Category: Deceit O’ The Day

Frequently debunked crackpots claim the AR is worthless for self-defense
The Trace teams up with the Gun Violence Archive and hilarity ensues.

When the young paste-eaters at Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda factory, known as the Trace, team up with the stodgy window-lickers at the Gun Violence Archive to produce a story about the utility of the AR platform as a modern self-defense tool, it’s hard not to get too excited.

It’s like watching two freight trains headed toward each other on the same track. You know the results are going to be cataclysmic. None of these halfwits have ever heard a shot fired, much less one fired in anger, or especially one fired to good effect. They know less about what makes a reliable home-defense weapon than I do about man-buns, skinny jeans or avocado toast.

We have debunked the Trace and the Gun Violence Archive so often it’s getting old. The kids at the Trace masquerade as legitimate journalists when in fact they’re nothing more than highly paid anti-gun activists. The GVA purports to track gun crimes and maintain a list of mass shootings, but their data is collected from media and even social media sources, and their stats are so inflated they’d have you believe a mass shooting occurs nearly every time someone draws from a holster. When the two anti-gun nonprofits combine for a story, it’s bound to be something as bereft of facts as it is poorly written, and to that standard their most recent collaboration does not disappoint.

A story published Tuesday asks: “How Often Are AR-Style Rifles Used for Self-Defense? Supporters of AR-15s, often used in mass shootings and racist attacks, say they’re important for self-defense. Our analysis of Gun Violence Archive data suggests otherwise.”

The story was written by one of the Trace’s senior fabulists, Jennifer Mascia, who is “currently the lead writer of the Ask the Trace series and tracks news developments on the gun beat.” Mascia has also led the Trace’s hilarious we’re journalists, not activists, propaganda campaign on social media.

Mascia claims her story was a response to a reader’s question: “Many gun owners claim to buy assault-style rifles for defense. So how many documented cases are out there where someone actually defended themselves with an assault-style rifle?”

Mascia reportedly searched the GVA’s data for “assault weapon,” which she said the GVA defines as “AR-15, AK-47, and all variants defined by law enforcement.” Of course, there’s no mention whether the weapons were capable of select-fire and therefore actual assault weapons. She started with 190 incidents, which she whittled down for various reasons. The results: “That left 51 incidents over a nine-and-a-half-year span in which legal gun owners brandished or used an AR-style rifle to defend life or property. That averages out to around five per year.”

To be clear, I trust Mascia’s findings about as much as I trust the GVA data that produced the results. The whole story is GIGO — garbage in, garbage out.

It is noteworthy that the firearms “expert” whom Mascia found to further beclown herself — who wrote in a CNN story that the AR is the last gun he’d recommend for self-defense — is none other than former Washington D.C. police officer Michael Fanone. He’s the officer who cried a lot before the January 6 Commission — the one with the beard who cried a lot, if that helps jog your memory.

“I’m more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn’t belong in the hands of the average civilian,” Fanone wrote of the AR platform in the CNN story.

The network must have liked the cut of his jib. Fanone is now a CNN contributor and hawking a new book: “Hold the Line: The Insurrection and One Cop’s Battle for America’s Soul.” (Nancy Pelosi highly recommended it.)

Since he’s so afraid of the AR platform, I can’t help but wonder what weapon Fanone, or for that matter, Mascia, would recommend for home defense. If I had to guess, it probably has two barrels, a wooden stock and exposed hammers.

I’m somewhat familiar with the AR myself, which is why I trust it to defend my hearth and home. It’s light, accurate and deadly, which is exactly the point, and something we should stop making allowances for.

Despite the exhortations of Bloomberg’s activists or crybaby ex-cops, an AR is exactly what I want when The Bad Man comes a-calling.

GloBull Warming………..

Greenland’s 2022-’23 Ice Coverage Well Above 1981-2010 Average Despite ‘Global Boiling’ Rhetoric.

Since the early 2000s there has been no net change in the Greenland ice sheet mean annual surface temperature, as well as no net change in melt extent percentage.

Greenland’s ice coverage was, for most of this year (September 1, 2022 to August 31, 2023), observed to be significantly above the long-term (1981-2010) climate average. The Greenland ice sheet didn’t even cooperate with the narrative during the “global boiling” melt months of July and August.

