Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in the Hill on the recent disclosure of efforts by Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) to pressure Twitter to censor critics, including a columnist. This effort occurred shortly after Schiff’s office objected to one of my columns accusing him of pressuring social media companies to censor those with opposing views. While publicly denying that he supports censorship, Schiff was secretly pressuring Twitter to censor an array of critics.

Here is the column:

“We don’t do this.”

That response from Twitter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is a singular indictment, coming at the height of Twitter’s censorship operations. Apparently, there were some things that even Twitter’s censors refused to do.

One of those things was silencing critics of Schiff and his House committee.

In the latest tranche of “Twitter Files,” journalist Matt Taibbi revealed that Twitter balked at Schiff’s demand that Twitter suspend an array of posters or label their content as “misinformation” and “reduce the visibility” of them. Among those who Schiff secretly tried to censor was New York Post columnist Paul Sperry.

Sperry drew Schiff’s ire by writing about a conversation allegedly overheard by one of his sources. Sperry’s article, which appeared in RealClearInvestigations, cited two sources as overhearing two White House staffers discussing how to remove newly-elected President Trump from office. The article raised the possibility of bias on the part of an alleged key player in launching the first Trump impeachment, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. The sources reportedly said that Ciaramella was in a conversation with Sean Misko, a holdover from the Obama administration who later joined Schiff’s staff. The conversation — in Sperry’s words — showed that “just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.”

Rather than simply refute the allegation, Schiff wanted Sperry and other critics silenced. His office reportedly laid out steps to cleanse Twitter of their criticism, including an instruction to “remove any and all content about Mr. Misko and other Committee staff from its service — to include quotes, retweets, and reactions to that content.”

The date of Schiff’s non-public letter in November 2020 is notable: Earlier that year, I wrote a column for The Hill criticizing Schiff for pushing for censorship of misinformation in a letter that he sent to social media companies. His office promptly objected to the very suggestion that Schiff supported censorship.

We now know Schiff was actively seeking to censor specific critics on social media. These likely were viewed as more than “requests” since Schiff was sending public letters threatening possible legislative action against these same companies. He wanted his critics silenced on social media. After all, criticizing his investigations or staff must, by definition, be misinformation — right?

His office seems to have indicated they knew Twitter was using shadow-banning or other techniques to suppress certain disfavored writers. In the letter, his staff asked Twitter to “label and reduce the visibility of any content.”

Twitter, however, drew the line with Schiff; one of its employees simply wrote, “no, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do this.”

The “this” referred to in this case was raw political censorship. And even a company that maintained one of the largest censorship programs in history could not bring itself to do what Schiff was demanding — but the demand itself is telling.

Not only does it show how dishonest some politicians have been in denying censorship while secretly demanding it, it also shows the insatiable appetite created by censorship. The article in question, written by Sperry, is a good example. Sperry has denied ever supporting QAnon conspiracy theories, as Schiff’s office charged. Yet even if Sperry’s account about Schiff’s staffer was wildly untrue, that should make it easier to rebut publicly.

The move by Schiff to ban Sperry and others on Twitter — and to remove content — is highly ironic. Schiff has been criticized repeatedly for promoting “misinformation” and for relying on unidentified “sources” for his claims of Trump’s criminality. For example, Schiff pushed the false claim that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation; he also was criticized for pushing false narratives of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election.

Nevertheless, I would equally oppose any effort to ban Schiff from social media, although that is hardly likely given the demonstrated political bias of past censorship efforts.

As for Sperry, he was later permanently suspended by Twitter, which I also criticized.

Schiff is unlikely to be deterred by the release of these communications. He recently sent a letter to Facebook, warning it not to relax its censorship efforts. His letter, written with Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), reminded Facebook that some lawmakers are watching the company “as part of our ongoing oversight efforts” — and suggested they may be forced to exercise that oversight into any move by Facebook to “alter or rollback certain misinformation policies.”

Schiff’s actions embody the slippery slope of censorship. By labeling his critics as QAnon supporters or purveyors of “misinformation,” he sought to have allies in social media “disappear” critics like Sperry — yet he found that even those allies could not stomach his demands. Given Twitter’s censorship of even satirical sites, it was akin to being turned down by a Kanye West podcast as being too extreme.

