The left-wing environmental, social, and governance movement, which only a few years ago was deeply embedded in corporate America, is now facing an assault on one of its greatest sources of leverage and control—the corporate proxy vote. Proxy voting is the process by which asset managers vote on corporate actions on behalf of the end investors in their funds. President Donald Trump took action on Dec. 11 against two firms that have a virtual duopoly in advising these asset managers how to vote. Trump’s executive order charged that the “foreign-owned and politically-motivated” proxy agents “regularly use their substantial power to advance and prioritize radical politically-motivated agendas—like ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ and ‘environmental, social, and governance’—even though investor returns should be the only priority.” Two firms —German-owned Institutional Shareholder Services and Canadian-owned Glass Lewis—control more than 90% of the proxy advisory market. Many conservatives applauded the action against them. “This Executive Order is an incredible step towards curtailing the runaway power of two foreign owned proxy advisors, ISS and Glass-Lewis, who have been using their outsized influence to push a far-left agenda in corporate America,” Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, told The Daily Signal. “We are ecstatic that the administration is taking such an important steps towards refocusing American companies back into making money by serving their customers, not cozying up to foreign owned firms with nothing to lose from their poor voting advice.” Charles Crain, vice president at the National Association of Manufacturers, likewise stated  Trump’s order will address the outsized influence of the proxy duopoly and “investment advisers’ over-reliance on these under-regulated entities.” Trump’s order directs the SEC to review its rules regarding shareholder voting, particularly where they have been used to introduce ideology into corporate governance. It directs the SEC to enforce anti-fraud laws regarding “material misstatements or omissions contained in proxy advisors’ proxy voting recommendations.” It also directs the SEC, the FTC, and the U.S. attorney general to investigate proxy advisers for anti-trust activity, consumer deception, and conflicts of interest. In addition to proxy advice, ISS and Glass Lewis offer ESG consulting and research services. Tim Schwarzenberger, a portfolio manager with Inspire Investing, told The Daily Signal this order was “necessary and long overdue” and that “investors have been raising concerns about this politicization well before this administration.” Institutional investors, including mutual funds, index funds, pension funds, banks and insurance companies, own an estimated 66% of the shares in the S&P 500 corporate index. Critics charge that activists have leveraged this power to drive corporate policies sharply to the left in recent decades. And while fund managers have the right to vote those shares, it is the retail investors and pensioners, who rely on such funds for savings or retirement, that suffer when companies become politicized. The shares of companies, like Disney, Target, Anheuser-Busch, and most recently Netflix, took significant hits after attaching their brands to left-wing social agendas. Proxy advisers, however, deny that they have engaged in political advocacy. In response to Trump’s order, ISS stated that they “remain committed to engaging constructively with the three federal agencies named in the order” and that “our research, voting policies, and vote recommendations are based on apolitical, thorough, independent, and objective analysis. “Our clients are sophisticated institutional investors who determine how they wish to vote in accordance with their own differentiated investment objectives by selecting from a range of voting policies that guide our work on their behalf,” the company stated. Critics see it differently, however. “Proxy advisers are supposed to provide objective guidance focused on shareholder value, but the proxy system has been increasingly used to advance political goals through shareholder proposals that often have little connection to financial performance,” Utah State Treasurer Marlo Oaks told The Daily Signal. “[Trump’s] executive order reaffirms a basic principle: proxy advice should be grounded in material financial considerations, not social or political agendas, regardless of who is in office.” Trump’s executive order could have risks as well as benefits for the ability of shareholders to have a voice in corporate governance. “The EO creates the opportunity for meaningful reform, but its effectiveness will depend on how the SEC implements changes, particularly with respect to proxy voting rules and the Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal process,” Schwarzenberger said. Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 permits eligible shareholders to petition companies with proposals and statements at shareholder meetings. Trump’s order directs the SEC to review this rule as well. “For all its imperfections, Rule 14a-8 currently remains the most practical and efficient mechanism for shareholders to hold companies accountable through the proposal process,” Schwarzenberger said. “It provides a structured, transparent, and relatively low-cost avenue for engagement that channels shareholder concerns into dialogue rather than litigation.” However, it has also provided inroads for political and social activism. Trump’s order “does not fully resolve deeper structural problems in the shareholder-proposal system, such as low ownership thresholds, repeat submissions, and proposals loosely tied to corporate performance,” Oaks said. These elements have allowed activists to purchase modest amounts of stock—the minimum threshold is $2,000—in order to submit proposals. The Daily Signal contacted Glass Lewis but did not receive a response. The post SEC to Investigate Role of Alleged Activist Insiders in Corporate Voting appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Think of all the grand gestures in this world. The motorcades, parades, and celebrations that occur when a president or prince visits a nation. The very foundation of the red carpet is glamour and awe. Modern rallies often welcome their distinguished guests to the stage with music blasting and sparks flying. Hardly ever do important people make an appearance without the whole shebang. With one exception—the most important Being who ever walked this earth. It’s Christmas time, which means we pay special attention to “the reason for the season”: the birth of Jesus Christ. And when we do so properly, what do we see? Sheer humility. You know the narrative—Mary and Joseph, shepherds, a manger. Mary, close to birth, needed shelter. The inn, however, had no room. And so, they stayed in the stable, where little baby Jesus was ultimately born. However, during a time in which we commonly focus on how He came into the world in such a humble place, I want to focus on how He came into the world in such a humble form. We’re not dealing with a good man who did good things in this world. No, we’re reflecting upon the very purpose behind Christmas, which involves the God of the universe. We’re talking about the incarnation of YAHWEH—the great I AM. We’re talking about the One who created the world and everything in it. The One whose mighty hand ordains all things — from the flooding of the earth in Noah’s time to the gentle fall of the leaves in Autumn. This God could have come in any form He wished. As Audrey Assad sang in the song “Winter Snow,” He could have come like a “mighty storm,” carrying “all the strength of a hurricane.” He “could’ve come like a forest fire, with the power of heaven in [His] flame.” He could have come accompanied by trembling earthquakes or blinding light. He could have come declaring His holiness—His sovereignty. But no… He came like a “winter snow. Quiet and soft and slow. Falling from the sky in the night to the earth below.” I can hardly think of a more humble, innocent, and precious way for our Savior—the King of kings and Lord of lords—to have come to us. So vulnerable. So small. So out of sight. In this fallen world, it’s “go big or go home.” Nearly everything comes back to how much attention, money, or possessions you have. If you have an abundance, then the world brands you as a somebody. But if you have nothing? Well, more often than not, you’re thrust aside as a nobody. And when Jesus entered this world, from a worldly perspective, He came with nothing—not even an actual room to be born in. By all earthly standards, He was a nobody. Philippians 2:5-8 paints the full picture: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” All throughout Scripture, we see how everything Christ did, everything He was, and every aspect of what He taught all came back to humility. His entire earthly life—from birth to death—spotlights humility. All while bearing the title of King. The most perfect, mighty, majestic, sovereign, and holy Being chose humility. He chose humanity’s form. Christ does not just choose the lowly—He placed Himself among the lowly. What better example could we ask for? Christ’s life, the humility that saturated every moment of it, completely flips the world’s script. When we’re told we can’t be satisfied unless we have more, Christ tells us we’re complete and satisfied in Him only. When the world demands perfection in order to be accepted, Christ cloaks us in His perfection. When the world tells us to perform for an audience of millions, Christ tells us: “Look to me and me alone.” To the world, we’re never enough. No matter how much you chase what it deems valuable, you will never stop chasing — and you will always come up unsatisfied. And yet, in Christ, we have all things. In fact, the very nature of our lowliness is what makes the gospel so breathtakingly beautiful. James 2:5 reminds us: “Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which He has promised to those who love Him?” Or as 2 Corinthians 8:9 echoes, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich.” Beloved, in