Image Source: PolarPortal

Greenland has been defying the narrative for decades now. After a brief, sharp warming from 1994 to the early 2000s, the mean annual land surface temperatures (LST) have been trendless since about 2003. Since 2012, Greenland has been cooling (Fang et al., 2023). Compare the colorized Greenland temperature trends lineup for 2007-2012 to the 2013-2020 period (bottom).

Image Source: Fang et al., 2023

A trendless temperature record also manifests as non-significant change in melt extent as a percentage of surface area as well as the the mass balance for the whole ice sheet, especially from about 2005 onwards.

Image Source: Fang et al., 2023

Other scientists have also reported Greenland warming “is not evident” (Matsumura et al., 2022) in recent decades. Instead, temperature stations document net cooling trends from 2001-2019 (Hanna et al., 2021).

Image Source: Matsumura et al., 2022
Image Source: Hanna et al., 2021

To be frank, our doctors did and were too.

In Wuhan, Doctors Knew The Truth. They Were Told To Keep Quiet.

In the first weeks of 2020, a radiologist at Xinhua Hospital in Wuhan, China, saw looming signs of trouble. He was a native of Wuhan and had 29 years of radiology experience. His job was to take computed tomography (CT) scans, looking at patients’ lungs for signs of infection.

And infections were everywhere. “I have never seen a virus that spreads so quickly,” he told a reporter for the investigative magazine Caixin. “This growth rate is too fast, and it is too scary.”

“The CT machines in the hospital were overloaded every day,” he added. “The machines are exhausted and often crash.”

But this tableau of chaos was hidden from the Chinese people — and the world — in early 2020. Chinese authorities had acknowledged on Dec. 31, 2019, that there were 27 cases of “pneumonia of unknown origin,” and 44 confirmed cases on Jan. 3, 2020. The Wuhan health commission reported 59 cases on Jan. 5, then abruptly reduced the number to 41 on Jan. 11, and claimed there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission or any signs of doctors getting sick.

That claim was a lie. The coronavirus was running rampant. Doctors at the radiologist’s hospital, and other hospitals, were getting sick. But China’s Communist Party leaders prize social stability above all else. They fear any sign of public panic or admission that the ruling party-state is not in control. The authorities in both Wuhan and Beijing kept the situation secret, especially because annual party political meetings were being held in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province, from Jan. 6 to Jan. 17.

Secrecy has long been a major tool of the governing Communist Party. It suppresses independent journalism, censors digital news and communications, and withholds vital information from its people. Doctors in Wuhan who knew the truth were afraid to speak out. China did not reveal human transmission of the virus until Jan. 22, and by then, the pandemic had been ignited. In 3½ years, covid-19 has taken nearly 7 million lives by official counts. The true death toll is probably twice or three times that number.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Leftists will always blame the gun, not the shooters, because the end goal is to get your gat.

KDJ’s ‘Gun Myth’ Fact Check: Liberals vs. Americans, Part 2: Mass Shootings.

As the United Police States of America continues to shred the Constitution into confetti, I thought I’d continue with analysis of more of the applesauce the left is spewing as “gun myths” as they try to dismantle our Second Amendment rights.

A certain brilliant radio talk show host posits that Democrats keep criminals on the streets for two reasons:

  • Crime causes chaos, which communism needs to successfully spread across the country.
  • Higher gun-related crime statistics are used to justify saying, “We need to abolish guns.”

In other words, leftists encourage criminals to break the law and then use the crime stats as a means of taking guns from We the People. Mass shootings are especially tasty crimes for gun grabbers.

FACT-O-RAMA! A mass shooting is defined as four or more people shot, not including the shooter(s), in a fluid situation. Meaning, If I blaze up a Denny’s and shoot three people, go home, take a nap, catch the 3:10 showing of “Barbie,” and shoot three more in the theatre, this is not a mass shooting.

Let’s take a look at what the leftoids at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) are saying about mass shootings:

MYTH: IN MOST MASS SHOOTINGS, PERPETRATORS DO NOT KNOW THE PEOPLE THEY KILL.

FACT: Nearly 70% of mass shootings involve domestic violence, Lisa Geller, MPH, state affairs advisor for the Center, told 12 News in Arizona.

In a study published in 2021, Geller and colleagues found that in over 68% of mass shootings, the perpetrator killed at least one partner or family member and had a history of domestic violence.

The JHU crowd conveniently changed an “or” to an “and” to create a lie.

