SMR developer Nano Nuclear announced a partnership with South Korean industrial company DS Dansuk to pursue the deployment of Nano’s Kronos throughout Asia.

DS Dansuk will act as Nano’s partner to coordinate with other Asian companies involved in chemical processing and heavy manufacturing, and enable Nano to access the coveted nuclear industry in South Korea. Multiple American companies have signed agreements with firms in South Korea as the country currently holds the leading international position, outside of China, in nuclear power plant development and construction.

“DS Dansuk is exactly the type of commercial partner NANO Nuclear needs as we expand into Asia,” said Jay Yu, President and Chairman of NANO Nuclear Energy. “They bring industrial credibility, manufacturing depth, regulatory access, and trusted supply chain relationships throughout South Korea”

Jay Yu was also on Fox Business earlier discussing the company’s progress, highlighting Nano’s integration with the state of Illinois for initiating the hiring of over 100 nuclear industry support personnel for the ramp up of construction at their University of Illinois project.

$NNE Thank you @MariaBartiromo and @FoxBusiness for having our Founder and Chairman on your show this morning. In 2026, $NNE looks to continue our momentum with our Patented & High Technology Readiness Level KRONOS MMR with worldwide demand surging #USA https://t.co/orMzZGUbEa

— NANO Nuclear Energy (NASDAQ: NNE) (@nano_nuclear) January 14, 2026

This announcement follows Nano’s selection of reactor startup favorite Ameresco for progressing the development and deployment of the Zeus, Kronos, and Loki, reactor models in the US. And on the back of the Korea news, Nano is now positioned for aggressive global expansion even as it seeks commercialization in the US.

Meanwhile, Nano Nuclear’s strategic partner, LIS Technology, also continues to raise money for the development of their third-generation uranium laser enrichment technology. While they joined international enrichment giant Urenco in being left out of the DOE’s recent award announcement, the next-gen developer raised $17 million from investors in a funding round that was 240% oversubscribed.

BLESSED 🙏⚛️🇺🇸 : “LIS Technologies Inc. Announces Fourth Consecutive Oversubscribed Funding Round of $17 Million, Totaling $64 Million to Revitalize the Only U.S.-Origin, Patented Laser #Uranium Enrichment Technology to Support the Domestic Nuclear Fuel Cycle” #HALEU #LEU #USA pic.twitter.com/85W3OlDoxF

— LIS Technologies Inc. (@LaserisTech) January 13, 2026

LIS Technology also recently brought on Dr. Kirk Rector. Rector spent time as the Program Manager for the DOE’s Isotope Program at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and will now serve as LIST’s Director of Medical and Stable Isotopes.

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Plan selections in the Affordable Care Act Marketplace were 3.5 percent behind 2025’s number with two weeks left in open enrollment, but the drop-off has not been as severe as some analysts predicted.

Some 22.8 million people had selected a plan by Jan. 3, about 830,000 fewer than at the same point in 2025. The program, popularly known as Obamacare, appears on track for its second-highest enrollment ever.

The open enrollment period began on Nov. 1, 2025, and ends on Jan. 15 in most states. During open enrollment, anyone can sign up for Obamacare. Outside that period, only those who report a qualifying life event such as a birth, divorce, or job change can enroll.

The decline for 2026, if it continues through the final weeks of open enrollment, will mark the first drop in participation since 2020.

Subsidies Boosted Enrollment

Since its inception, Obamacare enrollments started slower than predicted, taking three years to reach 12.7 million in 2016. From there, enrollment decreased by about 10 percent over four years.

Enrollment was bolstered by enhanced subsidies starting in 2021, more than doubling to 23.4 million by 2025.

The scheduled expiration of the enhanced subsidies in December 2025 sparked heated debate in Congress on the affordability of the program without them.

Congressional Democrats sought to make the enhanced subsidies permanent. That effort failed to advance in the Senate despite Democrats’ willingness to withhold federal government funding throughout the fall in an attempt to force negotiations.

The enhanced subsidies were implemented in 2021 as a two-year measure to ensure the affordability of health coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic era. They were later extended through 2025.

Health insurers judged that middle-class Americans who had opted into Obamacare in recent years would opt out again when the subsidies expired, dramatically changing the risk profile of remaining enrollees and shifting it toward those with chronic conditions or higher medical needs.

In response, insurers raised premiums by an average of 27 percent, according to data from health policy research group KFF.

