Translation of Bureaucrapish: He’s sure

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

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

[Watch the full hearing here]

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

“I am not,” Wray said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

Hunter prosecutor: IRS whistleblower is … telling the truth?

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

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

Relevant portion transcribed below:

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrat Donor Arrested for Starting Massive Fire Democrats Blamed on Climate Change.

What happened: Authorities busted a Democratic donor for allegedly starting a “ginormous inferno” in Yosemite National Park. Democratic politicians had insisted climate change was to blame for the blaze, which destroyed more than 100 homes and injured several firefighters in July 2022.

• Edward Fredrick Wackerman (his actual name) of Mariposa, Calif., faces a number of charges including aggravated arson following his arrest on Friday.

By the numbers: The arson suspect has donated $1,775 to Democratic candidates and committees since 2020, government records show, including a $1,000 donation to Tim Ryan’s failed U.S. Senate campaign in 2022 and $400 to the Lincoln Project, a disgraced liberal super PAC.

• The so-called Oak Fire destroyed 127 homes and 66 outbuildings. Roughly 6,000 people were forced to evacuate as the inferno torched 30 square miles of land and smoke from the fire drifted more than 200 miles into parts of Nevada and the San Francisco Bay Area.

What they’re saying: “Ed Wackerman is facing several felony charges, including aggravated arson. These charges carry serious legal consequences and the District Attorney is committed to ensuring a fair trial and upholding justice,” Mariposa County District Attorney Walter Wall said in a statement. Authorities did not say how Wackerman is believed to have started the fire.

What they said: “Thank you to all the firefighters and first responders working tirelessly under difficult conditions to combat the #OakFire,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D., Calif.) wrote on Twitter on July 25, 2022. “Worsening drought and severe weather will only continue to put lives and property at risk from wildfire if we don’t take climate action NOW.”

• “More people will be killed and the survival of our civilization is at stake,” former Vice President Al Gore said on July 24, 2022, citing climate change as the reason “droughts and fires are hitting us so hard.”

Crucial context: Several days before Wackerman’s arrest, authorities busted Democratic donor Themis Matsoukas for allegedly performing sexual acts with his dog at Rothrock State Forest in Pennsylvania. “I do it to blow off steam,” the Elizabeth Warren supporter told investigators.

• Matsoukas is 64 years old; Wackerman is 71.

Bottom line: We need a total and complete shutdown of liberal Baby Boomers entering state and national parks until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

BLUF
The American people deserve to know that when it comes to criminal enforcement, they are not on the same playing field as the wealthy and politically connected class. The preferential treatment Hunter Biden received would never have been granted to ordinary Americans.

So That’s Why Hunter Biden Got a Sweetheart Plea Deal When He Did.

Just days after Hunter Biden reached a sweetheart plea deal with his father’s Justice Department to avoid jail time for tax and gun crimes, the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled new testimony from IRS whistleblowers alleging roadblocks were set before them to ensure preferential treatment to President Joe Biden’s son. What’s more, whistleblower testimony claims that the U.S. attorney overseeing the probe of Hunter’s alleged tax crimes had his attempts to charge hunter in 2022 denied.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) confirmed on Thursday that his committee had “credible whistleblower testimony alleging misconduct and government abuse that is resulting in preferential treatment” for the president’s son, Hunter Biden. That testimony regarding the investigations “for tax crimes that include evading taxes on income from foreign sources,” the Missouri Republican explained, could only be taken by the Ways and Means Committee.

Continue reading “”

3 years ago, this would have gotten one smeared as a racist science denier.

It’s becoming undeniable: COVID came from a Chinese lab.

Evidence that COVID came from a Chinese lab mounted toward a conclusive level last week: “Multiple government sources” say the very first people infected by the bug were Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers, a new report reveals.

More, they were allegedly modifying a close relative of the virus with a key feature unique to it.

The report — by Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi and Alex Gutentag, posted on the outlet Public — names Ben Hu, Yu Ping and Yan Zhu as WIV scientists who developed COVID symptoms as early as November 2019, a month before the world even heard of the outbreak, and who now appear to be “patients zero.”

A source said officials were “100%” certain these three were the ones who developed the symptoms.

It’s “a game changer if it can be proven that Hu got sick with COVID-19 before anyone else,” marvels World Health Organization expert Jamie Metzl. “That would be the ‘smoking gun.’ Hu was the lead hands-on researcher” in the WIV lab.

