SteveAR Mark the CPA
an hour ago
The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is more important than people realize. The only question will be if Roberts and Barrett, and perhaps Kavanaugh, understand that.

Jim Stewart Scholar
an hour ago
On May 30, 1866, Republican Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan introduced the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Senate and defined the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” by stating:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Oops, Mr. Howard underestimated the stupidity of judges.

NightStalker Mark the CPA
11 minutes ago
Question: If the child of non-citizens is not denied citizenship by the phrase ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’’ then what child born in the United States would be denied citizenship by that clause? If no child born in the United States can be denied citizenship then what was the purpose of the phrase?

SteveAR Mark the CPA
an hour ago
The "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is more important than people realize. The only question will be if Roberts and Barrett, and perhaps Kavanaugh, understand that.

mopani NightStalker
5 minutes ago
It was just a flourish to use up the extra space and get rid rid of useless ink.

Always ask yourself, why would the writer add seemingly pointless details? They are important. Especially so when reading Scripture. //

Scholar
an hour ago edited
So the court shopping has started. What does one expect from a judge in Seattle? He is a moron because an originalist by looking at the historical background could easily infer that the purpose was not to allow any baby born in America become a citizen, automatically. The purpose was to end the controversy of any doubt about blacks born in the United States.

Americans voted for Donald Trump because they saw these institutions being gamed," Gutfeld declared. "Every single part of society was being gamed by the left. And, finally, Americans got pushed too far."

"You don't have to like everything in the restaurant to like the restaurant," Gutfeld explained. "There are things that Trump will do that I will disagree with. But the entire package is the closest you're going to get to what Americans want."

Kyle Becker
@kylenabecker
·
Follow
"That is a gamechanger."

JUST IN: 'Border Czar' Tom Homan reports there are now ZERO CBP-One App releases and total apprehensions at the southern border have DROPPED to 766.

This is compared to 10,000 to 12,000 per day under Biden.

What a difference a president makes.

Last edited
6:40 AM · Jan 22, 2025. //

“We’re going to enforce the immigration law.”. //

epaddon
a day ago edited
Homan is in effect adopting the "seatbelt" strategy. Just as you can't get pulled over just because you're not wearing a seatbelt but you can get cited if you're pulled over for something else and you're not wearing a seatbelt he's saying they're not going out to target the "nonviolent" illegals but if they happen to be in company with those who are violent when they get rounded up, they will be arrested too since they are still lawbreakers.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported that it obtained a copy of the "One Flag Policy" order, which permits only the American flag to be flown at U.S. facilities at home and abroad, with two notable exceptions: the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) emblem and the Wrongful Detainees Flag.

"Starting immediately, only the United States of America flag is authorized to be flown or displayed at U.S. facilities, both domestic and abroad, and featured in U.S. government content," the memo states, according to the outlet. "The flag of the United States of America united all Americans under the universal principles of justice, liberty, and democracy. These values, which are the bedrock of our great country, are shared by all American citizens, past and present."

The duo craftily tried to tuck the point in question into the end of the article, but the absurdity of it stands out and obliterates any other points they were trying to make:

• Trump or future presidents could simply run for a de facto third term — as the vice presidential nominee, with the understanding they will take power back once elected. That's but one of the once-unthinkable scenarios that seem more thinkable than ever.

Got that? Trump could run for vice president in 2028, when he will be 82, in order to make sure his monarchy continues after he is constitutionally prevented from being president. //

Rogue Rose Liberal Soup N Crackers®
12 hours ago
Very last line of the 12th Amendment US Constitution:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Just more fear porn for the left.

