Category: Deceit O’ The Day

Another J6 Trump ‘Bombshell’ Outed as a Hoax!

On Tuesday, the liberal media soiled themselves over the so-called bombshell story that on January 6, 2021, President Trump grabbed the steering wheel of the presidential limo and then lunged at a Secret Service agent because he wanted to join the protesters at the Capitol.

The story came courtesy of Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

“So when the president had gotten into the vehicle with [Secret Service agent] Bobby [Engel], he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him, ‘We’re not, we don’t have the assets to do it, it’s not secure, we’re going back to the West Wing,’ the president had a very strong and very angry response to that.

Tony described him as being irate. The president said to him something to the effect of, ‘I’m the f—ing president, take me up to the Capitol now.’ To which Bobby responded, ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.’ He then reached up front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, he said, ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing, we’re not going to the Capitol.’ Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel.”

Any reasonable person would conclude this story was dubious. The liberal media, however, not so much. CNN gleefully described it as a bombshell, yet, like so many other Trump bombshells, it appears this incident didn’t happen at all, and is yet another hoax to add to the pile of bogus anti-Trump stories.

According to Peter Alexander, the chief White House correspondent for NBC News, sources close to the Secret Service dispute the story.

“A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel,” Alexander tweeted Tuesday evening.

 

Trump’s former acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, slammed the committee for allowing this testimony to go unchallenged.

“So a junior staffer was pressured by @Liz_Cheney to lie under oath,” he tweeted. “Why wasn’t there a single committee member asking her if she had proof? This performance collapsed in an hour.”

“The DC media is corrupt and sick,” he concluded.

 

Soon after Alexander revealed that his sources challenged the story, Hutchinson’s lawyer, Jody Hunt, quickly attempted to walk back her testimony.

“Ms. Hutchinson testified, under oath, and recounted what she was told,” Hunt tweeted. “Those with knowledge of the episode also should testify under oath.”

 

How many more bogus bombshells are we going to get from these hearings?

‘Hope’ is not a strategy, but apparently it was the plan

Astonishing Testimony From Dr. Birx Lost Amid Landmark SCOTUS Rulings.

With several controversial SCOTUS rulings addressing divisive issues like gun rights and abortion, an exchange between Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dr. Debra Birx during a congressional hearing on Thursday escaped scrutiny. However, if a power-hungry politician, university, or employer compelled you or someone you love to receive an experimental vaccine in the last two years, it may make you furious. And Birx should be ashamed of herself for not speaking out earlier.

The House Oversight and Reform Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis held a hearing with Birx Thursday morning. Jordan questioned Birx on the United States’ participation in and funding of the World Health Organization and gain-of-function research. Birx was candid, saying that the United States should withhold funding from the WHO until needed reforms occur. She also said that the U.S. should not participate in some gain-of-function research, such as any in China.

But it was Jordan’s questions about the Biden administration’s messaging on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness that should shock the conscience. Jordan asked Birx if the government was lying or guessing when it told the public that people who received the vaccination couldn’t get COVID. Birx responded that she did not know. However, she continued, “All I know is there was evidence from the global pandemic that natural reinfection was occurring. Since the vaccine was based on natural immunity, you cannot make the conclusion that the vaccine will do better than natural infection. Although it can often do slightly better.” [Emphasis added]

Why didn’t she speak up about this while still in office? Public health “experts” like Dr. Anthony Fauci actively tried to convince Americans that natural immunity was inferior to the jabs. It’s not clear what large numbers of reinfections Birx was referring to since most positive post-infection tests were reported in asymptomatic people. One study in preprint finds that the spike protein, the part of the virus the tests detect, can remain in a recovered patient’s body for up to 12 months post-infection. How this could affect post-recovery testing in asymptomatic patients is unknown.

Jordan went on to challenge Birx about what the government knew and when. “You were part of this effort when you were in the previous administration. And you’re saying in this administration that you can’t rule out the fact that our government was lying to us when they told us the vaccinated could not get the virus,” he charged.

Birx responded, “I don’t know about their discussions that they had in the task force. So I can’t tell you that.” Then, as she often did on the Trump task force, she traded on her personal situation. “I can tell you as a family member who had individuals that were susceptible, of course, we got everybody vaccinated. But we still used layered protection during surges.”

Continue reading “”

I’m An MD Suspended By Twitter For Tweeting A Link To A Scientific Article On COVID-19 Vaccine Lowering Sperm Counts
My suspension is yet another example of Twitter’s arbitrary, Lysenkoist breaches of informed public discourse on covid-19. The suspension must be reversed, and my account restored fully intact, immediately. Please take notice and intervene Elon Musk (@elonmusk).