Add in all the other evidence — especially the scientists’ gain-of-function work using a close relative of the COVID bug — and it’s now impossible to ignore the extreme likelihood that a leak from the lab sparked the global pandemic behind nearly 7 million deaths and untold economic harm.

It also points a damning finger at China for having waged the greatest coverup in history of the world — abetted by Westerners from Dr. Anthony Fauci to Big Tech to countless liberals and left-leaning media voices who misled the public by pooh-poohing the lab-leak theory early on, and actively suppressing those who pointed to evidence backing the theory.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
About this potential conflict of interest, retired Canadian colonel David Redman recently testified that legacy media outlets are “ministries of propaganda,” with multiple former mainstream media employees also making similar comments about their past employers.

Media blames ‘climate change’ for Canadian wildfires despite arrest of multiple arsonists
While the mainstream media continues to point to ‘climate change’ as the source of the wildfires, reports show that multiple people have been arrested in connection with dozens of intentionally set fires in the country.

(LifeSiteNews) — Despite the arrest of multiple arsonists, the mainstream media in Canada seems intent on attributing the nation’s recent wildfires to “climate change.”

As wildfires continue to spread across western, and now central and eastern Canada, burning forestland and homes, the mainstream media continues to imply that climate change is the main culprit, despite a growing number of reports showing that arsonists have been arrested for allegedly setting dozens of fires.

“Several arsonists have been arrested in the past weeks in different provinces for lighting forest fires,” People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier tweeted. “But the lying woke media and politicians keep repeating that global warming is the cause.” 

The severe nature of the wildfires has caused Canadians to wonder why they have spread so rapidly, especially as many of the affected areas are not typically impacted by wildfires of this degree or at this time of the year.

In the past months, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have arrested several arsonists who have been charged with lighting fires across several provinces including Nova ScotiaYukonBritish Columbia, and Alberta. The motive behind lighting the fires is unclear.  

Continue reading “”

Biden Spent Billions to Prosecute 31 People

It’s already saving lives. There are fewer deaths occurring,

Joe Biden
President United States of America
June 16, 2023
The US passed a landmark gun deal one year ago. Is it working?

Really? How does he know? The FBI crime numbers cannot be trusted.

And from the same article:

The event comes as available data suggests the U.S. is seeing a year-over-year decline in murders nationwide. At the same time, mass shootings appear to be accelerating.

And the numbers they do claim are very telling:

At least 31 people have been charged in 17 cases under new federal straw purchasing and trafficking criminal offenses, data from federal prosecutors through April shows.

31?!!! And strawman purchases were already illegal. Out of probably 15 to 20 million sales they charged 31 people under, what they claim, is a new law. And they think this is success?

Denials stemming from enhanced background checks for people under 21 blocked more than 130 firearm purchases between November and April, Peter Carr, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, previously told USA TODAY.

How many of those 130 blocked purchases resulted in an increase in public safety? And how many of those block purchases resulted in a decrease in public safety?

And at what cost?

It created a $750 million funding pot to incentivize states to create “red flag laws,” closed the “boyfriend loophole” by adding convicted domestic violence abusers in dating relationships to the national criminal background check system, clarified the definition of a “federally licensed firearm dealer,” made it a federal crime to traffic in firearms, stiffened penalties for “straw purchases” made on behalf of people who aren’t allowed to own guns and enhanced background checks for buyers under 21.

The law also appropriated billions in funding for schools and mental health services. That includes $150 million for a national 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, $250 million for states and territories to enhance community mental health services, $500 million to increase the number of school-based mental health providers and $500 million to train school counselors, social workers and psychologists. It also set aside $250 million in funding for community-based violence prevention initiatives.

Billions were spent to prosecute 31 people and block sales to 130 people who, almost for certain, were not a threat to anyone.

And this is even with them playing their game by their rules instead of based on whether what they are doing is a violation of the Second Amendment, which it is.

They lie, they deceive, and they ignore the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Bank of America Turns Over Information on Gun Owners to the FBI

WASHINGTON, D.C. — FBI whistleblowers have come forward with damning allegations against Bank of America (BoA). According to Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the banking giant has been revealing information to the FBI about its customer’s gun purchases without a warrant. Now the pair has sent letters to other banks to see if they also violated the privacy rights of their customers.

