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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.