Taco Bell announces ‘Drag Brunch’ events at several locations around the U.S.
Originally published May 9, 2022
Latest Content
ESG Rating Inconsistencies and Their Ideological Ends
Allen Mendenhall’s recent piece on MSCI ranking SpaceX in the same ESG tier as Russia asks a fair question: how does a rocket company advancing American innovation get scored the same as a state waging war? Unbeknownst to many, inconsistencies are common when it comes to ESG portfolios and ratings. In 2022, S&P dropped Tesla from its S&P 500 ESG Index while ExxonMobil landed in the top ten. The EV maker scored worse on an “Environmental, Social, Governance” rating than a major oil company. In fact, according to MIT Sloan’s Aggregate Confusion Project, ESG ratings from major agencies correlate at only about 0.61. Compare that to credit ratings from Moody’s and S&P, which agree 99% of the time. Companies often receive vastly different ESG rating scores from ratings providers, even ones that share a pro-ESG bias. These are the kinds of inconsistencies that led Elon Musk, CEO of the second-largest electric vehicle manufacturer in the world, to declare that ESG is a scam. Mendenhall concludes himself: the SpaceX rating shows ESG functioning less as “socially conscious investing” and more as “a mechanism for advancing ideological ends.”
Opinion: Corporate leaders flee the result of left-wing agendas they supported
The 45 Companies on the MAGA Anti-DEI Hit List
Amazon, Alphabet Targeted as Oklahoma Joins Anti-DEI Investor Ranks
DOJ Sides With Insurer That Won’t Cover “Transition” Surgery for Minor
On July 13, 2026, the Department of Justice urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse a ruling that had ordered Premera Blue Cross to cover chest surgery for a young girl. The Justice Department’s brief argues the exclusion is not sex discrimination but a “sensible policy … rooted in biological reality, developmental psychology, and medical diagnosis.” Premera covers a mastectomy for a boy with gynecomastia and for a girl with breast cancer, but declines the same surgery when it is performed on a healthy adolescent, boys and girls alike. The line, the brief says, is the diagnosis, not the patient’s sex, and it reads the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Skrmetti to say exactly that. Every federal appeals court to weigh the question since, the brief notes, has rejected the lower court’s reasoning. The whole dispute turns on one phrase, “medically necessary.” That label rests heavily on the standards of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the same WPATH the FTC and multiple states are now suing for stripping surgical age limits without evidentiary basis and calling virtually every pediatric “transition” service “medically necessary.” The brief itself cites England’s Cass Review and a 2025 HHS review that found the evidence …