In a major, first-of-its-kind milestone along ESG’s relentless march to its grave, a federal court has ruled that American Airlines breached its duty to employees by tapping ESG-addled BlackRock to manage part of its 401(k) plan.  

“The facts here compellingly established fiduciary misconduct in the form of conflicts of interest and the failure to loyally act solely in the Plan’s best financial interests,” wrote US District Judge Reed O’Connor in a ruling that followed a four-day bench trial in June 2024. That duty of loyalty is imposed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The ruling is certain to set off alarms in general counsel offices and boardrooms across America. For starters, 401(k) plans at 60% of Fortune 100 employers contain BlackRock investments, and BlackRock manages a huge chunk of the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan. Of course, BlackRock isn’t the only asset manager whose ESG problem could become an employer’s problem. 

Notably, the American Airlines plan didn’t offer any explicitly-ESG investment options. The issue was BlackRock’s intrinsically ESG-oriented management of all its funds. “This is not about ESG funds at all,” Josh Lichtenstein of law firm Ropes & Gray told the Financial Times. “This, to me, looks like the same claim could be brought against literally any 401k plan in America.”

With former pilot Bryan Spence as lead plaintiff of upwards of 100,000 participants, the class action suit accused American Airlines and its employee benefits committee of choosing investment managers that “pursue leftist political agendas” — sacrificing investment returns in favor of woke environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals like promoting workplace diversity or decreasing the use of fossil fuels.  

While BlackRock wasn’t a defendant, the $11.5 trillion behemoth was nonetheless front and center in the case. To make the case that BlackRock’s priorities were warped, O’Connor quoted liberally from CEO Larry Fink himself, including his 2018 threat that companies must “contribute to society . . . or risk losing the support of the world’s largest asset manager.” 

“BlackRock’s ESG influence is evident throughout administration of the Plan,” wrote O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, who credited claims that ESG takes a steep toll on returns: “By focusing on non-pecuniary interests, ESG investments often underperform traditional investments by approximately 10%.” 

Given its enormous size, BlackRock also has the power to reduce the profitability of the companies it holds shares in — by voting its shares in ways that are detrimental to the bottom line. Among several examples, the plaintiffs pointed to Blackrock’s infamous 2021 ExxonMobil proxy vote — in which the firm helped secure two board seats for activist investor “Engine No. 1,” with the goal of pressuring the fossil fuel company to reduce its emphasis on fossil fuels and to commit to fighting “climate change.” At the time, BlackRock was ExxonMobil’s second-largest shareholder. 

Characterizing American’s relationship with BlackRock as “incestuous,” O’Connor noted that BlackRock is simultaneously the largest investment manager of American’s 401(k) plan, one of American’s largest shareholders, and financier of $400 million of the company’s debt: “It is no wonder Defendants repeatedly attempted to signal alignment with BlackRock.” Further making the case that American’s disloyalty to its employees may have been driven by BlackRock’s “outsized influence,” he wrote, “As a large company [that] consumes copious amount of fossil fuels, American was potentially susceptible to a proxy fight of its own by failing to comply with BlackRock’s climate-related demands.”

From O’Connor’s 70-page ruling, here’s are a few more of his pointed rebukes of American Airlines and ESG investing generally: 

• “A pursuit of non-pecuniary interests, in whole or in part, was an end itself rather than as a means to some financial end…The evidence made clear that BlackRock wanted to play its part in combating perceived social ills by bolstering DEI and climate change initiatives.”
• “The belief that ESG considerations confer a license to ignore pecuniary benefits is mistaken. ERISA does not permit a fiduciary to pursue a non-pecuniary interest no matter how noble it might view the aim.”
• Despite widespread coverage of the ESG controversy, “Defendants utterly failed to loyally investigate BlackRock’s ESG investment activities.”
• “Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that American disloyally acted with an intent to benefit a party other than Plan participants and in a manner that was not wholly focused on the best financial benefit to the Plan.”

A ruling on damages or another form of relief will come later. Though he ruled that American breached its duty of loyalty to plan participants, O’Connor concluded American did not breach the duty of prudence — because prudence is judged by prevailing industry standards, and the asset management industry is, for now, regrettably dominated by ESG-minded firms.   

In December, O’Connor fired a shot at a different strain of wokeness. He tossed out a plea deal between the Justice Department and Boeing — because the Biden administration included a requirement that diversity should be a consideration in selecting a compliance monitor. “In a case of this magnitude, it is in the utmost interest of justice that the public is confident this monitor selection is done based solely on competency,” wrote O’Connor, whose court is in Fort Worth.  