When President Trump made a pledge to pardon January 6 prisoners, with the exception of those convicted of acts of violence, and commute the sentences of that latter category, that seemed like an elegant way to resolve a delicate problem of justice and fairness. //

When the list of those with commuted sentences was released, I did some exploring to see what came up. In cases of multiple charges, I chose the most serious one, of course; YMMV. //

(Amuse yourself with this search tool: Search the Index | Insurrection Index). https://insurrectionindex.org/records/ //

The bottom line is that there are only two men on the list, Dominic Pezzola and Zachary Rehl, who could plausibly be characterized as someone who engaged in anything violent. The real bright line was having an affiliation with Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or 3-Percenters. Everyone on the list except Pezzola has one of those affiliations and was tried for seditious conspiracy. //

In my view, whatever the process, the correct result was reached. Too much fine-tuning between cases would inevitably result in disparities and hard feelings with Trump's base. The political downside, according to The Daily Beast in an article that repeats the totally debunked claim that a Capitol Police officer died in the demonstration, was marginal. "As far as they’re concerned, the issue was already litigated in November, when voters proved they didn’t actually care enough to abandon Trump over the matter." A further calculation probably was that if no one cared in 2024, they won't care in 2026 or 2028.

The only troubling part of the affair is that, given the high profile of that particular campaign promise, no one ever got around to reviewing the cases and making a pardon list until the week before the inauguration. The other troubling part is that the most unjust sentences, those of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and 3-Percenters for "seditious conspiracy," were allowed to stand while John Brennan, James Comey, and Adam Schiff are allowed to walk around free. //

DKnight Debnco
10 hours ago
In a way, Crooked Joe gave Trump a belated Xmas gift. By pardoning his family 15 minutes before leaving office, he took all the air out of the room in the media hysteria over Trump’s J6 pardons.

Trump had nothing personal to gain by granting his pardons, unlike FJB whose family could be made to talk about the family finances if they didn’t get a blanket pardon.

Fashion and the arts have long sought to be transgressive, but the institutional capture of the arts by sartorial Marxists has turned offending the senses into a, well, art form. Things that normies think are weird — like Ella Emhoff’s attempt to turn armpit hair into a fashion accessory — are celebrated by the editors at fashion magazines precisely because they offend all of those normal people of small minds and small towns who voted for Trump.

See also: A freak with chest hair in a skirt and 2-inch nails got invited to the Biden White House to be a “Gen Z intern” for a day, and landed a spot in Vogue for it.

Then, on Monday, Melania Trump dared to show up looking not just not weird, but belligerently not so. With its intense lines and visor-like millinery, her no-nonsense costume would have fit well into the military-inspired trends of the 1940s. It reminded me of the impeccably dressed Nazi chick who fought Indiana Jones for the Holy Grail — a comparison which The New York Times would probably hold against Melania personally if they noticed it.

It’s true that most inaugural outfits tend on the conservative side, if for no other reason than the frigid January temperatures provide an incentive to cover up. (This year, Jeff Bezos’ fiancée Lauren Sánchez took advantage of the ceremony’s indoor nature to unburden herself of that limitation.) Like Melania, the other women in the presidential party were dressed in muted monochrome and simple, flattering silhouettes. The Trump women and Mrs. Vance — whose coat The Washington Post described as “1960s-ish” — all donned such classic looks that the Post declared they had put “the fashion in old-fashioned.”

The New York Times faulted Mrs. Trump for daring to look too regal, describing her look as “less elevated accessibility than British royal walkabout.” The Post had a similar critique of Ivanka, saying she “looked more like she was heading to a British royal’s wedding in the 1990s than a 2025 celebration of democracy.” How fascist and undemocratic of them!

And then there were the Inaugural Ball gowns. The six women onstage — Melania, Ivanka, Lara, Tiffany, and Kai Trump, and Usha Vance — painted a patriotic color palette with one in red, one in blue, and the rest in varying shades of champagne and white. //

Ivanka’s Givenchy reproduction of Audrey Hepburn’s famous gown in Sabrina was a literal throwback, but all the gowns, as the Times observed, “called to mind eras gone by” and nodded to the American “golden age” that Trump heralded in his speech earlier the same day. //

The Post’s fashion critic, who called Monday’s looks “largely devoid of glamour” and “stodgy,” compared the aesthetics of Trump’s second inauguration to those of Reagan’s second, which was also held indoors. Evidently forgetting that Reagan’s winning message that year was “Morning in America,” she wrote these two lines:

“The golden age of America begins right now,” Trump said in his inaugural speech.

Yet on the stages at inauguration events and on the streets of Washington, things looked less like a new future and a lot like the 1980s.