After the protest at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Bank of America provided the FBI with a list of customers who made transactions in or around Washington, D.C., purchased a flight to the Nation’s Capital, or booked a hotel room in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Most of Bank of America’s customers that attended the large rally never entered the Capitol Building, and the FBI did not have probable cause to allow the law enforcement agency to get a court order for the bank to surrender the documents.

When the FBI approached BoA about turning over the records, the bank complied without requesting a court order.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Roundup: U.S. Seeking Cert on Prohibited Persons

The Administration is hoping that bad facts will make bad law.

Federal law prohibits nine categories of persons from receipt and possession of a firearm. As the Supreme Court continues to develop its Second Amendment jurisprudence, which ones of those types are most significant in regard to representativeness and numerosity?

Felons in possession of firearms have been the leading type of prosecution under the federal Gun Control Act since its enactment in 1968. There were 7,454 such convictions in 2021.

The ban on felon possession is found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which also includes eight other categories of prohibited persons – all of which pale into insignificance compared to the felon ban. One of the more minor categories is a person subject to a domestic restraining order. While the feds aren’t too good at posting current data, in the years 2013 to 2017, there were 26,717 such convictions based on felon status, and only 121 for restraining order status. The proportions can’t be much different today.

Given that disparity, why is Attorney General Merrick Garland so keen in having the Supreme Court decide whether the restraining order folks, instead of the felons, are protected by the Second Amendment? The felon issue is ubiquitous, and not just because of the sheer numbers. It involves not only the violent felony vs. non-violent felony issue, but also whether any limits exist in this day-and-age in which almost anything can be a felony. Why has Martha Stewart forfeited her right to have a gun for self-defense?

So why would the government try to convince the Supreme Court to take up the atypical issue regarding persons with a restraining order? Here’s my take.

The Biden Administration is salivating at the prospect of United States v. Rahimi, about which I’ve written previously, being the next Second Amendment case to be decided by the Supreme Court. That’s because the defendant in the case appears to be such an odious character. Arrested by police following multiple shooting sprees, Rahimi was prohibited from gun possession because he was subject to a prior agreed-upon civil protective order. The Fifth Circuit found the ban to be facially unconstitutional because no historical analogue allowed disarming a person based on a civil protective order rather than a criminal proceeding.

Continue reading “”

Nashville Coverup Escalates: Tennessee’s Governor Must Cancel Special Session.

I was doing my usual Thursday morning stint on Tennessee Star Report radio, when host Michael Patrick Leahy read aloud the latest news from the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) regarding the ongoing controversy concerning the dreadful slayings of six people, three of them 9-year-olds, at the Covenant School that has become something of a national scandal.

The Epoch Times’ Chase Smith has done an admirable job of reporting the content of the police statement, although suffice it to say that Leahy and I both were stunned at the extent of what appeared to us as an enduring and expanding coverup.

The most important parts of the claims by MNPD Assistant Chief Mike Hagar were that the investigation of the fatal shootings by Audrey Hale is still an “active, ongoing criminal investigation and an open matter” that wouldn’t be concluded for “12 months.”

This, although the sole perpetrator, Audrey Hale, is herself dead, shot in the midst of her heinous crimes on March 27, approaching two months ago. (I “misgender” her as “she,” although Hale identified and dressed as a male. Call me old fashioned, but unlike a certain new Supreme Court justice, I understand our sexes to have been determined for the 300,000 years of homo sapiens, and probably before, by the number of immutable X and Y chromosomes in the 30 trillion to 40 trillion cells in our bodies.)

As for the 12 months, in government speak that often expands to 24 or even 36 months and, most likely of all—in the grand tradition of the FBI, which may be calling the shots here anyway—to never.

Meanwhile, without public access to the “manifesto” and other documents, not to mention the most important of all, the toxicology report (I will explain), Gov. Bill Lee will convene a special session of the Tennessee General Assembly on Aug. 21 to, in the official word of TN.gov., “strengthen public safety and preserve constitutional rights.”

Covers its bases, no? Sounds good. But what’s really behind this is an attempt to push through Lee’s version of a so-called red flag law and probably some form of gun control, both of which most of those who voted for him would never subscribe to, and neither of which have ever been shown to be effective.