I am a physician currently affiliated with the Brown University Center For Primary Care and Prevention, and was an Associate Professor of Medicine and Family Medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University from 1997 until June, 2021. My CV lists my many medical and scientific accomplishments.

Among other things, as a clinical trialist and epidemiologist, I designed and completed the largest randomized, controlled trial ever conducted in chronic kidney transplant recipients.  I have 115 scholarly, peer-reviewed publications focused on epidemiology and clinical trials. I have testified as an expert witness in lawsuits pertaining to the Covid-19 pandemic—specifically on vaccine and mask mandates—while researching and writing extensively on those subjects. I recently contributed to an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court for the covid-19 vaccine mandate case NFIB v. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, et al./Ohio v. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, et al. which was cited by the Washington Post .

Until this morning, I had a very active Twitter account with a large following through which I shared scientific information, as well as my personal views.

[Andrew Boston Twitter Banner As Of February 16, 2022]

 This morning (6/22/22) I awakened to learn that overnight Twitter had summarily and simultaneously locked, and then suspended my account for this “offending” tweet from Father’s Day, 6/19/22:

As of this writing, my Twitter account is suspended. I have received no response so far to my appeal.

The Journal Andrology is highly respected and published through a joint effort of American and European scientific associations:

The study was a straightforward, serial analysis of young male Israeli semen donors evaluating the potential impact of Pfizer’s covid-19 mRNA vaccine on their sperm concentration (count), and related functional measures, “15-45 [Time 1],75-120 [T2], and over 150 days after [T3] vaccination.”

What did the investigators find?

Again, quoting their publication, verbatim, based upon what the authors defined, a priori, as the primary statistical analysis (i.e., “ [a] 1) generalized estimated equation model (GEE) was used for repeated measures analysis,” which is indeed the most appropriate method!):

 “sperm concentration was significantly lower due to decrease of -15.4% (confidence interval -25.5%–3.9%) compared to [Time zero/baseline] T0 (p=0.01). Moreover, [total motile count; how sperm moved] TMC percentage change reduction of 22.1% was significantly lower compared to T0 (confidence interval -35% – -6.6%, p=0.007) as well. Although concentration and TMC were reduced also on T3, these values did not reach statistical significance.”

If anything the text of my 6/19/22 tweet understated the evidence of a possible longer term, ~ 5-month follow-up decline, calling it a “rebound” when “concentration and TMC were reduced also on T3, [though] these values did not reach statistical significance.” In other words, the trend was toward a persistent decline, although it did not “reach statistical significance,” but may well have been evident, and “statistically significant,” merely by studying more subjects.

Finally, my offending tweet added the truthful observation that no data were presented on the effects of booster vaccinations, and asked whether boostering might cause another cycle of decline in the sperm counts and functional measures only studied in relation to the initial vaccination.

My suspension is yet another example of Twitter’s arbitrary, Lysenkoist breaches of informed public discourse on covid-19. The suspension must be reversed, and my account restored fully intact, immediately.

Please take notice and intervene Elon Musk (@elonmusk).

Well, they’re liars, so…..

THE DUPLICITY OF GUN CONTROLLERS IS IN FULL ARRAY

There’s an interesting phenomenon occurring with those demanding gun control lately. They’ve abandoned pretenses of “common sense.” Now, it’s not gun control. It’s gun rights elimination.

President Joe Biden leads the gun control charade parade. The president chides gun owners for not supporting his gun control agenda while at the same time expanding his gun ban wish list.

President Biden spoke to the American public from The White House on June 2 to explain his desire to push for expanded gun control.

“The issue we face is one of conscience and common sense,” President Biden said following the tragic murders by a madman in Uvalde, Texas. “For so many of you at home, I want to be very clear: This is not about taking away anyone’s guns.  It’s about… not about vilifying… gun owners. In fact, we believe we should be treating responsible gun owners as an example of how every gun owner should behave. I respect the culture and the tradition and the concerns of lawful gun owners.”

The Real Joe

That statement, however, stands in stark contrast to what President Biden told a private group of Beverly Hills, Calif., Democratic donors just days later. He told a story of his Senate days pushing gun control measures and gun owners confronting him on his radical agenda.

“They’d say, ‘God darn, Joe, what the hell are you doing taking my gun away?’” President Biden said according to a Breitbart report. “And I said, ‘Let me ask you a question.’ I said, ‘How many — when you go deer hunting, how many deer are wearing Kevlar vests?’”

“‘By the way, if you need 30, 40, 60, up to 100 rounds to fire,’ I said, ‘you’re a danger to yourself, man,’” he continued.