Clearly she has never met someone who grew up in the 80s, because they will all tell you it was America’s golden age. After more than eight years of hearing Trump’s famous slogan, these people are still missing what everyone else loves about it. The slogan’s fourth word exists because the people who say it believe America has already produced greatness, and they want to protect it from those who would give, explain, or deny it away.

“Style, for this second administration, is looking back,” she complained.

On that point, she’s kind of right. The coats, gowns, and hats on parade Monday brought back a refreshing dose of old-fashioned glamour and Americana. It’s a shame we can’t agree that’s a good thing.

The 2009 endangerment finding has functioned as a regulatory sledgehammer. Once greenhouse gases were deemed pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the EPA gained sweeping powers to regulate industries across the board. The consequences were dire: entire coal towns were hollowed out, energy costs soared, and American manufacturers faced stiff competition from overseas producers who were not burdened by similar regulations.

That last part is the key. We should note the two largest emitters of carbon in the world right now are China and India, and neither country cares much about what American and European climate scolds think — nor do they care about American EPA pronouncements. And there's no reason why they should. While the American left shouts in outrage at the very idea of American leaders putting American interests first, they are strangely silent when China and India put Chinese and Indian interests first. //

anon-d2ue
3 hours ago
In the 1970s, one could say the EPA was the model of a successful government agency, it made a large, measurable, and noticable impact in improving the quality of air and water. By the mid-1980s, it really should have been “Mission Accomplished” with the EPA budget winding down to maintenance of what had been achieved and some funding to research and regulate emerging risks from new chemicals, toxins, etc. Instead, the Agency just kept growing, growing, and growing with marginal, if any, benefit to improving the environment or human health, but at tremendous cost to the economy and federal budget.

Never before has the Department of Justice, prior to the conclusion of criminal proceedings against a defendant—and absent a litigation-specific reason as appropriate in the case itself—sought to disclose outside the Department a report prepared by a Special Counsel containing substantive and voluminous case information. Until now. According to the Department, this camera disclosure to four members of Congress is necessary right now—before the conclusion of criminal proceedings—because Attorney General Garland has “limited time” left in his tenure as the head of the Department and wishes “to comply with the historical practice of all Special Counsel,” and also because there is “legislative interest in information about Special Counsel investigations, in order to consider possible legislative reforms regarding the use of special counsels” [ECF No. 703 p. 3 n.2].11 These statements do not reflect well on the Department. There is no “historical practice” of providing Special Counsel reports to Congress, even on a limited basis, pending conclusion of criminal proceedings. In fact, there is not one instance of this happening now [see Tr. 21, 26]. During argument before this Court, counsel misleadingly referenced Congressional testimony by Special Counsel Weiss in 2023 as a purported example of such “historical practice” [Tr. 26]. But Special Counsel Weiss—after opposition by the Department—ultimately agreed to testify on limited matters, repeatedly refusing to answer questions regarding ongoing litigation in order to prevent prejudice to “the rights of defendants or other individuals involved in these matters.”12 13 [Tr. 40–41]. Here, there has been no subpoena from Congress to the Department for Volume II. There is no indication of pending legislative activity that could be aided by the proposed disclosure of Volume II to the specified members of Congress. There is no memorialization of any conditions of confidentiality as referenced by the Department. Indeed, there has been no record provided of an official request by members of Congress for review of Volume II in the manner proposed by the Department.14 To the contrary, some of the same members to whom the Department wishes to present Volume II have urged Attorney General Garland to release Volume II to the public immediately, even if doing so requires dismissal of the charges as to Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira. Supra n.10. In short, the Department offers no valid justification for the purportedly urgent desire to release to members of Congress case information in an ongoing criminal proceeding. //