the most loving way I say this: we are a bunch of nobodies. There is nothing in us, I should think, that would beckon the Father’s love over us. I can think of no comprehensible reason why God would send His one and only Son to die for us. Why, I often wonder, would Jesus go through so much pain and suffering, taking on sin and death, for a people that constantly fail Him? And to then turn around and give those people abundant life and a citizenship in heaven—it’s simply unfathomable! We all came into this world as little, crying, helpless babies. We all entered unable to survive without the intervention of doctors and the love and help of our parents or some form of caregiver. Even as we age, we’re frequently reminded of our frailty, as well as our dependence on that which is outside of ourselves. From start to finish, we see how, really, we aren’t all that important. No, we’re small and ordinary. We’re flawed and feeble. And yet, from being a babe to an adult in His mid-thirties, this is the form our Lord chose to mirror. This is the form that bears God’s image. This is the form of life He found worth dying for and communing with forever. Our King—mighty and powerful—is so tender. Even the birds of the air He cares for. The grass is caressed by his tender breezes. The flowers, with their soft petals, bloom at His command. And this is all the more striking when considering the same voice that cares for the smallest, most vulnerable aspects of this life also moves mountains, controls storms, and evokes reverent (or not so reverent) fear and trembling. It’s astounding, really. I mean, how could all of this be confined to a tiny baby? I’m truly unsure. But I am thankful—thankful for this wonderful reminder of humility. And so, as we gather around twinkling lights and exchange gifts this Christmas, let us pause to emulate that same humility in our own lives. In a season often dominated by excess and spectacle, may we choose the quiet path of service, kindness, and selflessness—mirroring the Savior who came not to be served, but to serve. Let this truth transform our hearts: the greatest power in the universe arrived in the gentlest whisper, inviting us to find our worth not in worldly acclaim, but in the eternal embrace of a humble King. In Him, our ordinary lives become extraordinary, and our weaknesses are turned to strength. Merry Christmas, and may the peace of Christ, born in a manger, dwell richly in you. Originally published by The Washington Stand. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Humble Arrival: Reflecting on the Incarnation’s Gentle Grace appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As America soon celebrates its 250th anniversary, it would be wise to look back to understand what allowed a small collection of colonies on the edge of the world to rise to the great power it became. This year marks the 81st anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, which began on Dec. 16, 1944, and ended a month later. It was one of the largest military operations in American history and is rightly recognized as a great Allied—especially American—riumph that led to the final collapse of the Third Reich and the end of World War II in the European theater. Memory of the war is fading. I don’t mean that Americans no longer think of World War II. Sometimes it seems like the only historical event people think about when evaluating national or world politics. Comparing every politician to Hitler and every international situation to 1939 cheapens the meaning of the war and its complex beginnings. But there are great and important lessons to be kept alive beyond the surface level pop history. We must nevertheless never forget what it took to create the “post-War world” that was often so favorable to the American people. Too often the lessons of the war applied today only relate to the leaders at the top, to the Franklin Delano Roosevelts and the Neville Chamberlains. As important as these men and leaders were to the course of events, the war was much bigger than that. At the Battle of the Bulge, the heaviest fighting took place on Christmas as German units pressed hard to break through Allied lines, reach the Meuse River, retake the port at Antwerp in Belgium and somehow, some way, stave off their defeat. Much of the hard fighting and bitterly cold, miserable conditions of the battle was famously portrayed in the HBO series, “Band of Brothers,” which followed Easy Company of the 101st Airborne. Many other divisions participated in the battle too. Though the Germans in some cases made notable advances after their surprise attack, their operation failed due in part to their own poor execution of an overly ambition plan and in even larger part to the hard fighting by men in the 28th Infantry Division, the 2nd Infantry, the 7th Armored, the 82nd Airborne and more. One historian, Peter Mansoor, wrote of the Battle of the Bulge that it was “a victory made possible in large measure by the valor and sacrifice of a relative handful of American divisions” carefully positioned