false information. As the lawsuit Murthy v. Missouri and other investigations later revealed, these government officials then used their information monopoly gained through accusing others of “misinformation” to spread actual misinformation, including that “social distancing” was scientifically proven necessary to “save lives.”

Continue reading “”

We now know the likely truth about COVID, and how scientists lied.

COVID-19, which killed 1.1 million Americans and destroyed the lives and livelihoods of millions more, is a manmade virus that escaped from a Chinese lab partly funded by the US government.

Even today, you’re not supposed to say that — even though it’s the only plausible scenario.

No, “fact checkers” will rush in to claim that eminent scientists deny this. Which is because those scientists have too much invested — in money, in time, in their own beliefs — to admit the truth.

NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak
NIH deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted that US taxpayers funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China before the COVID-19 pandemic started.Jack Gruber / USA TODAY NETWORK

But as Congress continues to probe, that truth is coming out, little by little, and the lies are being exposed:

China tried to deflect blame immediately by saying the virus supposedly began in a “wet market” of animal meat in Wuhan.

Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly argued it “evolved in nature and then jumped species” in the spring of 2020.

Since then, both long investigations and government reports have concluded that the virus is manmade. Fauci grudgingly admitted it “could be” true.

Continue reading “”

Analysis: The Pulitzer for Propaganda Goes to…

In 2023, the Washington Post published a series of articles about AR-15-style rifles. The series was scientifically illiterate, error-ridden, propagandistic, and willfully misleading.

Naturally, it has just been awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

Here are the facts, not that these matter even a little bit to the Pulitzer committee, members of which declined to answer questions for this column.

The AR-15 and rifles based on its design are two things at once: They are perfectly ordinary firearms that have been sold to civilians in the United States for the better part of a century, and they are cultural totems. They are cultural totems for the gun nuts who love them and for those who wish to prohibit their sale. The AR-pattern rifle has a lot in common with the most common rifles and handguns sold in the United States: It has a semiautomatic rate of fire (meaning that it fires once each time the trigger is pulled but doesn’t require any additional steps between trigger pulls, as opposed to, e.g., a bolt-action rifle, which requires that the shooter manually operate a handle that ejects the spent shell after a shot and then chambers another round for the next shot), and it is fed from a detachable box magazine. These features—semiautomatic firing and detachable box magazines—are what make the AR-style rifle useful for many purposes—including mass shootings. But they are features that the AR-style rifle has in common with most rifles sold in the United States and with nearly all handguns sold in the United States. As the engineering of semiautomatic rifles grows ever finer, even pursuits traditionally dominated by bolt-action rifles—long-range precision target shooting and hunting—have seen semiautomatic rifles make incursions, in much the same way that sports cars today mainly have a feature that would have been anathema to a sporting driver a generation ago: automatic transmissions.

The Washington Post series is very focused on the round the AR-style rifle fires, which it describes as “uniquely destructive”—a demonstrably false, quantifiable claim (as I noted at the time). AR-type rifles come in dozens of different chamberings, but the vast majority are chambered for the round that was long the standard-issue cartridge for the U.S. military: the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, which is nearly identical to and effectively interchangeable with the .223 Remington round. (AR-type rifles chambered for the 5.56mm round can typically fire the .223 without issue, though some older .223 rifles cannot safely fire the 5.56mm.) The Post writers claim that it is the speed of the 5.56mm round that makes AR-style rifles “uniquely destructive,” but this is false as a matter of elementary physics. Velocity is not what determines how much damage a projectile does to a human body—kinetic energy is. Chances are excellent that at some point this year you will be struck by something moving about 1 million times faster than the fastest bullet, and you will never even notice it, because the mass of the object in question is so small. Cosmic rays are an example of this. But the principle holds true at a larger scale: There are many cartridges that produce faster bullet velocities than the 5.56mm does. The 5.56mm generally comes out of the muzzle at about 3,250 feet per second (fps), which is a good deal less than hunting calibers such as the .220 Swift (more than 4,000 fps) or the .30/378 Weatherby (5,000 fps). Hunters and long-distance target shooters often prefer faster-moving cartridges because they are easier to shoot accurately: Bullets are not powered like little rockets but are more like rocks fired out of a slingshot, meaning that they begin to drop as soon as they leave the muzzle and gravity begins acting on them; faster bullets reach the target more quickly and thus have less time to fall and so require less adjustment for distance.