Meanwhile, on the other side of the balance, there are two individuals in this action, each with constitutional rights to a fair trial, who remain subject to a live criminal appeal of this Court’s Order Dismissing the Superseding Indictment. 11th Cir. Appeal No. 24-1231. The Department has not sought leave to dismiss that appeal, initiated by the Special Counsel, and there has been no indication by any government official in this case that the Department will not proceed on the Superseding Indictment should it prevail in the Eleventh Circuit or in subsequent proceedings.15 These Defendants thus retain—as all parties agree—due process rights to a fair trial that would be imperiled by public dissemination of Volume II. Yet the Department nevertheless insists upon disclosure of Volume II to members of Congress now, promising that conditions of confidentiality, “contingent on their good faith commitment,” will protect against the potential for prejudice [ECF No. 703 p.5]. And if Volume II gets released in whole or in part to the public in contravention of those promises, the Department assures, then Defendants need not worry because this Court can “cure” any damage caused by crafting jury instructions in the future and/or dismissing the charges [ECF No. 703 pp. 5–6]. These assertions flounder on multiple levels and do nothing to detract from the obvious. Given the very strong public interest in this criminal proceeding and the absence of any enforceable limits on the proposed disclosure, there is certainly a reasonable likelihood that review by members of Congress as proposed will result in public dissemination of all or part of Volume II. //

This Court lacks any means to enforce any proffered conditions of confidentiality, to the extent they even exist in memorialized form. And most fundamentally, the Department has offered no valid reason to engage in this gamble with the Defendants’ rights. The bare wishes of one Attorney General with “limited time” in office to comply with a non-existent “historical practice” of releasing Special Counsel reports in the pendency of criminal proceedings is not a valid reason. And surely it does not override the obvious constitutional interests of Defendants in this action and this Court’s duty to protect the integrity of this proceeding. Even less clear is why the Department would defend this position notwithstanding its own Justice Manual, which expressly directs against disclosing substantive case information in a criminal case “except as appropriate in the proceeding or in an announcement after a finding of guilt.” //

Prosecutors play a special role in our criminal justice system and are entrusted and expected to do justice. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 696(2004); Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, Speech to the U.S. Department of Justice, The Federal Prosecutor (Apr. 1, 1940), available athttps://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-attorney-general-robert-houghwout-jackson. The Department of Justice’s position on Defendants’ Emergency Motion as to Volume II has not been faithful to that obligation.

Matt Viser
@mviser
·
Follow
President Trump sits and takes question after question from reporters in the Oval Office, something that almost never happened with President Biden.
7:53 PM · Jan 20, 2025

Chris D. Jackson @ChrisDJackson
·
Replying to @mviser
[Biden] Literally did the same thing on his first day.

10:08 PM · Jan 20, 2025

Matt Viser @mviser
·
Replying to @ChrisDJackson
The transcript from that day indicates Biden spoke for less than 3 minutes and took 1 question.
10:30 PM · Jan 20, 2025

During my morning perusal of X, I came across a post from Chaya Raichik's "Libs of TikTok" account that I thought really summed up a change we didn't just feel, but saw. With the Biden administration out and the Trump administration in, a change of aesthetics occurred, and it began with the Trump family.

Melania Trump was, as always, the definition of beauty, grace, and poise, but so did Ivanka Trump, as usual. In fact, all the Trump women looked incredible, from Melania to Kai Trump. A really great moment from yesterday, that went under the radar, was when the Trump family was sitting on the stage at Capitol One stadium. Trump hadn't arrived yet, but the crowd was showering the family with praise. The camera displayed a family that looked clean, healthy, happy, and beautiful. //

It wasn't that long ago that we were being force-fed something entirely different and being told that it's good and beautiful.

The Biden family is corrupt. So corrupt that it apparently needed pardons, and with that corruption came people who displayed the opposite of beauty. In fact, it spit in the face of beauty in order to push non-conventional "beauty." //

Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok
·
Class is back.
5:45 AM · Jan 21, 2025

Understand, this isn't just about a beauty standard, this is about a path America could take. This is literally a "which way, Western world" moment.

To further solidify my point, I want to show you how the degeneracy of the Biden family produced outward ugliness that was often a politically-based rejection of tradition and goodness.

Back in June, I compiled a list of deviants the Biden administration had attracted, some of whom it even employed. //

The outward aesthetic matched the inward state of the soul. The Biden administration chose ugliness in so many forms because its corruption and degenerate politics caused a physical display of resistance to traditional beauty.

