Category: Mendacity O’ The Day

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Continue reading “”

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.

Image

Image

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.”

Even The Washington Post Concedes the Biden Administration’s Favorite Gun Control Lie Is, In Fact, a Lie.

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.

Continue reading “”

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.

This is your brain on Marxism.

 Treasury Secretary: “We don’t have to get the prices down because wages are going up.”

 

Can you say: “Replacement Migration“?
I thought you could

Biden Admin Has Allowed 5 Million Illegal Aliens Into the Nation — Outpacing Yearly U.S. Births

The immigration crisis has worsened as a result of President Joe Biden’s reckless open border policies and incompetence to do anything about it.

Under the Biden Administration, more than five million illegal migrants have crossed into the United States— outpacing the nation’s annual birth rate.

Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) is blaming Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for releasing at least 85 percent of illegal aliens into the U.S. without vetting them due to the administration’s Catch and Release program. Most of these immigrants will be given work permits— taking away vital work opportunities for American citizens.

“All told, DHS numbers indicate that well over three million inadmissible aliens have been released into our country on Secretary Mayorkas’s watch. Factor in the 1.8 million known gotaways, and that’s roughly the population of the state of South Carolina,” Green said, suggesting that Mayorkas has allowed more illegal migrants into the nation from 2021 through 2023 than the number of babies born annually in the U.S.— which is fewer than four million.

“In Fiscal Year 2013, according to [the] DHS’s own numbers, the Obama administration detained 82 percent of illegal aliens from the moment they were encountered until their case was decided, and another nine percent were held for at least some portion of that time,” Green continued. “In Secretary Mayorkas’ first year on the job, that 82 percent number dropped to just ten percent. Illegal aliens not detained at all jumped from nine percent in FY 2013 to 64 percent in FY 2021.”

Green’s comments come as billionaire Elon Musk issued a warning to New York City residents after students were forced to attend remote classes as their school was used to house illegal migrants.

In a tweet, Musk warned Americans that illegal aliens will soon come for American homes as schools, shelters, and hotel rooms become overwhelmed.

“This is what happens when you run out of hotel rooms. Soon, cities will run out of schools to vacate. Then they will come for your homes,” Musk wrote.

The former Twitter CEO was responding to a LibsofTikTok account post featuring a video that showed illegal migrants exiting a yellow school bus to James Madison High School in Brooklyn.

Earlier this week, Mayorkas visited the U.S-Mexico border, calling on the Biden Administration to approve billions of dollars in supplemental funding to transport illegal aliens over the southern border.

He even went as far as claiming the DHS is enforcing the law despite millions of border crossers coming into the U.S. daily.

“Some have accused [the] DHS of not enforcing our nation’s laws. This could not be further from the truth,” Mayorkas said.

It’s good to always keep informed about what your enemies are doing and planning. Quite inventive propaganda to smear the political ‘right’ and push for gun control, when most ‘mass shooters’ are either members of street gangs involved in the illicit drug trade, or mentally ill leftist and now ‘trans’ loners.

BLUF
Bruce Hoffman is senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council of Foreign Relations and a professor at Georgetown University.
Jacob Ware is a research fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and DeSales University.
Together, they are the authors of God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America (Columbia Univ. Press).

How Far-Right Terrorists Learned to Stop Worrying and Leave the Bomb

On Sept. 16, 1920, a horse-drawn wagon slowly made its way down New York City’s Wall Street. It came to a stop at the Financial District’s busiest corner, just opposite the J. P. Morgan bank headquarters. And exploded. Thirty people were killed and nearly 150 others wounded. For most of the ensuing century, bombing was the preferred terrorist tactic in the United States. During one 18-month stretch between 1971 and 1972, there were an astonishing 2,500 bombings. Many were committed by radical left-wing groups such as the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the New World Liberation Front. Others were orchestrated by such diverse actors as Puerto Rican independistas, Croatian separatists, anti-Castro Cubans, and a militant Jewish organization.

Today, however, the terrorists’ preferred tactic is the mass shooting. As we argue in our new book, God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America, assault-style rifles have replaced explosives. And the perpetrators come mostly from the far right. Eschewing the time-intensive preparations involved in the careful construction and placement of explosive devices — as seen in Oklahoma City in 1995 and at the Atlanta Olympics the following year — domestic terrorists now prefer shooting, a far simpler tactic that is facilitated by the Second Amendment and entails simply opening fire on a group of ordinary citizens going about their daily lives.

