Klaus Schwab's sudden departure was on bad terms, coinciding with shocking misconduct allegations



Klaus Schwab announced on April 1 that he was stepping down as chairman of the World Economic Forum.

While the technocratic globalist organization indicated that its founder would complete his departure by January 2027, Schwab revealed Monday that he was stepping down immediately — and did so without providing a reason.

The Wall Street Journal revealed on Tuesday why Schwab left his post 20 months early.

Despite his protest, Schwab's organization initiated an independent investigation Sunday into allegations that he engaged in financial and ethical misconduct.

The WEF's board of trustees received an anonymous whistleblower letter last week detailing alleged "systemic governance failures and abuses of power that have taken place over many years under the unchecked authority of Klaus Schwab."

According to the letter, which was attributed to unnamed current and former WEF employees, Schwab used forum funds to pay for private, in-room massages at hotels; asked junior employees to take thousands of dollars from ATMs out on his behalf; and allowed sexual harassment and other abuses to go unchecked in the workplace.

If the third of these complaints sounds familiar, that's because it has been lodged against the forum multiple times before.

The Journal indicated in a damning June 2024 report that "under Schwab's decades-long oversight, the forum has allowed to fester an atmosphere hostile to women and black people in its own workplace."

The report — deemed "inaccurate" by the forum but based on internal complaints, email exchanges, and interviews with current and past WEF employees — contained allegations that: pregnant workers and returning mothers were mistreated; senior managers sexually harassed female underlings; black employees faced racist commentary and were passed over for promotions; and Schwab "made suggestive comments to [former staffers] that made them uncomfortable."

'He never had a chance to give his side of the story.'

One employee even filed a lawsuit in New York last year claiming the WEF was "hostile to women and black employees," and the WEF settled on undisclosed terms.

The letter sent to the board of trustees last week reportedly also had much to say about the globalist's wife, Hilde Schwab.

Hilde Schwab, a former WEF employee, scheduled "token" WEF-funded meetings abroad so that she could go on luxurious forum-funded trips, said the letter. She also allegedly bogarted a forum-owned 1958 modernist luxury property next to the WEF's Geneva headquarters, which the organization spent $30 million to buy and $20 million to renovate.

A spokesman for the couple claimed that the Schwabs live nearby and have used the modernist mansion only for forum events. As for the other allegations, the spokesman told the Journal that the couple denies them all and intends to sue the authors and "anybody who spreads these mistruths."

The board indicated that its audit and risk committee's Sunday decision to launch a probe into the allegations was unanimous and "made after consultation with external legal counsel."

Schwab tried to impress upon board members that the allegations were bogus, and unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to address the board during its emergency meeting.

"He never had a chance to give his side of the story to the board or the audit committee," said the globalist's spokesman.

When he resigned on Monday, Schwab reportedly forfeited his pension, which was worth over $6 million.

The WEF told the Journal that it takes the new "allegations seriously, but they remain unproven, and will await the outcome of the investigation to comment further."

This will be the second investigation launched into the WEF in recent months.

The organization previously tasked the American firm Covington and Burling and the Swiss firm Homburger with looking into claims of workplace discrimination and harassment.

The external lawyers concluded in a summary of their assessment that they "did not find the forum had committed any legal violations" and "did not substantiate" the misconduct allegations against Schwab.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Women giving up on marriage? Data reveals who’s happiest



While millions of young girls in the not-so-distant past dreamt endlessly of their wedding days, American women are apparently now flat out rejecting the institution of marriage — believing it won’t bring them happiness.

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “Over half of single women said they believe they were happier than their married counterparts.” The article looks at a 2024 AEI survey of 5,386 adults, where just over a third of surveyed single men said the same.

And in a 2022 Pew survey of single adults, only 34% of single women and 54% of single men were “looking for romance.” This is down from 38% and 61% in 2019.


“What’s not understandable to me is this perception that married people are not happy,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” comments. “Women really hold that strongly, men to a lesser degree, but still have that in their opinion.”

While the stats reflect single women believing marriage leads to unhappiness, the stats also prove them wrong.

Per the latest General Social Survey, the Institute for Family Studies found that the answer to “Who is happier?” is very clear.

