From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

Protestors rallied in London in opposition to ‘BritCard’, which would require the personal information of all UK workers

Thousands of protestors gathered in London to voice their opposition to the UK government’s plan to introduce mandatory digital IDs.

Last Saturday, the protestors marched through central London carrying signs that read “No to Digital ID,” “If You Accept Digital ID Today, You’ve Accepted Social Credit Tomorrow,” and “Once Scanned, Never Free.”

The protests came in response to Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing the government’s plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID, called “BritCard,” for everyone who wants to work in the UK. The plan has been met with a strong backlash from the public, including protests in other cities, as reported by LifeSiteNews. Almost three million people have signed a petition opposing the government’s plan to make the “BritCard” mandatory for all workers by 2029. According to the petition, “no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system,” which it describes as a “step towards mass surveillance and digital control.”

Starmer and his government used the problem of illegal immigration, for which they are at least partly responsible, as a pretext to mandate digital ID. However, critics say the real purpose of the scheme is to introduce mass surveillance of British citizens in order to control them.

The globalist NGO of the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the “Tony Blair Institute for Global Change,” is one of the premier proponents of the digital ID scheme.

The protest in London was led by former Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who was expelled from the Conservative Party in 2023 over his opposition to the COVID shots.

Silkie Carlo, director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, told the Daily Mail that digital ID was “fast becoming a digital permit required to live our everyday lives.”

“Starmer has sold his Orwellian digital ID scheme to the public on the lie that it will only be used to stop illegal working but now the truth, buried in the small print, is becoming clear,” she continued.

“We now know that digital IDs could be the backbone of a surveillance state and used for everything from tax and pensions to banking and education.”

“The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric system is sinister, unjustified and prompts the chilling question of just what he thinks the ID will be used for in the future.”

“No one voted for this and millions of people who have signed the petition against it are simply being ignored,” Carlo concluded.

The BritCard would be stored on smartphones and include personal details such as name, date of birth, residency status, nationality, a photograph, and potentially more sensitive personal data. The government is reportedly considering introducing digital IDs for children as young as 13.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the proposal was a “gimmick that will do nothing to stop the boats,” while the head of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, said he was “firmly opposed” to it.

Farage has vowed to undo any digital ID system rolled out by the Labour government if he becomes UK’s next prime minister.

“It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalize the rest of us,” Farage said regarding the BritCard. “The state should never have this much power.”

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The energy sector has long been a lightning rod for policy battles, but few moments crystallize the tension between environmental activism and economic reality quite like David Bookbinder’s recent admission. A veteran litigator who’s spent years spearheading lawsuits against major oil companies on behalf of Colorado municipalities — including Boulder — Bookbinder let the cat out of the bag during a recent Federalist Society panel.

In an all-too-rare acknowledgement of the lawfare campaign’s real goal, Bookbinder admitted that he views the lawsuits mainly as a proxy for a carbon tax. In other words, the winning or losing of any of the cases is irrelevant; in Bookbinder’s view, the process becomes the punishment as companies and ultimately consumers pay the price for using oil and gas and the industry’s refined products.

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. … [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

The cynicism is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

On one hand, the fact that winning is irrelevant to the plaintiff firms who bring the cases has become obvious over the last two years as case after case has been dismissed by judges in at least ten separate jurisdictions. The fact that almost every case has been dismissed on the same legal grounds only serves to illustrate that reality.

Bookbinder’s frank admission lands with particular force at a pivotal juncture. In late September, the Department of Justice, along with 26 state attorneys general and more than 100 members of Congress, urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in one of the few remaining active cases in this lawfare effort, in Boulder, Colorado.

Their briefs contend that allowing these suits to proceed unchecked would “upend the constitutional balance” between federal and state authority, potentially “bankrupt[ing] the U.S. energy sector” by empowering local courts to override national energy policy.

For the companies named in the suits, these cases represent not just a tiresome form of legal Kabuki Theater, but a financial and time sink that cuts profits and inhibits capital investments in more productive enterprises. You know, like producing oil and gas to meet America’s ravenous energy needs in an age of explosive artificial intelligence growth.

“I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those, and I don’t think anyone on this panel would [dis]agree Congress is likely to take on climate change anytime soon—so this is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” Bookbinder elaborated in his panel discussion.

John Yoo, the eminent UC Berkeley law professor and former Bush-era official, didn’t hold back in his analysis for National Review. He described the lawfare campaign as a “backdoor” assault on the energy industry, circumventing the federal government’s established role in environmental regulation.

“There are a variety of cities and states that don’t agree with the federal government, and they would like to see the energy companies taxed,” Yoo explained. “Some of them probably like to see them go out of business. Since they can’t persuade through the normal political process of elections and legislation like the rest of the country, they’re using this back door,” he added.

What we see in action here is the fact that, although the climate alarm industry that is largely funded by an array of dark money NGOs and billionaire foundations finds itself on the defensive amid the aggressive policy actions of the Trump 47 administration, it is far from dead. Like the Democrat party in which they play an integral role, the alarmists are fighting the battle in their last bastion of power: The courts.

As long as there are city and county officials willing to play the role of plaintiffs in this long running Kabuki dance, and a Supreme Court unwilling to intercede, no one should doubt that this stealth carbon tax lawfare effort will keep marching right along.