Continue reading “”

US says no aid entered Gaza via Kerem Shalom; IDF releases footage showing trucks crossing

US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller says that while Israel reopened the Kerem Shalom crossing this morning, no trucks carrying humanitarian aid actually went through the gate today due to logistical and security concerns.

Hours earlier, though, the IDF released drone footage showing the entry of trucks carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip today via the crossing.

Miller also says at the press briefing that despite assurances from Israel, the Rafah crossing into Gaza wasn’t opened to fuel shipments either, and urges Israel to immediately ensure the delivery of aid into Gaza.

Defense sources tell The Times of Israel that the Rafah crossing with Egypt will remain closed amid the ongoing IDF operations on the Gazan side of the crossing. The IDF hasn’t given any timeline regarding its operation in eastern Rafah or what will subsequently happen with the border crossing with Egypt.

Just in case you never considered that congresscritterz™ could be domestic enemies of the people and the Constitution:

The US Fed may kill the Biden presidency

It is no secret that one of President Biden’s key weaknesses in the upcoming presidential election is the economy. A USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll in March put Trump at 40pc, just ahead of Biden on 38pc. The same poll showed many Americans remain undecided; among those surveyed inflation and the economy were listed as the most important issues determining their vote.

As such, a core problem for Biden is the recent price rises and resultant cost of living crisis. In the past few months, political strategists have marvelled at the fact that the economy under Biden was growing (at 3.2pc in the fourth quarter of 2024) but polling on Biden’s performance on the economy was dismal.

A recent paper led by former treasury of the secretary Larry Summers has helped clear up the discrepancy. Summers and his co-authors show that if we adjust American inflation data to consider changes in methodology that have taken place over the past few decades, we see inflation not peaking at 9pc, as the official data indicates, but rather at 18pc. The paper also suggests that inflation measured in line with historical norms would have been 8pc at the end of 2023, not the 3pc shown in the official statistics.

This explains why the average American voter is angry at Biden about the economy: prices are still rising at a rapid clip and living standards have been substantially eroded under his administration. This puts the Federal Reserve in a very unusual position this electoral cycle, because what the central bank does in the coming months could have a huge impact on the outcome of the election.

Continue reading “”

Anti-gun group plagiarizes photos of top female shooters to gaslight the public
Victims never gave permission for use of their photos or personal information.

This is the busiest time of year for professional shooter, wife, mother and Army veteran, Julie Golob. She is hosting classes and training hard for the upcoming competition season, which begins later this month. She did not have much time to devote to a controversy that surfaced last week, when her image and personal information were misappropriated for a social media post by the anti-gun group, 97Percent, as part of its campaign to gaslight the public into falsely believing it is a moderate pro-gun group.

“I did not endorse their message. I gave no permission for the photo. It is unfair to use my image and likeness to give the perception that I support what they are all about. I certainly don’t,” Golob told the Second Amendment Foundation last week. “And the fact it was used for Women’s History Month is insulting.”

A special report published by the Second Amendment Foundation last week revealed how 97Percent uses slick marketing and an aggressive social media campaign to falsely portray itself as a pro-gun organization comprised of gun owners and non-gun owners, while in reality it is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill anti-gun group, not unlike Everytown, Giffords or Brady.

Last Wednesday, ostensibly as part of Women’s History Month, 97Percent posted tweets featuring images and personal information of nine female shooters and/or leaders within the Second Amendment community — six living and three deceased. They included Golob, Rhonda Ezell, Robin Sandoval, Lena Miculek, Kim Rhode and Carrie Lightfoot, as well as Lucille Ball, Mary Edwards Walker and Annie Oakley.

Last Thursday, after Golob responded to the post on Twitter/X and made it clear that she did not give permission to use her likeness or personal information, the group quickly deleted all of its Women’s History Month posts.

97Percent’s executive director, Olivia Troye, said during a recent appearance on ABC’s The View, that her group’s mission is “to bring gun owners into the conversation and to bring them to the table, in order to work on reducing gun deaths happening across the country, while including them in the solutions.”

However, the recent investigation by the Second Amendment Foundation revealed that 97Percent supports bans on “assault weapons,” standard-capacity magazines and bump stocks, and has called for permits to carry, purchase and even possess firearms. It supports mandatory background checks and mandatory storage laws and claims the Second Amendment is “overprotected.”

