Category: Opinion

President Joe Biden’s ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) rule has been published in the Federal Registry.

This rule would allow investment funds to invest Americans’ 401(k) savings with one or both eyes on political correctness and social engineering goals rather than for earnings. Fortunately, Congress can use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to keep the Biden Administration from wolfing down Americans’ retirement savings. Let’s take a look at how this proposed rule could impact you and what you can do about it.

What is the Biden ESG Rule?

The Biden ESG rule puts a thumb on the scale for “woke” investments that have historically not done that well in the free market. Financial advisors are now being encouraged to consider environmental, social, and corporate governance factors when evaluating potential investments, rather than just focusing on available data related to performance and return on investment. This means that they may put your money into projects that may have good intentions but may not be profitable in the long run.

Why You Should Be Concerned

The main concern with this rule is that it takes away your financial advisor’s ability to make decisions based purely on numbers and data. They will now be making decisions based on political correctness instead of sound financial sense, potentially putting your retirement savings at risk without you knowing it. Furthermore, this proposed rule would also give companies an incentive to overstate their ESG credentials in order to attract more investment from financial advisors who are trying to meet their ESG goals.

How You Can Take Action

Now is the time for Congress to step in and protect Americans’ retirement savings by using its power under the CRA which enables them to review and disapprove of rules published by federal agencies before they go into effect. By taking action now and voicing your opposition to this proposed rule, you can help ensure that your retirement savings are safe from harm caused by misguided government policies.

In 2022, Disney cut an episode of The Simpsons from its streaming platform in Hong Kong. This episode mentioned “forced labor camps” in China and the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, which the Chinese government has actively tried to suppress knowledge of.

While Disney claims that this decision had more to do with its ties to mainland China, many people are outraged by what appears to be censorship of an iconic show just to avoid any conflict with a powerful government.

Disney’s Financial Ties To China

Disney is heavily invested in mainland China, having opened multiple theme parks there over the last few years. It’s no wonder that they would want to avoid any conflict with the Chinese government; after all, they have billions of dollars at stake. As Kenny Ng, associate professor at the Academy of Film at Hong Kong Baptist University put it, “I think Disney is trying to maintain good relations with mainland China and not anger Beijing authorities by airing politically sensitive content on its streaming platform.”

The Impact Of Censorship On Creativity

This move from Disney shows how far some companies will go in order to maintain their financial interests. However, it also illustrates how censorship can stifle creativity and limit freedom of expression. After all, if a show as influential as The Simpsons is subject to censorship then what message does that send about other forms of creative expression?

The Value Of Freedom Of Expression

While it may seem like a small thing for a company like Disney to censor one episode of The Simpsons, it speaks volumes about our society’s willingness to sacrifice freedom of expression for financial gain or political expediency. Free speech is essential for a healthy society and it should not be silenced simply because someone finds certain topics uncomfortable or inconvenient. We must remember that freedom of expression is invaluable and should be protected at all costs — even if that means protecting controversial topics or positions that we might personally disagree with or find uncomfortable. That is true freedom and democracy in action!

TL;DR:

Disney’s recent decision to censor episodes of The Simpsons on its streaming platform in Hong Kong is troubling for many reasons — not least because it highlights how quickly some companies will sacrifice freedom of expression for financial gain or political expediency.

This incident serves as a reminder that we must continue fighting for our right to free speech no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient certain topics may be — otherwise we risk losing our ability to express ourselves freely and openly without fear of retribution from those in power. Only then can democracy truly thrive!

On Monday night’s episode of The Late Show, Stephen Colbert interviewed former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain. During their conversation, they discussed President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address from earlier this week.

In an effort to make Biden look like a political genius, Colbert asked Klain if they had planned for the moment when the President falsely accused Republicans of wanting to cut Social Security and Medicaid. Klain responded that they had planned for it and that it was Biden’s best impression of Harry Truman. The problem with this narrative is that it is not true.

Klain said, “Look, if you don’t want to be accused of trying to cut Social Security and Medicare maybe you shouldn’t try to cut Social Security and Medicare. Okay, and so, you know, look, Harry Truman, you know, was called, ‘Give ’em hell, Harry’ and Harry Truman once famously said ‘I don’t give them hell. I just tell them the truth about them and it feels like hell’ and that’s what that moment felt like at the State of the Union.”

