71.1 F
Chicago
Friday, August 21, 2026
Home Blog Page 671

In Some Minnesota Schools, The Focus Is Reading, Writing, And Resistance

0
In Some Minnesota Schools, The Focus Is Reading, Writing, And Resistance

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times,

In the Twin Cities, schools play a key role in fostering a culture where resistance and anti-authoritarianism thrive.

A Minneapolis charter school located near where 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed last week by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent is centered on social justice and has a long history of left-wing political activism, according to its website.

“We integrate social justice into every grade level, telling the stories of the people, not the people in power, and helping students understand history and their role in making the world a better place,” says the website for Southside Family Charter School.

The ongoing ICE protests coincide with a new statewide mandate requiring ethnic studies, which the state Department of Education defines as analyzing ways in which “race and racism have been and continue to be social, cultural, and political forces, and the connection of race to the stratification of other groups.”

Around the time of the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, several schools in Minneapolis and St. Paul took it upon themselves to require one high school semester of ethnic studies courses before it became a state mandate.

The ethnic studies offerings in the Minneapolis district currently include a course on race and identity, and “culturally sustaining” African American, Chicanx/Latinx, American Indian, Asian American, Hmong, and Somali studies, according to its website.

Moreover, private schools and taxpayer-funded charters like Southside attract families seeking more progressive social justice-related curriculum than the public schools offer.

“Activist-bent parents chose the school knowing what they’re going to get,” Katherine Kersten, a senior fellow at the Minnesota-based Center of the American Experiment think tank and policy center. “Kids are being told to study left-wing activism and view the activists as models to follow.”

Other Twin City area schools that prioritize social justice beyond the level of traditional public schools include the St. Paul School of Northern Lights, the Angela Day School for Liberation and Progressive Education, and the Prairie Creek Community School.

Kersten said “identity and resistance” are two main pillars of the ethnic studies mandate. Approved instruction for stand-alone high school ethnic studies courses that must be implemented ahead of the fall semester—in addition to the embedded requirement for all other subject areas in K–12, as they are reviewed and then updated periodically—most likely include definitions and examples of identity and resistance, she said.

University of Minnesota’s Center for Race, Indigeneity, Disability, Gender, and Sexuality Studies developed a free curriculum for the state mandate endorsed by teachers unions and state officials. Its middle school instructional materials, “Protest Art & the Movement for Black Life,” require students to learn about the 13 guiding principles of the Black Lives Matter movement, create protest art “for a cause of their choice,” and “describe how mural artists transformed the landscape of Minneapolis during the 2020 Uprising,” according to the center’s webpage.

This kind of classroom rhetoric only emboldens anti-authoritarian sentiment in the community, even if protesters don’t fully understand their cause, Kersten said.

“We’ve seen people crossing the line, and destruction of property, and our elected leaders are encouraging this—[saying] that authority figures are racist and that this resistance is noble,” she said. “To have the state working with and relying on some of the most extreme, self-interested activists to create standards is so egregious.”

Kersten’s organization is urging public school districts across Minnesota to consider less extreme instructional materials that are endorsed by nonpartisan academic institutions and will still meet the state requirements, including 1776 Unites and the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), both of which oppose identity politics.

The Center for the American Experiment recently presented its suggested instructional materials to Anoka-Hennepin schools, the largest district in the state, and was greeted outside by a long line of protestors summoned from Minneapolis and St. Paul, Kersten said.

“Anyone who criticizes is automatically called a racist,” she said, adding that, beyond a few parents who took advantage of a state law that allows them to opt their child out of instructional materials they find objectionable, there has been very little pushback against Minnesota’s ideological education movement.

“It’s so damaging to celebrate these events as a great Civil Rights statement,” she said. “It’s important for schools to push back and make the case for reasonable academic learning.”

In social media posts last week, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) called on the executive branch to revoke all federal funding to the Southside Family Charter School.

“This institution radicalizes students and pushes a left-wing agenda that demonizes ICE agents,” his Jan. 9 posts on Facebook and X said. “The federal government should not subsidize anti-American education.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the Southside Family Charter School, Gov. Tim Walz’s office, the Minnesota Department of Education, and the Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts. No responses were received in time for publication.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/14/2026 – 13:55

France Records First Peacetime Natural Population Decline As Deaths Exceed Births

0
France Records First Peacetime Natural Population Decline As Deaths Exceed Births

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

France recorded a negative natural population balance in 2025 for the first time since the end of the Second World War, according to the national statistics institute INSEE, as the number of deaths exceeded the number of births over the year.

INSEE estimates that 645,000 babies were born in France in 2025, a decline of 2.1 percent compared with 2024 and 24 percent fewer than in 2010, the last peak year for births. Over the same period, 651,000 people died, an increase of 1.5 percent year on year. The result was a negative natural balance of -6,000.

The statistics institute said the increase in deaths was due in particular to a severe winter flu epidemic at the start of the year, as well as, in some areas, episodes of intense summer heat. Despite this, life expectancy at birth continued to rise, reaching 85.9 years for women and 80.3 years for men in 2025, both up by 0.1 years and at historically high levels.