As evidence by some recent ZeroHedge headlines, the welcome ruling against ESG’s malign influence on workers’ wealth-building is just the latest in a string of victories over woke ideology in general: 

• Meta Nukes DEI Program; “Morale For Queer Staff In Shitter”; Zuckerberg Joins Joe Rogan Podcast
• Another DEI-mino Falls: McDonald’s Latest To Bail On Diversity Goals
• ‘Fact-Checkers Too Politically-Biased’ – Zuckerberg Abandons Facebook Censorship For X-Like Community Notes
• Walmart Nukes DEI As Anti-Woke Crusader Robby Starbuck Sends “Shockwaves Across Corporate America”
• Celebrating The Death Of Woke And The Resurrection Of Common Sense

Via Remix News,

In the TVP Info program, journalist Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf, who hosts major television shows on the state-run network, suggested that the authorities should completely shutdown the X portal during the presidential election campaign, which would amount to a form of mass censorship not seen in Poland since communist times.

“We live in a situation where disinformation can come to us not only from the East, but the West can also poison us with content that will have nothing to do with the truth,” said Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf.

The shocking suggestion was made on the “Dangerous Liaisons” program, which is broadcast by state-run TVP Info. Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf’s guests were Prof. Anna Siewierska-Chmaj from the University of Rzeszów and Dr. Katarzyna Bąkowicz from SWPS, according to Polish outlet Do Rzeczy.

🇵🇱Will X be banned in Poland?

Influential journalist @DorotaWSch, who hosts a TV program on Polish state media, says that X should potentially be banned in Poland during the presidential elections. pic.twitter.com/5cih88CTX3

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) January 10, 2025

In response, Dr. Katarzyna Bąkowicz said:

“We know that there are organized criminal groups that spread disinformation. It’s not just Russia or China. We have to remember that disinformation has become an element of political struggle. What Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, who joined in, are doing is opening Pandora’s box.”

The EU is pulling out all the stops to monitor the Alice Weidel and Elon Musk interview, all while French officials put forward the idea of an EU-wide ban on X.https://t.co/uobdFoONt6

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) January 9, 2025

Prof. Anna Siewierska-Chmaj responded with what appeared to be supportive statements, saying that Elon Musk does not hide the fact that he is fascinated by European politics and wants to change it, with Musk’s comments about Great Britain the latest example.

“What shocks me the most is Germany and its support for the post-fascist AfD, and we should be afraid of that,” said Wysocka-Schnepf.

“Of course, the AfD’s victory fuels the Polish right, so it is de facto influencing the Polish elections,” replied Prof. Siewierska-Chmaj.

As the EU prepares to crack down on X and Elon Musk for “influencing” elections in Germany, Musk is calling attention to the massive influence billionaires have had on Europe for decades. https://t.co/Yurkb51jWn

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) January 8, 2025

Then, the journalist’s shocking words about the need to consider closing Musk’s portal for the duration of the election campaign were uttered.

“We are in such a situation, more and more countries are announcing the closure of TikTok for fear of Chinese propaganda, so should we seriously consider that maybe X should be closed for the duration of the election campaign,” said Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf.

“This would be a very radical solution…but we need to think about regulating this area,” replied Dr. Bąkowicz.

Read more here…

About 30 minutes south of Los Angeles, local media has reported that police are searching for criminals who stole three Humvees—one of which was armored—machine gun mounts, and a whole bunch of military-grade gear from the Army Reserve Center in Tustin.

KTLA 5 reported that the Tustin Police Department is investigating the break-in at the Army Reserve Center in Tustin on Wednesday night, between 8 pm and 11:30 pm.  

“Multiple storage lockers were discovered with locks removed and missing gear. An attempt was made to cut a lock to uniform storage; however, it was unsuccessful,” TPD wrote in a report, adding, “A fence was cut to gain access to a military vehicle parking lot where three Humvees were stolen. The suspects left the area at an unknown time.” 

The following was confirmed missing:

3 Humvees (1 armored) with the admin numbers listed below painted on the hood:

• Armored Humvee Model: M1151A1
• ADMIN: HHC-06
• Cloth Doors Humvee Model: M1097
• ADMIN: HQ-61
• Cloth Doors Humvee Model: M1097
• ADMIN: HQ-81

8 machine gun vehicle mounts

7 free-standing machine gun tripods

Medical equipment

40 pairs of binoculars

18 bayonets

The good news is that no machine guns or ammunition were stolen. This comes as National Guard troops have been deployed an hour north to the fire-ravaged Palisades area, where criminal gangs have been looting mansions.

Authored by Lawrence Kadish via The Gatestone Institute,

Why is it that people are always calling for someone to think “outside the box,” then when someone does, say, “Aaaak! He thought outside the box!”