Drop Less Than Predicted

Many observers predicted a huge drop in enrollment in 2026 based on both the decrease in subsidies and the increase in premium costs.

Jason Levitis, senior fellow at Urban Institute, told senators in November that 4.8 million people would lose health coverage in 2026 if the enhanced subsidies expired, based on a report from his organization.

The expiration of the subsidies would “leave millions uninsured or forced to make impossible choices,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Although the initial 3.5 percent drop of 830,000 enrollees is significant, it does not approach those predictions.

At 22.8 million enrollees, the 2026 figure is 12 percent ahead of 2024 and 43 percent ahead of 2023.

Over the past four years, the number of plan selections increased by an average of 3.7 percent during the final two weeks of open enrollment. In 2025, the increase was 2.4 percent.

On the current track, the number of 2026 plan selections would be the second-highest ever.

Further Decline Likely

Yet some analysts say there will be a further drop after open enrollment closes.

“While we do eventually expect to see declines in Marketplace enrollment, following the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits at the end of 2025, it is too soon to tell how much it will change,” said Jared Ortaliza, a policy analyst at KFF studying the Affordable Care Act.

The data available now indicate marketplace plan selections, which become “effectuated” enrollments when consumers begin paying premiums.

The vast majority of 2026 plan selections so far—20 million—are 2025 customers who were automatically reenrolled in the plan, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Those automatic plan selections do not always become premium-paying enrollees, according to Ortaliza.

“The extent of [Affordable Care Act] enrollment changes likely won’t be known until this summer, when effectuated enrollment data are typically released,” he said.

In 2025, the number of effectuated enrollments was about 4 percent less than the number of plan selections.

Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, theorized that much of the decline in plan selection, and a likely further decline in effectuated enrollments, is attributable to improper or fraudulent enrollments.

“The decline in enrollment from ’25 to ’26 means that some of the fraudulent enrollment exited the market,” Blase wrote on social media.

Blase estimated that about 5 million enrollments in 2024 and 6.4 million in 2025 were improper, with many being fraudulently enrolled in plans with $0 premiums. He said many will disappear as people do not effectuate coverage, which involves paying a premium.

“This means that people who are unaware of their enrollment, in other coverage, or ‘fake’ people will not pay their share of the premium and should (assuming insurers follow the rules) be removed,” Blase wrote.

An effort to reinstate the enhanced subsidies is ongoing in Congress.

Open enrollment in Kentucky and Maine closes on Jan. 16 and in Massachusetts on Jan. 23. Open enrollment closes in California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington state, and Washington on Jan. 31.

Authored by John Kudla via American Thinker,

Let’s pretend you are a liberal living in a red state.  If you feel aggrieved about the condition of the world and believe that conservatives are to blame, you can find a few like-minded souls, print up some signs covered in half-clever phrases, and go protest.  In most cases, unless you chain yourself to a railing on the courthouse steps or attack the police, you will usually be ignored.

On the flip side, let’s pretend you are a conservative living in a deep blue state.  If you don’t like the school policy, E.V. mandates, high electricity prices, or restrictive gun laws, and you dare to complain, not only will you not be ignored, but you might be harassed, shunned, or canceled.  Your solution to the hard blue insanity is a four-letter word: move.

Now let’s pretend you live in a state with a blue megalopolis somewhere over the horizon, but you don’t want to move.  Let’s also pretend you have lived in your community all of your life and have roots there — a job or a farm or a business that would be difficult to replicate somewhere else.  Why should you suffer because once upon a midnight dreary, councilors to a long dead king or a few drunk senators drew a line on a map that ignored rational boundaries?

Generally speaking, I don’t have a problem with people living the way they want to.  That is called freedom.  However, I object to some of our more right-leaning or left-leaning citizens forcing their ideas on everyone else, then treating those who disagree with them as second-class citizens.  In some cases, this has prompted states to heavily gerrymander congressional districts, which disenfranchises both liberal and conservative voters.  One solution is to adjust state boundaries to more adequately reflect local political values.

Ever since the founding of the republic, various groups and political movements have sought to redraw state boundaries.  Some have been successful.  Maine was originally part of Massachusetts, and the states of Kentucky and West Virginia were created from land originally part of Virginia.  Other partitions to existing boundaries have been suggested, but none has been adopted.  The reason is that the Constitution requires both the blessings of the partitioned state and the U.S. Congress.

