BREAKING: JOE BIDEN DID IT AGAIN – HE SCHEDULED A PRESS CONFERENECE WHEN KAMALA WAS ON THE VIEWpic.twitter.com/wX2aDYc9Zu
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 8, 2024
Category: Mendacity O’ The Day
KJP busted lying about FEMA money for migrants. pic.twitter.com/kSLkp5OBn3
— APOCTOZ (@Apoctoz) October 5, 2024
You released 425,000 convicted criminals into the public.
No one believes you. pic.twitter.com/ddq048Eqv9
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 27, 2024
When they lack even the least amount of respect for our intelligence.
Ignore what you are literally experiencing. Ignore your bank accounts……Yellen says that’s not happening.
Yellen claims victory on inflation: "Families are getting ahead."
— Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) September 26, 2024
Remember How Kamala Harris Said She’d Gun Down an Intruder in Her Home? Well…
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign clarified that her comment in an interview with Oprah Winfrey stating that she’d shoot an intruder in her home was a “joke.”
To recap, Harris said in the interview that she is a gun owner.
“If someone breaks into my house they’re getting shot — Probably should not have said that, but my staff will deal with that later,” she said as she cackled.
Over the weekend, Harris campaign adviser Keisha Lance Bottoms said that this was meant to be a joke.
“It was a joke, and she knew that we would still be talking about it today, but I think it‘s important that people know that the vice president respects the right to bear arms, that she supports the Second Amendment, but she wants responsible gun ownership and she wants our communities to be safe,” Bottoms said in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, according to The Hill.
Bottoms added that the comment was meant to “humanize” Harris.
While Harris is suddenly trying to act like she’s pro-Second Amendment, her record shows otherwise. This month, a resurfaced clip showed that she supported legislation in California that would allow authorities to enter people’s homes and inspect their guns, which Townhall covered.
Contradicting herself in the same sentence, how efficient
Kamala Harris: We’re Not Taking Anyone’s Guns, but We Must Ban AR-15s
Democrat presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris said she would not be taking away anyone’s guns then immediately pushed an AR-15 ban during a Tuesday question-and-answer with reporters at the National Association of Black Journalists.
Harris said, “I am a gun owner, and Tim Walz is a gun owner, and we’re not trying to take anyone’s guns away from them, but we do need an ‘assault weapons’ ban.”
It appears that such a ban — if it were actually a ban — would take AR-15- and AK-47-style rifles away from the law-abiding Americans who currently own them.
Anti-gunners are truly outstanding liars.😂
In a single breath, @KamalaHarris says she won’t take your guns, BUT then calls for taking your guns. https://t.co/694Wld8GHo
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 17, 2024
Banning AR-15s, AK-47s, and other firearms that Democrats describe as “assault weapons” has been part of Harris’s gun control agenda since she vied for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2019. Moreover, Harris made clear during the 2019 nominating cycle that she would enact such a ban via executive action if elecetd.
On April 22, 2019, Breitbart News reported Harris’s plan to give Congress 100 days to pass new gun controls if she won the White House. Should Congress fail to act, Harris made clear she would simply use executive orders to achieve the gun control she desires.
Then, on July 13, 2019, Harris again pledged to bypass Congress and enact executive gun control should she win the presidency.
Harris remarked, “Gun violence is the leading cause of death for young [b]lack men in America. We must stop this. When president, I will take executive action to ensure guns do not fall into the wrong hands.”
So…Harris wants a ban on certain types of guns, but she also claims she is “not trying to take anyone’s guns away from them.”
Routh’s son said the suspect is a registered Democrat and hates Trump like “all reasonable people” but is not a violent person.
Son of Would-Be Trump Assassinator Speaks Out
The son of Ryan Wesley Routh, the would-be assassinator who attempted to shoot former President Donald Trump on Sunday at his West Palm Beach Golf Course, dropped bombshell news about his father.
Oran Routh revealed shocking information to the Daily Mail about his father, who is now in the custody of officials after being arrested. Routh’s son said the suspect is a registered Democrat and hates Trump like “all reasonable people” but is not a violent person.
“I don’t like Trump either,” Oran said. “He’s my dad, and all he’s had is a couple of traffic tickets, as far as I know. That’s crazy. I know my dad and love my dad, but that’s nothing like him.”