The decline in births was compounded by a further fall in fertility. The total fertility rate dropped to 1.56 children per woman in 2025, down from 1.61 in 2024, and the lowest level since the end of the First World War. INSEE noted that the number of women of childbearing age has not fallen and has even increased slightly in recent years, meaning the drop in births is attributed entirely to lower fertility. The average age at which women give birth to their first child rose to 31.2 years in 2025, compared with 29.6 years in 2005.

As of Jan. 1, 2026, France’s population was estimated at 69.1 million, an increase of 0.25 percent over the previous year. This growth was driven entirely by migration, with net migration provisionally estimated at plus 176,000 people. The population included 66.8 million people in metropolitan France and 2.3 million in the overseas departments.

The demographic shift is also reflected in the country’s age composition. Some 22 percent of the population was aged 65 or over at the start of 2026, almost the same proportion as those aged under 20. By comparison, in 2006, 16.4 percent of the population was 65 or over, while 25.1 percent was under 20.

Marriage numbers continued to rise. INSEE projects 251,000 marriages in 2025, including 244,000 between people of different sexes and 7,000 between people of the same sex. The number of civil partnerships, or PACS, was almost stable in 2024 compared with 2023, at around 197,000.

Commenting on the figures, the outlet Hexagone described the 2025 birth data as “catastrophic,” noting that there were around 150,000 fewer births than in 2015 and calling 2025 a turning point in which, for the first time in peacetime, more people died in France than were born.

It added that even the most pessimistic fertility scenarios previously developed by INSEE and the National Institute for Demographic Studies had assumed a higher rate than that recorded in 2025.

“In 2021, INED produced 30 demographic projections for France. The most pessimistic of the 30 scenarios (the ultimate catastrophic scenario) projected an average of 1.69 children per woman in 2025. We learned today that France is at 1.56,” wrote one of its observers, Robin Nitot, on X.

A plummeting fertility rate is not an isolated problem for France; it is an existential crisis across Europe.

In April last year, Czechia reported a significant and sustained decline in its birth rate with a drop of around 12,000 births, pushing the annual total below the 100,000 mark. Its fertility rate fell to 1.66 after several years of gradual improvement.

In July, Germany also reported a rapidly declining birth rate, reaching a concerning 1.35 children per woman in 2023. However, the situation is even more critical for women with German citizenship, whose fertility rate has hit a 30-year low.

So, too, in Sweden, which recorded its lowest birthrate since 2003, with 99,000 babies born in 2024. The average age of first-time mothers was also over 30 for the first time, while in Poland, the birth rate has dropped to just 1.12.

“The total birth rate for Poland in 2024 may be the lowest in the whole of Europe (ex aequo with Spain) and amount to 1.12. This is the worst result in our modern history,” noted Andrzej Kubisiak, deputy director of the Polish Economic Institute, back in October 2024.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/14/2026 – 12:00

Denmark Vows ‘More Permanent’ Military Presence On Greenland In Face Of Trump Takeover Threats

0
Denmark Vows ‘More Permanent’ Military Presence On Greenland In Face Of Trump Takeover Threats

Update(1145ET): The Greenland and Denmark delegations are at the White House where they are meeting with Vice President J.D. Vance. Denmark’s defense minister is seeking to convince the Trump administration that a more robust joint NATO presence on the resource-rich, large island of Greenland is all that’s needed – and not a full US takeover. By day’s end we’ll see whether Trump finds this very convincing.

POULSEN: 2026 GREENLAND MILITARY DRILL TO HAVE PERMANENT NATURE

DENMARK DEFENCE MINISTER SAYS WE WILL HAVE A MORE PERMANENT PRESENCE ON GREENLAND GOING FORWARD

SWEDEN PRIME MINISTER: SOME OFFICERS FROM THE SWEDISH ARMED FORCES ARRIVE IN GREENLAND TODAY

DENMARK, GREENLAND OFFICIALS MEET WITH VANCE AND RUBIO

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Vivian Motzfeldt are meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Hours ahead of the meeting, a report in NBC finally put a firm dollar figure to a potential purchase:

The United States could have to pay as much as $700 billion if it were to achieve President Donald Trump’s goal of buying Greenland, according to three people familiar with the cost estimate.

The estimate was generated by scholars and former U.S. officials as part of planning around Trump’s aspiration to acquire the 800,000-square-mile island as a strategic buffer in the Arctic against America’s top adversaries, these people said. It attaches a price tag of more than half the Defense Department’s annual budget to Trump’s national security priority, which has stoked anxiety across Europe and on Capitol Hill amid his rhetoric about seizing Greenland since he ordered a U.S. military raid to capture Venezuela’s president and his wife.

As Polymarket has noted, Trump’s offer to acquire Greenland – if this proves an accurate figure – would higher than the entire GDP of Denmark.

* * *

President Trump said early Wednesday on Truth Social that anything less than full American control of Greenland would be “unacceptable” – and even cited its necessity in erecting the new Golden Dome missile defense system.

“The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Trump wrote.

The statement was issued just ahead of Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s meeting with officials from the large far northern island and NATO member Denmark at the White House. 

“Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent – Not even close! They know that, and so do I,” Trump continued. 

“NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES,” he asserted, adding that “anything less than that is unacceptable.”

Trump has repeatedly unsettled the EU and NATO of late by declining to rule out the use of force to take control of the strategically important, resource-rich island. Because Denmark is a member of both organizations, the territory benefits from many of their collective security guarantees.

Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, originally outright rejected talks with Rubio. However, the meeting is now be held in Washington after Vance asked to participate and subsequently offered to host the discussions. So now they will face down Vance.

Greenland and Denmark have consistently made clear that the territory is not for sale, accusing the United States of applying “unacceptable pressure” on a long-standing ally. They also point out that a 1951 bilateral agreement already permits the US to significantly expand its military presence on the island.

EU leaders have quickly come forward to voice their support for Denmark, reaffirming their commitment to its territorial integrity and the principle of self-determination. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday that the island “belongs to its people”.

But what if the people want to take a buyout offer from the United States? Giving each citizen a huge single cash sum is actually among the more creative ideas which have been floated.

The figure of one million dollars has been something in media reports, for example, and we can imagine there are many Greenlanders that would take it.

In follow-up on Wednesday, Trump issued a second Greenland Truth Social statement, this time highlighting that even Danish intelligence last year warned of the increased threat of Russian and Chinese military presence in the Arctic. The Europeans have suddenly been downplaying this, rejecting it as a rationale for a greater US military presence.

And NATO leadership too:

NATO chief Mark Rutte has said that Greenland’s security is “non-negotiable.”

He says that all allies agree on the importance of security in the Arctic and has warned that there must be diligence from NATO towards Chinese and Russian activity in the region.

Denmark and the Europeans have pushed back against his earlier assertions like the following: “We need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We’re not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t,” Trump has said before.

The ‘fact checkers’ have been quick to push back, for example in this fresh Associated Press article: “Experts have repeatedly rebuffed Trump’s claims of Chinese and Russian military forces lurking off Greenland’s coastline. Experts say Russia instead operates in the Barents Sea, off the Scandinavian coast, and both China and Russia have a presence in the Bering Sea south of Alaska.”

But then there’s this highly interesting thread…

The White House gathering will likely see Denmark try and push for a joint NATO mission for Greenland, of which US forces are a key part, in hopes of satisfying Trump enough to get him to halt his big push for a Greenland takeover. Today’s talks are expected to begin at 10:30am ET.

* * *

Where do people live in Greenland?

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/14/2026 – 11:48

Ford Worker Suspended For Heckling Trump Raises Over $300K On GoFundMe

0
Ford Worker Suspended For Heckling Trump Raises Over $300K On GoFundMe

Update (1145ET)The suspended employee, TJ Sabula, has raised over $300,000 via GoFundMe since the incident.

*  *  *

After being called a “pedophile protector” while touring a Ford plant in Michigan on Tuesday, President Trump lashed back, twice mouthing “f–k you” and then giving the middle finger to the auto worker who made the accusation. That worker has now been suspended, but says he has “no regrets whatsoever” about accusing Trump of helping to conceal information about convicted sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump gives the finger to a man who, angry over Trump’s resistance to declassifying Epstein files, accused him of being a “pedophile protector” 

“I don’t feel as though fate looks upon you often, and when it does, you better be ready to seize the opportunity,” 40-year-old TJ Sabula told the Washington Post. “And today I think I did that.” Suspended and with his job in peril, Sabula – said he’s being “targeted for political retribution” for “embarrassing Trump in front of his friends.” 

Sabula’s outburst came as Trump was touring a Ford F-150 plant in Dearborn. It happened while Trump was briefly unaccompanied by reporters, but someone captured the exchange on cellphone video that quickly made its way to gossip site TMZ and then went viral. “A lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage, and the President gave an appropriate and unambiguous response,” White House communications director Steven Cheung told the Post

In the video, Sabula, a United Auto Workers Local 600 line worker, can be heard yelling “pedophile protector!” at Trump. The president stared at Sabula, mouthed “f–k you” twice, and then gave a middle finger as he walked on. Sabula said he was about 60 feet from the president, and that Trump could hear what he yelled “very, very, very clearly.” Sabula calls himself a political independent who hasn’t voted for Trump, but has backed other Republicans. 

Sabula appears to be one of many Americans who resent Trump’s change of stance regarding the release of millions of pages of Department of Justice documents relating to investigations into Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. Before being elected for a second term, Trump told podcaster Lex Fridman, “I’d be inclined to do the Epstein [release], I’d have no problem with it.” Asked about a “list of clients that went to [Epstein’s] island that has not been made public,” Trump replied, “It’s very interesting isn’t it? It probably will be, by the way, probably.” 

In July 2025, however, conservatives were stunned when Trump suddenly called the Epstein-files controversy a “hoax,” going so far as to disown anyone who demanded transparency. After lashing out at a reporter who inquired about the issue, Trump raged on social media: 

“The Radical Left Democrats have hit pay dirt, again! … Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this “bullshit,” hook, line, and sinker. They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years.

I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country’s history, and all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax. Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore!” 

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was enacted in November, gave the DOJ a Dec. 19 deadline for releasing “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” relating to Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. It released some 100,000 pages on the due date, but the DOJ subsequently revealed that the first batch represented a tiny 1.9% of the total inventory — before accounting for duplicates. 

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna have led the push to compel the release of the documents. Beyond missing the deadline, the two accuse Trump’s DOJ of making improper redactions that violate the law that now mandates transparency. Earlier this month, they asked a federal judge to appoint a special master — an independent monitor — to supervise the DOJ’s handling of the release process.  

“Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act,” Massie and Khanna wrote to Judge Paul E. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York. “Absent an independent process, as outlined above, we do not believe the DOJ will produce the records that are required by the Act and what it has represented to this Court.” Separately, Massie told reporters that, in addition to over-redacting, the DOJ is “releasing [information] in a manner as to just flood the channel with stuff that doesn’t matter while they withhold the things that do matter.”

While Trump’s critics are likely to claim his response to the auto worker in Michigan was unprecedentedly undignified for someone holding high office in America, note that, in 1976, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was famously photographed giving the finger to a heckling student at SUNY Binghamton. The student had given the gesture first, and Rockefeller said he was merely “responding in kind.”  

With Sen. Bob Dole in the background, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller gave the finger to a college student who’d done the same thing to him

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/14/2026 – 11:46

How Greenland Became The Most Dangerous Real Estate on Earth

0
How Greenland Became The Most Dangerous Real Estate on Earth

By Michael Kern of OilPrice.com

The United States will officially begin negotiations to dismantle the Western world’s operating system in just about 30 minutes or so…and oil prices are up just over 1% in anticipation. 

The meeting, which will take place at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, will include Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland. 

The official agenda serves up standard diplomatic fare: “Arctic security,” “strategic partnership,” and “resource development.”

But the reality in the room is far more brittle…

President Trump has made his position clear, stating on Air Force One that anything shy of U.S. control of Greenland is “unacceptable.” 

He has suggested that NATO “should be leading the way for us to get it,” framing the acquisition not as a request, but as an obligation of the alliance.

Whatever the diplomats call it, the pricing model of the partnership has fundamentally changed.

For decades, the Atlantic alliance operated on a fixed-cost basis. Member states provided political alignment and base access in exchange for a predictable security guarantee. That fixed rate has now effectively floated. The new cost of doing business with Washington includes a premium to hedge against the unpredictability of the executive branch. 

It’s a volatility tax, effectively. 

A Variable Rate on Article 5

To understand the urgency in Brussels, you have to look at the mechanics of the security guarantee.

NATO was designed as a binary instrument: you are either protected, or you are not. Article 5 is the bedrock. But recent signals from Washington, specifically the refusal to rule out unilateral action regarding Greenland, have introduced a variable into that equation.

The “strategic patience” that characterized European responses for the last few years has evaporated. Following the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro by the U.S. military on Jan. 3, the theoretical risk of American kinetic action has been repriced as a tangible one.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been unequivocal, warning that a military move on Greenland would mean “everything stops,” signaling the effective end of the alliance. 

Her concerns were echoed by EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, who warned that such an event is “unprecedented in the history of NATO.”

“The normal rulebook doesn’t work anymore,” a former Danish MP noted regarding the discussions.

This has forced European capitals into a defensive crouch. When a German Defense Minister is compelled to discuss “options at Europe’s disposal” regarding a close ally, the alliance is no longer operating on a foundation of implicit trust. It is operating on a transactional basis.

Mining the Ice: The Myth of “Turnkey” Riches

The deal likely to emerge today relies on two pillars: security spending and resources.

The resource component, specifically the promise of critical minerals, is being framed as the “win” that could de-escalate tensions. The narrative suggests that by cutting the U.S. in on Greenland’s mineral wealth, the strategic hunger for rare earth elements can be sated.

However, from an industrial standpoint, this narrative hits a literal wall of ice.

Greenland possesses vast potential reserves. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the island holds the world’s second-largest deposit of rare-earth oxides, including significant amounts of neodymium and dysprosium, which are critical for EV motors and F-35 fighter jets.

But potential is not production. To date, there are zero active rare earth mines in Greenland.

The barrier isn’t just bureaucratic; it is thermodynamic. Greenland spans 2.17 million square kilometers, 80% of which is covered by ice. The “unit economics” of mining here are atrocious compared to competitors in Australia or Brazil.

  • The Infrastructure Gap: There are no roads connecting Greenland’s towns. Every piece of heavy machinery must be shipped in by sea or flown in by helicopter. Industry analysis suggests that developing a mine in the Arctic incurs capital costs (CapEx) 150% to 300% higher than in temperate regions.
  • The Power Problem: There is no grid to plug into. A mine requires a dedicated power plant, likely importing diesel in a zone where fuel freezes, or building renewables in a place with three months of darkness.

Ian Lange, an economist at the Colorado School of Mines, put it bluntly“Everybody’s just been running to get to this endpoint [of production]. And if you go to Greenland, it’s like you’re going back to the beginning.”

If the EU plans to double its investment in these projects to satisfy U.S. demands, it represents a massive subsidy. It is a transfer of public funds to make a project commercially viable, not because the market demands it, but because the politics require it. We are essentially watching Europe offer to build a money-losing mine to buy geopolitical stability.

Access vs. Ownership: The Strategic Paradox

The second pillar of the proposed deal is a ramp-up in Arctic security infrastructure.

Secretary General Mark Rutte has laid the groundwork, stating that the alliance is discussing ways to “bolster Arctic security.” This aligns with the long-standing U.S. demand for Europe to shoulder a greater share of the defense burden.

But a closer look reveals a paradox in the U.S. position.

If the goal is purely strategic access, denying space to Russia and China, the United States already has it.