That’s an interesting stand for the president, who admits to owning at least two shotguns and once absurdly told his wife to blindly “fire two blasts” into the dark if she ever feared someone illegally entering their property. It’s not unexpected though. This is the same president that lectures America on the Bill of Rights as if it were a laundry list of government-approved needs.

President Biden told Americans in a tweet, “No one needs an AR-15. Period.” He’s continuously called for a ban on standard capacity magazines. He tried to convince Americans that no one needs 9 mm handguns, calling those too “weapons of war.”

Hollywood Hypocrisy

Liberal antigun darling Michael Moore has never been shy about disclosing his animus toward lawful firearm ownership. These days, he’s dropped any equivocation and is calling for the Second Amendment to be repealed outright.

“We need to start a movement to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with something that says it’s not about the right of somebody to own a gun, it’s the right of all of us to be protected from gun violence,” Moore said in his podcast, according to Fox News.

Instead of guns, Moore suggests getting a dog. For concealed carry options, there are always small breeds, one might imagine. It’s also wishful thinking by Moore that criminals will suddenly drop their illegally-obtained firearms. Law-abiding gun owners aren’t the problem, but criminal actors are, since they’re already ignoring laws and harbor no respect for life. Of course, there’s a path for Moore to achieve this. It only takes two-thirds of both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, or two-thirds of the states to agree to a Constitutional convention and that new amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions.

“I make no apologies for it because I understand the history of this country and I don’t think we should be afraid to say this. Repeal the Second Amendment,” Moore said. “I said it then and I’ll say it now and I’ll keep saying it and I want you to say it with me, repeal the Second Amendment. This sentence in our Constitution, it was written 235 years ago. Repeal the Second Amendment.” So was the First Amendment, but whatever.

At least Moore is honest, if not completely out of step with America. Criminals, assuredly, would love this idea.

Pro-2A Gun Control?

David Hogg, the front-man for March for Our Lives gun control, wrote in a Fox News op-ed a call-to-action for even NRA members to join in his gun control demonstrations.

“I want to state unequivocally that I am not anti-gun. In fact, the movement I helped to start has been pro-Second Amendment from day one,” Hogg wrote.

That’s in direct contradiction with the demands from March for Our Lives, which include a national licensing and registry scheme, bans on so-called “assault weapons” or semiautomatic Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard capacity magazines. The March for Our Lives’ website attests that “there is a national mental health crisis,” yet Hogg was quoted telling U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) that, “Mental illness is a bulls–t talking point,” according to a Time report. That was on the same whirlwind Senate splash where he attempted to shame Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), accusing him of snubbing a meeting with Hogg because it would “trigger” the senator. The senator’s chief of staff caught him in the lie, pointing out they had a 2 p.m. meeting scheduled, which was canceled when it was clear Hogg was using the meeting to self-promote.

Hogg attempted an apology, citing a scheduling mistake.

The mistakes here aren’t schedules. They’re a matter of getting caught up in their own duplicity.

“FACT CHECKERS” FAIL TO ADDRESS CRITICAL CHANGE IN DEFINITION OF RECEIVER, INADVERTENTLY PROVE “FALSE CLAIM” TRUE

Washington, D.C. – So-called “fact checkers” and Big Tech inadvertently validated Gun Owners of America’s concerns while targeting a tweet as disinformation for censorship.

Immediately following passage of the “Untraceable Firearms” section of H.R. 7910, Gun Owners of America tweeted that the bill would “criminalize disassembling, cleaning, and re-assembling your gun without a firearm manufacturer’s license.”

Despite labeling the tweet “false,” the Associated Press’ source presumes Gun Owners of America’s interpretation might be valid, acknowledges that the bill’s language is “confusing and ambiguous,” and instead claims that no one is likely to “ever be charged under this statute.”

The Supreme Court usually declares such laws “void for vagueness” under the 5th Amendment, but that hardly makes policy analyses of unconstitutionally vague legislation untrue!

In fact, GOA was merely pointing out that the definition of a “ghost gun” was so vague that it included many unserialized parts on guns in circulation today, like a slide on a handgun or an upper receiver on a rifle or shotgun.

With “assembling” a “ghost gun” criminalized by H.R. 7910, gun owners would no longer be able to disassemble their firearms, clean them, and “assembl[e]” them back into “a functional firearm” if even one unserialized part meets the new definition of a “ghost gun.” The fact-checkers claim that this only applies to manufacturers, but the bill states “it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture…a ghost gun.”

That is why all of the Associated Press’ sources lean heavily on the qualifier “serialized.”