Oran told the outlet that he didn’t know his father was in Florida, adding that the 58-year-old gunman was previously living in Hawaii with his girlfriend. Routh reported his father had no military experience and had recently traveled to Ukraine to help volunteer after Russia invaded the country.
When asked if his father ever owned a gun, the 35-year-old son said, “Not that I know of.”
The second attempted assassination attempt on Trump in just two months happened after Routh was seen carrying a rifle near the vicinity of the 45th president’s Florida golf course. Trump was on the green when Secret Service agents spotted Routh’s AK-47 through snipers with tripods. They immediately took action. The agents took four shots before the alleged suspect took off and into a car nearby. Local police officials pulled him over on I-95 and arrested him. They also found a scope, two backpacks, and a GoPro camera. Officials said the suspect was between 300 and 500 yards from Trump.
During a press conference, Special Agent Rafael Barros explained that Secret Service agents move alongside Trump, staying one or two holes ahead of him while he plays golf. The incident occurred between the 5th and 6th holes, which is known to be a more “vulnerable” area of the course due to its proximity to the road.
BLUF
“Shamala is an extinctionist. The natural extension of her philosophy would be a de facto holocaust for all of humanity!” wrote billionaire and X owner Elon Musk on his platform.
Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign hired a new climate director who has frequently said the effects of climate change are part of what’s stopping her from having children.
Camila Thorndike, who previously worked in the Senate managing the climate portfolio of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was given the title of climate engagement director for the Harris for President campaign in September 2024, according to her LinkedIn page.
Prior to joining the Harris campaign, Thorndike said on several occasions that she considers climate change a factor when deciding whether to have kids.
CONSERVATIVES REACT TO KAMALA HARRIS’ LATEST ‘WORD SALAD’ ON CLIMATE ‘DEADLINES’
Harris-Walz campaign recruiting military veterans to influence social media
Veterans are being bribed to betray their oath.
The next time you see a social media post from a military veteran who claims to support banning certain firearms or any other infringement of our civil rights, realize they may be getting paid to violate their oath.
An email obtained last week by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project revealed that the “precision micro-influencer” marketing firm People First is hiring veterans to serve as paid social media influencers for the Harris-Walz campaign.
It is not hard to understand why the progressive firm wants to hire former military members. Veterans have credibility — especially when the topic is guns. Whenever the gun-ban industry convinces a vet to call for an AR ban or violate their oath in some other way, they always tout it as a win. This is why Tim Walz is so celebrated by Giffords, Brady and Everytown. Before his stolen valor was revealed, Walz cultivated the false impression that he spent most of his military career knee-deep in grenade pins.
People First has a long history of supporting the war against guns and Second Amendment Rights. They know what they’re doing, and they’re very good, unfortunately. Now, the New York City-based firm wants to recruit veterans living in seven key battleground states, but then explains in its recruitment email that they are open to hire anyone with a “compelling story,” regardless of where they live.
Paid Social Media Opportunity for Veterans!
Phil McKnight
Hi there!
My name is Phil, and I am an Organizer at People First. I am reaching out to share an exciting partnership around veterans!
Veterans, you know better than anyone that our allegiance to this country is pledged toward the Constitution and the values that are enshrined within it – not to any particular man or woman.
We need your help explaining which values you believe our elected leaders should uphold as we approach the upcoming November election. This campaign is also open to family members of those currently or previously enlisted in any of the six US military branches.
Join this campaign now if you are located in any key battleground states:
Arizona
Georgia
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
North CarolinaNot from one of these states? No problem. Anyone who has a compelling story to share should apply now too.
If you are interested in participating in this opportunity, please let me know as soon as possible so we can get you started on the next steps.
Looking forward to hearing from you!
Best,
Phil—
Phil McKnight
Digital Relationship Organizer
People First Marketing
CreatorNetwork.cc is a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) platform designed specifically for People First Marketing. Our platform helps businesses and marketers to connect and collaborate with content creators in a more efficient and effective way.
The process is relatively simple. The influencer submits draft content, which is then edited and approved. The influencer then posts it on their social media platforms, and they’re paid 10-15 days later. As a result, People First has made oath breaking easy and, unfortunately, profitable.
McKnight did not respond to emails seeking his comments for this story.