The U.S. military operates the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule), a cornerstone of North American missile defense. The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement grants the U.S. substantial rights to operate on the island. The U.S. can already project power, monitor the GIUK gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK), and deter adversaries.

The demand for “title” or “ownership,” rather than “access,” suggests that the driver here is not purely strategic utility. It is about formalizing a sphere of influence on a map.

Inheriting a Frozen Liability

Beyond the bad math of the mines, there is a practical question of stewardship largely absent from American political discourse.

Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory with a distinct culture and a complex social safety net underpinned by Danish subsidies. If the island’s status were to change, the financial burden of that stewardship would shift to Washington.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen backed this view, stating firmly that “Greenland belongs to its people,” and insisting that any decision rests with them, not foreign capitals.

Historically, the U.S. has a poor track record of managing its territories. 

Places like Puerto Rico or Guam have struggled with chronic underinvestment in infrastructure and poverty rates far higher than the mainland average.

For the U.S. taxpayer, the acquisition would mean inheriting a massive, frozen liability. We would acquire a territory that requires significant annual subsidies to maintain basic services, with a return on investment that might be decades away. 

Ripping Up the 1945 Contract

But the most dangerous line item on this ledger isn’t financial. It is structural.

If the United States were to coerce a NATO ally into ceding territory, whether through economic arm-twisting or the implicit threat of force, it would trigger a default on the post-war security order.

We often talk about the “Rules-Based International Order” as an abstract concept. In practice, it is a contract. The United States drafted the contract in 1945, and the core clause was simple: borders are not to be changed by force, and the sovereignty of allies is inviolable.

By threatening to seize Greenland, Washington is effectively ripping up that contract.

French President Emmanuel Macron has been one of the few leaders to speak plainly on the stakes, warning that “the law of the strongest cannot rule the world” and noting the “unprecedented consequences” if an ally’s sovereignty is violated.

Even the UK, often the bridge between Europe and Washington, has drawn a line. Prime Minister Keir Starmer reportedly told Trump to keep his “hands off Greenland,” aligning London firmly with Copenhagen.

The immediate casualty would be moral leverage. 

For years, the United States has rallied the world to condemn Russian expansionism in Ukraine and Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. If the U.S. annexes Greenland, that moral argument evaporates.

The Solvency of the West

As the foreign ministers sit down in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building today, they are attempting to price a transaction that was never meant to be sold.

The U.S. will likely push for guaranteed mineral rights and a “security premium” funded by Europe. Denmark and the EU will offer these concessions in a desperate bid to buy another year of sovereignty.

But as the ink dries on whatever joint statement emerges, the real story is what happens next. The fixed-rate mortgage of the Atlantic Alliance is gone. We are now in a variable-rate world, and the market is volatile.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/14/2026 – 11:37

Justices Ask For Definition Of Sex During Supreme Court Arguments On Transgender Students In Girls Sports

0
Justices Ask For Definition Of Sex During Supreme Court Arguments On Transgender Students In Girls Sports

Authored by Arjun Singh via The Epoch Times,

Three justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on Jan. 13 pressed advocates in two cases regarding transgender student participation in sports to define “sex” for the purposes of constitutional law.

“What is that definition, for equal protection purposes? What does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?” asked Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. during the first round of oral arguments in the case of Little v. Hecox. In that case, Idaho’s law H.B. 500—which bans transgender individuals from participating in women’s sporting events—is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student at Boise State University who attempted to join the women’s track and cross-country teams.

“We do not have a definition for the court,” replied Hecox’s advocate, Kathleen R. Hartnett of Cooley LLP. Hartnett, however, argued that her side was not challenging the definition of “woman” in H.B. 500, but merely the way Idaho has applied it to his case.

“The way it applies, in practice, is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women’s teams, and that there’s a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so,” Hartnett argued.

Alito continued to press the question.

“Well, how can a court determine whether there is discrimination on the basis of sex if we don’t know what sex means, for equal protection purposes?” he said, referring to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires states to ensure persons “the equal protection of the laws.”

“I think, here, we just know that,” responded Hartnett regarding the definition of sex. “Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male and she’s being excluded categorically from the women’s teams as the statute,” she noted.

Alito then asked Hartnett if a self-identified woman could be defined as a woman.

“The person says, ‘I sincerely believe I am a woman. I am, in fact, a woman.’ Is that person not a woman?” he posed.

Hartnett responded that she would “respect their self-identity in addressing the person,” though she argued that self-identity was not at issue.

The same question, seeking the definition of “sex” and a “woman,” was repeated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh during oral arguments in the next case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., where the parents of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a high school student in West Virginia, are challenging a state law that bans transgender students’s participation in school sports.

“You don’t think we should have an operating definition of ‘sex’ in Title IX?” asked Roberts to Pepper-Jackson’s counsel, Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who then analogized sex to race.

Block responded: “I don’t think Congress adopted a definition of race in Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] in order to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. I think we’re not trying to police the accuracy of the terminology.”

Kavanaugh questioned Block on whether states could adopt different definitions of the term “sex” when setting laws regarding women’s sports.

“Do you think sex and Title IX can reasonably be interpreted to allow different states to take different understandings of that in their sports leagues?” he asked.

