Recently, a story from last June out of British Columbia, Canada, made international news. It was revealed that a hospital doctor who’d been treating people made sick by an extreme heat wave became the first to diagnose “climate change” as the cause of a patient’s illness. He was having an asthma attack aggravated by smoke from a wildfire, which the doctor blamed on increasing heat waves caused by climate change. It gave eco-activists more fuel to pour on the fire (sorry!) of their cause.

But in all the media ballyhoo over the “climate change is now officially a pandemic!” narrative, did anyone bother to ask, “Was that diagnosis accurate, or just propaganda disguised as quackery?” Well, someone finally did.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts of the climate change site, dug into the science. Since the diagnosis rested on the assumptions that wildfires are much worse now due to more frequent heat waves and higher temperatures caused by global warming, he examined both of those claims.

In a study called “Was Global Warming The Cause of the Great Northwest Heatwave? Science Says No,” University of Washington meteorology expert Dr. Cliff Mass wrote that “If global warming was producing extreme heat waves in our region, such as the event last week, there would be a long-term trend towards more extreme high temperatures.” But the records show that there had been “NO INCREASING TREND for more record high temperatures over our region during the past century.”

But what about all the worsening wildfires? We hear a lot about those in California, where state officials insist they’re caused by global warming and not incompetent forest management by leftwing state officials. Watts checked NASA satellite data, which shows a long-term decline in wildfires worldwide, with a 25% decrease of burned land area since 2003.

So if there is no increase in heat waves or wildfires, maybe the patient’s asthma attack wasn’t caused by a climate change apocalypse but by the fact that he has asthma and breathed in smoke from a forest fire, which have been happening in the Pacific Northwest since the dawn of time. It didn’t really require Dr. House to diagnose that.

Dr. Mass noted in his report, “A single event does not reflect climate, only a trend or changes in long-term average do.” I shouldn’t have to tell climate activists this, since it’s what they yell at us every time we make a joke about a global warming conference being canceled due to a blizzard (which happens more often than you’d think.) I suspect that’s really why they started calling it “climate change” instead of “global warming.”


Fox News has obtained an internal draft memo from the Department of Health and Human Services showing that HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra is planning to roll back Trump-era protections of religious liberty rights. That includes revoking the authority of the Office of Civil Rights to prevent violations of religious liberty.

The memo, supposedly from OCR to Becerra, expresses concerns that Trump might have expanded OCR’s authority too much. And I truly believe that a government agency would complain about being given too much power.

During his confirmation hearings, Becerra swore to Congress that he would protect religious liberty. But his predecessor as HHS Secretary, Roger Severino, said, "HHS centralized authority over religious freedom claims because the laws weren’t being enforced and because that’s how we enforce every other civil right. Without dedicated staff responsible for investigating religious freedom complaints, HHS will return to trampling people’s rights as before — just ask the Little Sisters of the Poor…Because Becerra was twice found to have violated conscience protection laws by OCR, he has no business deciding its religious freedom authorities given his massive conflict of interest. Becerra told Congress that he values religious freedom and that nothing will change with OCR concerning enforcement. His actions since then prove that he lied, and this move would put an exclamation point on his anti-religious hostility."

The big question remains: why would anyone who voted to confirm Becerra believe that a man who, as California Attorney General, tried to railroad undercover journalists into prison on 15 felony charges just for exposing the truth about Planned Parenthood, give a flip about protecting anyone’s civil rights?


The House Judiciary Committee released an email Tuesday provided by an FBI whistleblower, showing that the agency’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions are pressing forward with keeping tabs on parents who speak up against school boards and other officials. They’ve even created the threat tag EDUOFFICIALS to track instances of such “threats.”

The email acknowledges that this tracking of angry parents as domestic terrorist threats is in response to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s outrageous letter calling for such a thing – a letter written in response to a letter from the National School Boards Association that we now know was created in coordination with Biden Administration officials. Megan Fox at PJ Media examined the alleged threats cited in it and found that none were legitimate, and the NSBA apologized for the letter.