With the disclosure of apparent FBI involvement in Twitter’s censorship program, the release of the Schiff files is another rare insight into how government officials attempted to enlist social media companies for censorship by surrogate or proxy. That is precisely why many in the media, political and business establishments have mobilized against Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter who has released these compromising files.

In a recent tweet, Schiff chastised Musk and demanded more answers from the Twitter CEO. While insisting that “I don’t support censorship,” Schiff asked Musk if he would “commit to providing the public with actual answers and data, not just tweets?” Well, Musk just did precisely that.

The “actual answer” is that Schiff has long sought to silence his critics, and Musk has exposed the underbelly of censorship — which is where we found Adam Schiff.

A little over two years after China launched its billionaire “re-education” campaign by unexpectedly suspending the IPO of one of China’s most influential fintech companies, Ant Financial, in November 2020, a move aimed at humbling (if not crushing) China’s then-richest man Jack Ma, the campaign has come full circle on Saturday when Ant announced Jack Ma was giving up controlling rights of the fintech giant as the billionaire further retreats from his online empire following China’s unprecedented tech crackdown.

Ant Group said in an announcement on Saturday that Ma would no longer be the “control person” who holds 34 percent of the company’s shares. Instead, he would be one of 10 major shareholders. The move would “further enhance the stability of our corporate structure and sustainability of our long-term development,” according to the statement.

The announcement, which described the move as part of a “corporate governance optimization” plan, gave no details about when the changes would be finalized, and noted that they would not affect the company’s day-to-day operations. Under Ant Group’s current governance structure, Ma does not have a management role.

The company is offering 10 individuals, including the founder, management and staff, voting rights independently, effectively removing Ma’s control of Ant, according to an announcement on Saturday. The adjustment, however, will not change economic interests of any shareholders and Ma will still hold voting rights and economic interests in the company following the change. In a filing in July, affiliate Alibaba Group Holding reiterated that Ma “intends to reduce and thereafter limit his direct and indirect economic interest in Ant Group over time” to a percentage that doesn’t exceed 8.8%. Ma will have about 6.2% of the voting rights after the adjustment, Bloomberg calculated.

Ma’s retreat from the company he founded comes after the Chinese Communist Party waged an unprecedented crackdown on Big Tech and some of China’s richest oligarchs. Beijing had made Ma’s Ant Group and its sister company, e-commerce giant Alibaba, early targets in the campaign to curb the power of internet giants. After Beijing forced Ant Group to call off what would have been a blockbuster initial public offering in 2020 and later fined Alibaba a hefty $2.8 billion for abusing its dominance, Jack Ma effectively disappeared from public view and was last seen living in Japan. Last year, Ant Group said it would undertake a major government-ordered overhaul of its business to address regulators’ concerns about unfair competition and the amount of data it collects on users.  

Meanwhile, on Friday the Jay Fai restaurant in Bangkok, Thailand posted a picture of Ma on Instagram, where he appears to have just visited the restaurant. “Incredibly humble, we are honored to welcome you and your family to Jay Fai’s,” the caption on the post reads. According to Reuters, Ma was at the restaurant with Soopakij Chearavanont, the chair of the Charoen Pokphand Group

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by JAY FAI (เจ๊ไฝ)⭐️ (@jayfaibangkok)

According to Bloomberg, the change of control could mean that Ant will have to wait longer for a much anticipated resumption of its initial public offering. Companies can’t list domestically on the country’s so-called A-share market if they have had a controller change in the past three years — or in the past two years, if listing on Shanghai’s STAR market. For Hong Kong’s stock exchange, this waiting period is one year.

Ant’s consumer lending affiliate recently received regulatory approval for a capital injection of 10.5 billion yuan ($1.5 billion), signaling progress in its restructuring and removing a hurdle as it seeks to obtain a financial holding license. The company could issue about 400 billion yuan to 500 billion yuan of loans after the changes, based on Bloomberg calculations.

While Ma was once hailed in China as a model of success, but he faced increasing trouble with the Chinese government, especially after he criticized the nation’s banking regulators in late 2019. As the NYT notes, under Xi Jinping, Beijing had sought to exert greater state control over the economy in recent years, including by reining in the influence of tycoons who amassed enormous wealth but were seen to overstep their bounds.