In that view, President-elect Donald J. Trump has already committed (at least) three heresies: Buy Greenland, stop China from controlling the Panama Canal and deepen America’s affiliation with Canada.

All three ideas are neither crazy nor even new.

President Harry S. Truman looked at acquiring Greenland in 1946.

Thomas Jefferson, after the Louisiana Purchase, proposed buying Cuba – just think how the Cubans would be prospering now, politically and economically, if that deal had gone through. Those acquisitions didn’t take place but in 1917, the US did acquire Denmark’s Virgin Islands for $25 million. As historian Stephen Press writes,

“As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams arranged debt relief for Spain in exchange for Florida. Secretary of State William Seward acquired Alaska. What Mr. Trump proposes is consistent with this American tradition—and with our current borders. Sovereignty purchases are responsible for more than 40% of U.S. land…

“History suggests the benefits of being open-minded about this. Inhabitants of Alaska wouldn’t be better off under Russian sovereignty. Bringing Greenlanders into closer affiliation with the U.S., and sweetening the deal with economic subsidies, could conceivably prove beneficial to all parties”

As for the Panama Canal, President Jimmy Carter handed it to Panama for $1, but on the condition that it permanently remain a neutral zone – not one controlled at both ends by China.

“We gave the Panama Canal to Panama,” Trump has pointed out.

“We didn’t give it to China. They’ve abused that gift.”

The US built the Panama Canal in the first place to be able to avoid having commercial and military sea traffic avoid the long journey around South America’s southernmost sea route, the Strait of Magellan – where the Chinese Communist Party also located a base.

If there were to be a conflict with Communist China, it would be easy enough for them to block the Canal to U.S. use. As China expert Gordon G. Chang has pointed out:

“China’s port facilities are at both ends of the canal. And when Gen. Laura Richardson took a helicopter ride over the Canal Zone, this was the middle of 2022; she said she ‘looked down and saw all of these dual-use facilities.’ … at a time of war, they could make the canal totally useless…. They say that we have a two-ocean Navy. Well, we would have two separate navies. It’d be very difficult to get ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or vice versa.”

Closer ties with Canada, as Trump appears to see them, would make a united-in-some-way North America a formidable landmass to any would-be adversary.

“You get rid of that artificially drawn line,” Trump stated, “and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security. Don’t forget, we protect Canada.”

Trump seems to have been merely responding to the opening provided him by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, days before the latter announced that he would be resigning. According to Trump:

“I said what would happen if we didn’t do it. He said Canada would dissolve. Canada wouldn’t be able to function, if we didn’t take their 20% of our car market… So, I said to him, well, why are we doing it? He said, I don’t really know. He was unable to answer the question, but I can answer it. We’re doing it because of habit, and we’re doing it because we like our neighbors ,and we’ve been good neighbors. But we can’t do it forever and it’s a tremendous amount of money. And why should we have a $200 billion deficit and add on to that many, many other things that we give them in terms of subsidy?”

Trump has also announced a “Made in America,” tax break incentive for investment in the US, and a “Golden Age of America.”

It seems to have begun already — and he is not even president yet.

The Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire, Kenneth Fire, Hurst Fire, and Lidia Fire have scorched over 27,000 acres, destroyed 12,000 structures, claimed at least 11 lives, and evacuated more than 150,000 people. Containment for the two largest fires, the Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire, remains in the mid-to-high single digits. Evacuation orders were issued overnight for Mandeville Canyon as the Palisades Fire advanced toward the Interstate 405 freeway. 

California Governor Gavin Newsom is calling for censorship of “misinformation” on the Los Angeles Fires

He wants censorship because he is directly responsible. Here’s drone footage of the Pacific Palisades fire destruction. This is a result of Gavin Newsom. He should resign. pic.twitter.com/SrPtIfRyc0

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 10, 2025

Firefighters continued battling the Palisades, Eaton, and other fires. A red flag warning via the National Weather Service was still in effect in the early morning hours. 

LA Times provides the latest on all five fires raging across the LA County area:

Palisades Fire:

Burned 21,317 acres and numerous homes, businesses and landmarks in Pacific Palisades and westward along Pacific Coast Highway, toward Malibu. As of 5 a.m. Friday morning, the fire was 8% contained, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. On Friday night, officials upgraded an evacuation warning to a mandatory order from Sunset Boulevard north to Encino Reservoir, from the 405 Freeway west to Mandeville Canyon. New evacuation warnings were issued for areas to the east of the 405 Freeway, north of West Sunset Boulevard and south of Mulholland Drive, along with areas south of Ventura Boulevard and east of Louise Avenue in Encino.

