Many involved in that national conversation have been critical of what the “Fauci diaries” revealed. Primarily that the supposedly unbiased “expert” was, in fact, anything but. Instead of his carefully crafted public persona, he was an arrogant, self-obsessed, fame-hungry, frequently dishonest narcissist.

Other “news” outlets like CNN or MSNBC generally ignored this new controversy, and the many inconsistencies in it, preferring to avoid dealing with the ramifications and what it meant about their prior hero worship.

It wasn’t just the emails that caused embarrassment for Fauci and his media partners, however. Text messages released by Sen. Ron Johnson soon afterward showed that he had legitimate concerns over the possibility that COVID vaccines were causing side effects in pregnant mothers. Concerns that warranted further investigation, regardless of the outcome. Undermining his many public dismissals of such concerns.

Well, there are some more new text messages that should cast doubt both on Fauci’s public statements, and the media’s all-too-willing promotion of them.

READ MORE

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

Boy has that fall from grace been quick and comprehensive. And it's all thanks to his efforts, and his top allies’ efforts, to avoid any level of public scrutiny or oversight of their actions.

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

Fauci spent years, starting in early 2020, as the focus of attention in the United States and beyond. And boy did he ever understand that and enthusiastically revel in it.

Promoted endlessly by the media as a star “expert,” an unbiased keeper of all scientific knowledge, and soon transformed into a celebrity thanks to his obvious political leanings and applauded anti-Trump messaging, Fauci became enthusiastically beloved.

Don’t believe me? Just ask him.

The release of his diaries, though, revealed some thoroughly discrediting and upsetting details about Fauci’s private beliefs.

READ MORE:

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

Fauci came across as a remarkable narcissist, someone obsessed with his own instant and surprising fame. He chronicled each and every media appearance, celebrating each instance a legacy outlet published yet another glowing, reverential profile. He spoke excitedly about his friendships with celebrities like Joan Baez and Barbra Streisand, even stating that he and Baez were made for each other.

Get 30% off for 1 year

READ MORE:

Read more

Paul released a treasure trove of private diary entries and emails from Fauci to celebrity pals, friends, allied media figures, or his peers in epidemiology. There is an endless list of important takeaways from this new information, most notably that Fauci clearly was repeatedly and purposefully dishonest in order to coerce the public to comply with his outrageous policies and recommendations.

He realized lockdowns were having no effect, that cases fluctuated with literally no relationship to closures or mandates. After repeatedly publicly denying he had anything to do with school closures, his diary revealed that he’d personally advised politicians in New York and California to close schools in 2020.

One of the most troubling disclosures is his immediate acknowledgement that the coronavirus might have originated through gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab, making a lab leak not only possible but likely.

He naturally followed this by publicly stating the exact opposite in order to protect himself, his profession and their research funding.

READ MORE:

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

And that may never apply more accurately and comprehensively than it does with Anthony Fauci.

Fauci was portrayed, starting in early 2020, as an objective, brilliant, virtually infallible God-like figure.

He was the voice of opposition to President Donald Trump, a clear-eyed force of evidence-driven policy, contrasting with the evil Trump who didn’t “listen to the science.”

That’s not an exaggeration; there were Christmas tree ornaments made depicting Fauci as a Pope, there were shrines put up in people’s houses, he was on the cover of various magazines, and he was given a parade of endless, relentlessly glowing media appearances from his fawning, adoring fans. Fans like CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.

For most critics it was clear almost immediately that these portrayals and friendly media appearances depicted the exact opposite of reality.

Fauci was a narcissist. Someone who enjoyed the attention, power, and influence he now unexpectedly wielded. He was unimaginably arrogant, unwilling to listen to new evidence if it contradicted what he wanted to believe, as well as someone who apparently thought himself a virtually infallible, God-like figure.

Well, Sen. Rand Paul over the weekend released a series of diary entries, emails, and inside information from Fauci himself and it turns out that the critics were more dead on than they could have ever imagined.

READ MORE:

Get 30% off for 1 year

Read more

Giving politicians and their media partners license to continue mandates was its own separate economy, both in terms of influence and stature within educational institutions. So it should come as no surprise that there was, and still is, an enormous body of work published by academics designed to promote and uphold the organized push for masking.