Ask yourself a simple question.  Why would any state governor or legislature willingly give up territory if it is not forced to?  The serfs — excuse me, taxpayers — there help balance the state budget.  How they feel about their lives or the number of potholes in their roads is secondary to ensuring that state budgets are met and the state programs, even those for non-citizens, continue.

Despite the obstacles, secession movements continue.  Let’s look at three of the more recent secession ideas.

In 2014, residents of western Maryland, reportedly unhappy with taxes and gun control policy, started signing petitions to secede from Maryland and form a new state.  Later in 2021, Republican lawmakers in Allegany, Garrett, and Washington counties in Maryland sent a letter to the West Virginia legislature asking if the Mountain State would be willing to annex them.

The Maryland panhandle, an artifact of English colonial land grants, is a mountainous area more similar to West Virginia than the rest of Maryland.  The three counties have a combined population of just over a quarter of a quarter million.  That is probably not enough to take a congressional seat from Maryland or give one to West Virginia.  Will it change the U.S. political structure if these counties are allowed to switch states?  Not really.

The state of Oregon is divided almost in half by the Cascade Mountain Range.  The majority of the population lives on the western or Pacific Coast side of the mountains, either in the city of Portland or towns in the Willamette Valley.  In 2021, five counties in eastern Oregon, unhappy with the liberal state government, voted to take steps to secede from Oregon and join Idaho.

By 2024, a total of thirteen Oregon counties had voted to join Idaho.  The population in these counties is roughly 240,000, or about 5.5% of Oregon’s population — again, probably not enough to change the number of congressional seats between the states.

A third secession movement is active in Illinois.  Since 2011, more than one attempt has been made to separate the city of Chicago from the rest of Illinois or individual counties from the state.  The issue here is the dominance of Chicago and Chicago politics over the rest of Illinois.  As of 2024, 33 counties had voted to secede, about a third of the state’s counties.

In 2025, lawmakers in Indiana discussed annexing those counties, although only twenty-seven of them are contiguous with the Indiana border.  The others are on the western side of Illinois and would be a better fit with Missouri.  The twenty-seven counties represent nearly half a million residents.  This would almost certainly take a congressional seat from Illinois and add one to Indiana.

Besides liberal political values, another reason people are moving from blue states or seeking to join red states is that blue states typically have higher tax burdens than red states.  Call it an issue of affordability. 

There is an easy way to check this.  Let’s take the median income in the U.S., which was roughly $84,000 in 2024, multiply it by the average tax burden in the blue state of origin, do the same for the red state destination, and then subtract the two numbers.

The following results are based on a combination of income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes.  If the Oregon counties join Idaho, residents earning $84,000 would save about $250 per year, or about 0.3 percent of their income.  If the Illinois counties join Indiana, their residents would save over $750 per year or about 0.9 percent of their income.  And if the three Maryland counties joined West Virginia, residents there would save about $924 per year or about 1.1 percent of their income.  Remember, these are ballpark numbers and will change depending on income and other individual circumstances.

As the country approaches the 250th anniversary of its founding, perhaps it is time to consider a constitutional amendment to facilitate changes to state boundaries.  After all, most of our state boundaries were arbitrary to begin with.

Counties wishing to become a separate state would have to follow the rules for statehood.  Imagine Chicago as the 51st state, along with New York City plus Long Island as the 52nd.  Upstate New York and downstate Illinois could then breathe a sigh of relief.

Until then, you can still move.

On a similar note, I hear the Canadian province of Alberta is thinking about leaving Canada.  Maybe Trump can talk the Canadians into a straight-up swap of Alberta for Minnesota.  It couldn’t hurt to try.

Authored by Jeffrey Folks via American Thinker,

The difference between red and blue states is not just a matter of degree; it is a qualitative difference based on the loss of freedom in blue states and an entirely different attitude in the red states.  The best example is the contrast between what now exists in New York and Florida.  Whereas New York, especially New York City, is slipping into a socialist nightmare, Floridians are living the dream.  In New York, freedom is constrained by high taxes and regulations, and things are only getting worse.  In Florida, taxes are low and getting lower, and the sun almost always shines.

Florida voters understand the importance of limited government, and they have created a well governed, fiscally sound state.  Eliminating the state income tax in its entirety was only the beginning: Now there is movement toward lowering property taxes or eliminating them altogether, which would benefit nearly everyone in the state.