in a “quiet” part of the front. He noted that through the tenacity of these few men at critical moments of the battle Allied reinforcements were able to stem and then reverse the German tide. They did so, Mansoor said, by capitalizing on American military strengths of “massed firepower, air superiority, tactical mobility, steadfast infantry, superior tank strength, and inexhaustible logistics.” These strengths could not be brought to bear without the “small unit” actions across the battlefield that “showed the American soldier at his best when the conditions he fought in were at their worst.” In a sense, this remarkable victory harkened back to the original patriots of our American Revolution, those who had crossed the freezing Delaware on Christmas night in 1775 and turned the fortunes of war in favor of the Patriot cause and to those who later suffered in the snow at Valley Forge. Through suffering and endurance, the Americans there showed their true qualities. Of the many, many remarkable aspects of the Battle of the Bulge beyond the fighting and sacrifice, the heroism, and tragedy of young lives cut short, is how it came to be that the Allied, mostly U.S. military, was able to triumph given the adverse circumstances. The tired but ferocious army that defeated the best the Wehrmacht could throw at it in late 1944 didn’t even really exist just five years before. On the eve of the greatest war in human history the United States was only beginning the process of rearming. It could reasonably be said that in the 1930s, Romania had a more powerful army than the U.S., hard to imagine at any point after 1945. Yet, a nation very much dedicated to peace was able, in just a few years, to muster and command the world’s most powerful combined armed forces, dominant in almost every measurable way. We won the war of industry in the world’s greatest industrial war. We won the war of technology in a war where technology was rapidly reshaping the battlefield. So much has been made of vaunted German “wonder weapons,” but the U.S. and to a certain extent the U.K. created and leaned on the technologies and innovations that would ultimately prove decisive like radar, time on target artillery strikes, proximity fuzes, and, of course, the atom bomb. To make these all work and come together effectively on the battlefield required not just the work of brilliant generals, scientists, and governments, but whole nations. It took countless men and women of competence, dedication, courage, and willpower to produce victory. And that’s something to remember this Christmas as we pass through another anniversary of that great battle with now very few surviving veterans. Our victory at the Battle of the Bulge and on battlefields across the globe were not produced through enforced diversity quotas or even appeals to “democracy” and humanity It was strength of arms, able diplomacy, and widespread commitment to the task at hand by a nation of people used to overcoming obstacles and making the unimaginable the reality. This is in large part the ideology of DEI, the acceptance of failure in the name of diversity. The abandonment of genuine merit, the willingness to tolerate mediocrity is so corrosive and is producing what will hopefully be a sustained backlash. The United States has from its beginning been a nation strongly attached to its ideals, to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and all the wonderful creations of a people committed to self-government. It has also been a nation of winners, filled with men and women relentlessly and restlessly dedicated to their industry, their craft, their career, and occasionally to war. We honor those before us by keeping their memory alive and by remaining as dedicated as they were, so that we may pass on the blessings of our labor and sacrifice to posterity as they did. The post America Must Continue to Heed the Lessons of the Battle of the Bulge appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Christmas celebration is one of joy and excitement. No matter your age there is always something special about Christmas morning and the days that follow. We know that we are a part of something unique and everlasting. Truly, Christmas reveals so much about life, faith and family. First, Christmas shows what life is about and what life’s goal is. These days are meant to invoke a sense of deep wonder. The Christian claim is that the God of the universe, who made the billions of stars and billions of galaxies—the God who knows everything about you—became man and was born of a woman. It is one thing to claim that God is real. “About nine-in-ten U.S. adults believe in God or another higher power,” according to the Pew Research Center. However, it is a totally different thing to claim that this God is personal, cares about you and became man to save you. While the culture does generally tend to be less interested in God there are signs of hope.  