For example, the “AP’S ASSESSMENT” emphasized that the ban didn’t apply to “firearms [with] serial numbers” and a Giffords gun control activist emphasized that the law wouldn’t affect “a firearm that is serialized.”  Again, they must have intentionally skipped over the other portion of the same bill that changes the current definition of parts that would be subject to serialization or otherwise be classified as “ghost guns.”  Our research indicates that several parts of most modern firearms would meet this new definition (see examples mentioned above).

Therefore, if most guns today are made up of multiple unserialized “ghost gun” parts, as the bill proposes, then you won’t be able to clean your gun without violating the law unless you have a firearm manufacturer’s license.

Big picture: these anti-gun Democrats didn’t even do their own research, because when ATF tried the same definition change last year, GOA and our activists fought back, and ATF later acknowledged and backtracked [Page 24727] this change.

-GOA-

We Were Right Again – “FDA Approved” Comirnaty Was a Hoax (Will Corporate Media Correct the Record?)

In August of 2021, COVID vaccine uptake was off, and they needed something to convince people to get The Jab™. The Kool-Aid only works if everyone drinks it, so Pfizer and the FDA crafted on paper a legally distinct COVID “vaccine,” named it Comirnaty, and declared it approved.

And it worked. Every Karen and their water carrier proclaimed from atop the rising mountain of bodies and harms that “The COVID vaccine” was approved. It was safe and effective. No excuses. Go get yours today!

But the shot you got, the only injection anyone could or would get, was still under Emergency Use Authorization. That never changed. Comirnaty was a bait and switch, and we were suspicious right out of the gate.

08/21 – Pfizer’s FDA Approved “Vaccine” is Not the One You Got, or Will Likely Get Anytime Soon
10/21 –Pfizer Admits You Still Still Can’t Get Their “FDA Approved Vaccine” in the United States
01/22 –Start the New Year Right – Stop Lying to People about Their COVID19 Vaccine Being Approved.

The corporate media, politicians, and the so-called medical experts all aped the lie. Mandates rolled out. People lost their jobs, careers, and friendships, it was quite the public “health” relations coup. All while the VAERS numbers rose and the vaccinated continued to get sick – to which they responded, well, that’s the fault of the unvaccinated (it was not), and you need a booster!

This cabal even went on a terror campaign against “deniers” and used the “approved” lie to justify jabbing younger and younger children who were never at risk.

A lot of people died. Young people died. They knew it was never safe or effective. And this week, the CDC quietly issued a Pfizer update that Comirnaty will never be produced. The approved version of the “vaccine” only existed on paper, and it was time to dot the ‘i’ cross the ‘t.’

“Pfizer received initial FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename. These NDCs will not be manufactured. Only NDCs for the subsequently BLA approved tris-sucrose formulation will be produced.”

For the record, BLA approval refers to the Biologics License Application necessary “to market and commercialize a pharmaceutical or biological product in a country or jurisdiction.”  It was a false flag that gave Pfizer and everyone else permission to lie to you about what they were “selling” and what you were getting.

So, the 12 billion dose question now is this. The corporate media had zero curiosity about the lack of availability of the “approved” version. They gleefully sold the lie that they were the same – inferring that the EUA version that gave Pfizer immunity was the same.

You’ll not likely see anything bordering on journalism about any of that, just the approved narratives and CDC or FDA-approved talking points.

Now that Pfizer and the FDA/CDC have quietly covered their asses over this stunt, will the ”Media” have the stones to explode this across the front page? Any page?

A search at NH ABC affiliate WMUR for the word Comirnaty produced zero results. Yuu can’t even find old reporting on the so-called approval. It’s been scrubbed.

The liars at the NH Union Leader, however, haven’t scrubbed theirs yet.

UL Comirnaty Pfizer FDA approval lie

So, I doubt you’ll find any admission of the lie in the watchdog media, but if you do, send it my way. I’d love to see the spin or – maybe I’ll be surprised, and someone will commit an act of journalism.

No, I’m not holding my breath.

One more point: Let’s not forget that New Hampshire spent over 100 million dollars on marketing to encourage vaccination based on the “FDA Approved” lie.

This is not ‘journalism’. This is theater. And it’s deceitful theater at that.
Can you count how many lies were told?

Well, when all they have is deceit

The Left’s Artificial Inflation of Mass Shooting Numbers

Left-leaning media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post claim there have been hundreds of mass shootings this year alone. The real numbers are much lower.

The figures they use are based on data from the Gun Violence Archive which currently clocks the number of mass shootings in 2022 at 251, on par with the number of shootings on their record this time last year.