The Chinese government’s multi-year crackdown has reined in breakneck growth for the entire internet sector, and left global investors feeling the shockwaves. It’s changed the playbook for the nation’s tech champions who once prioritized growth at all costs, introducing a new paradigm for the country’s private sector.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The US is going to send Ukraine Bradley Fighting Vehicles for the first time in a new weapons package worth nearly $3 billion, US officials told The Associated Press late this week.

The $2.85 billion aid package was formally announced on Friday, and marks the single largest arms package for Ukraine the US has pledged at one time. The package will include 50 Bradleys, which are designed to transport infantry troops with armored protection that are equipped with a 25 mm gun.

The White House confirmed the US will be providing Ukraine with Bradleys in a statement on a phone call between President Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The statement said that Berlin will be supplying Kyiv with a similar piece of equipment, the German-made Marder Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

The announcement came the day after France said it would be giving Ukraine AMX-10 RC armored combat vehicles, which are similar to the Bradleys but have a bigger gun and are considered “light tanks.” A French official said it was the “first time that Western-made armored vehicles are being delivered in support of the Ukrainian army.”

While providing Ukraine with Western-made armored vehicles is a significant escalation in aid, it falls short of the heavier tanks Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been seeking, such as US-made Abrams and German-made Leopards.

Zelensky was denied Abrams when he visited Washington DC, and a US official told The Washington Post the Biden administration is still ruling it out.

Zelensky described the new package as a “Christmas Present” in a Friday tweet…

The US officials speaking to AP said the $2.85 billion weapons package will also include HUMVEES, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, and a large number of missiles and other ammunition. The weapons will be paid for by funds already authorized by Congress to spend on the war, which at this point totals about $112 billion.

Authored by Grant Anderson via RealClear Wire,

The International Space Station (ISS) has proven to be a great example of human technological achievement and has existed as a platform for global connection, diplomacy, peace and cooperation.  It has played a valuable and noble role in supporting the peaceful scientific endeavors of multiple nations and communities for over two decades. But, as it continues into its final decade of life – NASA announced in January of 2022 that it plans to “de-orbit” the ISS in 2031 – it is definitely starting to show its limitations. All good things must come to an end, and in this regard, the ISS is no different than any other good thing.  

More broadly, these limitations, and the looming expiration of the ISS generally, reinforce the need for continuing the important pursuit of American independence in space. Certainly, the ISS has supported numerous international missions over the past twenty years, where astronauts from all backgrounds have worked together to advance human activity in space. 

That said, American access to the ISS has faced several complications over the years, a lesson that we should strive to heed moving forward. A few examples make the point. When the U.S. space shuttle program ended, America had to depend on the Russian Soyuz to travel to and return from the station – a situation that may have worked when relations between the U.S. and Russian Federation were amiable, but now problematic in the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine. In fact, early in the war on Ukraine, Russian authorities threateningly hinted that they could leave an American stranded on the ISS.

And as contemptible as Russia’s pressures have been, other incidents remind of the need to keep pressing toward the goal of independence in space. Most recently in December, a major coolant leak occurred on the Soyuz spacecraft docked at the ISS, a challenge that, while not immediately life-threatening to personnel onboard, poses new problems for return flights to Earth. The Soyuz spacecraft is on station standing by as a “lifeboat” in the event of an emergency where ISS inhabitants need to evacuate.     

The cause of the leak remains unknown and investigations have yet to determine the origin of the malfunction. Thankfully, news reports on the leak and subsequent actions have indicated that both U.S. and Russia have been coordinating closely throughout the ordeal. However, the entire leak episode is another problematic example of American astronauts operating at the mercy of a foreign power’s capability, reliability and technology. It is all the more reason for why America can’t pull its foot off the gas in re-building our human spaceflight program, enhancing our space access platforms and capabilities, and ensuring that our own backup systems and assets are ready for any number of plausible contingency operations or needs.    

It is a testament to the shared values, mission focus and professionalism of the world’s astronaut corps that even in the most trying of political times, those in the universe above can work together and not let events on Earth get in the way of work on the ISS. Unfortunately, what happens in orbit is often determined by events on the global surface, and with that sobering thought in mind, anyone on the ISS could be impacted by events far outside of their control. With the war in Ukraine continuing to grind away, and relations between Russia and the West strained by the day, these types of incidents should serve as both a blinking warning light and a motivating incentive for us to keep our eye on the ball with our own civil space program. The last thing we would ever want is Americans left stranded.   