To make myself clear here, beauty can come in many forms, but even a person who people would consider to be less than attractive can be beautiful thanks to an inner goodness that shines through. Class and morality go a long way in outward presentation.

Roald Dahl had a very interesting quote about this:

“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.

A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

etba_ss
8 hours ago

I understand the hesitancy to question those who claim to be representatives of their faith and I often share it, but it's okay to speak truthfully about those who are actively manipulating Christianity for their own selfish ends.

We, as Christians, have to be willing to do this. It isn't just allowed, but it is required. These people are agents of Satan intent on leading people astray. We have have significant theological differences and still acknowledge we serve the same God and are all Christians. People like this woman are not. This stuff is heresy and it sticks a finger in God's face and declares that He is wrong and they know better. Sure, they pretend to group it all around love and kindness for their neighbor, but it is all a lie. We should remember that from the very beginning, Satan loves to use a little bit of God's word, twist it, distort it and then lead people astray. We see that with Adam and Eve in the garden and we see it again when he tempts Jesus.

We must call this stuff out. When at all possible, we should reject this garbage and refuse to sit in attendance and listen to it. There is no such thing as an interfaith prayer service. You can have an interdenominational prayer service, but not an interfaith one. Christianity holds that Jesus is THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father but through Jesus. So if you are praying to "mother god" or Mohammed or even rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, we cannot have a prayer service together. That doesn't mean we hate each other and slit each others throats or we can't be good friends or neighbors, but we aren't going to pray together.

Heresies were a problem even in the early Church. Paul repeatedly dealt with various heresies. That was when there are a real societal cost to being a Christian. In a society where there isn't a big societal cost for being a Christian like the United States (yet), these heresies run wild. You don't have much of a problem with them in the Middle East where claiming to be a Christian is really dangerous and very few would do so who weren't actual followers of Christ.

KJSpeed etba_ss
6 hours ago
A million upvotes etba!

To your point of Christians calling this charlatan out - isn’t that exactly what we expect Muslims to do when an Imam goes off the rails? The same standard should also apply to Christians.

This case will certainly go before the Supreme Court, and however it is decided, the case will carry implications that will affect American immigration policy for many years — and if the court finds for the plaintiffs, we should note that ending birthright citizenship will require a constitutional amendment. A lot is riding on this for both sides.

Birthright citizenship is generally not the rule in most of the world, but in the Americas, it seems to be widely accepted; Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and indeed most of the New World seem to have some form or another of birthright citizenship. We should note, though, that most of these countries aren't beset with millions trying to gain illegal entry to take advantage of these policies. //

WilliamRD
7 hours ago
Indians and their children didn't get citizenship until 1924 when congress passed the Indian citizenship act. . There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Snowblind WilliamRD
6 hours ago
Except Indians born on a reservation are not born in the US.

Snowblind WilliamRD
2 hours ago
But they were sovereign nations unto themselves at the time the 14th was ratified.

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 ended that, but again, at the time of the 14th amendment they were not. //

Mike Ford
5 hours ago edited
"...subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."
Jurisdiction thereof has TWO components:

1. Legal jurisdiction and;

2 Sovereign Jurisdiction or citizen allegiance.

If my buddy Ward goes to Germany and walks into the Hürtgen Forest with his trusty guide gun and attempts to get himself a boar, the Politzi will arrest him.

1. He will be charged under German Law, which has legal jurisdiction over that act in Germany (and he also may be subject to U.S. law (especially if he is a Soldier and outside SOFA boundaries)).

2. He will NOT lose his citizenship...ie, the U.S. retains SOVEREIGN jurisdiction over him.

Now...let's take a Colombian couple who dash across the border and evade ICE. She (not he..."he's" can't do that) drops a baby on U.S. soil. The baby is a Colombian citizen. Period. Full Stop.

Why? Because the couple and the baby are not subject to the full/complete (legal AND sovereign, jurisdiction of these United States.

This issue has been made needlessly complex by leftists and their lawyers.

It's time to end this travesty...by specific legislation or a SCOTUS decision that defines a U.S. citizen as anyone who is born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen on the date of that birth.

I'm sorry for the bad acts of Democrats that have resulted in children who were born here and know no other country. That ain't our problem.