Censorship, gun control
People First founder and CEO Curtis Hougland rose to prominence fighting against what he told Vanity Fair magazine in 2019 was “hate speech and online extremism.”
“Democrats want to focus on facts and figures. The other side plays into fears and taps into emotions, and they show it to you. It’s all about emotional resonance,” Hougland told the magazine.
Hougland was behind the passage of Nevada’s Question 1 in 2016, which expanded background checks and ended most private gun sales.
“Across the geographic footprint of Nevada, the company credentialed and recruited 287 influencers, many of them doctors and nurses, and told them to create their own version of a messaging brief, provided to them with a company dashboard,” Vanity Fair reported.
Today, People First is working dozens of campaigns and advocacy programs, Hougland says on his LinkedIn page.
“We can source online advocates by district, religion, party, ethnicity, age, and affinity,” he wrote. “We’re 82 days away from Election Day! Enough time to execute a local or national campaign and impact elections and ballot initiatives.”
Takeaways
When you raise your right hand and swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, you don’t get to pick and choose the amendments you’re willing to support and defend. The oath has no expiration date. It doesn’t end upon retirement or ETS. Walz forgot that, sadly. Same-same for any vet who responds to People First’s siren song.
If you really want to thank a veteran for their service, hire them. They will be the best employee on your payroll, but not this. What People First is doing to our veterans is reprehensible. They’re bribing them into betraying their oaths. Rather than direct deposit, People First should pay their influencers with 30 pieces of silver.
Kirby: ‘No use in responding’ to a ‘handful of vets’ on Biden’s botched Afghan withdrawal
‘Obviously no use in responding. A “handful” of vets indeed and all of one stripe,’ Kirby said in a ‘reply all’ email chain
On the anniversary of 9/11, White House National Security Council communications adviser John Kirby dismissed the concerns of military veterans critical of the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, writing in response to a Fox News Digital press inquiry that there’s “no use” weighing in on the veterans’ views.
“Obviously no use in responding. A ‘handful’ of vets indeed and all of one stripe,” Kirby said in a “reply all” email chain Wednesday afternoon that appeared to be intended for White House staffers, but which also included Fox News Digital.
Fox News Digital had reached out to the White House earlier Wednesday afternoon regarding critical comments from four veterans, including Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who blasted Kirby for his Monday press conference that they said provided “cover” for the Biden administration’s 2021 withdrawal.
Included in that initial reachout were quotes from the four veterans, and Fox News Digital asked the White House if it had any comment to include on the vets’ blistering criticisms of Kirby and the White House’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal. The email chain was forwarded to White House staffers on the National Security Council, before Kirby replied to all on the chain that there’s “no use in responding.”
Kirby’s message was sent in error, with him following up with a Fox News Digital reporter, “Clearly, I didn’t realize you were on the chain.” Kirby sent the email while traveling with President Biden on the anniversary of 9/11.
The veterans quoted in the email lambasted Kirby for “deflecting” from the Biden administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, following House Republicans releasing a scathing report this week following the anniversary of the botched withdrawal.
“The bottom line is that the Biden-Harris administration chose politics over strategy, and Kirby, who I wouldn’t trust to guard my grocery list, is now trying to cover for them,” Mills, an Army veteran, said in comments to Fox News Digital.
Tomorrow @megynkelly interviews four of Tim Walz’s fellow guardsmen.
“[Walz] is a habitual liar, he lies about everything.”
This is going to be big. pic.twitter.com/otxERHPRSQ
— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) September 1, 2024
What Is This ‘Team’ Karine Jean-Pierre Is Referring To?
Tuesday’s White House press briefing wasn’t much better than the one from the day before, though at this most recent briefing, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre did make a telling and concerning point beyond those specifically to do with President Joe Biden’s health. As she and other Biden allies have been claiming, we don’t need to worry about concerns with the president, because he has a “team.”
As Fox News’ Peter Doocy pointed out that “we know the president says that his health is fine, but it’s just his brain, and that he’s sharpest before 8:00,” Jean-Pierre cut him off to insist the president “was joking,” deciding to emphasize “I just want to make sure that that’s out there.”
Before Doocy could get to the heart of his question, he and Jean-Pierre ended up getting into a back-and-forth about “what’s the joke,” with the press secretary offering “he was speaking off the cuff, and he was making a joke, arguing “you know the president, he likes to joke a lot.”