It’s been repeatedly and obviously demonstrated that mask mandates had no impact on the spread of COVID, nor did they reduce mortality rates. Many areas around the world saw the largest and fastest spread of the virus with mask mandates in place.

Other metrics, including hospitalizations, saw similar increases.

Did that stop anyone from trying to show otherwise? Of course not.

And one of the most prominent examples shows just how hard they worked to sell their position, even if they were conclusively, comprehensively wrong.

Get 35% off for 1 year

Read more

Take, for example, the brilliance of Variety, a publication dedicated to entertainment industry news and coverage. Variety is, like most companies associated with the film business, openly and proudly left-wing. As such, anytime those on the right, or even tangentially associated with the right, notice or say something about a movie or entertainment property, Variety leaps in to defend their political party.

Case in point? The difference in how they have treated the importance of “representation” in two prominent summer big-budget blockbusters.

Read more

Learning loss among school children was so catastrophic that an entire generation has been set back in educational attainment and growth.

Mask mandates in healthcare settings are now a permanent fixture in places like the San Francisco Bay Area, where hospitals mandate everyone in their facilities wear masks from November on, regardless of respiratory virus levels in the community.

Then there’s the ancillary outcomes that have permanently changed the composition and construction of major American cities.

And now we have new research on just how substantive and harmful those changes have been, particularly as a result of absurd policies adopted as a result of the pandemic and the 2020 election.

Get 35% off for 1 year

READ THE LATEST:

Read more

The media has repeatedly warned about the dangers of “doing your own research,” or not blindly following whatever those experts claimed. Despite the long list of examples of those same scientists either purposefully misleading the public, for instance: Anthony Fauci and his efforts to downplay US government involvement in gain-of-function research under his leadership, or getting major policy decisions completely wrong, the assumption has long been that subject matter health researchers are essentially infallible.

When revisiting some of the most important and influential research on major policies like mask mandates, it’s easy to see why those institutions no longer deserve the reverence they’ve been enthusiastically handed by their media partners.

One such study came at the earliest time period of the pandemic, and was used to inform and create masking policy for months and even years to come.

And a closer look at it shows how uniquely absurd and insane this research was in actuality.

Get 35% off for 1 year

Read more

Whatever their motivation, be it ideological, personal panic, or a desire to capitalize on widespread fear, you will recall that the major media outlets almost immediately abandoned any pretense of journalism. Rather than holding powerful figures to account, or asking tough questions, or treating experts with skepticism and most authorities with reverence and deference.

Nobody exemplified that special treatment more than Anthony Fauci.

Fauci, likely as a result of being viewed as the voice of Science with a capital s, and also as opposition to President Donald Trump, was almost immediately provided the blanket of media protection.

Whatever he said was received as absolute truth, even if what he claimed was contradictory, hypocritical, or obviously false. This was largely because most major media figures viewed their job during the early stages of the pandemic as promoting the “experts” and mindlessly repeating their mantras:

“Wear a mask.”

“Stay home, save lives.”

“Six feet of social distancing.”

“I’ve tested positive for COVID-19, and I’m grateful to be vaccinated.”

“It’s proven that the virus came from the wet market, yet skeptics continue to spread racist conspiracy theories about the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

But a massive trove of newly declassified documents from outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reveals that Fauci’s public statements were often in direct opposition to private information.

So why, pray tell, isn’t the media outraged about it?

Get 35% off for 1 year

READ MORE:

Read more

Fake controversies that always tilt against one specific viewpoint and ideology that they are too blinded to understand.

The Athletic’s Grant Brisbee being a prime example of this phenomenon; someone who has spent zero time even attempting to understand different viewpoints. Different religions. Different perspectives. All while performatively lecturing and demanding everyone agree with his viewpoints.

Brisbee is a fan of the San Francisco Giants, and a far-left sportswriter who focuses on baseball. Aren’t they all. Unsurprisingly, he wrote an article for his left-wing sports website criticizing the few Giants players who made quiet public statements during the team’s “Pride Night.”