Indeed, with gun control, as in Chicago, it’s arguably the reverse. The more control, the more corpses.

Continue reading “”

CAUGHT! Biden using fake data to gaslight Americans on mass shootings
Biden proves once again he’ll do anything to win his war on our guns.

Joe Biden has always struggled with the truth. Whenever he wanders off script and speaks extemporaneously, he invents personal anecdotes — boldfaced lies, actually — in which he assigns himself the starring role.

Whether he’s getting arrested in South Africa for trying to bust into Nelson Mandela’s prison cell, or bravely confronting AR-toting hunters in a Delaware swamp or going toe-to-toe with the arch-criminal, CornPop, no one actually believes him or takes his tall tales seriously. It’s just Joe being Joe, right?

But when Biden’s lies are actually signed and set into type, it’s a bit more serious. He loses his normal litany of excuses: he was tired, he was confused, he misread the teleprompter, he was sundowning.

In an editorial published Sunday in USA Today and reprinted in scores of other newspapers, the Fabulist-in-Chief dropped a whopper — even for someone who has lowered the presidential-truthfulness bar so significantly.

The editorial was titled, “President Biden: I’m doing everything I can to reduce gun violence, but Congress must do more.”

Most of Joe’s opus we’ve heard many times before. AR-15s are bad, so is anyone who owns one. Red flag laws and universal background checks will save the world. Congress needs to do more by banning “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, and of course his ubiquitous: “For God’s sake, do something.”

But then there’s this: “We need to do more. In the year after the Buffalo tragedy, our country has experienced more than 650 mass shootings and well over 40,000 deaths due to gun violence, according to one analysis.”

The hyperlink whisks readers to the Gun Violence Archive — a blatantly anti-gun nonprofit we debunked years ago for their fake news.

Founded in 2013, the GVA has become the legacy media’s source of choice for mass shooting data because they hype the numbers. The GVA came up with its own broad definition of a mass shooting. Anytime four or more people are killed or even slightly wounded with a firearm, the GVA labels it a mass shooting, and politicians, gun control advocates and the legacy media treat their reports as if they’re pure gold. For example, according to the GVA there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower and more realistic definition.

USA Today’s vaunted fact-checkers never balked at Biden’s use of the fake GVA data. They use it too, as does CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, so they didn’t question the President’s numbers, even though they equate to nearly two mass shootings per day. They were just happy he chose their struggling newspaper to publish his biased screed.

To be clear, if anyone actually believes Biden wrote this editorial himself, I’ve got an ocean-front property in Rehoboth Beach to sell them, complete with a $500,000 taxpayer-funded wall. Lately, Biden has difficulty even reading much less writing. He spars daily with the teleprompter, and the teleprompter usually wins. Of course, he didn’t write the editorial, but that doesn’t matter. It bears his byline: “Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States,” so he gets the credit and/or the blame. That’s the way the presidency is supposed to work.

That Team Biden would have to juke the stats to buttress their latest anti-gun hit piece is no surprise. They’re getting desperate. No one is listening. Guns are still flying off the shelves, especially ARs, and Black females are now the largest gun-buying demographic, because they realize Biden’s rants are hollow and won’t protect them or their families.

Biden’s editorial should be seen as a warning: He will do anything it takes to win his war against our guns, including gaslighting the American people with fake news. That, too, is no surprise.

Massaging The Shooter Narrative

I was actually looking for some different information last night when I came across this article, but after scanning it quickly for what I WAS looking for, I had to save it for a chance to Fisk it later on.

The link goes to a New Orleans TV station WDSU, but the piece is identified in several places as straight out of the Associated Press feed, so I’m not going to crack on the station for this. They are merely the presentation vehicle.

The article is titled “Recent high-profile mass shootings in the United States” and what stopped me in my tracks wasn’t so much the litany of horror. That tears your heart out no matter when or where it happens or to whom or how.

No, what made me pause in the midst of that carnage was the verbiage. There’s a deliberate pattern in the recitation of evil that you can’t avoid, and it makes the underlying intent of the “reporting” all the more suspect for the very obviousness of what’s said and what isn’t.

Multiple innocent lives are gone – all taken by another human being (or beings) in every single case in this supposedly dispassionate register of tragedies. It’s what’s missing that gives one reason to carefully reread and see if you’ve missed something.

I’ll assure you now – you haven’t.

Continue reading “”