“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block argued. “I think the purpose is to make sure that sex isn’t being used to discriminate by denying opportunities, just as I don’t think we need to define race in order to enforce Title VI.”

[ZH: Justice Brown Jackson once again went full retard…stating in shock that: “We are now looking at the definition of a girl and we’re saying only people who were girl assigned at birth qualify.”]

Oral arguments in both cases, held back-to-back, lasted three hours. The court is expected to deliver its opinion during the present term.

Here are some of the main takeaways from the oral arguments.

1. Reckoning With Previous Gender Precedent

One of the major precedents, or prior Supreme Court decisions, that could influence the justices’ ruling is Bostock v. Clayton County. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Neil Gorsuch said in 2020 that an employer who “fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender” violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

That law bars discrimination on the basis of sex but Gorsuch said “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

Lower courts and attorneys have cited Bostock v. Clayton County to support left-leaning positions on gender identity, but the justices have indicated that ruling was relatively limited.

Both Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in Bostock but seemed to suggest on Jan. 13 that they thought that precedent might not apply to women’s sports.

Gorsuch, in particular, suggested he wasn’t willing to extend the reasoning in Bostock to Title IX, which is the civil rights law at issue in West Virginia’s case. That law bars sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational institutions.

While speaking with attorney Joshua Block, who was challenging West Virginia’s law, Gorsuch suggested the sports cases were “very different than Title VII.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst that he made “no sense” in one of his arguments and suggested he wanted to subject the law to an inappropriately low level of scrutiny.

2. Definition of ‘Sex’

One of the primary criticisms appeals courts leveled at the bans was that they discriminated against people on the basis of their sex.

During oral argument, multiple justices questioned how to define “sex.”

“What is that definition for equal protection purposes?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?”

When Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney challenging Idaho’s law, said she didn’t have a definition, Alito expressed skepticism.

The Justice Department spoke during oral argument in support of the states. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim M. Mooppan told Alito that the best way to interpret “sex” under Title IX was in reference to reproduction.

3. Reach of Decision

The justices also wrestled with how their ruling could impact other issues like locker rooms and certain activities.

Mooppan had argued that discrimination occurred when individuals were similarly situated. That wasn’t the case for men and women, he suggested, because of inherent biological differences. “That’s not discrimination, that’s a distinction,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan suggested Mooppan’s reasoning might impact chess clubs. “I think a lot of people would say, you know, if you look at the ranks of chess grand masters, there are not a whole lot of women there.”

She added, “I think there are a lot of chess grand masters who would tell you that women, just like for whatever reason, they’re … not as good at this.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was more skeptical of a possible spillover effect and suggested Congress had focused Title IX on sports.

4. Concerns About Biology

One of the criticisms appeals courts had for the bans was that they applied to individuals who may not have undergone puberty, and therefore had lower levels of testosterone.

Multiple justices grappled with those concerns during oral arguments. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, often considered a swing vote, asked Hurst how his legal theory would apply to “six-year-olds, where there’s no difference between boys and girls in terms of athletic ability, testosterone levels, et cetera.”

She later asked why the court didn’t need more factual research to determine the importance of testosterone levels. “Do we have to defer to the state?” she asked, alluding to the state’s determination about the scientific evidence.

Kavanaugh seemed hesitant to issue a broad decision blocking state bans because of factors like scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue. “Why would we … jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country?” he asked.

5. Sotomayor Worries Athlete Will Live in ‘Infamy’

It is possible that the Supreme Court won’t end up ruling on the challenge to the Idaho law because the male university student, Lindsay Hecox, who brought it asked to withdraw the case.

Attorneys for Hecox told the Supreme Court that he wished to abandon his appeal for multiple reasons, including that public scrutiny would distract from Hecox’s schoolwork.

The Supreme Court previously deferred ruling on the request to dismiss the case as moot, but Sotomayor seemed sympathetic to the request during oral argument.

“To say [Hecox] misrepresented her intent is going a little extreme when she honored all her previous intent—intents and only changed her mind when new circumstances arose, i.e., the notoriety of this case, correct?” Sotomayor asked Hurst.

Sotomayor went on to ask Hurst about Hecox’s name being on the case. “Do you dispute that having a case named after you makes your infamy … live forever?” she asked Hurst.

Idaho has urged the court not to dismiss the case, which is expected to be decided by the end of June.

The bottom line: The justices seemed inclined to back two state bans on boys’ participation in girls’ sports.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/14/2026 – 11:10

Trump To Speak At Globalist WEF Forum

0
Trump To Speak At Globalist WEF Forum

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

President Trump is set to crash the World Economic Forum in Davos, bringing his America First agenda straight into the heart of the globalist elite’s annual gathering. As the multilateralism devotees scramble to maintain their facade of openness Trump’s presence signals a direct challenge to their open borders and free trade obsessions that have long undermined U.S. sovereignty.

All eyes will be on the President as he heads to the Swiss ski resort for the confab, where the theme this year is ironically dubbed “A Spirit of Dialogue.”

“We’re pleased to welcome back President Trump,” said Borge Brende, the forum’s chief executive, during an online press conference. He noted this marks six years since Trump’s previous in-person appearance during his first term.

Trump will arrive with the largest U.S. delegation ever, including key figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, as well as Steve Witkoff, his special envoy for the Middle East and Ukraine.