Eaton Fire:

Burned 14,117 acres and many structures in Altadena and Pasadena. Additional evacuation orders were mandated Thursday afternoon when fire climbed toward Mt. Wilson. Other mandatory evacuations were lifted as city officials notified residents in Glenoaks Canyon and Chevy Chase Canyon that it was safe to return to their homes. Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on X on Friday morning that the fire was 3% contained as of 7:30 a.m.

Kenneth fire:

Burned 1,052 acres near the border of Los Angeles and Ventura counties. As of 6 a.m. Friday morning, the fire was 50% contained, according to Cal Fire. All evacuation warnings have been lifted for the fire.

Hurst Fire:

Burned 771 acres in the area around Sylmar. Evacuation orders have been lifted. As of 8 p.m. Thursday night, the fire was 70% contained, according to Cal Fire.

Lidia Fire:

Burned 394 acres in Acton and is 98% contained, according to Cal Fire.

Fire Map (LA Times)

The latest concern has been a large flare-up in the Palisades area that prompted new evacuation orders from Sunset Boulevard north to Encino Reservoir, and from the 405 Freeway west to Mandeville Canyon. This area includes Brentwood and the foothills of the San Fernando Valley. 

LA Times warned: “The Palisades fire can now be seen across Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley, an unsettling development as officials worried about the fire expanding into neighborhoods in Encino and Brentwood and possibly jumping the 405 freeway into Bel Air.” 

Josh Sautter, president of the Encino Neighborhood Council, told the media outlet that the latest round of evacuation orders sent panic through the community. 

“I don’t think that people here really saw that it was coming,” Sautter said, adding, “We didn’t think that it was something that would really affect us — until it did.”

Here are the latest LA Times headlines regarding the inferno: 

• Glow of Palisades fire seen across LA’s San Fernando Valley; swaths of Encino, Brentwood told to evacuate

• Latest Palisades fire evacuation order sends shock wave through Encino

• LA County declares health emergency due to smoke and ash

• State to probe why Pacific Palisades reservoir was offline, empty when firestorm exploded

• Newsom orders investigation into dry fire hydrants that hampered firefighting in LA.

• Insurance commissioner issues moratorium on home policy cancellations in fire zones

• ‘We don’t know half of it.’ LA firestorm death toll expected to rise as searchers go door to door

Latest Zero Hedge headlines:

• 10 Dead, 10,000 Structures Burned In Los Angeles Area Inferno As Fire Damage Could Exceed $150 Billion

• “Do Not Panic Buy”: Officials Urge Calm As LA Fire Crisis Disrupts Main Fuel Pipeline To Las Vegas

• “We’re Not Screwing Around”: LA Sheriff Declares Curfew Amid Arson & Looting Chaos

• California-Based Insurer Crashes Amid Billions In LA Area Fire-Damage Losses

• Arson Threats A “Major Issue” In Wildfire-Ravaged Los Angeles County

• California Imposes 1-Year Insurance Cancellation Freeze In Areas Ravaged By Wildfires

Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass find themselves in the hot seat as their own liberal voter base turns against them, blaming the radical politicians for the spread of fire due to their massive mismanagement of budgets. 

A Fox News report found that Newsom slashed funding for wildfire and forest resilience by more than $100 million last year. He signed the budget covering the 2024-25 fiscal year in June. 

Even the left-leaning USA Today reported that new budget documents showed the mayor reduced the Los Angeles Fire Department’s budget from $837 million in fiscal year 2024 to $819 million in fiscal year 2025. 

In December, LAFD sent a report to the mayor and city council warning that ” these budgetary reductions have adversely affected the Department’s ability to maintain core operations.” 

The destruction caused by the wildfires is about twice the size of Manhattan, and growing, and in our view, will be a political disaster for both Newsom and Bass. 

Elon Musk wrote on X the huge loss of mansions across LA has primarily been a failure of Newsom and Bass…

Exactly. Climate change risk is real, just much slower than alarmists claim.

The immense loss of homes in LA is primarily due to:

1. Nonsensical overregulation that prevented creating fire breaks and doing brush clearing.

2. Bad governance at the state and local level that… https://t.co/KByGVCjQ8N

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 9, 2025

On Friday evening, Newsom was trying to salvage his dumpster fire political career by inviting President-elect Donald Trump to California. 

.@realDonaldTrump, as you prepare to assume the presidency once more, I invite you to come to California.

The hundreds of thousands of Americans – displaced from their homes and fearful for the future – deserve to see us all working together in their best interests, not… pic.twitter.com/R3C7cGqdBh

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 10, 2025

Newsom also noted on X, “I am calling for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir.” 

NEW: I am calling for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir.