What Did Biden Say?

During his speech on Wednesday, Biden said “We can’t turn back now—and yet, too many Republicans in Congress want to return to the same failed economic theories that got us into this mess in the first place: They want to gut Social Security and Medicaid while giving more tax breaks to corporations already making record profits.” This statement is patently false. Not only do Republicans not want to cut Social Security and Medicaid, but many have spoken out against cutting those benefits for seniors.

The Reality Of Republican Policy

The reality is that the Republican Party does not want to cut Social Security or Medicare. In fact, many prominent Republicans have proposed legislation aimed at protecting or even increasing these benefits for seniors.

For instance, last year Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley proposed legislation that would increase Social Security benefits for about 8 million recipients by up to $1,400 per year. His plan was supported by a number of prominent GOP Senators as well as some Democrats in Congress.

Furthermore, a recent survey conducted by YouGov/The Economist found that 88% of Republican voters oppose cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits; only 7% support cuts to either program. These numbers demonstrate that most Americans—including most Republicans—do not support cutting these programs and instead favor policies that protect them or even enhance their benefits.

This week, United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken attended the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

As one of the first major diplomatic conferences since the Chinese spy balloon incident, it was an opportunity for representatives from both countries to come together and work out their differences. However, instead of focusing on diplomacy, Secretary Blinken took a more aggressive approach by issuing threats and warnings to China’s highest-ranking diplomat, Wang Yi.

In his meeting with Wang Yi, Secretary Blinken warned him that China should not provide any further military aid to Russia or else there will be consequences. He also demanded that China stop all activities related to cyber espionage and spying. This was met with a swift rebuke from the Chinese delegation who reminded Mr. Blinken that America has no right to interfere in internal Chinese matters. They also accused him of using the conference as an excuse to bully them into complying with his demands.

In addition to these warnings and threats, Secretary Blinken also used this opportunity to reiterate America’s stance on human rights violations in China and its opposition to Beijing’s policies in Hong Kong and Tibet. While these are indeed important issues that must be addressed, many feel that he should have focused more on diplomacy and finding ways for both countries to work together rather than issuing ultimatums.

According to HotAir:

As far as China’s relationship with Russia goes, it’s currently believed that China has only been providing non-lethal, humanitarian aid to Russia. But Blinken suggested that there may soon be evidence that Beijing plans to start offering military equipment and “lethal aid” to Putin. Blinken is saying that any such aid would have “serious consequences” for Sino-American relations.

But it doesn’t appear that China is very concerned about any further deterioration in our relationship, which is pretty much a dumpster fire at this point anyway. And there is some obvious duplicity in “demanding” that China not provide lethal aid to the Russians while we’re busy sending tanks to Kyiv and will very likely follow those up with fighter jets later this year.

A North Carolina man is facing federal charges after threatening violence against President Joe Biden. Twenty-seven-year-old Kyle Reeves of Gastonia appeared before a federal judge in Charlotte after his arrest last week on charges of making threats against the President of the United States.

According to prosecutors, Reeves contacted the White House switchboard “multiple times” and proceeded to make “threats against President Biden and others.”

The calls are reported to have been made between January 28 and February 1, as stated in the federal affidavit. Allegedly Reeves repeated the threats in several different phone calls to a Secret Service agent who contacted him to discuss the threats, as well as during phone conversations with the Capitol Police switchboard.

In the affidavit is says Reeves told a Secret Service special agent, “I’m going to come kill the president, I’m going to kill the Secret Service because I own this whole planet.”

The federal judge presiding over Reeves’s hearing decided it best to hold him in custody. If convicted of the charges Reeves faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

He is currently being held at Mecklenburg County Jail.

President Joe Biden has recently made yet another embarrassing blunder during a speech at the White House. The president was announcing his plan to send 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine to aid their war against Russia when he stumbled over his words and could not recall Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s title. This latest gaffe is sure to have people questioning the current president’s competence and reliability.