“The interest is to come together at the beginning of the year to try to connect the dots, decipher, and also see areas where we can collaborate,” Brende claimed, adding “Dialogue is not a luxury. Dialogue is really a necessity.”

Yet, Trump’s track record of protectionist tariffs and disdain for traditional alliances casts a long shadow over any hopes for cozy collaboration. Brende noted that the summit unfolds against “the most complex geopolitical backdrop since 1945.”

Economist Karen Harris at Bain & Co., remarked “2025 will ultimately be seen as the year in which neoliberal globalisation ended and … the post-globalisation era began.”

She described it as one where “the US prioritises national security, its own security, and uses the economy as a tool to achieve some of those goals.”

Attendees include China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng, EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, setting up potential flashpoints on issues from Ukraine and Venezuela to Gaza, Greenland, and Iran.

Trump’s video address to Davos last year, just after his second inauguration, laid bare his stance: he warned nations to shift manufacturing to the U.S. or face tariffs, rejecting decades of unchecked global trade.

This rejection extends to multilateral institutions, as Philippe Dauba-Pantanacce, head of geopolitical analysis at Standard Chartered, observed: it “is precisely a broad rejection of multilateral institutions, on the view that international cooperation is inconsistent with ‘winning’ a global competition that is seen as a zero-sum game.”

“With his tariffs, trade ‘is a subject where Trump has made a lot of noise’,” said Pascal Lamy, former head of the World Trade Organization, adding “But unlike what has been the case with geopolitics, whether it’s Ukraine, China, Iran or Venezuela, the impact on the global economy has been limited so far.”

Among the 850 CEOs attending are Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, underscoring the forum’s blend of business and politics.

Trump’s Davos appearance follows his decisive action just days ago, where he pulled the U.S. out of 66 international organizations, including climate bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and UN-linked groups on gender equality and human settlements.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio slammed these as “redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity.”

Rubio further critiqued their evolution into “a sprawling architecture of global governance, often dominated by progressive ideology and detached from national interests.” Trump’s move saves billions in taxpayer dollars, rejecting the inertia of funding entities that push DEI mandates, climate orthodoxy, and sovereignty-eroding policies.

At Davos, expect Trump to double down on this America First reset, exposing the forum’s multilateral mantra as a cover for globalist control that prioritizes unelected bureaucrats over national priorities.

Trump’s presence in Davos isn’t about playing nice—it’s a reminder that the era of subsidizing globalist schemes at America’s expense is over. By showing up with his powerhouse team, he’s forcing the elite to confront the reality of a U.S. that puts its own people first, free from the entanglements that have drained resources for too long.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/14/2026 – 09:05

US Producer Prices Come In Hot On Heels Of Mysterious Energy Cost Surge

0
US Producer Prices Come In Hot On Heels Of Mysterious Energy Cost Surge

US wholesale inflation picked up slightly in November from a month earlier on a jump in energy costs, even as prices for services were unchanged.
The producer price index rose 0.2% after climbing 0.1% in the prior month, according to much-heralded BLS.

Source: Bloomberg

PPI Final demand goods:

  • The index for final demand goods advanced 0.9 percent in November, the largest rise since moving up 0.9 percent in February 2024. Over 80 percent of the November increase can be traced to prices for final demand energy, which jumped 4.6 percent.

    • The index for final demand goods less foods and energy advanced 0.2 percent, while prices for final demand foods were unchanged.

Product detail:

  • More than half of the November rise in the index for final demand goods is attributable to prices for gasoline, which moved up 10.5 percent.

  • The indexes for electric power, diesel fuel, fresh fruits and melons, jet fuel, and light motor trucks also increased. (Most new-model-year passenger cars and light motor trucks were introduced into the PPI in October and November.

  • In contrast, prices for residual fuels declined 8.6 percent. The indexes for beef and veal and for basic organic chemicals also decreased. (See table 2.)

PPI Final demand services:

  • Prices for final demand services were unchanged in November following a 0.3 percent increase in October.

    • In November, the indexes for final demand services less trade, transportation, and warehousing and for final demand transportation and warehousing services both advanced 0.3 percent.

    • Conversely, margins for final demand trade services fell 0.8 percent.

Product detail:

  • Within final demand services in November, prices for bundled wired telecommunications access services rose 4.6 percent.

  • The indexes for machinery and vehicle wholesaling, portfolio management, outpatient care (partial), and game software publishing also moved up.

  • In contrast, margins for health, beauty, and optical goods retailing decreased 4.3 percent.

  • The indexes for automobile retailing (partial), chemicals and allied products wholesaling, guestroom rental, and food and alcohol retailing also declined.

Excluding food and energy, the PPI was unchanged from the prior month and climbed 3% from November 2024.

Source: Bloomberg

    Economists and investors closely track the PPI because several of its components feed into the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, the personal consumption expenditures price index.

    Among those categories, portfolio management fees advanced 1.4% while costs of airline passenger services fell 2.6%. The costs of physican care and hospital inpatient care rose slightly, while hospital outpatient care saw a bigger increase.