We need answers to ensure this does not happen again and we have every resource available to… pic.twitter.com/R0vq0wwZph

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 10, 2025

Newsom is getting angry. 

This is not true. https://t.co/70J4YCF4Nw

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 11, 2025

Community Noted.

A ridiculous lie. We have doubled the size of our firefighting army, built the world’s largest aerial firefighting fleet, and increased the forest management ten-fold since taking office.

Time to serve these folks the facts. https://t.co/qITPcQDTKk

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 11, 2025

It’s not surprising at all that liberal Californians, including Hollywood elites, voted in Mayor Bass, a Marxist!

Karen Bass is a Marxist who praised Fidel Castro and Communist Party USA leaders.

Now her fire response makes sense. pic.twitter.com/JGyD7KK3xO

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) January 10, 2025

LA Mayor Karen Bass is a trained Marxist terrorist who traveled to Cuba dozens of times, praised communist dictators and allied with the literal terror group that bombed the US Capital.

One has to assume she’s burning LA on purpose. Bass should be in jailpic.twitter.com/4UmSK4Z47p

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 9, 2025

Local elections matter—what were you all thinking?

Also, all of this proves that you can not rely on gov’t…. 

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager overseeing approximately $11.5 trillion in assets, has decided to withdraw from a climate pact backed by the United Nations (UN) that advocates for aggressive de-carbonizing of the economy.

A BlackRock spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times that the company has decided to withdraw from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM), a coalition comprised of over 325 signatories managing more than $57.5 trillion, all committed to the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by aligning investment strategies with this objective.

Membership in the climate pact did not affect the way BlackRock managed client portfolios, according to the spokesperson, but it did lead to confusion about the company’s practices and subjected it to legal inquiries from public officials. Despite the NZAM exit, BlackRock remains committed to sustainable investing.

Several major Wall Street banks have recently exited a similar climate-focused organization for lenders called the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which similarly pushes a net-zero goal.

Republicans, particularly from energy-producing states, have criticized the participation of banks and asset managers in net-zero coalitions as part of a progressive agenda and have accused them of antitrust violations.

In November, Texas and 10 other Republican-led states sued BlackRock and rivals, alleging that they disrupted coal production and raised energy prices.

“Texas will not tolerate the illegal weaponization of the financial industry in service of a destructive, politicized ‘environmental’ agenda. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street formed a cartel to rig the coal market, artificially reduce the energy supply, and raise prices,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “This is a stunning violation of State and federal law.”

BlackRock has rejected the allegations, stating that the lawsuit undermines investments in essential companies that consumers depend on.

In a 2024 letter to shareholders, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said that the company has “never supported divesting from traditional energy firms” and that it has over $300 billion invested in traditional energy firms on behalf of its clients.

“If they want to invest in hydrocarbons, we give them every opportunity to do it–the same way we invest roughly $138 billion in energy transition strategies for our clients,” Fink wrote. “That’s part of being an asset manager. We follow our clients’ mandates.”

In December, a Republican-controlled congressional committee requested information from BlackRock and dozens of other asset managers regarding their involvement with NZAM.

“The over 60 asset managers with membership in NZAM must answer for their involvement in prioritizing woke investments over their own fiduciary duties,” the House Judiciary Committee said in a statement, while letters sent to various asset managers demanded the preservation of records that may be associated with “NZAM’s collusive activity that would inform potential legislative reforms.”

After a number of financial institutions left the climate pact for lenders, the Texas attorney general praised them for the exit in a Jan. 7 statement. Paxton alleged that the climate pact aims to undermine the vital oil and gas industries and that membership in the alliance could potentially bar banks from entering into contracts with Texas government entities.

Authored by Sebastian Milbank via TheCritic.co.uk,

When sorrows come, they come not as single spies, but in battalions. And it’s certainly been another miserably overwhelming week for the Labour government.

Elon Musk, and a host of other critics, have been going after Keir Starmer for his and Jess Phillips’ decision to refuse a national inquiry into the grooming gangs in Oldham.

Keir Starmer is furiously angry about the grooming scandal. Unfortunately, what he is mostly angry about seems to be those attacking his record, rather than the rape gangs. 

Before we get to what was wrong with his response, and there was a great deal, we should first understand where he and his supporters are coming from. Musk is ill-informed, unconcerned with the truth and making reckless assertions, and he is doing so from a massive social media platform, on the eve of his becoming an official in the US government. Musk and his allies have attacked Starmer and Jess Phillips, both of whom believe they have taken a substantive role in fighting against sexual abuse.