Some either wrote Bible verses on their caps, with one pitcher, Sam Hentges, refusing to wear the rainbow and black-colored hat at all. For most sane sports fans, that’s a reasonable form of “protest.” These players have their specific religious views, and have chosen to make those views known. They didn’t harm anyone, they didn’t call for anyone to be harmed, or excluded, they put Bible verses on their hats, or wore the same hat that they wear 161 games per year.

Get 35% off for 1 year

For Brisbee, however? This was an outrage. Because he doesn’t agree with them.

“... This was another tone-deaf response to what should have been a moment for community unity,” he wrote. “They made the night about ‘us versus them.’ That’s the only thing they could see.”

This is, ironically, exactly what people like Brisbee do. They make statements that must be accepted, or create exclusion.

He continues by saying that these games “reduce suffering in a very real way.” Which is, of course, absurd.

“Some of that progress was made when events like Pride Night became commonplace, reminding the world of a community’s existence, strength and humanity. Events like Pride Night reduce suffering in a very real way. To suggest they don’t is to ignore the humanity of the individuals involved.”

That is...insane. It’s beyond insane, it’s idiotic to a degree that defies comprehension. People “suffer” from things every day. Giants fans lose their jobs, heck, Giants players lose their jobs, every single day. Is it a baseball team’s responsibility to coddle everyone who’s ever faced difficulty in their lives? Should the Giants have nights to recognize those who’ve lost loved ones? Or failed a class? Or got into a severe car crash and dealt with a lengthy recovery?

Those people are all worthy of “support” and “humanity” and “love,” yet somehow they can attend Giants games without requiring a night devoted exclusively to reducing their suffering. Do these same suffering individuals not go to any of the other Giants home games where the team doesn’t wear “Pride” hats? Are they not welcome at the stadium? Of course not. Christians are often not celebrated on a specific night, are they not welcome? Do the Giants not care about their suffering?

Brisbee, though, can’t defend Pride Night as a supposedly non-political event without making it about “suffering,” which makes his arguments and defenses immediately absurd.

READ MORE:

Not to mention that it’s obvious Brisbee would never level these same criticisms at say, a Muslim baseball player who refused to wear the Pride hat. Just the Christian players. Nor would he support if non-Christian players were made to wear hats with symbolism that differed from their views.

A quick search of Brisbee’s writing history shows no criticism of the Washington Nationals for one of their employees proudly admitting that the organization wouldn’t feature pitcher Trevor Williams on the team’s social media accounts because he criticized the Los Angeles Dodgers for honoring a drag queen group that mocks Christians. Nor did Brisbee seem to care about that embarrassment, even though it offended millions of people and demonized and excluded others. A cause he’s now so passionate about.

Landon Roupp, one of the protesting players, said this after the game, “There’s no hate at all. It’s just what I stand for, and what I stand in. I believe in God.” Imagine believing that this message is so destructive to grown adult baseball fans that they simply can’t handle it. In this free country, those like Brisbee want to compel speech from those with deeply held religious beliefs. There’s nothing more anti-American and unsupportive than that.

“It is a choice to ignore that on a night dedicated to people who need others on their side. Do better. That’s the only thing we’re all supposed to do around here, anyway. Do better,” he lectures.

One could ask Brisbee to do the same. Do better to accept those with different views. Do better to understand that not everyone agrees with him. Do better to be a good and kind human that accepts and tolerates people whose religious beliefs conflict with his ideology. But of course, he’s not capable of doing better in that direction, because the “tolerant” hypocritical sportswriter is the most exclusionary.

It’s been a high profile race, thanks in large part to the entry of former reality television star Spencer Pratt. Pratt, whose home burned down in the Palisades Fire, has spent his campaign demonstrating the failures of current city leadership, including incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. From the rampant homelessness on the streets, to the fire itself, to the rapid decline of the city’s businesses and restaurants as the lack of public safety drives potential customers away.

Bass is running for re-election on a campaign of change, oddly, since she’s been in charge for four years only for the city to get demonstrably worse.

The other candidate? A far left progressive named Nithya Raman, who entered the race late as an alternative for the city’s least intelligent and informed voters.