The FBI does not have numbers yet for 2022, but in 2021 they reported 61 active shooter incidents. Only 12 of those were considered mass killings according to the federal definition which says three or more deaths constitute a mass killing. The GVA, on the other hand, reported 692 mass shootings in 2021. That’s more than 11 times greater than the FBI’s official recorded number.

The culprit of the difference between the two agencies’ numbers is that the FBI gathers data on active shooter incidents and the GVA counts mass shootings. The two terms have slightly different definitions. However, the FBI’s active shooter data contains comparable information to the GVA’s mass shooting data.

In fact, the difference between how the FBI defines an active shooter and how the GVA defines a mass shooting reveals how the larger numbers provided by the GVA’s data collection criteria can be twisted by the left to spread fear and further their gun-grabbing agenda.

The GVA says a mass shooting occurs when there are “Four or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter.” They also note the way they collect their mass shooting information (via GVA):

GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident.

The FBI does not define Mass Shooting in any form. They do define Mass Killing but that includes all forms of weapon, not just guns.

In that, the criteria are simple…if four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not including the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.

Note that the GVA definition of a mass shooting does not have a threshold number of deaths required to define an incident of gun violence as a mass shooting.

The FBI defines an active shooter as follows (via FBI):

One or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.

The FBI also looks at the inclusion of the following features to determine whether or not an incident is an active shooter event (via FBI):

Shootings in public places, shootings occurring at more than one location, shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act, shootings resulting in a mass killing, shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter, shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims, shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects.

In their reported numbers of active shooter incidents, the FBI does not include incidents of gun violence that result from the following (via FBI):

Self defense, gang violence, drug violence, contained residential or domestic disputes, controlled barricade/hostage situations, crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act, an action that appeared not to have put other people in peril.

These criteria make the FBI’s definition of an active shooter much more exclusive. Because of the GVA’s broad definition of a mass shooting, they would count incidents fitting the above descriptions as mass shootings so long as four or more people were injured or killed.

In other words, if someone was attacked by multiple criminals and shot the attackers out of self defense, the GVA would consider it a mass shooting. If four or more people were shot in an incident of gang violence, the GVA would consider it a mass shooting, and so on.

These sorts of shootings are no less significant, but by labeling every incident of gun violence affecting four or more people a “mass shooting,” the Left makes it sound like acts of violence on the same scale as Uvalde or Buffalo happen every day.

The term mass shooting has strong connotations that are not applicable to most of the shootings in the GVA’s numbers. As Katie wrote, referring to something as a mass shooting implies a lot more than the number of people shot.

All violent crime should be cause for concern and the GVA’s numbers reveal violence is no small issue in the United States. But untruthfully referring to so many of these incidents of violent crime as mass shootings is just a fear-mongering tactic used by the Left to push their agenda of greater government control over law abiding citizens.

Well, he’s a demoncrap politician, which means he’s a cheat and a liar.

FBI data contradicts [Senator] Murphy’s claims on young adults and active shootings

While the Senate negotiations on a legislative response to the recent mass murders in Buffalo and Uvalde continue, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy told CNN on Thursday morning that an attempt to ban adults under the age of 21 from purchasing modern sporting rifles is now “off the table” as the two sides work to find something they can present to their colleagues that might win approval from 10 Republican senators.

Murphy, the Democrat leading the negotiations in conjunction with Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, framed the shift as one of the compromises that will be needed to get at least 10 Republican votes, given the obstacle of the filibuster.

The compromise, Murphy explained, would be adding “additional scrutiny” to 18- to 21-year-olds looking to buy a weapon like the AR-15, though he stopped short of specifying that some sort of waiting period would replace raising the age.

“I think we continue to try to find a path to 60 votes that includes some provision that recognizes these 18- to 21-year-olds tend to be the mass shooters, and that many times, they have juvenile criminal records or past histories of mental health that should prohibit them from buying a weapon,” Murphy said, adding he thinks there is some Republican support for raising the age, but not enough to meet the 60-vote threshold to clear the filibuster.

Here’s the thing: Murphy is just flat out wrong about adults under 21 being most likely to commit these types of attacks, as the FBI’s recent report on active shooter incidents in 2021 clearly demonstrates.

Just 16 of the 61 incidents documented by the FBI involved a killer under the age of 24, much less 21. I took a deeper look into the FBI report and found that only five of the 61 incidents last year involved suspects under the age of 21; less than 10% of the overall number of these heinous crimes. And of the five incidents, two involved the use of a rifle, while three involved handguns.

It seems to me that these senators, including Murphy, are looking more at the killers in Buffalo and Uvalde, who were both 18-years of age at the time of their mass murders, than examining the actual statistics, which completely undercut the argument of targeting specific firearms or a particular age.