From inside No 10, the situation feels desperately unfair, and manipulated by an irresponsible right wing press and social media. Labour refused a national inquiry into abuse in Oldham, instead encouraging the council to hold its own, as many others had already done so with some success. In this judgement, they were backed by none other than Professor Alexis Jay, who led the previous national inquiry in 2015, and who argues that another inquiry will just delay justice and vitally needed reforms. The government says they are intent on implementing her recommendations, and point out that much of the inaction happened on the watch of the Conservative Party. Labour allies understandably wonder where this anger on the issue has been for the last ten years, when the Conservatives were at the helm, and in a position to do something about it. 

From Labour’s perspective, the issue they are handling responsibly is being turned into a cynical political football by a Right that cares little about white working class girls, and quite a lot about using migration to rack up votes. Reform, led by Nigel Farage, has been unrelenting online and in the press condemning Keir Starmer personally. Robert Jenrick attacked the culture of British Pakistanis in a statement that so offended the political Left that the leader of the Lib Dems called on him to resign. Aside from divisive language, an amendment mandating a national inquiry was added by the Tories to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, which Labour says could kill the legislation and endanger children. 

You can see why Labour feels it needs to be combative and set the record straight. Unfortunately, this approach is a catastrophic error of political judgment, and reveals severe moral failings in Starmer’s approach to leadership. Put aside the wild exaggerations bandied about online, and forget about the sickening tussle in Westminster to lay the blame at a rival party’s door. What actually matters here? The truth, public safety, and justice for victims. 

In this situation Starmer isn’t the former head of the CPS, he isn’t even the leader of the Labour Party — he is the leader of this country, and the representative of the British crown. The grooming gang scandal touches every political party and level of government. Police, courts, social workers, local councils, and the national government all failed victims, and many colluded in their victimisation. The seriousness of Musk’s claims, which millions of people saw, needed to be addressed, but ultimately Musk is a private individual living in America, making these allegations on social media. A simple statement setting the record straight from a spokesperson was all that it merited, and the Prime Minister personally responding was wildly disproportionate. For all that Musk is an adolescent throwing fuel on the fire of British politics, he is also a father and a human being encountering, probably for the first time, reports of the British police allowing thousands of children to be raped and, in at least one case, killed, out of a fear of appearing racist. His untruths and half truths are unforgivably irresponsible from the owner of a social media company, but his anger was entirely legitimate. 

Politics in the internet age is increasingly defined by rage, often cynically channeled to serve partisan ends. Faced with this digitally accelerated anger, most political leaders make critical errors.

First of all, they mistake the channel of the anger for the source, which is often a genuine grievance.

Secondly, they are unaware of their own ideological and tribal instincts, and are unable to set them aside.

Especially on the centre-left, not only is the distinction between legitimate grievance and right-wing manipulation not made, the two are often intentionally conflated to dismiss claims that don’t serve the liberal narrative as “fake news”. Jess Phillips is certainly no “rape genocide apologist”, as Musk has claimed, and has played an important part in helping victims. However, Phillips’ partisanship has led her to overlook problems like the grooming gang in the past, as in 2016 when she claimed that the German New Year’s Eve sexual assaults (in which over 1,000 victims were attacked in a single night by gangs of asylum seekers) was nothing to do with migration, and very similar to what happens “on Broad Street in Birmingham every week”. 

One can well understand the frustration of those like Julie Bindel, who have been fearlessly reporting on this issue for years without any party political agenda, that politicians of both Left and Right only care about sexual violence when it serves their narrative. As I wrote earlier this week, the grooming gangs scandal involved not only a “woke” refusal to go after ethnic minority perpetrators, but also vile classist and sexist attitudes about working class teenage girls. 

The reality is that the British establishment, whether of the centre left or right, embodies a kind of “progressive conservatism” in which the economic and institutional status quo is preserved even as a sort of bohemian faux-radicalism is destructively unleashed on the most vulnerable parts of society.

Thus you see social workers too progressive to deny teenage girls in foster care the “right” to come and go at all hours with Pakistani “boyfriends”, and a police force too conservative to investigate claims of abuse by girls they believe to be promiscuous. 

So what should be done about our rotten establishment, and the rotten system that offered children up as playthings for gangs of Pakistani men?

And what should our Prime Minister be saying and doing now?

There are arguments for and against a national inquiry. The obsession with process over principle and action is how we got here, and you can understand why many oppose an inquiry. All that is needed at this stage is a clear indication from the government that they will be proactive, not reactive on this issue. Whilst Oldham is begging for an inquiry, and will no doubt take action on its own, there are still councils that are blocking justice, as in Keighley and Bradford, where the local council has refused calls for an inquiry into grooming. Leaving it to local government is not good enough, especially when social workers, cops and courts still take their cues from Whitehall. 