Married women with children were by far the happiest with 39.5% reporting as “very happy” and 47.6% reporting as “pretty happy.” Another 12.9% reported being “not too happy.”

Only 21.5% of unmarried women with no children reported being “very happy,” while 53.8% reported being “pretty happy,” and 24.6% reported being “not too happy.”

“I think a lot of people convince others that, actually, married life sucks, and it doesn’t. It’s actually great,” Stu says. “When you’re in conversations with your friends, if you’re a married person, don’t try to scare them away.”

“You’re scaring them away from something that will probably benefit them,” he adds.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Report: Medicaid Double Payments Cost Taxpayers $4.3 Billion In Three Years

Is this what Democrats want to defend when they say they want to 'protect Medicaid'?

3 Ways Women Can Make Themselves More Marriageable

Is it really good or preferable for women to contribute taxes rather than the entire next generation?

Weekend Beacon 3/9/25

The Lenten season has begun, which for Catholics is a time of prayer, fasting, and abstinence. A friend suggested I give up alcohol for Lent. And maybe I can give up breathing too. I jest—people have given up far more and for a lot longer. 

Which brings me to Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik, who reviews Forbidden: A 3,000-Year History of Jews and the Pig by Jordan D. Rosenblum.

The post Weekend Beacon 3/9/25 appeared first on .

The Columnist as Moral Compass

A book-length collection of 81 op-eds written over a period of seven years by a single author should not be readable. And in most writers’ hands it wouldn’t be. While Peggy Noonan’s latest book, A Certain Idea of America, fits that description, it is instead a compelling read that brings moral clarity to a tumultuous period of American public life.

The post The Columnist as Moral Compass appeared first on .

The right needs to stop hiding and start speaking up



Last week, the Wall Street Journal published a feature on the ideological divide in a southeastern Pennsylvania borough — where I happen to live. The article featured a photo of Elizabethtown High School, about half a mile from my home, with a group of teenagers and an adult organizer outside, calling for greater recognition of transgender identities. According to the report, the borough is “tearing itself apart” over “preferred pronouns.”

One protester held a sign mocking churches that opposed the left’s political agenda, a message that borough residents would recognize as part of the broader culture war. Pastor Doug Lamb of LifeGate Church, located nearby, has been outspoken against allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports. Evangelical Protestants have been at the forefront of this battle.

The right should not wait for leftist aggression to make its presence known. Instead of retreating into silence, the local right must match the left’s level of commitment.

Their activism played a key role in the local school board’s recent 8-1 vote to ban transgender athletes from contact sports. The board has a history of taking conservative stances, including a 1990s resolution praising “the traditional family.” At the time, board members also condemned unionized teachers for promoting “pro-homosexual propaganda against parents’ wishes.”

For years, I have written about the culture war in the northwestern corner of Lancaster County, an area known for its large Amish population. This is not a battle between evenly matched sides. Most of my neighbors are conservative Protestants, and the town votes overwhelmingly Republican. Donald Trump won handily in last November’s election, and our Republican congressman, Lloyd Smucker — who takes pride in his Amish ancestry — wins bigly in these parts.

The cultural conflict in Elizabethtown would not be happening if conservatives were in the minority. If this were Waltham, Massachusetts, or Portland, Maine, the right would have little influence. Leftists excel at making their opponents uncomfortable and forcing them to conceal their beliefs. They are also far more relentless in shoving their views in everyone’s face.

Around here, traditionalists have been only intermittently engaged in the cultural battles waged by the left. While progressives remain in a constant state of mobilization, the right tends to focus on other aspects of life — attending church socials, maintaining their lawns, and going to Little League games. The Wall Street Journal reports that those on the local right are energized by having a president who supports them, but they should not rely on help from Washington.

Even before last year’s election, the left — despite being vastly outnumbered — put up at least as many Kamala Harris signs as there were signs for Trump. Trump signs routinely disappeared overnight, but Democrat signs remained untouched.

I’ve noticed something else over the years about this asymmetrical confrontation. The social progressives show far more pugnacity than their adversaries, even when their adversaries enjoy a numerical edge. Left-wing militants at our college, among the unionized teachers in the local schools, and among the embattled feminists in my neighborhood never hide where they’re coming from. In fact, these militants want everyone to know where they stand, even if you don’t want to listen.