After Jean-Pierre insisted several more times that “it’s a joke” when Biden himself makes comments about his age, Doocy finally was able to get to his original question.
“He’s sharpest before 8:00p.m.,” Doocy pointed out once more. “So, say that the Pentagon at some point picks up an incoming nuke; it’s 11:00 p.m. Who do you call? The First Lady?”
Jean-Pierre’s answer was that Biden “has a team.”
“He has a team that lets him know of any–of any news that is pertinent and important to the American people. He has someone–or–that is decided, obviously, with his National Security Council on who gets to tell him that news,” she offered.
Comments from former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and his experiences with Biden have been frequently coming back up. Doocy quoted him saying how First Lady Jill Biden “was there as well” for their meetings.
“When the First Lady is in these meetings, is she making decisions, or is she just,” Doocy started to ask, also asking if she’s “advising the president.” Jean-Pierre cut him off, though, to insist “no,” that “the president is the president of the United States” and “he makes decisions.”
Jean-Pierre became even more testy when Doocy asked about First Son Hunter Biden, who is now a “gatekeeper.” Like the first lady, Hunter has been instrumental in keeping Biden in the race for reelection.
“President Biden has told me before he and his son don’t have any business dealings together,” Doocy reminded as he asked a key question. “So, what is Hunter Biden doing in White House meetings?”
Jean-Pierre stuck to Biden being “very close to his family, as you know” and the timing of the 4th of July holiday for Hunter’s presence, despite how “there is a report that aides were struck by [Hunter’s] presence during their discussions,” as Doocy reminded. Earlier this month, NBC News reported on Hunter being at meetings, and how that presence concerned aides.
“Look, I can’t — I’m — I’m certainly not going to get into private conversations that o- — that occur,” Jean-Pierre also insisted.
When Doocy asked “can you say if Hunter Biden has access to classified information,” Jean-Pierre responded with a “no.”
DOOCY: Biden has admitted he’s sharpest before 8 PM. Who do you call if there’s a national security threat at 11PM, the First Lady?
KJP: He has a team. pic.twitter.com/y6V2BpmKes
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 9, 2024
Jean-Pierre is hardly the only one to reference that Biden “has a team.” Immediately following that disastrous debate almost two weeks ago now, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a surrogate of the president, offered “we have a great team of people that will help govern. That is what I’m going to continue to make the case for.”
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who on that same day as Khanna’s remarks filed a resolution calling on Vice President Kamala Harris to make use of the 25th Amendment, pointed to such remarks as further reason why the cabinet needs to be convened.
This is 25th Amendment. https://t.co/pHpFtJAFo4
— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) June 28, 2024
Roy also brought up concerns with “a team” with Fox News recently, specifically this idea of “hav[ing] a president by committee” making clear “that is unacceptable, our founders rejected it, it is deeply offensive and unconstitutional.”
We continue to see such examples as the reason why a president coming off as increasingly unfit is supposedly fit to serve another four-year term.
Here comes, as predicted: https://t.co/fABQvagYNO pic.twitter.com/bzsGRkF4IR
— Walter Kirn (@walterkirn) July 9, 2024
Supreme Court backs Biden administration in social media case
Held: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
[In other words, we aren’t going to rule on this because…..reasons. So the federal goobermint can go right ahead and keep on doing this slimy crap]
Respondents are two States and five individual social-media users
who sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging
that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in
violation of the First Amendment.
Following extensive discovery, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that both the state plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief.
On the merits, the court held that the Government entities and officials, by “coerc[ing]” or “significantly encourag[ing]” the platforms’ moderation decisions, transformed those decisions into state action. The court then modified the District Court’s injunction to state that the defendants shall not coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to suppress protected speech on their platforms.
Most Prog/Leftists are actually so stupid, they think we’re so stupid, we’ll accept their BS as fresh cattle feed.
RETIRED JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER GASLIGHTS BRUEN DECISION
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer wants America to know that today’s high court isn’t pragmatic. For good measure, he declares that he is, especially when it comes to interpretating law.
That’s not just conjecture. That’s laid out in the title to his new 250-page book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism.” It’s a gaslighting of the U.S. Constitution, an attempt to sway opinion that rights protected by the founding document aren’t applicable today, since society and technology have changed since 1791. Justice Breyer argues that the words written don’t mean what the Founders meant because reading them over 200 years later changes the meaning.