Police forces need to be directed to investigate historic and current crimes of this nature actively. Those who acted negligently need to be fired, or prosecuted. The perpetrators need to be behind bars for life, and anyone involved, however indirectly, should face deportation. The legal and regulatory architecture that encouraged racially selective policing needs to be dismantled, and explicit measures instituted to heavily penalise those who ignore crime in the name of “community relations”. Whatever it takes to get this done, whether it’s an inquiry or legislation or both, needs to happen, and the government needs to commit to this, and a timeline, immediately. 

As well as outlining a strategy, Starmer has another duty, one that no British Prime Minister has yet performed. He needs to issue an apology to the thousands of victims whose lives were ruined by the inaction of the British state.

Keir Starmer made such an apology to the victims of Grenfell, but he has yet to make one for the victims of Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oldham and a dozen other gangs. 

If Starmer had issued an apology on behalf of the state to victims, and made a commitment to a new, far more serious approach to grooming gangs, he would have proven Musk wrong, and shown he understands what matters in this equation. Instead, he has gotten down in the mud with his critics, whilst doing nothing about the actual problem.

It’s reflective of a pattern of behaviour from the Labour leadership in which they mindlessly defend the public sector, even when it has failed catastrophically.

Rather than admitting that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and that the British state is in need of reform, it looks like the public is once again to be sacrificed on the altar of the public state. 

NATO is strengthening its military presence in the Baltic Sea in response to the Christmas Day severing of the Estlink 2 electricity cable and four telecom cables linking Finland and Estonia.

A month prior to that incident, in November, two other submarine telecommunication cables, the BCS East-West Interlink and C-Lion1 fiber-optic cables, were damaged.

Soon after the alleged sabotage the West charged that a Russian ‘shadow ship’ intentionally dragged its anchor on the sea bed in order to damage the vital telecoms links. The vessel in Finnish custody is the Cook Islands-flagged Eagle S.

European media reported that as of days ago the initial cables which were damaged connecting Estonia and Finland have been repaired. However, another damaged cable, reportedly sabotaged later in December could yet to months more to be up and running.

“Estlink 2, the power cable damaged on December 25, has not yet been repaired, with work expected to take several months, according to Finnish operator Fingrid and Elering of Estonia,” DW reports.

On Friday Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen announced that the NATO military alliance is sending “two vessels and we are also increasing other activities and presence in the area.”

At the start of this week the the British-led Joint Expeditionary Force had announced it would be ramping up its surveillance of undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea.

“Finland has long been concerned about the risks to environmental and maritime safety posed by the shadow fleet used by Russia,” Valtonen said Friday. “It is clear that the shadow fleet is also a threat to critical underwater infrastructure.”

European authorities are still investigating the matter and questioning the crew. There have been reports that the anchor has been recovered from the bottom of the ocean floor.

The West has loudly condemned what it’s calling Russia’s ‘hybrid warfare’ targeting key infrastructure in European telecoms. However, officials also still speak in terms of ‘assumptions’…

Germany’s defense minister was quick to announce that “no one believes that these cables were cut accidentally,” hammering the point home by adding that “we have to assume … it is sabotage.”

The Kremlin has of course denied all of these allegations and has condemned what it calls a Russophobic witch hunt which blames any and all Western infrastructure failure on Moscow.

The seas of northern Europe have been closely watched ever since the biggest single sabotage event of the Ukraine war – the Nord Stream pipeline explosions. In the case of Nord Stream, the latest consensus is that it was not Russia… but either the CIA or Ukraine.

Via Remix News,

At a press conference in Rome earlier this year, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said that Elon Musk’s political posts on X do not pose a threat to democracy; while oligarch George Soros, however, continuously interferes in the politics of other nations, according to Italy’s leader.

“The problem is when wealthy people use their resources to finance parties, associations and political exponents all over the world to influence the political choices of nation states”, Meloni told reporters at an annual press conference.

“That’s not what Musk is doing,” she added.

“Elon Musk financed an election campaign in his country, by his candidate, in a system in which, by the way, I would point out that this is quite common,” Meloni said.

“But I am not aware of Elon Musk financing parties, associations or political exponents around the world. This, for example, is what George Soros does.”

“And yes, I consider that to be dangerous interference in the affairs of nation states and in their sovereignty,” she noted.

Meloni also pointed to other wealthy people actively funding parties and NGOs around the world to influence local policies.

“This is not the first time that famous and wealthy people have expressed their opinions. I have seen many such cases, often against me, and no one was offended then…”

Musk, she said, is a very rich man who expresses his opinion and does not pose a threat to democracy. 