Gov. Ron DeSantis is perhaps the biggest supporter of property tax reform.  The governor proposed eliminating property taxes for all Floridians in his 2025 State of the State address, in which he said forcing citizens to pay property taxes for life is like “renting one’s property from the government.”  The governor’s proposal would apply to all property, including commercial and rental property.  There is widespread support for some form of property tax relief, but the devil is in the details.

An interim plan to rebate approximately $1,000 to owners of primary residences was proposed in March 2025.  In response, Senate Bill 7034 was introduced to create a legislative commission to study the feasibility of eliminating all or part of the state’s property taxes and with the likelihood of a state constitutional amendment to appear on the 2026 ballot.  Other legislative proposals include an increase in the state’s homestead exemption (currently totaling $50,000 for the primary residence), a tax exemption of $100,000 on all types of property, or a reduction in the state’s sales tax.  Republican lawmakers generally support some form of tax relief, whereas Democrats oppose it, but since Republicans outnumber Democrats by 84 to 33 in the state House and 27 to 11 in the Senate, it seems likely that some form of tax reform will become law.

Meanwhile, states like California and New York are moving the opposite direction.  The marginal income tax rate in California is 12.3%, and this on top of state property taxes, sales taxes of 7.25%, and numerous other local taxes and fees.

As for New York, the statewide income tax is a marginal 10.9% (14.78% for high earners in New York City), with state and local sales taxes as high as 8.875%, property tax rates averaging more than twice those in California, and numerous other state and local taxes and fees (including a ludicrous $9 “congestion zone” fee for entering lower Manhattan).  On top of this, New York is one of a handful of states that still charges a death tax, with a marginal rate of 16% on qualifying estates, and this on top of the marginal federal estate tax of 45%.

Mayor Mamdani has vowed to raise corporate taxes from 8.85% to 11.5% and to impose a 2% surcharge on those earning over one million, on top of existing taxes.  According to the Cato Institute, “the income-tax increase would tempt high earning New Yorkers to relocate to Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley, where they can still be close to the city,” if not out of state altogether.

To recap, Floridians pay a total of 6% in state taxes and average property tax rates that are already half of what they are in New York and may be further lowered in 2026 or 2027.  Adding it up, affluent New Yorkers pay marginal rates of at least 36% (including the estate tax) or nearly 40% in New York City — and all of this on top of federal income and estate taxes.  There is not much left for individuals, and this level of taxation is an assault on personal liberty.  There’s not much difference between communism, where the state owns everything, and an American city where government takes 80%.

One should also note that the public debt ratio in New York is already 442%, while California has twice as much debt in absolute terms ($500 billion).  Under Gov. DeSantis, Florida’s debt ratio is 2.6%, a 25-year low.

Clearly, New York and California are moving in the wrong direction, whereas Florida is moving very much in the right direction, and this because Florida is a well run conservative state filled with well informed voters.  What will be the effect of these continuing high and potentially higher taxes in blue states?  Migration of wealthy and middle-class residents, and it’s already happening.  Affluent citizens are leaving New York “in a steady stream.”  Between 2019 and 2020 alone, nearly 10% of high earners left New York City.  More recently, the exodus has continued.

California is experiencing its own outward migration of wealthy and middle-class residents, and not merely for tax reasons.  California ranks 6th in the nation for “high violent crime” and 8th for property crime.  The cost of living is the third highest in the U.S.  Homelessness is at a record high, with 24% of the nation’s homeless living in California.  And California’s public schools, once near the top, now come out well below average.

One could cite many other blue states, including Illinois, as evidence of liberal mismanagement, and other red states like Texas and Tennessee for proof of sound conservative governance.  The fact is that all human beings want much the same thing: safety, security, prosperity, and freedom (including freedom from government restrictions and high taxes).  Today in America, Florida offers that freedom.  New York and California do not.