So far, 11 states have withdrawn from the NSBA and 26 have distanced themselves from it. Yet despite all that, plus Garland's denial to Congress that concerned parents will be monitored as domestic terrorists, this email confirms that that’s precisely what the FBI is doing.

Inescapable conclusions: Merrick Garland is a politicized hack and a bald-faced liar (possibly perjurer); and Americans need to elect politicians who will not only remove him from office, but clean out the FBI and DOJ like the snake pits we’ve discovered them to be.


DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was in the Senate Tuesday, where Republican Sen. Mike Lee grilled him like a cheap steak over why the Biden Administration is forcing a vaccine mandate on law-abiding citizens that threatens to sideline an untold number of Border Patrol agents while not enforcing any vaccine mandate on the thousands of illegal immigrants who are streaming across the border.

Related: Speaking of all the things this Administration is doing to Build Back Illegal Immigration Better, someone just noticed that hidden away on page 1,647 (!) of Biden’s $1.75 trillion “Build Back Better” spending plan is a line to eliminate the need for a Social Security number to apply for child tax credits. A researcher for the Center for Immigration Studies told Fox News that that could result in the government giving an extra $2.3 billion in payouts to illegal immigrants.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Update

November 17, 2021

As of Wednesday morning, the jury has yet to reach a verdict, and it might not have to, under two possible scenarios:

Jack Posobiec of Human Events tweeted that an unnamed US Marshal told him two jurors are holding up the verdict out of fear of threats by radicals against themselves and their families. If that’s true, the judge might have to dismiss them, and since alternate jurors have already been dismissed, declare a mistrial. But Jennifer Van Laar at explains why she’s skeptical of this story:

The other scenario: Rittenhouse’s attorneys filed a new, late request for the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice, meaning no retrial. They already requested a mistrial based on the prosecution improperly infringing on Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent and introducing evidence that had been ruled inadmissible. The new filing adds an accusation that the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense by turning over a compressed copy of the FBI surveillance video and not revealing that they had a clearer, higher resolution version until after that part of the trial was over.

Meanwhile, both pro- and anti-Rittenhouse protesters are gathered outside the Courthouse, and the city is bracing for potential street violence. Some anti-Rittenhouse protesters are claiming that an acquittal means that white supremacists will be free to kill black people, which seems like an odd conclusion to draw from one white guy shooting three other white guys in self-defense. But when you get your news from CNN and MSNBC, clear thinking is not your strong suit.

I already told you how the “fact-checking” site Politifact got Wisconsin law wrong in declaring it "false" that Rittenhouse had a legal right to carry a gun. After being called on it by conservative media sources and having the judge throw out an illegal weapons possession charge, the site acknowledged that the law is "unclear." And then they stood by their original ruling of "false" and refused to retract it. Maybe their next “fact-check” could be a deep dive into what the word “unclear” means.

The changing story of COVID-19

November 16, 2021

Ever since COVID-19 helped us ring in the New Year of 2020, the approved narrative was that it had come from a wet market in Wuhan, China, though social media didn’t allow mention of Wuhan or China.

But in recent months we’ve learned plenty about Chinese gain-of-function research into dangerous bat viruses, commissioned and funded by none other than the National Institutes of Health, and we know it’s very likely the source of the pandemic. Steve Hilton, on his FOX NEWS show “The Next Revolution,” reported Sunday night that even the LOS ANGELES TIMES had to report that “...there is no clear sign of an intermediate host. Of the 80,000 animal samples tested in China, none have contained the virus’ genetic material or antibodies to it.”

As recently as August of this year, the LA TIMES was still pushing the “wet market” idea. Business columnist (not doctor) Michael Hiltzik actually said the “lab leak” explanation was driven by politics, not science.

As a side note, “fact”-checkers also tried to discredit the story about beagles being used in cruel experiments funded under Dr. Fauci’s leadership at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, but we found this was happening.

Now, Hilton points to a new story offering more specifics about surreptitious bat studies at the Wuhan lab. In September, 900 pages of documentation from this research was released in response to a FOIA request a year ago by THE INTERCEPT, leading Rutgers University professor Dr. Richard Ebright to say,“The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful.”