Troye declined to be interviewed for the previous story, and she did not return emails seeking an explanation for her group’s misuse of the women’s photos and personal information.

Screenshot of now-deleted tweet, which featured Chicago-based Second Amendment advocate, Rhonda Ezell. (Screenshot used for this story with Ms. Ezell’s permission.)

Chicago Guns Matter founder Rhonda Ezell pointed out that 97Percent lifted her image right off of her website, without her knowledge or permission.

“When I first saw it, I was shocked,” she told the Second Amendment Foundation. “Why would an anti-gun group post a picture of me? They never asked to use the photo. This doesn’t make sense. At best, this is theft of intellectual property.”

Ezell has since contacted an attorney.

“I didn’t know of 97Percent. I never interacted with them. They are working against our cause,” she said. “I pick my battles, but I did feel it was rude. The picture they took is from a professional photo shoot.”

Both Ezell and Golob are frustrated by 97Percent’s plagiarism and use of false light.

“Lawful gun owners have to be wary of organizations that make certain claims,” Golob said. “We have to be vigilant and speak up, because when something is done wrong to you, the burden of proof and all of the effort is on you.”

What Mr. McKernan and his team have found contradicts the latest arguments from fact-checkers.

Following his discovery of DNA contamination in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, genomic researcher Kevin McKernan has recently found that the DNA in these vaccines can potentially integrate into human DNA.

The COVID-19 vaccine spike sequence was detected in two types of chromosomes in cancer cell lines following exposure to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Mr. McKernan’s findings, which he presents on his Substack blog, haven’t been peer-reviewed.

These are expected to be “rare events,” but they can happen, Mr. McKernan told The Epoch Times.

DNA Integration

Since the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, some members of the public have been concerned that the vaccines may modify human DNA by combining their sequences with the human genome.

Fact-checkers” refuted this, saying mRNA cannot be changed into DNA. Yet Mr. McKernan’s earlier work shows that DNA in the vaccine vials may be capable of changing human DNA.

Ulrike Kämmerer, a professor of human biology at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, conducted earlier stages of this research.

Exposing breast and ovarian human cancer cells to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, Ms. Kämmerer found that about half of the cells expressed the COVID-19 spike protein on their cellular surface, indicating that they had absorbed the vaccines.

Mr. McKernan then performed gene sequencing and found that these cells and their descendant cells contained vaccine DNA.

Continue reading “”

CDC Redacts Every Single Word of 148-Page Study on Myocarditis After Covid Vaccination

The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “released” a 148-page study on myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and every single word on every page has been completely redacted.

Nothing to see here, folks.

The 148-page document released by the CDC was in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Epoch Times. The totally redacted CDC study on myocarditis after mRNA vaccination can be accessed here.

Reporter Zachary Steiber explained on X, “Seeing some confusion about this document: It’s a CDC document sent to us in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and is fully redacted.”

“The request asked for information about the CDC’s MOVING project. The team has posted several studies, including this one. The CDC plans to submit another paper on updated findings from the project for peer review, a spokesperson told us in January.”

The establishment narrative around the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations and serious health consequences including myocarditis continues to unravel in the face of public scrutiny.

Dr Anthony Fauci finally admitted during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” in September last year that the Covid-19 mRNA jabs can cause myocarditis.

After months of dismissing or downplaying concerns about the potential side effects of the experimental vaccines, president Biden’s former covid czar now says that there is a myocarditis risk, particularly in young men.

During the interview, Fauci was asked to discuss the recent surge in COVID-19 cases and the ongoing vaccine drive.

Meanwhile, nine new members appointed to the committee that advises the CDC on vaccine recommendations have taken huge payouts from Big Pharma companies to push the deadly mRNA vaccines, according to a new investigation.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in mid-February appointed the new members to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which dictates U.S. vaccine policy.

Commenting on the new appointments, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland said:

“ACIP has long been a rubber stamp for any and all vaccines Big Pharma wants to push. But the brazenness of the HHS-Big Pharma fusion has never been so much on display.

“The only silver lining in this grotesque display is that more and more people are waking up to the reality that ACIP has nothing to do with health and everything to do with profit.”

The ACIP is described as an independent, nonfederal expert body made up of professionals with clinical, scientific and public health expertise. The committee decides which vaccines should be recommended to the public, who should take them and how often — recommendations the CDC typically rubber stamps.