Meanwhile, you’d think that corporations would have gotten the message that customers want them to focus on their products and services instead of wading into the culture wars by now, but that’s not stopping the heads of hundreds of business from calling on Congress to pass new gun control legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas.

Many of the names on the list of signatories of an open letter to the U.S. Senate, however, are familiar names for Second Amendment advocates, because they’ve been issuing their corporate calls for gun control for several years.

The letter is signed by some of the nation’s largest companies including Bloomberg LP, The Permanente Medical Group, Levi Strauss, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Lyft and the Philadelphia Eagles.

Bloomberg obviously has been in favor of all kinds of new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for years, and it’s hard to expect anything less from the company run by the gun control lobby’s biggest sugar daddy. Levi Strauss and Dick’s have also been longtime corporate supporters of gun control measures, while Lyft has imposed its own driver disarmament policy that leaves contractors unable to defend themselves from armed robbers or carjackers without their ability to drive for the company being terminated. If they don’t even want their own contractors to be able to protect themselves in their own vehicles, you can imagine the contempt the company has for the right of average citizens to be able to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

The letter was apparently put together by Levi Strauss and Bloomberg’s pet gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, and Axios, who was first to report on the missive says that the document is void of any support for specific pieces of gun control legislation under debate, opting instead of boilerplate language urging the Senate to “take urgent action to pass bold gun safety legislation as soon as possible in order to avoid more death and injury.”

In a fascinating twist, while the CEOs of three professional sports teams (the San Francisco 49ers, San Francisco Giants, and Philadelphia Eagles) signed on to the letter, no one from the Tampa Bay Rays organization lent their name to the anti-gun effort, even though the baseball team recently used its social media platforms to advocate for unnamed gun control laws and to back Everytown for Gun Safety’s gun control mission. The Rays absence from the letter might have something to do with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ even more recent veto of a bill that would have spent more than $30-million in state funds on a training facility that would be mostly used by the team, though the governor didn’t directly tie in the veto to Rays’ gun control messaging.

I doubt that the negotiations in the Senate are going to produce anything that these anti-gun CEOs would truly consider “bold”, and I’m glad to hear Murphy say that a gun ban for adults under the age of 21 is apparently no longer a part of the discussions. Still, based on Murphy’s comments it seems the Senate negotiations are still aiming in the wrong direction by focusing on young adults and modern sporting rifles in spite of what the data actually tells us.

Thread by Amy Swearer

I’m going through 2022 school shooting data, and this is your friendly reminder that many gun control groups routinely inflate school shooting numbers to scare people into thinking Uvalde happens every week. It doesn’t.

Here a few of my favorite inclusions from Everytown:

An adult couple met with strangers to buy a car in an elementary school parking lot at midnight. The sellers tried to rob them. One woman was shot in the shoulder and injured.

A 27-year-old man was found fatally shot in his car behind a school building on a Sunday.

A 20-year-old was found fatally shot behind a school building at 1:00 a.m.

Another man was fatally shot in a school parking lot at 6:40 am on a Sunday.

After a high school graduation ceremony, on publicly accessible tennis courts belonging to a local college, one teenager shot two other teenagers (one fatally) and fled.

A teenager shot another teenager on an elementary school’s property on a Sunday.

There is literally one where an armed woman chased her ex-boyfriend out of the apartment, is confronted by officers near a daycare center and fatally shot…and the press release literally says the daycare center was not involved and was never in harm’s way.

Are these all instances of gun violence? Yes. Are they all problematic in their own right? Yes. But packaging these as part of some “school shooting” epidemic is dishonest nonsense.

Continue reading “”

As if anyone with a working brain wouldn’t have already known her politics

Ketanji Brown Jackson seen applauding New Zealand’s ‘assault’ weapons ban at Harvard commencement

Supreme Court Justice-designate Ketanji Brown Jackson was seen last week applauding New Zealand’s “assault” weapons ban at Harvard University, just as a similar ban is being raised by Democratic lawmakers – and could potentially one day be before the Supreme Court.

Jackson was in the audience at New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s commencement speech at Harvard University, and was sat very near Ardern.

Ardern lists off various achievements of her government in recent years, from the introduction of gay marriage to climate change commitments, in her address. 

 She then points to one in particular: “Banning military-style semi-automatics and assault rifles.” As she says this, Jackson begins applauding – which is followed by a standing ovation from the audience at the elite university.

Jackson’s applause comes as Democrats across the country have used recent shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York to renew calls for a U.S. ban on “assault” weapons, that are typically defined as semi-automatic weapons with certain features and attachments.