“POTENTIAL PANDEMIC PATHOGEN ENHANCEMENT”? Think about what that is, and one can only conclude that it is evil.

Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right to Know, said, “This is a road map to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic."

If the NIH commissioned gain-of-function research, it did so, Hilton said, “in direct contravention of the rules that were in place in both the Obama and Trump administrations. Hilton has been calling for months for a real investigation of this funding, as the one way to perhaps show Fauci accountable.

In the Senate, a bipartisan group consisting of Republicans Roger Marshall of Kansas and Joni Ernst of Iowa, and Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, introduced legislation establishing a “9/11-style” Covid Origins Commission to determine how the pandemic really started. Sen. Marshall told Hilton that it was important to make this investigation bipartisan, without politics involved.

He’s hoping this can be an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act before it comes up for a vote “in three or four weeks.” This is the act that funds the military; in its 60-year history, it’s always been passed.

Marshall told Hilton that he thought it was “a matter of months if not weeks” to get the commission in place. They would have to come up with ten names –- five from Republicans, five from Democrats, all “experts in their specific areas,” he said, but not driven by politics.

There’s a great deal of information that would need to be declassified, Marshall said, and these commissioners would also have the power to subpoena people such as Peter Daszak and others from EcoHealth Alliance and get them in front a grand jury. He thinks that if we start looking at all the DNA sequences having to do with this virus, “we’ll find the grandfather of COVID-19 somewhere buried in Eco Health lab system.”


Something else that needs to be looked at critically in the age of COVID: the push for draconian lockdowns that force us all to comply with our political leaders regarding the most personal decisions we make. Those who for decades have been saying we have the right to do what we want with our own body (even if it happens to be our own body and another very small person's, too) are quick to say we must follow orders to have new, practically untested substances injected into our bodies.

To question this is not to be an “anti-vaxxer,” no matter who decides to rewrite the dictionary. It’s to be anti-mandate, which is altogether different.

Now that well over a hundred million people have been exposed to COVID-19 and have presumably obtained some immunity to it --- most likely even stronger than that possessed by a vaccinated person who hasn't been exposed --- one has to wonder why we’re still talking about all the restrictions. Is the idea really to get us used to taking orders “for the public good”? Christopher Bedford at THE FEDERALIST has an interview with FOX NEWS climate expert Mike Bastach. You may ask, what do COVID restrictions have to do with climate? Turns out, quite a bit.

As we reported in our commentary on the National Audubon Society and their apparent dismissal of the effect wind turbines have on birds, China has said it will work with the U.S. on cutting carbon emissions. (We said we’d believe it when we see it.) This was the Glasgow Climate Conference, in which (Bedford’s words) “a few thousand clueless, feckless old men flying from all over the planet to babble on about saving the world and maybe even catch a quick nap during the most boring of the mostly boring speeches.”

Now that we’re back to boring meetings that don’t really accomplish much, it might seem as if we’re returning to normal, but we’re not. The way Bedford explains it, our society is at a crossroads: we can continue to pursue individualism, or we can turn to “a more involved government that tries to actively reorder society toward the ‘higher good.’”

And here’s where COVID comes in. British writer/editor Mary Harrington said, “The pandemic state of emergency [shattered] the consensus about individual freedom. Across the developed world, the liberal privileging of individual freedom has been replaced by a de facto acceptance that state power absolutely must be ordered to the common good, up to and including coercive measures when necessary.”

Bedford goes to describe even how this way of thinking is transforming the language, and not in a good way.

He says, “In all societies, there are people who feel entitled to build their own moral universes and compel us to obey their manmade constructs. It’s for the collective good, they say, although suspiciously often 'the collective good' seems to align with giving them the most money and power, status and freedom...”

“COVID was the best thing ever to happen to these people,” he says, and he’s right.