Send their parents and them back to country of origin. If they want to come here, get in line like the mother of my children, my sisters-in-law (from Central America) and a brother-in-law from Austria...all of whom own businesses,, employ folk and pay way too many taxes.

This isn't hard. We are making it so. //

MN-Gal2022 ConservativeInMinnesota
6 hours ago
Hey!

i think it was you who had posted some context from the authors of the amendment.

If I recall correctly they specifically said this did not apply to those here illegally.

do you still have the text of that explanation?

ConservativeInMinnesota MN-Gal2022
2 hours ago
It was. Here it is for reference:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

What it means in the words of Senator Jacob Howard who co-authored the 14th Amendment:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

What it means in the words of Senator Trumbull who co-author the 14th Amendment on the “subject to the jurisdiction”:

not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. //

David135
5 hours ago
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....

If being born on USA soil was sufficient, the line would simply be....
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens..

Obviously, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something besides the accepted understanding of birthright citizenship.

John Q. Public David135
4 hours ago
People trying to suggest that they wasted the ink and calligraphy on that line for absolutely no reason are insane.

But they know no matter what they do, they cannot prevent all seamen deaths. So they must devise a way to show that, when that catastrophe happens, they have done everything they could to prevent it. They require detailed analyses showing that any possible mistake or failure by man or machine will not result in a seaman death.

They require that all vendors go through an expensive and restrictive certification process. The yard is no longer free to bid anyone it wants to. Newcomers need not apply. The incumbent vendors enjoy a deep regulatory moat. Their focus becomes maintaining the paperwork required to preserve that moat. Cost is determined by amount of paperwork not quality.

The OSD writes detailed process requirements dictating just how components will be manufactured and who can do that work. They imposes multiple layers of paperwork documenting that all their procedures have been followed. Any change has to go through a long list of sign offs, requiring reanalysis of anything that might be affected. How long these approvals will take is anybody's guess.

They instruct their inspectors to reject any departure from an approved drawing no matter how trivial or beneficial. If an OSD inspector does not show up for a required test, the test has to wait until he does.

What do you think will happen to our shipyard's productivity? I can tell you what will happen. The carefully choreographed system will be thrown into chaos, and grind to a virtual halt. Cost will increase by an order of magnitude or more. Quality will deteriorate drastically. The ships will be delivered years late. They will rarely perform to spec, some will not perform at all.

Why can I tell you what will happen? US naval shipyards resemble Korean yards on the surface but they are controlled by something that looks very much like the OSD system. In fact, the OSD system is modeled on the Navy system. I spent the first decade or so of my career, working within this system. I saw the focus on process rather than substance. I saw the waste. I saw inexplicable decisions go unchallenged. I saw obvious errors turned into profit centers. I saw promotions based not on output, but on keeping the paperwork clean. I saw horribly bloated initial prices followed by enormous overruns. I saw schedules busted by months and then by years. I saw ships that did not work. I saw everybody involved stridently defend the system.

Thank God the OSD does not run nuclear power. We'd have no chance of solving the Gordian Knot.

Germany is decommissioning its closed nuclear plants, but opportunities for restarting remain. New energy demand and news of Three Mile Island's revival have improved the outlook for closed plants. No significant technical barriers prevent Germany’s nuclear restart, but swift action is needed.

Germany shut down its last nuclear plants on April 15, 2023, and is making significant progress in decommissioning 31 reactors. After years of producing enough electricity for its own needs and exporting the surplus, Germany imported 9 TWh net in 2023 and as of November 25, 2024, increased imports to 25 TWh net. The German economy is expected to shrink by 0.2% in 2024, following a 0.3% decline in 2023. A 2024 survey by Germany’s DIHK Chambers of Industry and Commerce shows a rising number of businesses are considering reducing production or relocating out of Germany.

A German nuclear restart depends solely on political will. The two most urgent measures include an immediate moratorium on the dismantling of reactors and an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to allow nuclear power plants to be operated again.