JHU wrote (emphasis added): “Geller and colleagues found that in over 68% of mass shootings, the perpetrator killed at least one partner or family member and had a history of domestic violence.” But when I looked at their source, I found this: “We found that 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV (domestic violence)-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV.”

Yes, it’s safe to assume that a wacko who perforates his own family probably has a history of domestic violence.

Also, the research JHU is using involves “Fatal mass shootings, defined as four or more people killed by gunfire, excluding the perpetrator,” whereas the aforementioned myth refers to mass shootings. What’s the difference between a mass shooting and a “fatal” mass shooting?” Four (or more) dead people.

Continue reading “”

The Slanted Findings of a Gun-Control “Study”

Everytown for Gun Safety is a Michael Bloomberg-funded gun-ban group that has never heard of an anti-gun proposal that it hasn’t supported. So, when Everytown recently joined with The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab to study “youth” and guns, it should come as no surprise that they “found” exactly what they were looking for.

The combined groups’ new “study,” titled “U.S. Youth Attitudes On Guns Report,” concluded that pro-gun youth are more likely to hold supremacist or racist views. “Evidence from this study suggests that pro-gun attitudes were associated with more extreme worldviews like male supremacist ideation and racial resentment,” the report stated.

Before we get into the nuts and bolts, let’s first take a look at an interesting aspect of the research. While it explicitly states “Youth” in the headline, the study participants ranged from 14 to 30 years old. Even the most-liberal definitions of “youth” tend to use the parameters of 14 to 24. While there is no consensus on what defines “youth” under law in the U.S., nearly every state, along with the federal government, considers the age at which one becomes an “adult” to be 18 years old. Some may debate including 18- to 24-year-olds among “youth,” but adding 25- through 30-year-olds to the study ensures it doesn’t have any validity concerning American “youth.”

Continue reading “”

Do Gun-Control Groups Care What Really Causes Mass Shootings? Everytown Lawsuit Says No

The Biden administration has already put nearly 2,000 gun sellers out of business in just two years. Just a few years ago, a lawsuit helped drive the 200-year-old Remington Arms into bankruptcy. But activists won’t stop suing gun shops and anyone else that comes close to the industry.

Last week, attorneys from Everytown Law, the legal arm of Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety, filed a lawsuit against a shop that sold the gun used in the fatal shooting of 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, in May 2022. The murderer is a racist who specifically targeted racial minorities. Everytown claims the attack “could have been prevented,” but in fact, the gun seller performed all of the proper background checks.

Others are also being sued, including the 18-year-old murderer’s parents and social media companies that allegedly “transformed and addicted” the murderer by allowing extremist content on their sites.

But the lessons from this shooting, like many other mass public shootings, are hiding in plain sight. One needs only to read the killer’s manifesto.

“Areas where CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack,” wrote the shooter. “Areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack.”

But Everytown ignores those quotes. Nor does the organization mention that the Buffalo mass murderer self-identified as an “eco-fascist national socialist” and a member of the “mild-moderate authoritarian left.” The shooter expressed concern that minority immigrants have too many children and will damage the environment. “The invaders are the ones overpopulating the world,” he wrote. “Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”

Continue reading “”

‘Man-made climate change’ is ‘manufactured nonsense’ driven by profit motive: climate change scientist

A once darling of the climate alarmism community-turned skeptic climate scientist Judith Curry told John Stossel that the “man-made climate change” narrative is a “manufactured consensus” because researchers found that they could make money pushing it.

The video released on Tuesday pointed out how some scientists take aggressive attempts to hide data that shows that climate change isn’t a crisis. She said they do “Ugly things” such as “Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”

“The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program,” Curry said about the “climate changed industry.” She noted that some UN officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”

She pointed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was set up “to look for dangerous human-caused climate change” and “not focus on any benefits of warming.”

Curry discussed how science journals aided in promoting one side of the narrative. She pointed to an instance of an editor of the journal “Science” who once wrote, “The time for debate has ended” in a political rant.

“What kind of message does that give?” she asked. Then said it promotes “the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.”

Curry was highly promoted after she published a study that showed an increase in hurricane intensity. She said, “We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled.”

“This was picked up by the media, alarmists said ‘Oh, here is the way to do it.’ Tie extreme weather events to global warming!” she added.

Curry said after that she was “treated like a rockstar.” She added that she was “Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.”