Recent studies from Pew also note that religious stability in America has remained steady since 2020, while highlighting that 70% of Americans are affiliated with a religion and 46% say they pray daily. The Christian claim is amazing because it is a truth claim. Followers of Jesus hold that he was God (as proven through his miracles and resurrection). That he was born at a real time and in a real place. That he fulfilled the well-over 300 prophecies of who the Messiah would be that are found written in the Hebrew Scriptures (which are written over thousands of years by dozens of people who did not know each other). If the Christian claim that Jesus is God and that he was born among us is true, then our lives are meant to revolve around him. It means that our God does not wait on the sidelines of existence but is involved in our lives. It also means that you can have a true relationship with God because He is always with you. This is the second critical reminder that Christmas reveals to us: faith is a relationship. For this reason, Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) that “being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.” Christmas means that God has a face. However, that also means that the God who became one of us can be ignored. The baby placed in the manger is tiny, seemingly insignificant. He is easily overlooked and ignored by the majority of those in Bethlehem that night. Christmas is an amazing celebration but it is also a challenge to humanity: God came so close to us that we can choose to be indifferent to Him. The invitation of this season, and the Christian faith, is to accept his call to make Him the center of our lives because then we enter into the love story of Christianity. Finally, Christmas reveals critical characteristics for what makes a family healthy and fully alive. God is born among us, into a family. This is something we share with Jesus Christ and every single person to ever live. We enter this world and we are a part of a family. Even if our family has immense brokenness and challenges, we belong to a mother and father. Christmas ought to remind us that families who pray together, stay together. A report from Open Public Health Journal shows that faith affects the health of marriages and the family unit as a whole. “Religious practices (prayer, rituals) also help couples better manage anger and take more responsibility during conflicts.” We see this in the lives of Mary and Joseph who had no place for the King of Kings to be born but whose trust in God allowed them to trust in each other rather than become bitter about their circumstances. Their faith united them and allowed them to see that God was with them (literally) in their challenges. A study published by Sutherland Institute reports on the impact of faith on the family as a whole: “Parents who attend church often promote positive outcomes for their children. Religious fathers tend to be more involved with their children, and religiously involved mothers report higher quality parent-child relationships.” Religious families center the family on a focus bigger than themselves. When we live in the knowledge that we are loved and cared for by God, we become more willing to sacrifice for those that we love the most. So, this Christmas let us remember that being faithful is not an ambiguous task; it is a relationship that allows us to become fully alive. Celebrating Christmas from the perspective of one’s relationship with God only makes us more willing to see this baby born in Bethlehem in his true identity and be transformed along the way. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Groundbreaking Impact of Christmas appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. There’s been quite a controversial article by one Jacob Savage in the conservative magazine Compact. In it, he describes the destruction of a whole generation, career-wise, of white males, particularly in the entertainment industry, screenwriting, journalism, the humanities, academia. And his thesis is tri-part. He says that, traditionally, white males had dominated these fields, as they did others. And that was a part of demography. After all, until about 1965 or ’70, 90% of the country was so-called white, but as immigration increased and there was more emphasis on feminism, civil rights, the white male hierarchy decided to help people who otherwise would not be encouraged to apply to these marquee jobs. And this was sort of a proto affirmative action. And then it was reified by the government. And so, we saw the beginning in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s of affirmative action, and this reduced the number of white males from their demo from being overrepresented, let’s say 70%, when their demographic now is 35, down to the millennium proportionality. There was no disproportionate demographics. They were more or less proportionate in screenwriting and writing and movie scripts, etc. Right before and then especially after George Floyd, there was something, I guess we would call it reparations or repertory hiring, admissions. In my case, I watched Stanford University go down to 9% white males were admitted to their freshman class, even