In America, the red states are keeping the American Dream alive.  Personal liberty includes freedom from government confiscation of wealth, whether that confiscation takes the form of Soviet-style direct  confiscation or seizure through taxation.  Voters in New York and California have not learned the lesson that high taxes and regulation lower the quality of life and infringe on freedom.  Fortunately, we live in a country, unlike communist China or North Korea, where one can relocate freely to another state.  Freedom may be dying in New York, but the sun is still shining in Florida.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture, most recently Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

There are reports that President Trump is listening to the non-interventionists in his cabinet, as he says Wednesday afternoon he’s been told that the killing in Iran is stopping, and with no plan for executions. WTI futures immediately dropped on the newswires: 

• WTI fell from USD 62.30 to lows of 59.80/bbl over 7 minutes.
• Brent fell from 66.80 to 64.20 over the same time frame.
• With Trump noting Iran has no plans for executions, it drastically reduces the chances of the US attacking Iran, particularly a kinetic attack.
• Expectations of an attack had been building today with reports suggesting it could happen within 24 hours, which saw crude gain throughout the session; several nations urged citizens to leave Iran.
• S&P 500 ENERGY INDEX PARES GAINS AFTER TRUMP IRAN COMMENTS
• Iran FM: There is calm, we are in full control, Fox News reports

Via Bloomberg… Trump has an “out” and Iran strikes appear to be off:

President Donald Trump said he had been assured that Iran would stop killing protesters, in a signal he could hold off on a threatened military response to the repression of widespread demonstrations in the nation. “We’ve been told that the killing in Iran is stopping – it’s stopped,” Trump told reporters Wednesday in the Oval Office. “And there’s no plan for executions or an execution.”

The US president said he would be “very upset” if the information proved untrue and the violent crackdown continued. The comments come after Trump urged Iranians to continue protests against the government of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and said he would “act accordingly” after being briefed on how many demonstrators have been killed. He posted on social media that “help is on the way” to those protesting in Iran.

BREAKING — Trump says he has been told that killing in Iran has topped and there would be no executions

“I’ve been told that on good authority” he says and if they occur “we would be upset”

pic.twitter.com/fTl99jyXKD

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) January 14, 2026

Dangerous indicators there was (before this ‘change of mind’) about to be a strike?

The bulk of the US Navy’s strike group has remained in the Caribbean Sea after the Trump-ordered Venezuela operation to oust Maduro, and there’s as yet nothing to signal a new build-up of naval power in the Mediterranean or anywhere in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations. However there are signs that logistics transport flights have increased.

However, there are other signs President Trump might be serious about an attack on Iran. Various news sources including Reuters is reporting Wednesday that the United States is pulling some staff out of major regional bases as a precaution amid rising tensions related to the Iran protests and a potential US military response.

This comes after a senior Iranian official earlier stated that Tehran has warned neighboring countries hosting US forces that American bases would be targeted if Washington launched strikes.

Reuters writes, “Earlier today, some personnel were advised to leave the US military’s Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar by this evening. Al Udeid is the Middle East’s largest US base, housing around 10,000 troops. Ahead of the US airstrikes on Iran in June some personnel were moved off US bases in the Middle East.”

In the last instance where Iran faced attack by the US and Israel, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Al Udeid Air Base outside Doha. All or most were intercepted, with no reports of troop casualties. This attack occurred on June 23, one day after the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities with deep penetrating bunker-buster bombs.

Backing down or covering up his plans to launch an attack like last time? https://t.co/yw6bELZBtf

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) January 14, 2026

The aforementioned warning from a senior Iranian official stated as follows: “Tehran has told regional countries, from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to Turkey, that US bases in those countries will be attacked if the US targets Iran.”

While the week started with talk of some kind of dialogue between Washington and Tehran toward de-escalation, Trump quickly changed his mind, and by Tuesday said he cancelled all meetings with Iranian officials, citing the brutal crackdown on protesters. He wrote on Truth Social that “help is on its way” for Iranians.

“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price,” Trump wrote.

“I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA [Make Iran Great Again]!!!” he added.

However, there’s ample evidence that many dozens of security personnel have been killed and wounded as well. Clearly in many locales rioters have deadly weapons, and Tehran says it is facing the beginnings of a foreign backed terror operation and insurgency.

Tehran Governor:

• 1,000 passenger cars and 26 administrative centers in Tehran province have been damaged

• Commercial shops, residential units, buses, ambulances, fire trucks, 44 mosques and Hosseiniyehs were damaged pic.twitter.com/nMXClOvnK7

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) January 14, 2026

But it should be obvious by now that organizations like the CIA, MI6, and Mossad are constantly looking for ways to take advantage of the situation and destabilize the country, ripening it for regime change. Trump has just dodged another interventionist disaster in the Middle East by choosing not to pull the trigger.