The liberal justice retired under pressure from Democrats to ensure President Joe Biden would appoint at least one younger liberal justice to the Supreme Court. In 2022, Justice Breyer was succeeded by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk.
Dueling Jurisprudence
The Washington Post offered a glowing review of Justice Breyer’s book, which rejects the legal doctrines of originalism and textualism that have been the favored approaches by several sitting Supreme Court justices, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. That was also the legal philosophy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Originalism is the theory that constitutional text should be given the original public meaning at the time in which a law was enacted. Textualism is the legal interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of a text of laws, emphasizing how the Constitution was understood at the time of ratification in 1788 and the subsequent Bill of Rights’ ratification in 1791.
That contrasts sharply with Justice Breyer’s constitutional pragmatist approach, which instead of focusing on what lawmakers meant with the words they chose to include in the Constitution and laws, considers what is the likely consequence of interpretations. Justice Breyer believes in a “living Constitution” or one that isn’t anchored by words lawmakers chose. Rather those meanings are reapplied by modern interpretations of those meanings. This judicial philosophy is an excuse to allow judges to act like kings (or queens) make law instead of interpreting and apply the law as enacted by the “people’s” elected representatives or the Founding Fathers.
Things Just Got a Lot Worse for Joe Biden
Last month, the Hur report found that Joe Biden willfully retained, mishandled, and disclosed classified information but determined that he was essentially too senile to stand trial. According to the report, Biden struggled to remember details, and he couldn’t remember when his son Beau died.
Joe Biden angrily defended his memory in his unplanned address and attacked Special Counsel Robert Hur for bringing up Beau during his interview during the investigation, which managed to make things worse for him.
“There’s even a reference that I don’t remember when my son died,” Biden said. “How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn’t any of their damn business.”
Except that Hur didn’t bring it up. Biden did. PJ Media has reviewed a copy of the transcript of the interview, and it proves that Biden lied when he claimed Special Counsel Hur brought up his son Beau.
“So during this time when you were living at Chain Bridge Road and there were documents relating to the Penn Biden Center, or the Biden Institute, or the Cancer Moonshot, or your book, where did you keep papers that related to those things that you were actively working on?” Hur asked during the relevant portion of the interview.
“Well, um… I, I, I, I, I don’t know,” Biden replied. “This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?”
“Yes, sir,” Hur told him.
“Remember, in this timeframe, my son is — either been deployed or is dying, and, and so it was — and by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate that were encouraging me to run in this period, except the President,” Biden answered. “I’m not — and not a mean thing to say. He just thought that [Hillary Clinton] had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did. And so I hadn’t, I hadn’t, at this point — even though I’m at Penn, I hadn’t walked away from the idea that I may run for office again. But if I ran again, I’d be running for President. And, and so what was happening, though — what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30th—”
“2015,” Rachel Cotton from the White House Counsel’s Office interjected.
“Was it 2015 he had died?” Joe Biden asked.
“It was May of 2015,” an unidentified speaker said.
“It was 2015,” Biden repeated.
“Or I’m not sure the month, sir, but I think that was the year,” Biden’s personal Robert Bauer said.
Marc Krickbaum of the Special Counsel’s office added, “That’s right, Mr. President. It—”
“And what’s happened in the meantime is that as — and Trump gets elected in November of 2017?” Biden asked.
That’s right. Joe Biden didn’t even remember what year Donald Trump was elected president. Two people then jumped in to correct Biden by saying it was 2016.
“’16, 2016. All right,” Biden said. So — why do I have 2017 here?”
“That’s when you left office, January of 2017,” Edward Siskel from the White House Counsel’s office said.
So in the same exchange, Joe Biden not only brought up his son Beau — contradicting what he claimed last month — but he couldn’t remember the year Beau died and didn’t even know the year that Donald Trump was elected president.
Ouch.
Another supercilious, over educated, foreign born and schooled ‘scholar’ with no roots in American culture, ethics or care about the fundamental principles the founders went to war over, thinks he’s more knowledgeable than we are. And makes claims that are so easily refuted by the Founder’s own quotes that it makes you wonder about today’s quality of education and worth of degrees from the famed English universities that apparently produce nothing more than partisan propagandists.