However, it was after seeing critics of her work point to other periods with lower levels of hurricanes that she went back to investigate. She said it turns out “Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.”

The man-made climate change narrative has shifted public policy on a global level. The Biden administration has a goal to reduce greenhouse admissions by 50 percent by 2030. A goal that has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to meet it. The administration gave the Environmental protection agency $576 billion in the 2022 omnibus spending bill.

Climate czar John Kerry recently claimed that their climate policies were not rooted in ideology but “math, mathematics, and science, about physics.” In June, Multnomah County in Oregon filed a lawsuit against oil companies, alleging that they caused a heat wave in 2021.

Words Matter

Americans, for the most part, don’t like to be controlled. It is part of our collective DNA and has been from the time the first English settlers arrived in Jamestown, continuing on through the westward expansion, and through to today. That is why the gun prohibitionists have begun to couch their aims behind innocuous buzzwords.

First it was “gun safety”. I attribute that to Mayor Bloomberg and his PR flacks including the Demanding Mom herself Shannon Watts. They understood that if they couched their desire for control behind the concept of “safety” then there would be less objection. The mainstream media has bought into the terminology wholeheartedly.

Of course, if Bloomberg, Watts, the Biden Administration, and the rest of the gun control industry were truly serious about “gun safety”, they would be insisting upon classes like hunter safety and the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program be taught in every school in America. As it is the Biden Administration through the US Department of Education is withholding funding to schools for archery and hunter safety programs. They are using the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 as their excuse. So in their pursuit of “gun safety” and “safer communities” they will defund the exact types of programs that actually work for safety.

Now it appears that the successor word to “gun safety” will be “gun responsibility”. This comes from Hollywood actor Matthew McConaughey. He, of course, is using the tragedy in his hometown of Uvalde, Texas as the pretense to urge for “gun responsibility.”

McConaughey says there is a difference between control and responsibility in his op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman.

There is a difference between control and responsibility. The first is a mandate that can infringe on our right; the second is a duty that will preserve it. There is no constitutional barrier to gun responsibility. Keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people is not only the responsible thing to do, it is the best way to protect the Second Amendment. We can do both.

That all sounds nice but it is sophistry. As Bishop Robert Barron noted in his commencement address at Hillsdale College:

Their concern is not being truthful or just but rather speaking in such a way that they appear truthful or just and hence become convincing to others. Such sophists were, obviously enough, enormously useful to prospective lawyers and politicians in ancient Greece, and it should be equally obvious that their intellectual descendants are rather thick on the ground today.

McConaughey enumerates four key points for “gun responsibility” in his op-ed.

  • Universal background checks
  • Age 21 to buy an “assault rifle” (sic) unless one is in the military. “Assault rifle” is undefined.
  • “Red Flag Laws should be the law of the land.”
  • National waiting period for the purchase of “assault rifles” (sic).

So in the end, what McConaughey calls “gun responsibility” is just a rehash of many prior “gun control” proposals. They are all, as the gun control industry has said for decades, a “good first step.” A good first step to even more onerous control upon an enumerated right.

The gun control industry and their fellow travelers have to rely upon sophistry and buzzwords. Otherwise they have nothing.

Michael Bloomberg’s ‘Trace’ outed as just another gun-control group
Everytown and the Trace have stunning similarities.

The Trace, the propaganda arm of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control empire, wants the public to believe it’s an actual newsroom comprised of actual journalists. It’s a fiction they’ll go to great lengths to maintain.

The Trace calls itself “The only newsroom dedicated to covering gun violence.” Its staff refer to themselves as journalists, rather than anti-gun activists who are paid by Bloomberg to write propaganda.

Since the Trace was founded eight years ago, scores of newspapers, websites and other legacy media outlets have fallen victim to this ruse. Gannett’s flagship newspaper, USA Today, has collaborated with the Trace multiple times, and has even allowed Trace activists to produce and edit content, which appeared in the newspaper under a joint byline.

“We have partnered with more than 170 national and local media organizations,” the Trace says on its website. “We’re always looking to start new partnerships.”

One Trace activist, Jennifer Mascia, who describes herself as a “Senior news writer @TeamTrace,” bristled recently when her employer was compared to Everytown, another anti-gun group funded by Bloomberg.