This isn’t the first time that President Biden has found himself in an awkward situation due to a blunder. Just last month, he referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as “president-elect,” an embarrassing slip-up for sure. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the president has difficulty keeping track of his own cabinet members, let alone foreign leaders and countries around the world.

The president’s blunders don’t just raise questions about his competency, they also put into question his judgment when it comes to making decisions on important matters of state. If he can’t even remember who is in charge of the Department of Defense, how can we trust him to make decisions regarding our national security?

President Biden’s verbal flubs may be funny, but they’re not something that should be taken lightly. His poor word choice and lack of clarity are unsettling reminders that this president is not fit for office. He seems unable or unwilling to take responsibility for his mistakes or acknowledge their severity, which speaks volumes about his leadership abilities.

President Joe Biden’s recent blunder serves as yet another reminder that this president is unfit for office and lacking in basic competence and good judgment when it comes to making decisions about our national security. His verbal missteps are disturbing evidence that he is unable or unwilling to take responsibility for his mistakes or acknowledge their severity—a trait that does not bode well for a leader of a superpower nation such as ours.

It remains to be seen whether President Biden will learn from these gaffes or if he will continue down this path of incompetence and confusion while in office. Only time will tell if he can rise above these issues or if they will continue to plague him throughout his term as Commander-in-Chief.

On Monday, Twitter users, including a Republican national spokeswoman and congressional candidate, chastised President Joe Biden for using the term “boy” and fumbling during his introduction of a black senior adviser.

Biden briefed reporters Monday on the government’s rebuilding efforts following Hurricane Ida’s devastation in Louisiana. According to The Hill, the president met online with FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell, Democratic Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, and Republican Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves.

Biden began the briefing by introducing White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond as a “boy who knows Louisiana and New Orleans extremely well.”

Not only does Biden not sound great here, but also called Cedric Richmond "boy," something the left would lose it if he were a Republican: "I'm here with — with my senior adviser and boy who knows Louisiana very, very well — man — and — and New Orleans, Cedric Richmond." pic.twitter.com/T11qNAGJhu

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) August 30, 2021

His usage of the phrase, which is seen as pejorative toward African-Americans, drew backlash online. Republican National Committee spokesperson Paris Dennard, who is black, noted that Richmond is “a 47-year-old man.”

https://twitter.com/PARISDENNARD/status/1432410226511208451

“Joe Biden just continues to insult Black men openly and in public because he doesn’t care,” Dennard wrote.

How DARE Joe Biden call Cedric Richmond “boy”?

Cedric is 47 years old. He’s nobody’s boy!

What a rude, condescending RACIST!!!

You just know he wanted to call him a “N” but knew that wouldn’t go over well.

What a sick, racist man Joe is.

— Lavern Spicer 🇺🇸 (@lavern_spicer) August 30, 2021

Biden stated in a May 2020 podcast that African Americans who are still deciding whether to vote for him or then-President Donald Trump “ain’t black.”

“Poor children are just as bright and talented as white children,” Biden stated in August 2019 during a campaign event in Iowa.

Biden was asked about former President Barack Obama’s campaign during a 2007 interview with a New York Observer journalist. “I mean, you’ve got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate, bright, clean, and a handsome gentleman. That, my friend, is a storybook,” the president said of his yet-to-be-named running mate.

A Tufts University lacrosse player, 20, has died after fatally collapsing during a weekend hot dog eating contest.

Madelyn “Madie” Nicpon, a junior member of the Jumbos’ lax team, was competing in an off-campus competitive eating event on Saturday when things went tragically wrong.

According to The Journal News, officials stated that Nicpon passed out after choking and was transported to the hospital by first responders. Nicpon died later that day on Sunday.

“In light of this heartbreaking tragedy,” school administrators stated in a statement, “our thoughts and prayers are with Madie’s family and friends.”

Thousands of people descended on campus immediately after Nicpon’s death Sunday evening, encircling her jersey with candles and paying tribute to her affectionately.

“We are beyond heartbroken to share the news of the passing of junior Madie Nicpon — ‘Scooter,’” the Tufts lax team wrote on Instagram. “Scooter was a true friend and teammate. She truly valued her relationships with her teammates and coaches.”