READ MORE:

Read more

The mistakes have accumulated, and if anything, they’ve intensified.

Whether it’s the wildly inaccurate framing or reporting around Donald Trump, such as the Russia collusion hoax or the “very fine people” hoax. Or when Catholic school children were mistakenly called racist.

All the way to Hunter Biden’s laptop and of course, we mustn’t forget the COVID-19 pandemic.

How it started with the lab leak, with the endless slog of media misinformation around the efficacy of masks, lockdowns, and eventually leading to the COVID vaccines, and associated passports and mandates.

Well, they’ve done it again. And it’s an indication that not only have they learned nothing from their mistakes and humiliations over the years, but that they intend to ensure their biases infect every area of their “reporting.”

READ MORE:

The latest example of blatant media malpractice is the killing of Henry Nowak in the United Kingdom. Nowak was just 18-years-old, and was repeatedly stabbed by Vickrum Digwa. There’s plenty of backstory, but what happened next has caused mass, and justified, outrage in England.

Police arrived at the scene, only for Digwa and his brother to accuse Nowak of racism. That accusation alone ensured that local police would treat the seriously wounded Nowak as the criminal in the situation, which is precisely what they did.

Instead of tending to Nowak’s wounds, they handcuffed him.

When he repeatedly told the police that he couldn’t breathe and had been stabbed, they dragged him across gravel while one cop answered, “I don’t think you have, mate.”

He would die soon afterward.

Digwa has just recently been convicted of murdering Nowak, with his mother also facing a conviction for hiding the weapon, a Sikh ceremonial knife. The police response, meanwhile, has led to justifiable outrage, anger, and frustration.

The accusation of racism carries such weight that it led a police officer to deny medical attention to a man’s wounds. Not only that, but they would specifically deny that he had been wounded at all.

How could this happen? Well, there’s an obvious answer.

“What you have to understand,” a senior police officer told UK based reporter Allison Pearson, “is most chief constables would rather mess up a major murder inquiry than be accused of being racist.”

Mass protests erupted in the region where the incident happened. And here’s where the media comes in.

When George Floyd died in 2020, you will recall that the media went positively ballistic. There are so many examples of insane, hyperbolic, often inaccurate statements and coverage that compiling them would take months, if not longer. Every corporation, every media outlet would spend months reorganizing themselves and reframing their priorities based on Floyd’s death.

Yet with Nowak, this is how the story is playing out thus far.

The New York Times:

The authorities in Britain are investigating police officers who handcuffed a student, Henry Nowak, while he was dying, in a case that been increasingly politicized. (emphasis mine)

CNN World:

Handcuffed student’s death sparks uproar in UK, as far right accused of inflaming tensions

CBS News:

U.K. teen Henry Nowak’s murder fuels protests as far-right politicians claim response shows “two-tier policing”

The Guardian:

Who were the far-right agitators at the Henry Nowak protests in Southampton?

Al Jazeera:

UK far-right accused of exploiting killing of Henry Nowak

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has accused right-wing figures of exploiting the killing of Henry Nowak for political gain, after they argued his treatment by police was evidence of so-called ‘two-tier policing’.

Canada’s CBC:

How Britain’s far right hijacked the murder of Henry Nowak

‘White grievance’ re-emerges as a central theme in U.K. politics

That’s just a small sample of how the coverage has gone.

They ignored this story for months, managing to remain completely disinterested as the details were subsequently shared by individual users on X.

And now that the murderer has been convicted, their focus is on the outraged reaction from every day people furious that their police acted in the heartless manner that they did.

The media, which spent years politicizing George Floyd, are angrily lecturing people now to stop politicizing Henry Nowak. The hypocrisy is so blatant, so transparent that it would be unbelievable if it weren’t exactly how they handle every major news story.

In any story, if any large segment of the population disagrees with the left-wing consensus, they are automatically labeled the “far-right.” There is evidently no far-left, however. It simply does not exist in the media. Zohran Mamdani, a committed socialist, is not far left. Neither is Bernie Sanders. Or AOC.