And with COVID fading away, they’ll turn on a dime and make “climate” the new emergency. Consider that if they can essentially trap you in your home and limit your travel to purportedly contain the spread of COVID, they can do the same thing to purportedly keep the temperature from rising. Same for spreading so-called “misinformation” (which very often turns out to be the truth).

We know China won’t keep their promise on fossil fuels. But don’t assume we'll hold China accountable for their toxic emissions. That won’t happen, any more than we’ll hold them accountable for their toxic virus.

Monday, both sides gave their closing arguments to the jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. And if the prosecutors weren’t deliberately trying to force a mistrial so they could get a do-over, then there hasn’t been such pure incompetence on display since the Three Stooges tried being plumbers.

Where to begin? Victoria Taft at PJ Media summarized the state’s summation, noting that D.A. Thomas Binger told the jury that “I’m scared” is not a legal justification for self-defense. Actually, it is the exact legal justification for self-defense. He also suggested that Rittenhouse should have fired warning shots. Which, despite Joe Biden’s advice, is clearly illegal.

The very first slide shown to the jurors claimed that Rittenhouse shot three people with a gun he knew he couldn’t legally have. That’s false; it was perfectly legal for him to carry that gun under Wisconsin law, which you’d assume the prosecutors would be vaguely familiar with. Unfortunately for them, the judge knew the law and dismissed the underage weapons charge.

Binger told the jury that the BLM rioters that night were “heroes” who stopped an “active shooter.” They were actually starting fires, assaulting police, and they even attacked the very courthouse where the trial was taking place.

In the most eye-popping display of incompetence, at one point, the prosecutor picked up the rifle and pointed it directly at the jurors with his finger on the trigger. That should be grounds for charging the prosecutor with criminal stupidity. That violates the first rule of gun safety. It doesn’t matter if you “know for certain” that it’s unloaded. You never point a gun at another person (unless, of course, that person is trying to kill you.) Has he never heard the name “Alec Baldwin?”

Believe it or not, it got even crazier during the rebuttal to the defense’s summation.

But the utter disregard for facts and accuracy wasn’t restricted to the prosecutors. From the start of this story, the mainstream media have pushed a phony racial narrative that’s made many people believe this was a racist triple murder by a white supremacist. One black Democrat in the Oregon state house even called for giving all black workers the day off to process their trauma if Rittenhouse is acquitted, even though he's not a white supremacist and he claims he fired in self-defense at three attackers, all of them white males. By fanning the racial flames, the media are complicit in setting the stage for more riots if Rittenhouse is acquitted (or knowing leftists, even if he’s not.)

This is why Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says that Rittenhouse should not only be acquitted, he should sue CNN, the New York Times and other liberal media outlets for encouraging vigilantism by continually pushing the false narrative that he’s guilty.

He’s not the only one they've put in danger, of course: the judge has received many threats against himself and his family, and Kenosha is bracing for possible riots and street violence.

But wait: don’t we now have a battalion of self-appointed “fact-checkers” to expose such “misinformation”? Well, sort of. As Kylee Zempel at the Federalist reports, sites such as Politifact were bending over backwards to find ways to declare false narratives about the case true and true claims false. The major reason we know this is that the conservative media they usually target risked life and limb to shoot video of the riots.

Zempel says this phony “fact-checking” might mislead and inflame the public, but it serves the greater goal of promoting the leftwing narrative that “guns are bad, and law-abiding citizens are wrong to have firearms to protect themselves from lawless rogues,” which is the prosecution’s entire case.

Tucker Carlson argued that by claiming that “you lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun,” the prosecutors are trying to nullify the right to bear arms. They’re saying that if you carry a legal weapon, you give up the right to use it to protect yourself.

Carlson told viewers, “That’s the whole point of this whole proceeding: so the next time BLM sweeps into your town, your neighborhood, your house, to burn and loot and brandish weapons, you had better not try to protect yourself or your family…We will charge you with murder, and while we’re at it, we’ll have the national media call you racist.”

For those who think he’s being hyperbolic and this is a totally unique case, guess who showed up at the courthouse to support Rittenhouse? Kyle and Patricia McCloskey.