Germany once operated one of the world's largest nuclear power fleets and was a leading provider of nuclear technology. However, public opposition halted nuclear expansion by 1990, leading to a phase-out agreement in 2002. Despite a brief runtime extension under Chancellor Merkel in 2009, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted her to make a rapid reversal of her previous policy, with Germany committing to shut down all nuclear plants by the end of 2022.

To replace nuclear power, Germany planned to rely on a mix of coal, wind, solar, and Russian natural gas from pipelines. The country aimed to gradually phase out coal while increasing renewables and using natural gas as a bridge fuel. However, this strategy faced a significant setback when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupting Germany's plans for cheap Russian gas imports. This crisis sparked public debates about extending nuclear plant operations. Nevertheless, Germany's last nuclear reactors ceased electricity production on April 15, 2023.

The shutdown of Germany’s nuclear plants has had major impacts. Before the final nuclear closures, Germany had been a net exporter of electricity. Now, Germany is a net importer, relying on its neighbors for power. Imports in 2024 have nearly tripled those of 2023 before the start of December. Ironically, about half of this imported energy came from France, Switzerland, and Belgium, where nuclear power provides a substantial portion of the electricity supply.

There is a case to be made for going much further, to return the federal government to what the Founders intended; to pare it once more back to its proper constitutional boundaries. This will go beyond trimming the fat; this will involve cutting the imperial colossus our federal government has become down to the bone, and then paring away some of the bone.

For the first installment of this series, let us discuss the proper role of government.

Some years back, I heard a comment that has stuck in my head ever since: “What government does for anyone, it should do for everyone, or it should do for no one.” This, in a nutshell, sums up the proper relationship of government to the citizens. //

is not the proper role of government to shield people from the consequences of their bad decisions. There will always be a need for a modern, prosperous society to care for the truly helpless, such as people disabled through no fault of their own, children with no adults to care for them, and so forth. But the lazy, the indigent, the irresponsible – they have no moral claim on the fruits of the labor of the industrious. The government, and only the government, has the power to tax – to claim a portion of your resources with the force of law, with the implied threat of armed force if you try to abstain. In our age of ever-increasing welfare entitlements, that government has claimed a portion of every taxpayer’s proceeds toward just such a shield – requiring the industrious to toil longer and harder to support the indigent. //

It is the nature of government to grow, to become ever more intrusive; it is the nature of government that it is inefficient, even wasteful. Examples of this abound. Our republic was founded on the overriding principle that government must be constrained. No less an authority on the founding principles of our nation than George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” He was exactly correct; and the American people must remember that however dangerous, government and its various elected and appointed officials and their hirelings are our servants, not our masters. And if necessary, we should call on them to remember, as well. That is why the federal government should — must — be once more returned to its original constitutional limits.

"Those who wished to stop our cause have tried to take my freedom and, indeed, to take my life," said Trump. "Just a few months ago, in a beautiful Pennsylvania field, an assassin's bullet ripped through my ear."

"I felt then and believe even more so now that my life was saved for a reason: I was saved by God to make America great again," Trump said. //

There was talk in the RedState live blog about whether that moment deepened Trump's faith. It appears that it did. Trump's words in his speech indicate a man who, if he didn't believe before, truly does now.

Moreover, this should be a wake-up moment for a lot of Americans. There is something far bigger than us guiding events. Trump was sworn in today, but God is the one who is truly in charge. We might have elected Trump, but God appointed him. That was made clear when the "millimeter miracle" as Pastor Lorenzo Sewell so eloquently put it during his prayer, happened in Butler. //

redstateuser
21 hours ago
As an American, and even as a Christian, I've always held back from the stated notion or suggestion that God preferred The United States of America, as that seemed in my mind to diminish the humanity of all other people in all other countries who, as my faith informs me, are just as sacred in God's eyes as is any American.
However, I must blend in to my belief the comments I've read over many years from those in other countries who indeed look up to the United States of America and who do so I must believe with no disrespect to themselves, to their fellow citizens, or to their country. I don't think I truly grasp the depth of this. It's not easily evident to me but a slow realization of how the might and intent of a well-functioning United States of America is admired, wanted, and even needed by other peoples around the world, as a force for good and a model for imitation.
So, to the extent that such admiration is actually true, I can allow the idea that God could prefer the size and might of The United States of America to succeed and be deserved of such admiration, and that He would prefer this over other less benevolent political alternatives existing in the world. As long as I don't allow ego to adulterate what I am trying to say, perhaps I can allow this blending to occur in my Christian beliefs.
I've tried to state this well. I hope I have done well enough.
Thank you.