“You know The Trace is not a gun control org. We don’t lobby. We don’t tell readers to support laws. We don’t publish our opinions. We are all journalists. None of us have ever worked in advocacy. Our backgrounds are easily searchable. Why do you persist with this myth?” Mascia tweeted Tuesday.

“Follow the bios. We all went to journalism school. The facts don’t support your claims,” Mascia tweeted when pressed.

Enter Rob Romano, an intelligence associate at the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Romano examined the IRS Form 990s for the Trace and Everytown and found a stunning similarity. Both nonprofits share the same president, John Feinblatt.

Continue reading “”

They’re keeping it under wraps because if it got out it would hurt their agenda. They know it. We know it.

 

Lawyer believes decision on release of Covenant shooter’s writings could take up to 3 years.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WZTV) — The debate over whether the Covenant shooter’s writings should be released continues four months after the tragic mass shooting that claimed six innocent lives at a private, elementary school in Nashville.

The court battle has been back and forth for two months now, but one of the lawyers tells FOX 17 News this case may not be resolved for three years.

Nashville Police Chief John Drake says the shooter had a detailed map, drawings of The Covenant School, known entry points, and journals. Almost four months later, the writings have yet to be released, despite public records requests from several organizations which are now suing the Metro government.

“What was going on with The Covenant School shooter? What were the motivating factors? Were there psychological issues? Were there organic issues?” says John Harris, the attorney representing the Tennessee Firearms Association.

TFA is one of several organizations suing for the writings.

Metro Police originally denied the open records citing an open criminal investigation, but Harris believes since the shooter is dead and they haven’t identified another person of interest, that exception doesn’t apply. Plus, Harris feels Metro Police need to comply with The Tennessee Public Records Act.

“Did you think that this whole process would last this long?” asks FOX 17 News’ Amanda Chin.

“Absolutely not. These cases were filed, and we expected that the show cause hearings would’ve taken place as initially scheduled back in May, and here we are almost two months later and the case is nowhere near resolution,” says Harris.

This comes after the judge allowed The Covenant School, church, and parents to intervene and discuss why they feel the writings shouldn’t be released. The petitioners appealed that decision, which is why the judge paused the case for now.

“Do the petitioners take any responsibility for this case lasting so long?” asks Chin.

“I don’t think so. Two of the petitioners are news media outlets and they were extremely concerned with the intervention issues because it proposes to create new exceptions to the public records act that had never existed,” says Harris.

On the other side, most of the Covenant families do not want the writings released, with many penning emotional letters to the judge.

The mother of William Kinney, one of the nine-year-old children who lost his life, believes those who are calling for the release of these records “clearly care nothing about the wellbeing of their fellow humans” and “seek to rob the six murder victims of dignity in their deaths by demanding the release of sensitive details.”

Continue reading “”

U.S. Senate Quietly Adds Permanent Gun Control Law Into 2024 NDAA Authorization

Republicans and Democrats are reportedly working together to end the sunset provision on a law gun rights orgs call ‘a backdoor gun ban’

As Congress begins consideration of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Senate leaders are attempting to quietly slip in gun control legislation.

The discovery was made by the Second Amendment advocacy group Gun Owners of America, who combed through the text and found an amendment inserted into the bill that would indefinitely authorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.

According to a version of the proposed NDAA bill dated July 13, the amendment introduced by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) would end the sunset provision on the 1988 law, which criminalizes firearms unable to be detected by metal detectors and x-ray machines commonly used at airports.

Though the provision was introduced by a Democrat, gun rights organizations say that Republicans are also involved in the effort to permanently codify the gun control law.

Continue reading “”

Translation of Bureaucrapish: He’s sure

Christopher Wray ‘Not Sure’ There Were FBI Assets at Capitol on Jan. 6.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed that he doesn’t know how many assets his agency had on the ground on January 6—or whether there were any at all.

[Watch the full hearing here]

Rep Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) asked Wray, “Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund reportedly has asserted that the protest crowd was filled with federal agents. Are you aware of his assertion?”

“I am not,” Wray said.

“Would you agree with him that it was ‘filled with federal agents’ on January 6?” Biggs asked.

“I would really have to see more closely exactly what he said and get the full context to be able to evaluate how many agents, or actually agents or human resources, were present at the Capitol complex and the vicinity on January 6,” Wray said. “It’s gonna get confusing because it depends on when we were deployed and responded to the breach that occurred anywhere under federal agents.”