My conservative neighbors take a different approach. Many hesitate to share their political views, fearing they might lose friends or customers if they speak openly. The boldest statement they make is often a bland lawn sign indicating “We Support the Police.”

At the Turkey Hill store down the block, however, no one hides their MAGA loyalty. The same is true for some high school dropouts and others who fall slightly below our concept of social respectability. Fundamentalists will also admit to supporting Trump, though their endorsement often comes with a reminder that we are living in the end times.

The right should not wait for leftist aggression to make its presence known. Instead of retreating into silence, conservatives should provide clear, reasoned arguments against progressive ideology — not just biblical references, however much we may respect their moral authority.

More importantly, the local right must match the left’s level of commitment. Don’t hide your views! There is a middle ground between bullying neighbors and behaving like scaredy-cats. Rather than responding only when forced to defend traditional family values, conservatives should be as outspoken about their beliefs as leftists are about their own.

Above all, the right must make clear to the other side that we deserve our own “safe space.” The woke left already controls and in some cases plainly tyrannizes over most of the densely populated regions of this country. It doesn’t need our borough as an extra trophy.

WSJ distorts Vance's comments on Ukraine, Russia — but social media users quickly correct the record



Social media users quickly corrected the record after the Wall Street Journal appeared to grossly distort comments Vice President JD Vance made regarding Ukraine and Russia during a recent interview.

On Friday, Bojan Pancevski and Alexander Ward of the WSJ published an article based on an exclusive interview with Vance. The headline for the article — "Vance Wields Threat of Sanctions, Military Action to Push Putin Into Ukraine Deal" — has drawn severe criticism online.

'As we've always said, American troops should never be put into harm's way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security.'

William Martin, the communications director for the vice president, immediately tweeted out screenshots of a transcript of the interview, revealing that the headline did not accurately reflect Vance's statements.

According to the screenshots, Vance admitted that President Donald Trump has an array of "instruments of pressure" he can use to convince President Vladimir Putin to abide by any agreement reached with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Among them are "economic" and "military tools of leverage."

Vance also reiterated that whenever President Donald Trump walks into a negotiation, "everything is on the table."

However, the vice president did not threaten sanctions or military action. Instead, he simply declined to eliminate any possible leverage Trump could use as he works to bring peace to the region.

There is also little chance that the interviewer misunderstood Vance's point. A screenshot of the transcript showed that the interviewer asked a follow-up question to "make sure": "So just want to make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that even though the possibility of a Ukraine NATO accession at the end of this process, or even the presence of U.S. troops in Ukraine is not officially off the table?"

Trump "wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with [Zelenskyy]," Vance told the WSJ, even as he "doesn't like the idea of moving Ukraine into NATO."

Martin claimed that the framing from the WSJ was "fake news."

"This is pure fake news. Compare the transcript of @JDVance's conversation with WSJ to the headline being run here. The Vice President didn’t make any threats. He simply stated the fact that no one is going to take options away from President Trump as these negotiations begin," he wrote.

According to a post from Libs of TikTok, the WSJ article was even slapped with a community note denying the accuracy of the headline, but as of early Friday afternoon, no such community note is currently attached to the WSJ post.

'Such liars. That’s not at all what VP Vance said.'

Vance reacted to the WSJ headline by quote-tweeting Republican strategist Andrew Surabian, who called the headline "one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time" and likened the WSJ to the Huffington Post.

Vance did not mention anything about the headline or the WSJ in his message. Rather, he reiterated the administration's stance on the Ukraine-Russia war:

President Trump is the ultimate deal maker and will bring peace to the region by ending the war in Ukraine. As we've always said, American troops should never be put into harm's way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security. This war is between Russia and Ukraine.

Other social media users have also excoriated the WSJ for the misleading headline:

  • "Who wrote this headline?Whoever it was didn't read the article because J.D. said nothing like that," said Brick Suit, an eccentric figure frequently spotted wearing a brick-patterned ensemble at Trump campaign rallies.
  • "Such liars. That’s not at all what VP Vance said," said a user called Queen Isabel.
  • "No one takes you seriously anymore. You’ve lied, yet again. You are just a bunch of partisan hacks, and the people who buy your bs are just as bad. Keep it up, you’re sending yourselves into an irrelevant oblivion," came another popular response.