Sarcastic Frog redstateuser
19 hours ago
I can appreciate your struggle with this.
God has a chosen people: Israel.
Having said that, at various times God has "chosen" a person or a nation to do certain things. That doesn't make them "better" than another person or nation; to the contrary, it puts a much greater burden of accountability on that person or nation. Anybody bragging about "preference" doesn't know what they're talking about.

Public Citizen redstateuser
17 hours ago
This nation was founded by Godly and God Fearing Men.
The remarks of Sarcastic Frog are pertinent.
I would add that even Israel has been subject to God's Chastisement from time to time.
The USA, because of its founding and foundational principals has served as God's Chosen Implement from time to time.
It's my belief that even Joe Biden has been one of those implements, serving as a tool to teach a nation straying from its founding principals the consequences of such waywardness.
We now have before us a time to set our collective house in order and return to those principals, including those GODLY PRINCIPALS that made this nation the Great Nation that it has been in the past.

I think placing high-profile and very credible critics inside the military's civilian bureaucracy may prove to be a masterstroke. First, it rubs the noses of those who toadied to the forces of DEI, CRT, transgenderism, and every other social science fad in their own ordure every day just by their existence. Much like Biden and Kamala had to sit at the front of a packed auditorium during Trump's inauguration and listen to him castigate their loathsome term in office, Scheller and Lohmeier will condemn the people who punished them every day by just existing. Second, their presence in the upper reaches of DOD will encourage whistleblowers to report on people who are part of the resistance. Finally, if Scheller and Lohmeier can impart a fraction of their passion for military virtues to the Armed Services, they will have done the nation an everlasting favor.

Just before entering the Capitol Rotunda for the swearing-in of Donald J. Trump, outgoing President Joe Biden issued a few more pardons - including to a number of his family members: James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden. //

justpaul
21 hours ago
Joe Biden just admitted his entire family is corrupt and guilty.

And now they can all be called to testify against him without the protection of the Fifth Amendment. //

GBenton surfcat50
20 hours ago edited
Their guilt is a win even if they individually escape justice. In the larger war to take America back, their collective and efficient admission all at once of their guilt may well accelerate the restoration of this country and strip their defenders of even a shred of cover.

It's official - the Biden crime family and crime syndicate.

The Democrat party narrative ends in disgrace. Now it's time to drive a stake through the heart of Marxism. //

GreenLanternMD
21 hours ago edited
This is actually a huge gift to Trump, who stood to lose whether his DOJ prosecuted Biden’s criminal associates or not. Now, while they tacitly admit to the commission of crimes, he can expose them without being accused of prosecuting his enemies, and, had he not prosecuted them, having to explain why he was not seeking consequences for their treasonous behavior. Now that’s on Biden and his co-conspirators.

Naturally, Melania Trump won the day—it’s a little like pitting Brett Favre against a middle school flag football team, but thems the rules—in her long navy silk-wool coat under a cream blouse designed by New York–based designer Adam Lippes, and that matching hat by Eric Javits. How this woman was able to pull off a topper that not only obscured half of her face but looked so sharp it might be the understudy for a circular saw is a testimony to Slovenian bone structure and understanding one’s angles.

Not since Lincoln’s stovepipe has a hat been so well-worn in our nation’s capital. Though this one did a better job of protecting her from unwanted contact—including from her own husband. Melania finished off the look with black leather gloves and navy Manolo Blahnik pumps. Notes? None. The memes are already legion, including ones comparing the first lady to Carmen Sandiego. //

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania senator John Fetterman rolled up in a look that if he were anyone else, would have been grounds for censure. He was in gray athletic shorts, a black hoodie, and running shoes. At the presidential inauguration. But alas, Fetterman has fashion immunity, granted by the most high, to wear wherever the hell he wants.