Historian Dominic Erdozain discusses new book, U.S. gun culture, Second Amendment at book event
Historian Dominic Erdozain discussed the politics, culture and laws surrounding guns in the United States at a Wednesday talk for his book “One Nation Under Guns.”
In “One Nation Under Guns,” Erdozain argues that the Second Amendment was never meant to guarantee individuals the right to bear arms and that the U.S. neglects critical consideration of the role of guns in democracy. His book talk, hosted by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, was moderated by Ieva Jusionyte, an associate professor of international security and anthropology.
The modern U.S. gun culture is “in contradiction with the values of democracy and the goals of the Constitution,” Erdozain said.
“This modern idea of free and open access to deadly firepower is not just a departure from the legal norms of U.S. history,” he said. “It is a violation of the very principle of freedom, as defined in the democratic tradition. It turns out that the founders, the very people who are invoked in support of gun rights, furnish a far more robust and coherent account of liberty than this kind of muscular freedom to go armed as and when you choose.”
He stated that the country’s founders would be “heavily critical of the reckless individualism that is attached to gun rights at the moment.”
A key argument of Erdozain’s book is that the founders of the country believed “the liberal state is there to protect us not only from tyrannical rules, but from the tyranny in all of us.”
Erdozain challenged the notion that the Second Amendment was written to guarantee that all individuals have a right to bear arms, instead characterizing it as an anti-war measure that prevents a “professional army that allows rulers to rule as dictators.”
He also highlighted the ties between slavery and gun ownership. “The argument against slavery was partly based on the fact that by encouraging it, you encourage an armed society,” he said.
In the talk, Erdozain also challenged the acceptance of gun culture he witnessed around the country. When he arrived in the U.S. from the United Kingdom, he said he felt “alarmed at the fatalism of liberals on firearms as the reckless seal of the right.”
Attendees described the event as educational and inspiring.
“I felt that (the talk) was a gift to the community. Dr. Erdozain is brilliant,” Fraser Lang ’67 said.
Betty Lang, another attendee, said that “it was fascinating to hear about the connection between gun violence and slavery.”
Melissa Carden, the executive director of Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, also attended the event.
“The history of the Second Amendment is not something people are educated about,” Carden said, noting that 120 people are killed in the U.S. daily because of gun violence. “The more we have honest conversations based on data and the truth in light of today’s gun violence, the better.”
Wow. Do not compare Christians who were and are given the option of denounce Christ or die as the same as a guy setting himself on fire. They were MURDERED. He committed Suicide. There is a difference. https://t.co/3IwVWCmVc5
— Force of Light Entertainment 🎙 (@ForceofLightEn1) February 27, 2024
It was a “The Pigs are Flying” moment after The Washington Post, the newspaper that has never found a gun control policy it did not fawn over, took up a gun control claim the Biden administration loves to repeat and determined it to be false.
To be clear, Glenn Kessler’s The Fact Checker couldn’t bring itself to award any Pinocchios – not one – to the false claim, but its thorough breakdown and analysis of the claim left nothing misunderstood. Saying that “Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children” is patently “Not True.”
We won’t hold our collective breaths for The White House to issue a formal statement acknowledging their repeated lie. Instead, we’re assuming President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, White House officials and gun control activists will simply continue repeating the false claim. And notwithstanding The Washington Post’s fact checking, this lie will likely continue to be uncritically reported as “fact” by the mainstream media.
Still, having The Washington Post take up the claim and acknowledge it is false should be deserving of at least a little praise.
Favorite False Claim
President Biden has repeated the claim often as he pushes again and again for more gun control. He began his campaign for the presidency in 2019 by calling firearm manufacturers “the enemy.” He now uses the “firearms are the leading cause of death for children” to push ever more restrictions on the Second Amendment while saying little to nothing about holding violent criminals accountable, let alone calling out soft-on-crime prosecutors who let those same criminals back out on the streets to commit more crimes.
Vice President Harris recited the false claim in two recent events in North Carolina and in Washington, D.C. The White House used the false claim as a lede in a recent press release announcing new White House unilateral gun control executive actions.
There’s no telling how often it has been repeated by U.S. Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, governors and any number of other local elected officials and gun control activists pushing the claim as a reason why more gun control is needed.