But express outrage over the fact that the police said “I don’t think so, mate” to a dying 18-year-old who’d been stabbed after being falsely accused of racism, and you’re immediately labeled “far-right.”

That’s how the media operates. They agree with then nonsensical police training which instructs them to treat people differently based on race. They happily politicize any incident they believe can be used to promote their ideological agenda. Then demand you never do the same.

Kier Starmer, the UK prime minister, proudly took a knee for George Floyd. He posted on social media, “He must not become just another name. His death must be a catalyst for change.”

Now though? He accused those pointing out the hypocrisy of “trying to whip up division.” He condemned Reform Party head Nigel Farage of “using” the incident. He posted that Farage is, “exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division.”

Stunningly, the media had nothing but praise for Starmer and has had nothing but criticism for Farage.

This is a deeply broken institution, staffed by those who are incapable of intellectual honesty. Disinterested in the truth, and completely incurious about different perspectives.

It’s not “reporting” or “journalism,” but the laundering of acceptable left-wing consensus and intolerance of dissent.

Henry Nowak’s murder is just the latest example. There will be many, many more.

As we near June 2026, it’s disturbingly apparent from social media and the real world that there are still a ridiculous number of people who are religiously masking in public. One such post on X received an inordinate amount of attention as one man bragged about masking at the British Museum in London to keep himself healthy and avoid losing points of IQ.

Seriously. As if someone wearing a mask halfway through 2026 has IQ points left to lose.

But that continued dedication to masking of any kind is not merely the result of unintelligence, or misplaced hypochondria, or even being affiliated with a specific political party. Though, of course, all of that doesn’t hurt..

It’s a result of the concerted effort to promote masks, courtesy of the media, politicians, and most importantly, research either conducted or promulgated by the CDC.

And we have some data on just how damaging that practice actually was.

Get 27% off forever

READ MORE:

Read more

Much of this week on X has been consumed by discourse created by “Mr. Wonderful,” Kevin O’Leary.

O’Leary told anyone who will listen what he believes is the problem with younger generations. What he thinks the explanation for their inability to buy homes comes down to.

Evidently they simply spend too much money on sandwiches and coffee.

Here’s why that’s wrong, and why it says more about O’Leary and his disconnect with the real world than it does about anything else.

“Stop buying coffee for five dollars and fifty cents,” he brought up in a recent interview, saying that employees should instead, “Bring your own water, your own drink or your own coffee mug. You start to add that up every day it’s a ton of money”

He also brought up spending on sandwiches, explaining his version of math, “You go to work and you spend $15 bucks on a sandwich, what are you an idiot? It costs you 99 cents to make a sandwich at home and bring it with you”

He described people on middle tier incomes spending money on what he considers to be stupid stuff, adding, “Most people starting on their job making their first $60,000 piss away about $15,000 a year.”

Nonsense.

READ MORE:

Read more

The reputation of the elite institutions of higher learning has deservedly never been lower.

Many campuses across the country have become breeding grounds for extreme protests, which at some schools involved blocking Jewish students from accessing public spaces.

Encampments grew around campuses as activists weaponized a misplaced “colonialism” ideology.

Ironically, while colleges allowed that absurdity to flourish, we’ve witnessed free speech on campuses continue to erode. Speeches are routinely cancelled as students threaten even moderately conservative invited speakers. For example views that oppose progressive consensus on discussions around transgender issues are simply not tolerated or accepted.

Get 27% off forever

READ MORE:

Read more

There should be by now little doubt that Anthony Fauci is not a competent or reliable source of information.

Obviously there have been a litany of documented examples of this throughout the years, with a more recent example of his brazen disregard for the results of his preferred policies and recommendations.

The dishonesty that has become an inseparable expression of much of Fauci’s communication during the pandemic is one thing, but potentially purposefully misleading the intelligence community is an entirely separate offense.

That’s precisely what a CIA whistleblower’s testimony this week alleges of Dr. Fauci, who sought to protect himself, his profession, thereby preventing the public from ever learning the truth, or making the connection to him or his agency the gain-of-function research to the creation and leak of the coronavirus.