“Her reach was far beyond our team — she was a true connector on campus and touched every single person she met.”

They added, “We love you, Scooter. Keep dancing from above.”

Nicpon had played in several games in her first two years for the Jumbos and was expected to be a key contributor this season.

Rumors are circulating that Russian President Vladimir Putin might be suffering from “roid-rage.” Former U.K. Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen made an accusation against the Russian leader during an interview Monday, claiming he could be using anabolic steroids which can cause erratic and angry behavior.

Owen claimed that Putin’s bloated face, along with his public behavior, is evidence of the possible use of performance-enhancing drugs.

“Look at his face, see how that has changed – he now has an oval face,” Owen said. “People who said, ‘oh, it’s plastic surgery or Botox,’ I don’t believe that at all. He’s on either anabolic steroids as a bodybuilder – and he’s very proud of his muscles and strips to the waist and everything like that – or he’s on corticosteroids. If you’re on these drugs, this gives you this face.”

Putin is notorious for flaunting his athletic achievements, from producing workout videos to often going shirtless in public to taking part in high-profile hockey games. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he was stripped of his title as honorary President of the International Judo Federation, a sport associated with doping.

Owen isn’t the only high-profile figure to suggest steroid use. A risk analyst and public intellectual Nassim Taleb tweeted that Putin’s puffy face and irritability might be signs of steroid use, not botox, as others have said. City Journal editor Theodore Dalrymple wrote Monday that Putin might be taking steroids based on his puffy face.

“These drugs are noted for their numerous side effects, not the least being psychological changes such as paranoia and elevation and depression of mood,” he wrote. Then there was the question, of course, as to why Putin would be taking them. Cancer, perhaps—a lymphoma? If Putin were taking steroids, his extreme and seemingly bizarre anxiety about contracting Covid-19 would be explained. Both the underlying condition of cancer itself and the drugs would have made him vulnerable to such anxiety.”

Putin explained his Ukraine invasion by saying he wants to “de-Nazify” the country with a Jewish president and that Ukraine has always been rightfully a part of Russia. Some of his more bizarre behavior, such as sitting dozens of feet away from advisors during meetings or slamming key military leaders during public addresses, have been more difficult for experts to understand.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a huge victory for former President Donald Trump in his legal dispute with porn star Stormy Daniels.

This case was particularly noteworthy because it originally ruled that Daniels had to pay the former president $292,000 for his attorney’s fees after she sued Trump for defamation and lost. From what I understand, her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, filed the lawsuit without her permission. Let’s take a look at why this win was so important.

The court wrote in the original rejection:

“Viewed through the eyes of an objectively reasonable reader, the tweet here reflects Mr. Trump’s opinion about the implications of the allegedly similar appearances of Ms. Clifford’s ex-husband and the man in the sketch,” the court ruling said.

“Because the tweet juxtaposing the two images was displayed immediately below Mr. Trump’s tweet, the reader was provided with the information underlying the allegedly defamatory statement and was free to draw his or her own conclusions.”

The Case Against Daniels

The case against Stormy Daniels began when she sued Donald Trump in 2018 over a tweet he posted that called her “a total con job.” Initially, a federal court ruled in Trump’s favor and ordered Daniels to pay him $292,000 for his attorney’s fees related to the suit. However, Daniels appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and argued that she should not have to pay these fees because Trump’s tweet was defamatory and therefore not protected by First Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling

Fortunately for President Trump, the Ninth Circuit rejected Daniels’ libel suit against him and threw out the case. His lawyers argued that the president’s tweet was not made as a factual claim but as an opinion about another user’s post. The court agreed with this argument and determined that since there were no facts presented in his tweet, it could not be considered defamatory or libelous under First Amendment law.

TL;DR

Trump’s victory in this case is yet another reminder of why freedom of speech is so important in our society today. By upholding President Trump’s right to voice his opinion without fear of legal repercussions, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has set an important precedent for future cases involving libel suits against public figures. It also serves as an example of how justice can prevail in our courts regardless of who you are or what your political views may be. We should all celebrate this victory for free speech!  ​​​