


by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,
The Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation into the University of California (UC) system to determine whether its efforts to boost faculty diversity run afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws.
In a June 26 announcement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) stated that it is probing whether the university’s “UC 2030 Capacity Plan” and related campus-level programs constitute a pattern or practice of unlawful employment discrimination based on race and sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Public employers are bound by federal laws that prohibit racial and other employment discrimination,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the department’s Civil Rights Division. “Institutional directives that use race- and sex-based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law.”
According to the Justice Department, the UC system’s strategic hiring plan explicitly encourages campuses to measure and increase the number of new hires by race and sex to meet internal diversity targets. Officials described the framework as potentially unlawful, citing provisions in the plan that direct campuses to recruit “diverse” faculty in line with demographic benchmarks.
The UC 2030 Capacity Plan outlines several such goals, including the recruitment of at least 40 percent of its graduate students from its own undergraduate programs and from other minority-serving institutions, including Hispanic-serving institutions, historically black colleges and universities, and tribal colleges and universities. The plan also outlines a goal to hire more than 1,100 new ladder-rank faculty members by 2030—an effort the university says will help diversify its academic workforce, noting that new hires tend to be more diverse than the existing faculty.
“Identity-based hiring is not only wrong—it is illegal,” Dhillon wrote in a post on social media. “Public employers ignore our civil rights laws at their peril.”
A request for comment sent to the University of California by The Epoch Times was not immediately returned.
A university spokesperson told The Hill that the university “is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.”
“The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported. We will work in good faith with the Department of Justice as it conducts its investigation,” the spokesperson said.
The probe marks the latest in a series of moves by the federal government targeting higher education policies seen as promoting identity-based ideologies and practices. On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued executive orders prohibiting federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, saying such programs violate anti-discrimination laws and undermine “national unity” and “traditional American values.”
“These illegal ... policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society,” Trump said in a Jan. 21 executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”
In recent years, a number of U.S. colleges have adopted DEI frameworks. A 2023 report by The Heritage Foundation found that 81 percent of surveyed community colleges had some form of DEI infrastructure, such as mission statements, staff, or task forces. At institutions with more than 10,000 students, that figure climbed to 96 percent. The larger the school, the more likely it was to institutionalize DEI.
Since Trump resumed office and began enforcing restrictions on race and identity-based funding, a number of colleges and universities have begun scaling back or dismantling their diversity programs to maintain eligibility for federal support.
by Gary Abernathy via The Empowerment Alliance,
A few short months ago, much of the world seemed doomed to a bleak energy future, with unreliable, taxpayer-subsidized “renewables” being foisted upon homes and businesses by governments kneeling at the altar of the climate cult. The result was nation after nation winning plaudits from the extreme environmental movement, but increasingly incapable of meeting the energy demands of the 21st Century.
Thanks to U.S. voters in the 2024 elections, the world’s leading superpower has reversed course – and where America leads, the world tends to follow. Today, there’s renewed optimism that our energy resources will meet future demands – particularly as it relates to natural gas, the most affordable, reliable and clean choice among traditional energy sources.
In some cases, the turnaround is in the form of projects producing more gas for domestic use. But even when U.S. projects transport gas to other countries, the new infrastructure, additional jobs and an expanded tax base combine to benefit states and local communities.
In addition to the new gas pipelines from Pennsylvania to New York previously highlighted in this space – along with a growing list of other projects – three recently announced developments highlight the resurgence of natural gas.
1. Alaska LNG project. Once considered a lost opportunity, there is renewed interest in a project on Alaska’s North Slope “that would deliver vast amounts of natural gas … in an 800-mile pipeline, super-chill it in Southcentral Alaska, and transport the liquefied natural gas overseas to countries like Japan, Korea and Taiwan,” according to the Anchorage Daily News.
Some reports have suggested that President Trump’s tariff threats played a part in getting Asia’s attention. Whatever the case, delegations from those countries trekked to Alaska in early June “expressing interest in the project and also seeking to learn more about it. A Taiwanese official even said Alaska LNG could one day become that country’s primary source of energy, if the project is built,” the Daily News reported.
While there remain skeptics due to the project’s cost, others are optimistic. State Rep. Chuck Kopp (R) said the interest from Asian representatives and other favorable developments “give him confidence that it will be built starting in the next two or three years.”
In addition to supplying foreign countries, the project would also provide more natural gas within Alaska’s borders, available to Fairbanks by 2028 or 2029, according to the report.
2. Louisiana LNG project. A $28 billion LNG export project recently broke ground in Louisiana, slated to bring jobs and an expanded local tax base.
“Upon completion, Venture Global expects to become the largest LNG exporter in the United States and the second largest in the world,” according to the trade news site Offshore Energy. “Recently, CP2 received final approval and notices to proceed from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).”
In addition to providing U.S. natural gas to customers around the world, the project is expected to mean more than $4 billion in local property taxes during its operation and support 3,000 jobs in the state, including 400 direct, permanent employees.
The project’s impact will reach far beyond Louisiana’s borders, with roughly 7,500 direct construction jobs and “tens of thousands of indirect subcontractor, part-time, and full-time jobs in over 30 states,” according to the report.
3. Texas data center gas power plants. Texas is ground zero for many of the crucial new AI data centers springing up to meet demand. Previously, it was assumed that these server farms would be powered by wind or solar, meaning long wait times before the centers could go online. But thanks to government policies friendlier to proven traditional resources, those plans are changing.
Across Texas “a frantic race to boot up energy-hungry data centers has led many developers to plan their own gas-fired power plants rather than wait for connection to the state’s public grid. Egged on by supportive government policies, this buildout promises to lock in strong gas demand for a generation to come,” according to The Texas Tribune.