Continue reading “”

Analysis: A New Twist on the ‘Dangerous and Unusual’ Standard for Gun Bans

A Massachusetts federal judge upheld the commonwealth’s ban on AR-15s and similar rifles this week. His rationale for doing so relied on an idiosyncratic understanding of the rifle’s purported lethality and defensive utility.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV denied a motion for preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ ban on “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. He did so by putting a new twist on an old argument. He determined that modern laws banning AR-15s fit within the country’s historical tradition of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

“The banned weapons are ‘dangerous,’ because they are unreasonably dangerous for ordinary purposes of self-defense due to their extreme lethality and high potential for collateral harm,” Saylor, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in Capen v. Campbell, “and they are ‘unusual,’ because it would be unusual for an ordinary citizen to carry such a weapon on his person on the street for self-defense, or to use it in the home to confront invaders or to protect against personal violence.”

While Saylor is certainly not the first to uphold a hardware ban since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, his analytical framework for doing so stands out among the rest for its emphasis on the “dangerous and unusual” standard and his understanding of how AR-15s fit in.

Continue reading “”

Fact Check — Hakeem Jeffries: Gun Violence the No. 1 Killer of Children

CLAIM: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) used a Thursday post on X to claim that gun violence is the number one killer of children in America.

VERDICT: False.

Jeffries is not the first Democrat to make this false claim, one based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) numbers focused on causes of death for people 0-19 years of age.

For example, during a June 2, 2022, prime-time speech, President Joe Biden reacted to the CDC figures by claiming: “Guns are the number one killer of children.” The “children” referenced by Biden include people of voting age, i.e., 18 and 19-year-olds. CDC figures show firearm-related deaths of people ages 0-19 totaled 4,368 in 2020, while motor vehicle deaths for the same age range totaled 4,036.

However, Breitbart News pointed out that if you do a custom search on the CDC website, adjusting the numbers so that you are limiting the category of “children” to the ages 0-17, i.e., individuals that are actually minors, then the data flips. The number of firearm-related deaths for children aged 0-17 was 2,281 in 2020, while the number of motor vehicle deaths for the same ages was 2,503.

Despite the demonstrable falsehood of Biden’s claim, Vice President Kamala Harris repeated it, as did actresses Allysa Milano and Jennifer Lawrence.

Jeffries is repeating it now, and it is still false.

Hamas Shifting the Goalposts for Releasing Hostages

There is already talk of a second ceasefire once fighting in the Israel-Hamas war resumes. But goalpost shifting by Hamas means talks ahead of any upcoming hostage release deal will be more hotly contested than the last.

The terror group is currently releasing just one of the 240 mostly Israeli hostages taken during its October 7th attacks for every three Palestinian prisoners set free by Israel. Over the course of the current ceasefire, which much of the West is demanding be extended again, Hamas has mainly released young children and elderly women—some of whom were taunted by Gazans during their handover—while Israel has released prisoners, many of whom it says are affiliated with Hamas and who, though not convicted, are alleged to have committed a range of offences.

Thoughts are now beginning to extend to the possible release of Israeli men and soldiers—both men and women—held by Hamas, which has signalled that it will demand a higher ‘price’ for these captives.

In 2006, Hamas released an abducted Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who had been held for five years in exchange for more than 1,000—one thousand—Palestinian prisoners. Retired U.S. Ambassador Dennis Jett told NPR that it “wasn’t lost on Hamas” that such a steep price could be demanded of Israel again.

Jerusalem may, however, be wary of such a controversial number, especially after one of the prisoners released in 2006, Yahya Sinwar, went on to lead Hamas in Gaza and to plan the October 7th terror attacks. For the same reason, The Times has suggested that “even Hamas might be discouraged from asking as high a price again, though its spokesmen have mentioned the Shalit deal.”

But before talks for the next ceasefire can begin, Israel is already being pressured by officials in the West to keep the existing one going longer. U.S. President Joe Biden said on Tuesday that “to continue down the path of terror, violence, killing, and war is to give Hamas what they seek. We can’t do that.” His comments appeared to contradict the official U.S. stance that a prolonged ceasefire would mainly benefit Hamas, granting it enough time to regroup.