Wall Street has benefited greatly from the Trump administration’s economic policies and “Make America Great Again” agenda and has largely been supportive of the president. That relationship abruptly fractured last Friday when the president called for a one-year cap on credit card interest rates at 10%.

All it took was President Trump’s Truth Social post prioritizing working-class Americans over Wall Street, in which the president said, “AFFORDABILITY! Effective January 20, 2026, I, as President of the United States, am calling for a one-year cap on credit card interest rates of 10%,” to put big bank CEOs on notice, with some now preparing to mount a fight against the White House.

Two months later… https://t.co/POf3Y4jlrq pic.twitter.com/D4BlY4PD1i

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 10, 2026

Leading that charge appears to be JPMorgan Chase CFO Jeremy Barnum, who signaled during an earnings call on Tuesday that banks could challenge Trump’s move to cap credit card interest rates for a year.

“If you wind up with weakly supported directives to radically change our business that aren’t justified, you have to assume that everything’s on the table,” Barnum told analysts following JPMorgan’s fourth-quarter earnings report (read here). “We owe that to shareholders.”

Barnum argued that a rate cap would backfire by shrinking credit availability rather than lowering borrowing costs, ultimately hurting consumers, spending, and the broader economy. His warning echoed concerns raised earlier this week by UBS analysts Erika Najarian and Tim Chiodo.

“Our belief is that actions like this will have the exact opposite consequence to what the administration wants for consumers,” Barnum said. “Instead of lowering the price of credit, we’ll simply reduce the supply of credit, and that will be bad for everyone: consumers, the wider economy, and yes, at the margin, for us.”

Additional color via X user The Transcript …

$JPM CFO warns that capping credit card interest rates could “severely reduce access to credit, especially for those who need it most.”

Also says that it would be “severely negative consequences for consumers….for the economy” and “obviously be bad for us as well.” https://t.co/dWyY2Blgut pic.twitter.com/cmAGD4zaGg

— The Transcript (@TheTranscript_) January 13, 2026

The average U.S. credit card APR is about 20%, according to the latest data from Bankrate. Rates are much higher for subprime and store cards.

A stalled bill proposed by Josh Hawley and Bernie Sanders would have imposed a 10% cap for 5 years, versus Trump’s 1-year cap. Consumer-heavy industries beyond banking warned of ripple effects of less credit in the system, such as Delta Air Lines.

House Speaker Mike Johnson urged caution, warning that efforts to lower costs could have unintended consequences: “We have a lot of work to go [on] consensus around it, but you got to be very careful as we go forward in that in our zeal to bring down costs … you don’t want to have negative secondary effects.”

Read more about why UBS analysts say Trump’s 10% one-year cap on credit card interest rates is “unlikely” here.

Trump’s incoming fight with big banks on capping credit card rates is not unexpected given his administration’s massive push for affordability this year.

Authored by Larry Elder via The Epoch Times,

As for the estimated $8 billion in government (taxpayer) money stolen by crooks in Minnesota, people demand answers to many questions.

But the 800-pound elephant/question goes unasked: Why is government in the business of welfare in the first place?

Where in the Constitution does it permit the federal government to extract money from taxpayers for charity?

Years ago, I worked full time one summer as a “loaned executive” for the United Way of Cleveland. My job was to meet with CEOs of companies, tell them the story of the United Way and hopefully arrange for me to make a presentation to the company’s employees, take questions and then ask for donations.

Through this process, the United Way raised and donated money to other nonprofits involved in community activities such as preschooling, counseling “at-risk” youths, after-school academic programs, care for the sick and elderly and youth sports programs, among other local initiatives. There was a rigorous application process before the nonprofit could receive any money. There was regular and rigorous follow-up to make sure the money was spent properly and efficiently based on previously agreed-on criteria. If, after receiving funds, the nonprofit did not meet these goals, it lost its funding.

The reason for the rigorous review and follow-up was simple. Donors are more likely to give if they feel their money is being spent effectively to achieve the promised result. In fact, “How do I know my money will be spent properly?” was my most frequently asked question.

Because so many worked for the United Way as volunteers, as I did, nearly 90 percent to 95 percent of each dollar donated reached the intended beneficiaries. Government welfare programs, riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, do not come close to this level of efficiency.

Government welfare represents what economist Milton Friedman called the least efficient, least effective and most wasteful spending: somebody else’s money on somebody else. Through most of our country’s history, charity was people to people—house of worship to people, nonprofit to people—not government to people.