Biggs called him out for obfuscating: “You and I both know that we’re talking different things here, and please don’t distract here because we’re focusing on those who were there in an undercover capacity on January 6. How many were there?”

Wray played dumb: “Again, I’m not sure that I can give you the number as I sit here. I’m not sure there were undercover agents on the scene.”

“I find that kind of a remarkable statement, Director,” Biggs claimed. “At this point, you don’t know whether there were undercover federal agents, FBI agents, in the crowd or in the Capitol on January 6?”

Wray then changed his tune and claimed he couldn’t say how many there were because of ongoing legal cases.

“I say that because I want to be very careful. There have been a number of court filings related to some of these topics, and I want to make sure that I stick with what’s in them,” he claimed.

“I understand that, but I thought I heard you say you didn’t know whether there were FBI agents or informants or human sources in the Capitol or in the vicinity on January 6. Did I misunderstand you?”

“I referred very specifically to FBI agents,” said Wray.

“And so are you acknowledging then there were undercover agents?” Biggs demanded.

“As I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on the scene,” said Wray.

“Did you have any assets present that day?” Biggs shot back.

“In the crowd, when it comes to what you’re calling assets or what we would call confidential human sources, that’s a place where, again, I want to be careful, as I said in response to an earlier question. There are court filings that I think speak to this that I’m happy to make sure we get to you, assuming they’re not under seal, and that can better answer the question,” said Wray.

Wray is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He claims at once that he doesn’t know the number of agents involved in the Jan. 6 protest, doesn’t believe there were any agents, and that he can’t talk about how many agents were there because of ongoing court cases. Which is it?

It’s absurd to believe that Wray doesn’t know how many agents and confidential human sources were on the ground on January 6. He knows exactly how many there were and how they were deployed, but he doesn’t want the American people to know. Why?

The detention of J6 protesters. The Russia collusion hoax. The arrest at gunpoint of a Catholic father. The monitoring of parents speaking at school board meetings. The failure to investigate attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers. The corruption runs deep at the FBI.

The Lancet was not the only one to censor deaths caused by the Vaxx

CDC admits not including diagnostic codes showing COVID vax as ’cause’ on some death certificates
Georgia-based agency’s response to Just the News will be incorporated into grand jury petition to investigate its COVID statistical practices, death-certificate analyst says.

The CDC’s explanation for leaving certain diagnosis codes off Minnesota death certificates that cite COVID-19 vaccines as a cause of death, allegedly hiding vaccine injuries in federal records, shows “intent to deceive,” according to a person who helped analyze the death certificates for the Brownstone Institute, a think tank that challenges the scientific basis for COVID conventional wisdom and policy.

Beaudoin’s law school expelled him for refusing its vaccine mandate, which he says was based on federal COVID guidance devised in part from Massachusetts death certificate data.

The suit includes a 123-page exhibit analyzing death certificates Beaudoin claims either wrongly omit vaccine-induced deaths or falsely attribute them to COVID. And in May he requested a hearing in response to the state’s motion to dismiss his January amended complaint. His website includes legal filings.

Continue reading “”

Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours. 

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours.

The paper, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site of the prestigious medical journal.

However, less than 24 hours later, the study was removed and a note appeared stating: “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” While the study had not undergone any part of the peer-review process, the note implies it fell foul of “screening criteria”.

The original study abstract can be found in the Internet Archive. It reads (with my emphasis added):

Continue reading “”

CDC Altered Minnesota Death Certificates that List a Covid Vaccine as a Cause of Death

Someone (who needs to remain anonymous) was able to obtain the death certificates from Minnesota for all deaths that occurred from 2015 to the present, which presented the opportunity to see if the CDC is being entirely honest about the US death data. Unsurprisingly, the CDC is not.

As we shall document, the CDC is concealing references to a covid vaccine on Minnesota death certificates (that are exceedingly rare to begin with because of widespread medical establishment denialism of vaccine adverse side effects). In almost every death certificate that identifies a covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.

Background

When someone dies, there is a death certificate that is filled out for official/legal purposes. Death certificates contain a lot of information (some states include more than others), including the causes of death (CoD).

Causes of death refer to the medical conditions that ultimately played some role in the demise of the decedent. To qualify as a CoD, a condition only needs to contribute to the medical decline of the decedent in some way, but doesn’t have to be directly responsible for whatever ultimately killed the person. If someone had high blood pressure, and subsequently suffered a heart attack that led to cardiac arrest which killed them, all three conditions qualify as CoD. On the other hand, this unfortunate fellow’s ingrown toenail is not a cause of death, because it in no way contributed to their demise.