In times of strife, confusion, economic uncertainty and seemingly endless competing national priorities, the temptation to scale back our efforts in space can be alluring. We’ve seen the space program slashed before, most recently during the “great recession” of 2009-2011, when competing needs crowded out the argument to maintain a robust presence above the atmosphere. But the imperative for a committed and appropriately capitalized American space program now is strong and we need to stick to our goals. The world has changed, the competition is fierce, the technology is rapidly advancing, and our adversaries are working feverishly to establish their own space programs – often for purposes that run counter to the peaceful space ambitions of the past.  

As we begin the New Year, our policies and budgets should continue to support the programs, capabilities and technological development that will allow us to keep moving toward our goals beyond Earth. At the same time, this recent leak aboard the Soyuz and wider related concerns about the reliability and dependability of Russia should only reinforce the need to swiftly establish and secure American independence in space. 

The Biden administration had no problems aggressively draining the SPR by 1mmb/d at market prices in the immediate aftermath of the Ukraine war, in hopes of lowering the price of gasoline ahead of November’s elections and avoiding an inflationary midterm rout. However, when it comes to refilling the SPR, now that US emergency inventories are down to the lowest level since November 1983 and not too far from an all time low which threatens the structural integrity of the salt caverns the oil is deposited in…

… the White House has “unexpectedly” gotten cold feet.

One month after the White House said it will start refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and made an initial order of 3mm barrels of sour crude (a tiny fraction of the 200 million released in 2022), in what it said was a clear message to oil companies that they can freely invest capital in boosting output cause, well, Biden’s got their backs, overnight we learned that there was a rather sizable caveat in the White House’s brilliant plan.

According to Bloomberg, the Biden administration has delayed the replenishment of the nation’s emergency oil reserve after deciding the offers it received were either too expensive or didn’t meet the required specifications.  Citing “people familiar” the report adds that “the Department of Energy rejected the several offers it got for a potential purchase in February.” In other words, absent a brutal US or global recession which drags oil far lower – courtesy of the Fed which is doing Biden’s bidding of containing inflation by crushing the US economy with the highest interest rates in a generation – the SPR won’t get any more oil.

While the DOE will put off the purchase it had originally planned for next month, the proposed program, which used a new approach that accepts fixed-price offers, will continue, one of the people said. Of course, it will “continue” only as long as oil is below a certain White House mandated threshold, anything above that – as we now can see – means no refills. As a reminder, last year there were reports that the Biden administration had planned to start buying crude when it dropped around $70 a barrel; and while oil fell during the fourth quarter and US benchmark prices fell close to those levels last month, they have since rebounded, with the SPR refill price serving as a market support level.

“DOE has put forth a long term plan to transition from release to replenishment, and we’re committed to doing so in a manner that provides a fair deal for taxpayers,” the department said in a statement Friday.

“DOE will only select bids that meet the required crude specifications and that are at a price that is a good deal for taxpayers,” it said. “Following review of the initial submission, DOE will not be making any award selections for the February delivery window.”

What this means is that, as we noted yesterday, either the White House – in all its infinite wisdom – will start having to chase the price of oil even higher in hopes of catching up to the offer now that it has set a firm floor for oil prices thereby shooting itself in the foot…

The Department of Energy rejected the several offers it got for a potential SPR purchase in February: BBG

Well it will just have to raise its bid then

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 7, 2023

… or the SPR will not see even one more drop of new oil, and the 372 million barrels currently there, just under 20 days of dometic consumption, will be the total SPR inventory at the time when China inevitably invades Taiwan – a far bigger emergency than a democrat loss in the elections. At that point only that legendary energy guru, Hunter Biden, who was paid so handsomely for his energy insight by Ukraine’s energy giant Burisma…

… will be able to save the US.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A West Virginia law that prohibits people from participating on single-sex sports teams that don’t match their biological sex is constitutional, a judge ruled on Jan. 5.