“Is the problem that Elon Musk is influential and rich or that he is not left-wing?” asked Meloni.

She also noted that she and many others on the right are not financially dependent on Musk, unlike many on the left who are funded by Soros, or have been funded by him over the years.

Meloni denied ever taking any money from Musk, “unlike those who have taken it from Soros”.

She also denied various media reports that her government is on the verge of signing a massive deal with Musk’s company SpaceX.

However, even if that were true, signing a business deal is far different than receiving financial aid for political activities, which is behavior that Soros often partakes in with his beneficiaries.

In response to a journalist’s question, Meloni also spoke about Elon Musk’s open support for the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD).

Meloni stressed that if anyone tried to influence the Italian elections, it was Germany, under the then Social Democratic-Liberal-Green government.

“I would like to remind you of the German side’s interference in the Italian election campaign,” Meloni said, referring to previous German concerns about the right-wing position she represented.

Soros has long been a controversial figure due to his outsized role in the politics of nations around the world, however, few on the left-liberal spectrum ever criticized this interference.

Soros has also long called for the removal of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, with both figures antagonistic towards each other over the years.

Read more here…

Authored by Mike Fredenberg via The Epoch Times,

Maintaining a strong military requires a strong economy.

And a strong economy requires reasonable regulations that make sense from both an economic and scientific viewpoint.

Unfortunately, many policy makers have bought into an extreme regulatory agenda driven by ideology that does not make sense scientifically or economically, that is harming both our economy and our military.

This agenda was on display at the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan from November 11 to 22 of last year. The premise for the conference, and such agreements as the Paris Accord, is that man-made climate change poises an existential threat to human existence. Further it is claimed that even now climate change is wreaking havoc around the world and that regulations, mandates and new technology will slow down and even reverse it.

Those pushing these beliefs also claim that it is the duty of more developed countries to transfer 100’s of billions, even trillions of dollars to developing countries so that they can continue developing using so-called green technology vs. dirty old legacy technology.

Here in the United States, climate-change driven polities and mandates are being rolled out on the premise/claim that that climate change is even now disproportionately affecting the poor and disadvantaged. They also claim that man-caused climate change is negatively impacting GDP.

In other words, if you don’t support draconian climate-change driven policies and mandates you support a weaker economy and have a callous disregard for how climate change is hurting those occupying the lower socioeconomic strata.

These claims, believed by many in academia and the media establishment, have taken on religious overtones, and consequently there is little tolerance for opposing viewpoints in both academia and legacy media. Be that as it may, many scientists, engineers, and other knowledgeable, extremely bright people don’t believe the rhetoric and have provided convincing arguments debunking what they believe to be pseudoscience.

One such group of distinguished academicians is the Climate Intel group (Clintel). And one of the most distinguished members of this group is Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser, who in August of 2023 signed the Clintel Climate Declaration which declares that there is no climate emergency. As of today, 1600 plus scientists and experts have signed the declaration, with Nobel Prize winner Dr. Ivar Giaever being the first signee.

The declaration states that climate science has become politized and is lacking scientifically. It notes that climate change models are fully dependent on what go into them including hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. And that “to believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe [blind faith] what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.”

Suffice it to say, the repeated failures of these models leaves plenty of room for doubt in the popular narrative on climate change. And given that the regulations and mandates aren’t actually stopping or even slowing climate change, we must question the wisdom of implementing regulations and mandates that cripple our economy and our military, even as China’ economy and military continue to expand unhindered by such crippling mandates and regulations.

Still, for the last 15 years plus, the United States has led the world in reducing carbon emissions. The extent of this leadership can be found in the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, which shows that over the last 15 years, the U.S. has experienced the largest decline in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from energy, process emissions, methane and flaring. Indeed, as compared to 2013, the U.S. has been able to reduce carbon dioxide equivalents by 8.5 percent even as it has massively grown it economy through aggressive drilling for and using cleaner burning natural gas, including natural gas from fracking instead of coal. During this same period, China’s CO2 equivalents went up by 20 percent to make China by far and away the biggest emitter of green-house gases (GHGs).

China also leads the world in plastics pollution, and only India beats China when it comes to the sulfur dioxide emissions (SO2) responsible for acid rain.

Of note, when it comes to SO2 emissions the United States produces about one-sixth that of China.

Hence, as of today if the climate change narrative is correct, it is China that by far and away that is doing the most damage and it the United States that has done the most to combat it.

Consequently, with the United States already leading the developed world in reducing GHGs and with huge chunks of the world producing GHGs and other pollutants largely unabated, it hardly makes sense for the United States to voluntarily cripple its economy and military even as China and other potential adversaries pay lip service to the climate change narrative.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.