This is from the CDC’s own guidance explaining how to properly fill out CoD’s on a death certificate (you don’t need to understand the difference between Cause A, B, etc for this article):

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Note: Readers might recall Garland’s response last week came in the same press conference in which he claimed that questioning an AG or the DoJ is the same thing as undermining democracy. Now we can glimpse a reason for Garland’s panicked hyperbole; the whistleblowers are exposing the truth about Garland’s corrupt administration of the DoJ.

Hunter prosecutor: IRS whistleblower is … telling the truth?

And here we thought the State Department report on Joe Biden’s disgrace in Afghanistan was the long-holiday Friday night document dump. That turned out to only be an appetizer, however. US Attorney David Weiss, the man behind the very lenient and very convenient plea deal for Hunter Biden, finally responded to House Judiciary chair Jim Jordan’s demand for an answer to whistleblower accusations that he and Merrick Garland misled Congress on the extent of his authority and independence.

Weiss rebutted that claim by, er … admitting to it? Read for yourself:

Relevant portion transcribed below:

As the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, my charging authority is limited to my home district. If venue for a case lies elsewhere, common Departmental practice is to contact the United States Attorney’s Office for the district in question and determine whether it wants to partner on the case. If not, I may request Special Attorney status from the Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515. Here, I have been assured that, if necessary after the above process, I would be granted § 515 in the District of Columbia, the Central District of California, or any other district where charges could be brought in this matter.

That matches up a lot more closely to the claims from IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley et al than to what Merrick Garland told Congress and the public. A week ago, Garland insisted that Weiss had already been granted that kind of authority (via Twitchy, see note at end):

Continue reading “”

Doctoral student opines lying gun owners aren’t being reached with ‘responsible’ messaging

There’s no lack of progressive think tanks out there that claim they’re not coming for our guns, they just want to promote “safety.” The New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center is one of those groups that claims to be all about safety, however they never put out any studies, materials, or articles, on the responsible and law-abiding gun owner, nor any material about the corporeal topics of gun use or ownership. A recent study done by a doctoral student at the GVRC has her claiming foul over potential untruthful survey results.

In a study published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, researchers found that based on their answers to a variety of other questions, a group of individuals appeared as though they might be falsely denying firearm ownership when directly asked by researchers.

While some of these individuals resemble what previous research indicated to be a typical American firearm owner (e.g., white, male), others looked quite different (racial or ethnic minority, female, living in urban environments), highlighting that the landscape of firearm ownership in the United States may be shifting.

“Some individuals are falsely denying firearm ownership, resulting in research not accurately capturing the experiences of all firearm owners in the U.S.,” said Allison Bond, lead author of the study and a doctoral student with the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center. “More concerningly, these individuals are not being reached with secure firearm storage messaging and firearm safety resources, which may result in them storing their firearms in an unsecure manner, which in turn increases the risk for firearm injury and death.”

This hiccup that Bond has highlighted is a valuable feature in our evolution in my opinion. Unequivocally, I will personally stand by these statements – until the medical field shows they’re unbiased – I don’t suggest exposing whether or not you’re a gun owner to anyone associated with it, without relevant cause. I salute the people that elected to “falsely deny” their firearm ownership – even though a false denial would be a double negative, but I’m not the PHD student here.

What’s really hubris, troubling, and disgustingly elitist is that Bond has this concern that because “these individuals,” which I’m going to read as meaning “those/these people” – the ones that are “racial or ethnic minority, female, living in urban environments” – who smartly elected to lie to the center, they’re too obtuse to get proper “messaging.” Whatever Bond considers safety resources, it’s rather opinionated to assume those people won’t get them because they don’t trust those conducting the study. Bond is beyond out of touch here.

The Rutgers GVRC has done nothing but put forward an abstinence-only approach to firearms ownership. There’s never any research done on, or paper they put out, that highlights the positive elements of owning guns. Every rabbit hole they go down has a result that has to do with more regulations. Fortunately many of the regulations they’d want to see implemented would be considered unconstitutional if looked at properly with an unbiased approach.