President Biden’s comments also came ahead of today’s ‘International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,’ held annually, though this year piggybacked by Hamas. The terror group has called for global protests and “solidarity marches,” according to the German paper Jüdische Allgemeine. The paper added that this poses particular threats for the West’s Jewish communities which have already seen a massive increase in antisemitic incidents since October 7th.

Well, I personally don’t hardly believe anything the goobermint says.

BLUF
“The manipulation of statistics to create a narrative ultimately scares people. Whether the goal is for ratings or more gun control, it pushes people, especially women and mothers, to fear guns,” said Miller. “And that just isn’t right.”

We Can’t Believe These Agencies
Too often, the U.S. government skews statistics on gun use to push false narratives.

While Americans are frequently confronted with stories centered on guns being used to take lives, few are aware that many more humans are likely saved by firearms every year. A key reason for this lack of understanding is unreliable federal crime data—data that has too often been skewed by anti-gun politics.

As currently defined by the FBI, active-shooter incidents involve individuals who kill or attempt to kill people in a populated, public place, even if only one shot is fired or the intended target is not struck. Shootings that are related to other criminal activities, such as robberies or drug-turf wars, are not included in the FBI’s “Active Shooter Incident” reports.

But, according to economist John Lott, there was an abundance of cases missing or misidentified by the FBI, and while the FBI acknowledged errors, the Bureau failed to update the reports for accuracy purposes. Lott is the president and founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), and also worked in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) up until January 2021 as senior advisor for research and statistics evalutating the FBI’s reports.

“The FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 302 active shooter incidents that it identified for the period 2014-2022. The correct rate is almost eight times higher. And if we limit the discussion to places where permit holders were allowed to carry, the rate is eleven times higher,” wrote Lott. He further noted, “[O]ut of 440 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2022, an armed citizen stopped 157. We also found that the FBI had misidentified five cases, usually because the person who stopped the attack was incorrectly identified as a security guard.”

He also emphasized that while the FBI claims that just 4.6% of active murderers were halted by law-abiding citizens carrying guns, his research found that the figure was at least 35.7%. A false statistic—like this 4.6%—misleads people and can prevent good policies from being passed.

Indeed, without reliable crime data, it is impossible to have a fair “gun-control” debate, and yet the FBI continues to depend upon minimal data sets to reach conclusions meant to encapsulate the entire country.

Continue reading “”

Side bar news flash, all firearms can be used to inflict mortal wounds.

Sugarmann Still Twisting the Narrative as Anti-Gun Groups Attack Ruger

As Second Amendment supporters, we may not have heard it all, but we sure have heard a lot. And by what I’m speaking about is the bovine excrement served as rhetoric from the anti-civil liberties camp. Josh Sugarmann is about as deceptive as they come concerning verbiage used to damage the Second Amendment. Sugarmann is the force behind so-called “assault weapons,” noting an ignorant public won’t be able to discern the difference between semi-automatic firearms and fully-automatic firearms. Recently Sugarmann went on a deceptive tear against Ruger, and the other anti-civil liberty vultures followed suit – or perhaps coordinated.

Two weeks ago in Lewiston, Maine, we saw once again the horrific price our nation pays as the gun industry relentlessly innovates for lethality—and mass shooters repeatedly use military-bred semiautomatic assault weapons for the exact purpose for which they were designed.

Soon after this most recent attack, the VPC released a 13-page backgrounder on the Ruger assault rifle reportedly used in the shooting, which one gun magazine describes as “easy to carry, fast to the shoulder, and packing the punch of an old school .30-caliber battle rifle.”

The report’s release is just one way in which the VPC continues to focus attention on America’s unregulated gun industry and works to hold it accountable for the deaths and injuries that result from its products.

At the same time, nearly 134 Americans die each day in gun suicides, homicides, and unintentional deaths.

As illustrated above, Sugarmann continues to use the term he coined, “assault weapons” pairing the descriptor with the modifier “military-bred” – whatever that is. The 13 page “backgrounder” referenced is worth a gander if you have the stomach for garbage. The report lists alleged mass shootings that were conducted with Ruger manufactured firearms.

Continue reading “”