CBS Evening News ran a segment repeating the claim. So did ABC News.
Repeating the claim doesn’t change the fact that it is false.
Time’s ‘Made By History’ Just Made Up
Once, Time magazine was one of those household names in news. They didn’t break it, but they provided more depth than your local paper really could. People trusted them and Time, back then, lived up to that trust.
Today, like a lot of news publications, they’re a shadow of their former self.
Yet, if I’m being honest, even describing them as that is far too generous. That would imply there’s at least something of the original core still there, just diminished. Instead, all we have is yet another publication ready to spout any anti-gun talking point they care to name.
For example, they recently ran a story about the NRA, premised on Wayne LaPierre’s departure, under their “Made By History” tag.
It doesn’t take long to see it really should be “Made Up History” instead.
Last month, after more than three decades as the figurehead of the modern gun lobby, longtime National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO and executive VP Wayne LaPierre stepped down. His departure comes amid a civil corruption lawsuit brought by the State of New York, which alleges that the NRA and its executives violated their non-profit status and various state and federal laws, as well as grossly mismanaging the group’s finances.
LaPierre stands at the heart of a popular narrative about the recent emergence of the radical right. He has loomed large in the organization’s changing tactics and emphasis as it evolved into a political powerhouse and an uncompromising foe of all gun control.
As the story goes, the NRA was a moderate group focused on sport and target shooting before the “Cincinnati Coup” in 1977. The revolt at the group’s annual convention ushered hardliners into power and drove the reshaping of gun politics in the U.S., including the rise of a new interpretation that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms. LaPierre joined the organization shortly after the coup and became executive vice president in 1991.
Yet, while LaPierre epitomizes the post-1977 NRA, there is more continuity in the group’s history than is popularly known. Dating back to its 1871 founding, in fact, the NRA has had one consistent priority: protecting social order and control. LaPierre articulated this philosophy after the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012 when he declared that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
The idea is that control of armed force should be deputized to and limited to certain populations—especially elite white men. That has always been the NRA’s driving force, and the only thing that changed after 1977 was the militarization of this organizing precept.
Now, LaPierre has his critics, to say the least, and much of that criticism at least appears to be valid. Yet there’s not a shred of evidence anywhere to support the assertion that when he said “good guy with a gun” that he meant elite white men.
First, how is it that gun owners are at once backward rednecks and also “elite white men” anyway?
Second, anti-gunners keep spouting this idea that we only favor gun rights for white people, yet black gun owners are one of the fastest growing segments, and not a soul I’ve talked to views this as anything but awesome. Another quickly growing group is women, and no one is batting an eye at that, either.
Now, here’s the problem. If this were billed as an op-ed, I’d probably be finished. I might expound on a point or two, particularly with regard to how gun control originally targeted non-white people and only allowed guns for those “elite white men” but, for the most part, I’d focus on that.
Yet this isn’t an op-ed. These are the opening paragraphs that seek to report history.
How can anyone trust any aspect of what follows when their ideological lens is so clearly divined? They’re not interested in the truth or in understanding the past. They’ve got an axe to grind and they expect you, the reader, to ignore it.
What follows from there is, in many ways, revisionism. Sure, it undermines the talking point that the NRA was nice and moderate until 1977 when they suddenly became evil, but it’s also clear that they can’t acknowledge that the right to keep and bear arms applies to everyone and that’s the line the NRA has taken in the past several decades.
There’s been no effort by any gun rights organization to differentiate rights between various racial identities. They fight for people’s right to keep and bear arms. That means people. All people
But the writer over at Time doesn’t see it that way, but since she also clearly has her own view of reality rather than, you know, reality, this is what we get.
What bothers me is how this single line, presented without evidence or context, is likely to be enough to convince people that it’s true, like the lack of evidence is, in and of itself, evidence of its validity when it’s really just journalistic petulance.
So no, Time isn’t a shadow of its former self.
It’s a zombie walking around at the behest of its anti-gun necromancer master.
Even with the sound turned down you can tell the moment she tells a lie. Watch her eyes go wide for the lie, chin goes up, smile doesn't match rest of face.
That's the Democrat #Liarface.
You see it with Hillary, Schiff, Pelosi, etc.
Learn to spot it. https://t.co/874y8vQTys
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) February 10, 2024