West Virginia House Bill 3293 (pdf), or the Save Women’s Sports Bill, was passed by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Jim Justice in 2021. The bill states that there are “inherent differences between biological males and biological females” and that “biological males would displace females to a substantial extent if permitted to compete on teams designated for biological females, as recognized in Clark v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass’n (9th Cir. 1982).”

The bill says that a person born male cannot participate in female sports, and vice versa.

A biological male child with the initials B.P.J., who was 11 at the time, filed a lawsuit after the law’s passage. B.P.J. identifies as female and wanted to participate in female sports at a middle school, but administrators cited the new law in blocking the youth from doing so.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in West Virginia, claimed that biological male children who identify as female are being discriminated against “on the basis of sex and transgender status” in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX, including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that no state may deny a person within its jurisdiction “equal protection of the laws.”

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, a Clinton appointee, disagreed, ruling Thursday that “acting to prevent transgender girls, along with all other biological males, from playing on girls’ teams is not unconstitutional if the classification is substantially related to an important government interest.”

Goodwin later noted that males are generally better at sports due to “inherent physical differences between the sexes” related in part to males having higher levels of testosterone beginning with puberty, which B.P.J.’s filings recognized.

“This is not an overbroad generalization, but rather a general principle that realistically reflects the average physical differences between the sexes,” the judge wrote in his 23-page ruling, which threw out the case. “Given B.P.J.’s concession that circulating testosterone in males creates a biological difference in athletic performance, I do not see how I could find that the state’s classification based on biological sex is not substantially related to its interest in providing equal athletic opportunities for females.”

B.P.J. started taking puberty blockers, a drug that halts puberty, once signs of male puberty began showing. But not all transgender girls have taken the blockers, the judge said.

“The fact is … that a transgender girl is biologically male and, barring medical intervention, would undergo male puberty like other biological males. And biological males generally outperform females athletically. The state is permitted to legislate sports rules on this basis because sex, and the physical characteristics that flow from it, are substantially related to athletic performance and fairness in sports,” Goodwin said.

The judge opined that the state could adopt a “more inclusive policy” that would let transgender children play on a team different from their biological sex but said it fell outside the judiciary to impose such a requirement.

The law also does not violate Title IX because it still lets B.P.J. and other children play on teams matching their biological sex, the judge said.

Read more here…

Putin’s short-lived Christmas ceasefire has already come and gone, perhaps lasting but a few hours on Friday. On Saturday, Christmas day for Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox, widespread shelling along the line of contact has reportedly resumed. 

“Artillery exchanges pounded war-scarred cities in eastern Ukraine on Friday despite Russian leader Vladimir Putin unilaterally ordering his forces to pause attacks for 36 hours for the Orthodox Christmas,” AFP reports.

Some eyewitnesses are saying there was sporadic shelling from the very start of what was supposed to be a pause in fighting: “But AFP journalists heard both outgoing and incoming shelling in the frontline city of Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine after the time when the Russian ceasefire was supposed to have begun.”

In particular Kreminna and other places in hotspots across Donetsk and Luhansk have witnessed exchanges of fire, also with Al Jazeera, Sky News, Reuters and other international outlets that have been closely following Ukraine battlefield developments reporting the same.

Ukrainian authorities in Kherson have reported multiple civilians wounded and an emergency worker killed, while Bakhmut and nearby Krasna have reported casualties. Fighting has resumed in Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv and Zaporizhzhia, reports Sky News.

Major Western media outlets on Saturday are uniform in blaming Putin for his forces breaking the ordered unilateral ceasefire. But importantly, it should be noted that these same outlets typically have relied almost entirely on the perspective and claims of Ukrainian officials and military commanders.

From the start of when the Christmas ceasefire was announced on Thursday, it was treated with widespread skepticism by Ukraine’s Western allies. Kiev authorities rejected it as a “cynical ploy” and a “trap” in order for Russian forces to regroup and buy more time against the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine vowed to not observe it from the very start, which makes current claims that it is Russia breaking the ceasefire suspect at best.