“Operating alone, a wind or solar farm can’t run a data center,” the article noted. “Battery technologies still can’t store such large amounts of energy for the length of time required to provide steady, uninterrupted power for 24 hours per day as data centers require.”
Facing a “tidal wave” of new AI projects, companies are increasingly partnering with natural gas companies to “fuel the new era of demand.”
The Tribune story includes standard-issue climate cult handwringing. But it drives home the reality that “the yearslong wait times for turbines has quickly become the (AI) industry’s largest constraint in an otherwise positive outlook,” and quotes one energy economy expert as saying, “If you’re looking at a five-year lead time, that’s not going to help Alexa or Siri today.”
Thanks to radical policies of the recent past, the U.S. and much of the world seemed hell-bent on phasing out natural gas and other reliable energy sources, racing instead toward endless cycles of brownouts, blackouts, and complete grid failures brought on by the inadequacies of “alternatives.”
In the nick of time, thanks to President Trump and other forward-thinking leaders, the turnaround has begun – and natural gas is leading the way.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/three-big-projects-offer-hope-our-energy-nightmare-ending
In the hours after the American strike on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, CNN’s Natasha Bertrand got what would once have been the scoop of a lifetime, a leaked report showing little damage had been done. But it turns out that it is now all but certain that Bertrand and CNN were manipulated by political actors.
In the days since, everyone from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Israeli government, the Central Intelligence Agency, to President Trump himself have all assessed that far more damage was done than the initial "low confidence" leaked report indicated.
The incident underscores a serious problem for journalism: The instant credulity which the liberal media gives to any leaker with information harmful to President Trump is leaving the American citizen badly misinformed.
We all owe a debt to the leaker who acts selflessly and altruistically to reveal important information the government is hiding. But leakers who peddle selective information simply to damage the president for partisan reasons? That's a different species altogether. Reporters have to be able to spot the difference in order to get the public good information put in proper context.
The reason that journalists have traditionally given leakers a high level of trust is that they are supposedly putting themselves in harm's way to reveal the truth. This is similar to the legal concept that an admission against one’s own interest carries greater weight.

A map shows damage to Iran's Fordow nuclear site after being struck by the United States in Operation Midnight Hammer. (Fox News)
But in today’s political and media environment, leakers are almost never caught and punished. We still have no idea who leaked the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, for example, so these leakers, these insiders, have learned to game the system.
This time, it is essential that the Trump administration focus on finding and punishing the Fordow leakers. Doing so could quickly and dramatically improve American journalism.
When Bertrand allegedly talked to seven people for her story minimizing the damage done to the Iranian nuclear program, did she ask herself why these deep state folks wanted the half-baked story rushed out? Because, it almost certainly wasn’t pure patriotic duty.
Had it turned out to be true that President Trump exaggerated the damage to Fordow, and a leaker put himself at risk just to let the U.S. and world know that Iran still wielded an imminent nuclear threat, perhaps that would have been a righteous act. But the leaked report came well before a full assessment had been done and was replete with cautionary language. There was far, far less to this report than met the eye. Whether it was the leaker or Bertrand herself who hid this important context matters little. It's up to the press to put such information into proper perspective.
Did anyone at CNN say, "Hey, you know, there could be a political agenda behind this, and we might not be getting the whole story?" It sure doesn’t seem like it.
CNN claims that they said from the start that the report was low confidence, but Media Research Center has the receipts. Bertrand’s initial reporting does not say anything about "low confidence." Either her trusty sources left that part out, or she was lying by omission.
For days after that, CNN ran with this story, with every show leading with the blockbuster leak that is proving to be politically motivated nonsense.
I regret to inform you, dear reader, that CNN and outlets of its ilk are not going to change or reform. The Trump administration can sue them all they want, as it is threatening to do to CNN and The New York Times in this case, but that’s not the answer.
The answer is to punish the leakers. The answer is to return to the original transaction, which was, we will take your leak seriously because you are risking jail to reveal it. Without the jail part, the whole concept falls to pieces. Leaks can simply be political hits, with no fingerprints.
Whoever the deep-state Trump haters are who leaked this report damaged Trump’s ability to negotiate with Iran and potentially put methods and sources of intelligence at risk by citing signals intelligence.
For these reasons alone, the leakers, who were in positions of knowledge and trust, need to be punished. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was right this week when she said they "should go to jail."
When it comes to anti-Trump stories, CNN is like a heroin addict, and these deep-state leakers are their connection, providing endless fixes of short-term bliss that, in the long run, have cratered the network’s credibility.
It's not enough to punish the addict. We have to punish the dealers who peddle half-truths to undermine the president of the United States.
Put simply, it's time to make secret information classified again. To end this game of deep state officials playing footsie with the liberal media, we need Natasha Bertrand to start hearing from her sources, "Sorry, I’m not going to jail for this."
Donald Trump ran, and twice won, on a promise to drain the swamp, to make the DC bureaucracy more efficient and effective. Is it any wonder when the targets of this effort go running to the news media to undermine his administration?
This time the message must be loud and clear to the leakers that if you break the law you are going to jail, it doesn’t matter how much you hate Donald Trump or how righteous you believe that hatred is.
Once that is understood, then maybe, just maybe, the deep state to fake news misinformation pipeline can once and for all be destroyed.
David Marcus is a columnist living in West Virginia and the author of "Charade: The COVID Lies That Crushed A Nation."
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/david-marcus-how-jailing-deep-state-leakers-could-good-journalism