After following the GVRC acutely since anti-gun Governor Phil Murphy instituted them, pumping taxpayer’s dollars into this gibberish, their main objective seems to have an ends in requiring firearms to be stored in a 100% unusable state. That condition goes directly against the Heller decision I might add. This has been my suspicion for a while and this study/reporting on it helps fortify that hunch.

Bond leaves out that every single brand new firearm sold in the United States includes a user manual. Nearly all handguns come with a lock and hard lockable case. In those manuals, there’s general instructions on so-called proper storage. Anyone walking into a gun store to purchase a firearm is approached with plenty of resources in the form of capitalism and altruism. At a shop, there’s generally someone wanting to help new gun owners to be safe, in addition to the fact businesses can only profit by selling more firearm safety devices.

The problem with Bond’s assertion that those people don’t get appropriately schooled on what she considers proper storage and safety rules is that Bond – and her ilk – try to squeeze everything into a one-size-fits-all solution. If we asked Bond or anyone else over at the GVRC about proper storage, they’re going to tell you firearms need to be stored unloaded, in a locked container, and ammunition stored in a separate locked container. I suspect Bond is not going to say that it makes sense to have a loaded firearm in the home for self-defense. The thought of storing a firearm in a night stand loaded, if appropriate for the given household, would be looked at with horror.

To people like Bond and groups like the GVRC, self-defense via firearm use is abhorrent. So keeping a firearm stored in any condition for ease of use would go against their biases. It’s unfortunate these alleged people of science don’t come standard where bias is completely removed. Follow the science – pish posh to that for these purposes.

The rest of the “safety resources” includes what? I’ve never heard the GVRC advocate that gun owners should take an NRA or USCCA training course to learn how to use a firearm. No, safety resources are going to come in the form of their own abstinence-only branded “education.” If groups like the GVRC advocated for people to take such branded training – by name – they’d have some credibility.

There’s an undertone that Bond was making about those people not being exposed to resources because of these “false denials.” Beyond their silly survey, what’s Bond and the GVRC doing to “educate” respondents? Do they offer self-described gun owners these important resources when respondents say they own guns? And in what form are these resources?

The study indicates a percentage of firearm owners may not feel comfortable disclosing their ownership status. Among those identified as potentially falsely denying firearm ownership, many were women living alone in urban environments.

The study indicates a good portion of people that have the right idea. While I’m all in favor of accurate data collection, I cannot support supplying any information about whether or not one is a gun owner to the GVRC or groups like it. Physicians and doctors out there may take exception to my advice here, but too bad. When the authors and groups behind these so-called studies make a good faith effort to not inject their anti-gun conclusion before the study has even concluded, then we can have a chat about being honest. They all claim they’re not about “making policy,” but that’s total and complete malarkey. I’ve chatted with the “I just want to save lives, I’m not about policy making” doctors, and I conclude they’re lying after reading their rhetoric and papers.

One of the other things that’s hinted at when talking about messaging is not said in the piece covering the study. Read into comments made by the GVRC executive director:

“There are several reasons some firearm owners might feel uncomfortable disclosing that they own firearms,” said Michael Anestis, executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center and senior author of the study. “These results serve as an important reminder that we should not assume we know everything about who owns firearms and that we should ensure that our efforts to reach firearm owners can resonate with broad audiences we might not realize would benefit from the message.”

Anestis left out one of the newer en vogue buzzwords that all readers need to be aware of. With the narrow exception of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and a few other very limited number of groups, if the phrase “credible messenger” is in the literature, run. While I have read some reporting in NSSF – who makes a good faith effort to protect firearm owners and the industry – literature where credible messenger was used, generally speaking, only grossly anti-gun think tanks use it.

The mechanism for these groups is for them to find the right person, to talk to the right people, using them as a puppet to get their own message out. That’s it. It’s agenda driven and has everything to do with policy and culturally appropriating as many people as possible – to their way of thinking.

To all “those people” out there…the “racial or ethnic minority, female, living in urban environments,” welcome to the fray. There are resources out there, which I”m sure you’re well aware of, should you need any. With Second Amendment supporters, there’s an entire community of people that are more than willing and happy to help each other, including you.

Continue to go with your gut and learn there are trustworthy organizations out there.  Let’s call the other groups those who utilize their alleged academic “achievements” to bend pseudoscience into a conclusion that results in our disarmament. Judging by Bond’s complaints, many of you have already figured this out. Kudos for that.