In an era in which news is regularly aggregated by other outlets, such a specious headline can have far-reaching implications. For instance, the New York Post similarly adopted the WSJ framing, writing up an article entitled "JD Vance threatens Russia with sanctions, possible military action if Putin doesn’t agree to end Ukraine war."

Pancevski, Ward, and Victor Nava, author of the Post article, did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Woke WSJ reporter's past raises suspicions about her doxxing of DOGE staffer



Marko Elez briefly served as a staff member on the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency advisory group. Elez resigned Thursday after a brand-new reporter at the Wall Street Journal dredged up some unsavory social media posts from a deleted X account and pressed the White House about the 25-year-old's connection to the remarks.

While Elez might ultimately be afforded a second chance — a possibility raised by Vice President JD Vance, Elon Musk, and others — critics are now giving a second look to the resume of the woke reporter who pursued his professional demise.

Keen observers noted that Katherine Long, who started working for the Wall Street Journal only last week, previously worked for agencies that are now undergoing significant reform as the result of changes implemented by the Trump administration, in some cases at the urging of the DOGE.

Based on her past work experience, some critics have suggested that Long's hit piece on Elez might be something more than just her latest doxxing effort, perhaps instead a form of "retaliation" on behalf of the scandal-plagued government forces with which she once rubbed shoulders.

Before hounding conservatives and Republicans for Business Insider and then working for the New York Times and the Journal, Long worked at the State Department; at the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, the State Department's extension to the Pentagon; and for the U.S. Agency for International Development, apparently through the American Institutes for Research.

In a profile on Fearey, Long said, "Before matriculating at Columbia, I'd been working for the federal government, managing USAID projects in Central Asia."

Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, noted, "Literally the only resume point missing is CIA."

"Katherine Long's resume looks a lot like a regime change operative," wrote Allum Bokhari, the managing director at the Foundation for Freedom Online.

'She should be fired immediately.'

Some critics have also seized upon the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project's Friday indication that the "Business Insider number Katherine uses is linked to an Ok.Ru (Okra) account under the pseudonym Katya Khashimova" as a potential sign that the reporter has concealed her true identity. However, when previously writing for the Columbia Journalism Review and initially when writing for the Seattle Times, the woke reporter went by Katherine Khashimova Long.

Blaze News reached out to Long for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

Amid the speculation about Long's motivation and background, Elon Musk called her "a disgusting and cruel person" and stated that "she should be fired immediately."

Long noted in her article for the Journal that after co-founding a company to help connect high-schoolers with mentors to improve their chances of going college, then working at SpaceX, Starlink, and X, Elez went to work for the DOGE. The newly minted Journal reporter made sure to note that the Musk-run outfit "has radically upended the federal government in the weeks since President Trump's inauguration, including by largely dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development."

Without making any mention of her past relationship to USAID, Long went on to detail a handful of unsavory tweets posted to X by an account deleted in December that supposedly belonged to Elez.

In July, the user whose handle was allegedly @marko_elez but changed to @nullllptr, wrote, "Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool."

"99% of Indian H1Bs will be replaced by slightly smarter LLMs, they're going back don't worry guys," the user reportedly wrote in December, presumably referring to large language models along the lines of ChatGPT.

' I don't think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid's life.'

In September, the user reportedly wrote, "You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity."

After Long asked the White House about the deleted account, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that Elez, who did not respond to the Journal's requests for comment, had resigned from his role.

Elon Musk posted a poll Friday morning, asking whether the DOGE should bring back the "staffer who made inappropriate statements via a now deleted pseudonym?" With over 385,000 votes tallied, 78% of participants in the polls suggested that Elez should be brought back.

Vice President Vance wrote in response to the poll, "I obviously disagree with some of Elez's posts, but I don't think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid's life. We shouldn't reward journalists who try to destroy people. Ever. So I say bring him back."

"If he's a bad dude or a terrible member of the team, fire him for that," added Vance.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If You Think Trump’s J6 Pardons Are About The ‘Insurrection,’ You’re Missing The Point

A pardon only ends what they — and by political affiliation, us — have been put through for almost a decade.