“We need to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines,” President Biden said in a televised address Thursday night. He has also called for raising the age to purchase firearms, tougher background checks and “red-flag laws.” Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced hearings on a potential assault weapons ban.

Meanwhile, some states already have assault weapons bans in place, while other states are looking at passing them in the wake of those shootings. The federal government last passed an assault weapons ban in 1994, which expired in 2004.

Critics of those measures have said that they are not only ineffective, but also infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners. It means that any such assault weapons ban could eventually be subject to a legal challenge and be before the Supreme Court.

When even the Washington Post calls you a liar…….

As a StunnedTater, SloJoe got away with his meandering windbag storytelling and lies because the caricature of the blowhard politician speechifying on the floor of Congress, who no one really pays attention to, is an accurate one.
He got used to it because there never were any consequences to it; He always got reelected, so why worry?
He’s now too far gone mentally to get out of the rut he dug for himself and also realize that the BS he spouts has a real effect, as people do pay attention to the President of the U.S….. even if he is a senile lying blowhard.

Biden: CEOs told me my plan would save $500 per household in utility costs. WaPo: Lie.

A Four Pinocchio lie, in fact, as Glenn Kessler reports this morning. Joe Biden has a very bad habit of exaggerating and confusing details, but this claim goes well beyond that into sheer fantasy. In his op-ed at the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Biden claimed that utility-company executives told him that his economic plan would save American households an average of $500 a year, starting immediately:

“A dozen CEOs of America’s largest utility companies told me earlier this year that my plan would reduce the average family’s annual utility bills by $500 and accelerate our transition from energy produced by autocrats.”

Not only do those numbers not add up, Kessler concludes, Biden’s flat-out lying about the conversation:

But when we located the transcript of Biden’s conversation with utility executives on Feb. 9, we found no reference to $500 in utility savings. The figure was also not mentioned in the White House readout of the meeting.

Biden’s also lying about the numbers. He pulled the $500 figure from a friendly analysis by the Rhodium Group that was prepared in October. That report predicted $500 annual savings in overall energy costs, not just utilities, and not until 2030. Most of that savings came from eliminating gasoline from family budgets as cars would go completely onto the grid. The actual projected utility savings would be, er …

Indeed, the report notes that, if the Biden climate plan were adopted, home electricity bills by 2030 would be between one dollar more and five dollars less than under current policy. That might pay for an extra ice cream cone over the summer.

This is fanciful for other reasons, too. Moving tens of millions of personal vehicles onto the electrical grid would create a vast spike in demand for electricity. We can’t keep up with current demand now, thanks to increasingly restrictive policies on sources for electrical generation. Several states right now are warning about plans for rolling brownouts and blackouts as a means to ration access to limited electricity, including car-happy California. Prices would go through the roof by 2030, as supply won’t match current demand without expanding the fossil fuels used for electrical generation. Expecting the transition to be cost-free to households ignores the large amount of kilowatt hours it will take to keep vehicles charged, too.

But even apart from that, the economic situation has changed since October. Much of the increase in energy costs for households has come with gasoline, but electricity costs are also rising — both in price and rationed access in a price-controlled environment. Energy costs money regardless of how it originates, and gas-powered vehicles at least allow consumers to operate independent of grid shortages.

Kessler drops four Pinocchios on Biden in his conclusion:

[H]e didn’t hear that from utility executives. And the report he is citing is not about household utility-bill savings. Most of the claimed savings comes from the reduced cost of driving. And the estimate is for 2030 — when he would no longer be president, even if he served a second term.

Is there any doubt the president earns Four Pinocchios?

No doubt at all. Four Pinocchios is the minimum allowance for Biden on a daily basis. And if Biden wants to keep the US from being dependent on “autocrats” for our energy needs, then he needs to work to expand exploration, extraction, and refining in the US, rather than doing the opposite over the last 17 months.

Democrats are selective in which shootings matter

Before I get started, let me make it clear that I know there are some pro-gun Democrats. I don’t think there are any left in Congress these days, but among the voters, there are. In what follows, I’m not talking about them and they should be excluded from this.

However, for the rest, which happens to be something like 90 percent-plus of all Democrats, this all applies.

What applies, you ask? How about the fact that while anti-gun Democrats will scream to high heaven about a Uvalde or a Buffalo, they only seem to care about certain tragedies. Why is that?

Because only certain tragedies help advance their agenda:

Democrats are silent after more than 30 people lost their lives this weekend to violent crime waves that continually sweep through the nation’s cities.