Unlike previously when he attended large cathedral services, Putin observed Christmas services alone this year in the presence of Russian Orthodox clergy…

1. Putin is still a great master of signs and symbols. And yesterday’s visit to the Christmas service in the Kremlin’s Annunciation Cathedral is yet another proof of this.
This temple is the home church of all the great princes, kings who lived in the Kremlin and one of the pic.twitter.com/ic3sK3nEPX

— Victor vicktop55 (@vicktop555) January 7, 2023

The Biden administration and Pentagon also suggested it was fake and a ruse. But it remains for multiple hours on Friday there were no major battlefield incidents or large-scale strikes, despite claims of sporadic shelling.

It seems the ceasefire attempt was treated as essentially ‘dead on arrival’ by the West simply because it was Putin proposing it. And yet, the very same countries have urged for Russia to silence its weapons and halt the advance of its forces from the beginning. One thing this holiday ceasefire attempt did highlight is that the possibility for a more permanent peace now seems more distant than ever. It demonstrated also that given the opportunity, the West didn’t treat the idea of a pause in fighting seriously at all; it wasn’t even so much as considered an ‘opening’ for dialogue. 

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Kentucky has joined a growing list of conservative states that have begun to boycott banks they charge are discriminating against the fossil fuel industry.

In compliance with a Kentucky law passed in March, State Treasurer Allison Ball yesterday released a list of banks that “are engaged in energy company boycotts.” This list included Wall Street giants BlackRock, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, BNP Paribas, HSBC, and six other smaller banks.

“Energy is important in Kentucky,” Ball told The Epoch Times. “It’s important to the nation, but in Kentucky in particular, about 7.8 percent of our labor force is from the energy sector. We have a lot at stake just because it’s a part of our economy.”

Kentucky’s action to protect its fossil fuel industry follows similar measures by West Virginia and Texas last year. Kentucky is the seventh-largest state in coal production and 71 percent of its electricity depends on coal-fired plants. Kentucky is also responsible for 1.6 percent of America’s oil refining capacity and 2 percent of its natural gas storage. More than half of Kentucky households rely on electricity to heat their homes.

“From an ideological perspective, those industries have been have been targeted for the last few years by the ESG movement,” Ball said. “So our state legislature in Kentucky passed last year a bill that said, ‘If you are boycotting the fossil fuel industry, then we don’t want to do business with you as a state.’ We don’t want to use taxpayer dollars to support an ideology that’s actually targeting and harming our signature industries.”

According to the Kentucky law, known as SB205, the banks on the boycott list have 60 days to dispute the charge and 90 days to “cease engaging in energy company boycotts in order to avoid becoming subject to divestment by state governmental entities.”

Derek Kreifels, CEO of the State Financial Officers Foundation, lauded Treasurer Ball’s action, stating: “She and other state financial officers across the country are leading the movement to ensure that money earned by hardworking American families is used in accordance with their values, not weaponized against them.”

Kreifels told The Epoch Times that he expects more states will follow the lead of Kentucky, Texas, and West Virginia in 2023.

“ESG is front and center in this next legislative session,” he said. Issues of concern could range from fossil fuels to firearms, to plains states like Nebraska, Kansas and Iowa working to protect their farming industries that feed the nation.

“We see the harm that ESG is doing, and we applaud any state official who’s willing to stand up to this scam that is being pushed across America from the White House to Wall Street,” he said.

Many of the financial institutions on Kentucky’s boycott list have signed pledges to reduce carbon emissions across their lending and investment portfolios as members of international clubs like Climate Action 100+, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM). While firms who have joined these groups insist that they remain active investors in fossil fuel companies and do not discriminate against them, investment firm Vanguard is one of the few financial firms to withdraw its membership in these clubs.

“It’s remarkable to me that any of these institutions say that they’re not engaging in boycotts, because they have statements that say that they are, and some of them very explicitly,” Ball said. “Blackrock has been very explicit in wanting to cease business with coal companies.”

At a December hearing before the Texas state senate, representatives from State Street and BlackRock testified that they only join these clubs to discuss climate issues with other members, rather than to force an agenda on companies whose shares they own. Despite the pledge of members of Climate Action 100+ and NZAM to “reach net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner across all assets under management,” many banks and asset managers insist they are doing no such thing in practice.

BlackRock recently received a three-year exemption from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to buy up to 20 percent of U.S. public utilities. Vanguard is currently seeking similar approval.