Sen. Rand Paul brought CIA employee James Erdman III to a Senate panel to tell what he knew regarding the internal assessments made by investigators at the CIA and other agencies as to the origin of COVID. Erdman explained he believes there was an “intentional cover-up” perpetrated by Dr. Fauci.

“Dr Fauci’s role in the cover-up was intentional,” Erdman testified. “Dr Fauci influenced the analytical process and findings by leveraging his position to ensure the IC [intelligence community] consulted with a conflicted list of curated subject-matter experts, public-health officials and scientists. Ostensibly in order to ensure that the intelligence community was steered in the direction of a natural origin.

As a result of efforts from those subject matter “experts,” the “intelligence community leaders and senior analysts downplayed the possibility that the COVID pandemic originated as a result of a lab incident.”

Erdman testified that Fauci twice placed himself into conversations in the intelligence community about the coronavirus outbreak. As early as February 2020, then again in June 2021. He did so to create a “narrative” that a natural origin was the likely explanation for the pandemic.

Then, in 2023, an assessment from the CIA failed to come to a conclusion about a lab vs natural origin. But Erdman said that was based on work from “management,” who “changed” the conclusion from the actual experts.

“Six of the seven technical experts say, ‘Yep, we still think it’s a lab leak,’” he explained about internal deliberations. “And they were sticking to their guns. Management changed the analytic line.”

That 2023 assessment concluded: “We may never precisely know the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

“‘Precisely’ is not a term analysts use,” Erdman explained during his testimony. “They use words like ‘low confidence,’ ‘medium confidence.’ ‘Precisely’ is a word you use when you want to deliberately end discussion.”

Specifically, “The CIA and DNI analytic managers responsible for examining the origin of COVID made decisions inconsistent with the conclusions of subject matter experts and analytical tradecraft, consistently favoring the theory of zoonosis or natural origin.”

Were those “analytic managers” influenced by Fauci’s involvement and the “experts” he sent their way?

This is the main problem for Fauci and public health profession. They’ve lost the benefit of the doubt. There’s clearly little reason to ever trust them, and every reason not to. These are allegations, not an actual criminal investigation, let alone a conviction. But it definitely fits perfectly into the pattern of behavior Fauci and his allies established throughout the pandemic.

Deflect, distort, cover-up, ignore.

There has always been, and still is to this day, the responsibility to the public to uncover the cause of a pandemic that produced immeasurable harm and destruction to millions of people. That still causes harm today.

Fauci didn’t care about that, however, because a lab leak would surely make him look bad. Consequently, avoiding embarrassment was his number one priority, and this week’s testimony demonstrated yet again why he should never have been trusted.

Does anyone believe it would be out of line for us to expect those setting public health policy and making life changing medical recommendations to have some awareness of the outcomes of their agendas, views, and predictions?

For example, it would be reasonable to believe that Anthony Fauci, one of the most important figures in US public health and the head of an organization dedicated to investigating infectious disease response, would be aware of the results of policies he recommended.

But Anthony Fauci is a near-perfect example of the modern public health profession, as he is clearly someone who believes fanatically in his own infallibility.

Which is how we arrive at some new remarks he made about his disappointment with the United States and our acceptance of COVID vaccines. Remarks that once again demonstrate why he managed to do such poor work during the pandemic: all too often, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

READ MORE:

Read more

There may never be a less self-aware conversation than the one recently had between comedians Conan O’Brien and Zach Galifianakis.

It’s no secret that many comedy shows and the entertainment industry at large have one specific demographic they prefer to make fun of: the political right. The sheer number of supposedly “funny” shows based on that preference, from “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” to “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” to “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” to “The Daily Show,” or “Saturday Night Live!” and “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” is remarkable.

That’s just a small sample of the many left-wing comics who’ve made politics the core of their shows. And they all clearly have one particular target as the butt of the vast majority of their jokes. That would be the Right, but more specifically that would be President Donald Trump.

Criticizing or joking about Trump has become the objective of entire careers for several ostensible “comedians.”

But if you were to ask Conan O’Brien and Zach Galianakis, they’d have to disagree, both professing that the “media” doesn’t want to just make fun of conservatives.

Seriously.

READ MORE:

Read more