    However, we are not quite sure where the prices surge seen in PPI data is coming from, as oil prices were still plummeting when this data was ‘created’…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Still, the lack of a PhD on our side means we are surely too dumb to comprehend this divergence.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/14/2026 – 08:53

    ‘Anything Less’ Than US Control Of Greenland Is ‘Unacceptable’: Trump As Ministers Hosted At WH

    0
    ‘Anything Less’ Than US Control Of Greenland Is ‘Unacceptable’: Trump As Ministers Hosted At WH

    President Trump said early Wednesday on Truth Social that anything less than full American control of Greenland would be “unacceptable” – and even cited its necessity in erecting the new Golden Dome missile defense system.

    “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Trump wrote.

    The statement was issued just ahead of Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s meeting with officials from the large far northern island and NATO member Denmark at the White House. 

    “Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent – Not even close! They know that, and so do I,” Trump continued. 

    “NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES,” he asserted, adding that “anything less than that is unacceptable.”

    Trump has repeatedly unsettled the EU and NATO of late by declining to rule out the use of force to take control of the strategically important, resource-rich island. Because Denmark is a member of both organizations, the territory benefits from many of their collective security guarantees.

    Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, originally outright rejected talks with Rubio. However, the meeting is now be held in Washington after Vance asked to participate and subsequently offered to host the discussions. So now they will face down Vance.

    Greenland and Denmark have consistently made clear that the territory is not for sale, accusing the United States of applying “unacceptable pressure” on a long-standing ally. They also point out that a 1951 bilateral agreement already permits the US to significantly expand its military presence on the island.

    EU leaders have quickly come forward to voice their support for Denmark, reaffirming their commitment to its territorial integrity and the principle of self-determination. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday that the island “belongs to its people”.

    But what if the people want to take a buyout offer from the United States? Giving each citizen a huge single cash sum is actually among the more creative ideas which have been floated.

    The figure of one million dollars has been something in media reports, for example, and we can imagine there are many Greenlanders that would take it.

    In follow-up on Wednesday, Trump issued a second Greenland Truth Social statement, this time highlighting that even Danish intelligence last year warned of the increased threat of Russian and Chinese military presence in the Arctic. The Europeans have suddenly been downplaying this, rejecting it as a rationale for a greater US military presence.

    And NATO leadership too:

    NATO chief Mark Rutte has said that Greenland’s security is “non-negotiable.”

    He says that all allies agree on the importance of security in the Arctic and has warned that there must be diligence from NATO towards Chinese and Russian activity in the region.

    Denmark and the Europeans have pushed back against his earlier assertions like the following: “We need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We’re not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t,” Trump has said before.

    The ‘fact checkers’ have been quick to push back, for example in this fresh Associated Press article: “Experts have repeatedly rebuffed Trump’s claims of Chinese and Russian military forces lurking off Greenland’s coastline. Experts say Russia instead operates in the Barents Sea, off the Scandinavian coast, and both China and Russia have a presence in the Bering Sea south of Alaska.”

    But then there’s this highly interesting thread…

    The White House gathering will likely see Denmark try and push for a joint NATO mission for Greenland, of which US forces are a key part, in hopes of satisfying Trump enough to get him to halt his big push for a Greenland takeover. Today’s talks are expected to begin at 10:30am ET.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/14/2026 – 08:45

    US Retail Sales Shrug Off ‘K-Shaped’ Economy With Upside Surprise In November

    0
    US Retail Sales Shrug Off ‘K-Shaped’ Economy With Upside Surprise In November

    Having noted yesterday that holiday retail spending (December) was up significantly (via the NRF), today we get the official (US Census Bureau) look at Retail Sales from November… so don’t get too excited.

    But, amid the growing specter of the ‘k-shaped’ economy, expectations were for a sizable 0.5% MoM jump in retail sales (after October’s 0.0% nothingburger)… but the headline print beat expectations with a 0.6% MoM surge… leaving sales up 3.3% YoY…

    Source: Bloomberg

    That was the strongest MoM jump in retail sales since July.

    Additionally, Ex-Autos, and Ex-Autos and Gas also both beat expectations.

    Ten out of 13 categories posted increases, including sporting goods and hobby stores as well as building materials retailers and clothing outlets. Motor vehicle sales bounced back after the expiration of federal tax incentives on electric cars restrained sales in the prior month. Higher receipts at gasoline stations also contributed to the overall gain.

    General Merchandise stores saw sales decline in November (along with Furniture), while Motor Vehicles and Gas Station sales surged the most

    Real retail sales (a rough approximation against CPI) remained positive on a YoY basis…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Finally, things look even better for the broad economy as the Retail Sales Control Group (which excludes food services, auto dealers, building materials stores and gasoline stations) – which feeds into the GDP calc – jumped 0.4%% MoM – in line with expectations…

    Source: Bloomberg

    That MoM jump leaves sales up a strong 5.1% YoY and while the ‘k-shaped’ economy continues to weigh on market sentiment, it is not evident in the aggregate data and supports solid Q4 GDP growth.

    “The consumer ended 2025 on a strong note might get stronger when tax refunds start hitting in the new year,” said David Russell, Global Head of Market Strategy at TradeStation.

    Today’s retail sales report is consistent with accelerating GDP in Q4, which could push rate cuts further into the future. Whatever happens with Jerome Powell, the era of his relevance seems to be winding down. Further easing with be the concern of his successor.”

    The figures may have gotten an extra boost from federal workers, who recouped lost wages from the government shutdown.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/14/2026 – 08:39