though that demographic is about 35% of the population. And this radically changed journalism, screenwriting, academia. And as Mr. Savage points out, some of the exclusionary actions were outright and unabashed, I would call it, racism. He doesn’t, he says prejudicial behavior. So, you would get down to 8%, 9%, 10%, 11%, 12% white males. That meant there was almost no opportunity. And instead, women and minorities were hired. He ends the article by suggesting that if you get rid of meritocracy—and all of these fields, forget about the tribal affiliations of those who were in them, they did have meritocratic standards. So, I guess I came away from his article thinking, if you don’t think the movies are very good today, the “Star Wars” franchise has gone downhill, the “James Bond” franchise has gone downhill, the entertainment at the halftime shows are pretty bad, Disneyland is not very welcoming anymore, you know the scenario. It’s because we destroyed standards and we replaced them with tribal chauvinism. Where I think some of you are gonna disagree with this very powerful and well-written article is that he allots no anger, no blame. He says that the white male hierarchy that implemented these changes on another generation, i.e., his generation, it is not to blame, and the people who took advantage of these repertory or race-based or gender-based hiring should not be faulted either. They just took advantage of a welcoming position. And then, rather than being defined, he sort of shrugs his shoulders and says, I told my children maybe I didn’t succeed. It was kind of tragic. I do blame the older white hierarchy, mostly liberal professors, liberal journalists, liberal directors, liberal actors, liberal screenwriters. They all had nice cushy jobs. They earned them. Then they decided in their utopian generosity that they were going to admit people into their guilds without the same criterion that they had had because it made them feel better. In other words, they didn’t accept Tom Sowell’s or Shelby Steele’s advice or Jason Riley’s that says, when you do that, you’re going to encourage mediocrity and opportunist, and you’re going to deprecate the work of African Americans or Hispanics that are very talented. But that’s what you’re going to do just to gratify your own sense of ego and shame. And that’s exactly what happened. So, I do blame that group because all they had to do is say, they could have said: “We have to have a radical change at Disney Pictures. We have to have a radical change at sitcoms. We have to have a radical change in screenplays. And because we have seven white males in the journalism room and we’re all 70, we’re making great money, one of us is gonna have to retire and give our slots to other white males that are young, and then we can hire additional ones.” They didn’t do that. It was all, I’m going to experiment on these Guinea pigs without any exposure of my title, my job, my salary, my benefits. And they destroyed a whole series of genres. The other thing that I would say is I do blame the people who took advantage of that, especially those who knew they were not qualified. And then to stay in those positions when they did not have the meritocratic criteria, they had to perpetuate the idea of systematic racism. What do I mean by that? Anybody, to take one example, who listened to Joy Reid on MSNBC, “The ReidOut,” or whatever her show was, knew that she was A) not truthful, B) paranoid, C) hypocritical, D) ignorant. I don’t care where she went to school or what kind of degree she got, she was not qualified for that job. She tanked all of their ratings. People did not wanna watch her. And I don’t think that she was an innocent victim. I think she took advantage of that goodwill, especially when she was supercharged after the death of George Floyd to take advantage of that situation and to voice, I think, opinions that were objectively racism. So, not everybody, but I do think people took advantage of this system. What did he end up with, Mr. Savage? He sort of said this was so unfair and so tragic. We lost such talent. It was so unfair. Yes. But I would urge all of you listeners to read a little essay in response by Jeremy Carl. He said, no, no, that’s not—you’ve got the diagnosis right, but you don’t have the therapy right. We don’t just shrug our shoulders and say that was unfair, and it’s tragic, and millions of lives were destroyed. We fight back. And that’s what President Donald Trump has done with the destruction of DEI. And Jeremy Carl said it’s racism. Whether it’s white on black or black or white, or white on minority or minority on white, doesn’t matter. You don’t address a perceived injustice by creating a greater injustice. You don’t destroy the lives of a whole generation of people for the goodwill of your own spirit or something to make you feel good. No. These people were culpable. They did great damage, and they have to be held accountable. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The War on White Men Is Real—Here’s the Proof appeared first on The Daily Signal.