Why hasn’t President Joe Biden, who recently visited Uvalde, Texas, after 19 children and two adults died in a school shooting, tweeted something or planned trips to Nebraska, Illinois, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania, where violence and shootings took the lives of dozens of people including children?

Why hasn’t Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke executed another political stunt at a local press conference somewhere to call attention to a rise in domestic altercations that escalate into shootings? Mostly because none of the violence was politically advantageous for them.

The violence that took the lives of dozens of Americans over Memorial Day weekend either did not involve firearms such as AR-15s, which the left has openly admitted they want to confiscate, or occurred under the wrong conditions for grandstanding. Democrats pick and choose which tragedies to milk for their anti-gun agenda based on how much political leverage firearm-related deaths grant them.

It’s not wrong, folks.

Think about how many people die every weekend in gun-controlled Chicago. The numbers tend to be staggering, and we hear relatively little in the mainstream national media about that. Why don’t we? Because it not only fails to advance their anti-gun agenda, it actually undermines it.

Illinois has many of the measures Democrats have pushed for at the federal level, and none of it has seemed to do a damn thing. While officials are quick to blame other states for their problems, the truth is that gun control simply doesn’t work.

So what happens is that Democrats become selective in their outrage. They lash out when it’s convenient and stick their heads in the sand when the incident isn’t.

Think about how quickly Sacramento dropped from the headlines. A couple of criminals who had guns illegally, one of which had a full-auto switch which is even more illegal. Everything about it proved that criminals will keep getting guns no matter what you do.

It was a big story before we knew it was one of gun control failing. Now, Democrats and their allies in the media like to pretend it never happened.
But Buffalo and Uvalde? Those aren’t going anywhere because they get to demonize the AR-15.

See, all tragedies are awful, but for anti-gun Democrats, it’s only awful enough to talk about when it advances the narrative.

A better term might be ‘willful ignorance‘. And the willfully ignorant take pride in their ignorance. They wear it like a medal. They don’t want to know anything about those icky guns. And in the case of politicians, they’re equal parts stupid and deceitful.

Certain Americans reveal their Second Amendment illiteracy

Biden capitalizes on every opportunity to broadcast how severely uninformed he is — but this Memorial Day, he settled on airing his ignorance via the gun debate, saying a 9mm bullet will blow a “lung out of the body.”  Those of us who have seen a 9mm round know how emphatically wrong he is.

Yet, despite the gross magnitude of his blunder, it’s not the worst I’ve heard.  As it turns out, many Americans are completely uneducated on every facet of the gun debate, and they share one common denominator — they’re all Democrats.  Let’s take a look back at some of the top contenders for the Democrats’ stupidest moments regarding the right to bear arms.

Patricia Eddington, a former state legislator for the state of New York, once said:

Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat-seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do, you could cook it at the same time [emphasis added].

What does Eddington think?  You could shoot a deer and then walk over with a knife and fork, ready to feast?  Despite actually making this claim, Eddington said this prior to the introduction of a gun control package, including a bill she sponsored.

Next up, Mr. Thomas Binger, the prosecuting attorney in the Rittenhouse case.  Although Binger’s registered political affiliation is unknown, FEC contribution data lists donations to ActBlue.  Mr. Binger’s first blunder was picking up a rifle, immediately putting his finger in the trigger well, and aiming it at a room full of people.

Binger’s second mistake was speculating that hollow point rounds “explode” upon impact.  Again, for the educated among us, the appropriate word would be “expand,” as this type of bullet doesn’t detonate into fragments — it’s not a grenade.

Now we have Dianne Feinstein, federal senator from California, who declared:

We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.

What?  Hunting humans is not legal.  The only legal way to kill humans is via abortion, which she unequivocally supports.

And lastly, we have Donzella James, a state senator out of the great state of Georgia, who stated, “Yes, I believe in the Second Amendment.  But why are we spreading the access to guns to everyone?”

Although we didn’t need a reminder, it is worth pointing out that somehow, being a Democrat politician apparently makes one incapable of understanding firearms, or the idea of a God-given right that is not to be infringed — and brings us a few laughs.

Deceit as a strategy by the Editors at Scientific American

The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives

“The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis, just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.”

They have to lie to justify their beliefs and agenda. You only need to click on their own reference to discover the lie. Guns kill more children than auto accidents? Only if you consider 24 year old people as “children”

 

“For much of the past few decades motor vehicle crashes were the most common cause of death from injury—the leading cause of death in general—among children, teenagers and young adults in the U.S. But now a new analysis shows that, in recent years, guns have overtaken automotive crashes as the leading cause of injury-related death among people ages one through 24.”

They are intentionally lying in an effort to deprive an entire nation of a specific enumerated right.