As the largest asset managers in the world, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street typically do not divest from fossil fuel companies, but rather buy and hold their shares and work with management regarding the changes they want to see. Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, issues an annual letter to CEOs that details what he considers the most important topics for them to focus on in the coming year, which often includes “sustainability” issues.

“We engage with companies in our portfolios; we do not divest,” State Street Global Advisors’ Chief Investment Officer Lori Heinel stated at the Texas hearing. But Heinel added: “We do not discriminate against companies in any sector, including energy companies … That means we do not tell those energy companies to shift their strategy or to drill more wells.”

Read more here…

Capitol police have arrested Micki Witthoeft, the mother of Ashli Babbitt, for allegedly “jaywalking” while protesting during the anniversary of her daughter’s death. 

Ashli Babbitt, the January 6th protester and military veteran who was famously shot and killed by police while unarmed, was the only fatality of the event that did not involve natural causes.  

Witnesses noted that sidewalks near the Capitol Building were blocked as protesters sought to move closer, which forced them to shift onto the side of the street in order to navigate around. 

Police immediately ordered Witthoeft and others to cross to the opposite side of the road away from the building. 

When Witthoeft refused, she was arrested. 

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit on Thursday to stop the Biden administration from ignoring a federal immigration law that prevents illegal immigrants from residing in the United States if they’re likely to rely on taxpayer-funded programs.

“I’ve sued [President Joe] Biden over a dozen times to secure our southern border,” Paxton said on Twitter. “Now, just as 2023 is starting, I’m bringing another lawsuit—the first of its kind in the nation on Biden’s disastrous new public-charge rule. I’ll keep suing [and] winning until he [and] his lawless Dems follow the law.”

Paxton accused the Biden administration of furthering an open borders policy by enacting the new rule, which “effectively nullifies federal law excluding aliens likely to become public charges,” according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (pdf).

That rule has been in place since 1882 and was reaffirmed by Congress in 1996 under the bipartisan Welfare Reform Act. By not enforcing the law, the Biden administration has opened the door to illegal aliens who’ll be dependent on welfare, the lawsuit alleges.

Paxton’s lawsuit argues that the December 2022 rule was enacted in violation of federal law and is arbitrary and capricious.

“The Biden Administration is committed to opening the borders to aliens who lack the ability to take care of themselves. Texans should not have to pay for these costly immigrants, nor should any other American,” Paxton said in a statement. “I will continue to defend the rule of law and fight to ensure that the massive costs of illegal immigration don’t further burden taxpayers.”

Public Charge

Paxton’s office said the new rule prohibits the consideration of statutorily required factors in determining whether an alien is likely to become a “public charge.” The term public charge first appeared in statute in the Immigration Act of 1882, where Congress barred the admission of “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”

Self-sufficiency has been considered a basic principle of U.S. immigration law since the country’s earliest immigration statutes. It is U.S. immigration policy that aliens within the country’s borders shouldn’t depend on public resources to meet their needs but rather rely on their individual capabilities and the resources of their families, sponsors, and private organizations. Further, the availability of public benefits shouldn’t be an incentive for immigration to the United States.

As assurance that they won’t become a drain on taxpayers, aliens usually offer U.S. authorities documentation that their family will financially support them. However, Biden’s rule prevents a comprehensive probe of the truth of this material, according to Paxton’s office.

Paxton is also leading a 14-state coalition that filed a cert-stage brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in September 2022 after the Biden administration tried to covertly abolish the public charge rule. That petition was filed after the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against a Texas-led coalition.

“With America in the midst of a recession and families across the country already facing record-high inflation, it’s completely reprehensible to expect taxpayers to foot the bill for hundreds of millions of dollars to sponsor more and more illegal aliens,” Paxton said at the time.

Rule Change

Paxton argues in his lawsuit that the Biden administration’s rule change is intended to ensure that “virtually no alien is ever found to be a public charge.”

While the 1996 reform was designed “to increase the bite of the public charge determination,” the 2022 rule change “illegally narrows the meaning of ‘public charge’ to oblivion, disregarding of the term’s historical meaning and violating the statute,” according to the lawsuit.

Paxton’s lawsuit argues that the 2022 rule change ignores congressional mandates by only considering cash, but not in-kind, government benefits when assessing whether an individual is likely to become a public charge.

Read more here…