James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, opposed a 1794 bill that would appropriate $15,000 for French refugees. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents,” Madison said.

In 1831, Madison said: “With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, who traveled to America in the 1830s, marveled at the large number of volunteer “mutual aid societies.” Tocqueville wrote: “Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. … Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate.”

There is a question of whether no-questions-asked public welfare induces dependency and negatively affects the work ethic. A Center for Immigration Studies profile of Somalis in Minnesota found nearly half of working-age Somali adults who have lived In American more than 10 years cannot speak English “very well.”

You cannot watch television without seeing a pitch for money for wounded soldiers, for police officers and firefighters wounded in the line of duty, for a children’s hospital that does not charge patients, for cats and dogs in need of rescue and so on. Imagine the solicitations in a world where government got out of the business of welfare and allowed its citizens, the most generous in the world, to step in and step up.

Private welfare, compared to public welfare, is less likely to create a sense of entitlement, will get a bigger bang for a buck and is less dependency-inducing than no-questions-asked public welfare.

Latest:

• DENMARK SAYS AGREED WITH US TO FORM WORKING GROUP ON GREENLAND
• RASMUSSEN: WE DIDN’T MANAGE TO CHANGE THE US POSITION
• RASMUSSEN: MEETING TOOK PLACE IN CONSTRUCTIVE ATMOSPHERE
• RASMUSSEN: IN US-GREENLANDIC TALKS `WE AGREE TO DISAGREE’
• RASMUSSEN: EXPERT GROUP WILL MEET IN MATTER OF WEEKS
• Greenland’s Foreign Ministry says they will strengthen cooperation with the US but that doesn’t mean we want to be owned by the US.
• Denmark/Greenland: Hard to find a way forward when we’re “waking up to threats every morning” and that “It is clear” that Donald Trump “has a desire to conquer Greenland”.

Update(1145ET): The Greenland and Denmark delegations are at the White House where they are meeting with Vice President J.D. Vance. Denmark’s defense minister is seeking to convince the Trump administration that a more robust joint NATO presence on the resource-rich, large island of Greenland is all that’s needed – and not a full US takeover. By day’s end we’ll see whether Trump finds this very convincing.

POULSEN: 2026 GREENLAND MILITARY DRILL TO HAVE PERMANENT NATURE

DENMARK DEFENCE MINISTER SAYS WE WILL HAVE A MORE PERMANENT PRESENCE ON GREENLAND GOING FORWARD

SWEDEN PRIME MINISTER: SOME OFFICERS FROM THE SWEDISH ARMED FORCES ARRIVE IN GREENLAND TODAY

DENMARK, GREENLAND OFFICIALS MEET WITH VANCE AND RUBIO

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Vivian Motzfeldt are meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Hours ahead of the meeting, a report in NBC finally put a firm dollar figure to a potential purchase:

The United States could have to pay as much as $700 billion if it were to achieve President Donald Trump’s goal of buying Greenland, according to three people familiar with the cost estimate.

The estimate was generated by scholars and former U.S. officials as part of planning around Trump’s aspiration to acquire the 800,000-square-mile island as a strategic buffer in the Arctic against America’s top adversaries, these people said. It attaches a price tag of more than half the Defense Department’s annual budget to Trump’s national security priority, which has stoked anxiety across Europe and on Capitol Hill amid his rhetoric about seizing Greenland since he ordered a U.S. military raid to capture Venezuela’s president and his wife.

As Polymarket has noted, Trump’s offer to acquire Greenland – if this proves an accurate figure – would higher than the entire GDP of Denmark.

👀 Officials from Denmark and Greenland have arrived at the White House to meet with JD Vance and Secretary Marco Rubio.

pic.twitter.com/3Bk5CtfmRE

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 14, 2026

* * *

President Trump said early Wednesday on Truth Social that anything less than full American control of Greenland would be “unacceptable” – and even cited its necessity in erecting the new Golden Dome missile defense system.

“The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” Trump wrote.

The statement was issued just ahead of Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s meeting with officials from the large far northern island and NATO member Denmark at the White House. 

“Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent – Not even close! They know that, and so do I,” Trump continued. 

“NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES,” he asserted, adding that “anything less than that is unacceptable.”

Trump has repeatedly unsettled the EU and NATO of late by declining to rule out the use of force to take control of the strategically important, resource-rich island. Because Denmark is a member of both organizations, the territory benefits from many of their collective security guarantees.

Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, and Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, originally outright rejected talks with Rubio. However, the meeting is now be held in Washington after Vance asked to participate and subsequently offered to host the discussions. So now they will face down Vance.

Greenland and Denmark have consistently made clear that the territory is not for sale, accusing the United States of applying “unacceptable pressure” on a long-standing ally. They also point out that a 1951 bilateral agreement already permits the US to significantly expand its military presence on the island.

EU leaders have quickly come forward to voice their support for Denmark, reaffirming their commitment to its territorial integrity and the principle of self-determination. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday that the island “belongs to its people”.

🔴 Greenland would rather remain part of Denmark than join the United States, the island’s prime minister has said ahead of a crucial White House meeting

Find out more ⬇️https://t.co/8gAoIUGmLy pic.twitter.com/VEWBzIGrn5

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) January 13, 2026

But what if the people want to take a buyout offer from the United States? Giving each citizen a huge single cash sum is actually among the more creative ideas which have been floated.

The figure of one million dollars has been something in media reports, for example, and we can imagine there are many Greenlanders that would take it.

In follow-up on Wednesday, Trump issued a second Greenland Truth Social statement, this time highlighting that even Danish intelligence last year warned of the increased threat of Russian and Chinese military presence in the Arctic. The Europeans have suddenly been downplaying this, rejecting it as a rationale for a greater US military presence.

And NATO leadership too:

NATO chief Mark Rutte has said that Greenland’s security is “non-negotiable.”

He says that all allies agree on the importance of security in the Arctic and has warned that there must be diligence from NATO towards Chinese and Russian activity in the region.

Denmark and the Europeans have pushed back against his earlier assertions like the following: “We need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We’re not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t,” Trump has said before.

The ‘fact checkers’ have been quick to push back, for example in this fresh Associated Press article: “Experts have repeatedly rebuffed Trump’s claims of Chinese and Russian military forces lurking off Greenland’s coastline. Experts say Russia instead operates in the Barents Sea, off the Scandinavian coast, and both China and Russia have a presence in the Bering Sea south of Alaska.”

But then there’s this highly interesting thread…

Okay.

Here is a list of the quotes from the Danish 2025 Intelligence Assessment that contradict this article:

Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) – Intelligence Outlook 2025
Link: https://t.co/YlTZxmfdjh

– “In recent years, the United States has significantly increased… https://t.co/uIPkj3msLA

— Nick Solheim (@NickSolheim) January 11, 2026

The White House gathering will likely see Denmark try and push for a joint NATO mission for Greenland, of which US forces are a key part, in hopes of satisfying Trump enough to get him to halt his big push for a Greenland takeover. Today’s talks are expected to begin at 10:30am ET.

* * *

Where do people live in Greenland?

Via Remix News,

In Ukraine, ongoing forced conscription and violent practices by the military are provoking civilians to finally resist in unprecedented fashion: passersby, neighbors, and family members are blocking the recruiters’ path as they try to drag civilians off the streets.

Forced conscription is causing increasing fear and distrust among civilians, reports Magyar Nemzet, but many are also no longer standing idly by: More and more footage shows passersby, neighbors, and family members stepping in when the TCK recruitment authorities show up.

People are now openly confronting the authorities, with a few lucky ones escaping conscription. Sadly, other videos show men being forced into vehicles by recruiters or beaten to death.

This past summer, József Sebestyén, a Hungarian from Transcarpathia, died during his forced conscription. The Ukrainian authorities tried by all means to cover up his case.

In the video, recorded in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, a crowd of civilians surrounds a police car in which a man has been placed. In the recording, people can be heard protesting, standing in front of the car, and preventing the vehicle from leaving the scene.

Ukrainians are fed up with war and even more fed up with having to see their loved ones die for it. They are now openly speaking out against family members, friends, and neighbors being dragged away.

In another scene in Lviv, a woman unsuccessfully worked to stop recruiters from forcibly conscripting her son, and they drove away while she screamed.

A similar scene took place in Ungvár when TCK men pushed a young boy into their van, with locals intervening.

The woman’s scream sounded like the wailing for the dead.
In Lviv, a draft officer threw a woman into the snow when she tried to pull her man out of a van. pic.twitter.com/GiybPDbIPY

— Marta Havryshko (@HavryshkoMarta) January 11, 2026

In the footage, a woman, believed to be a relative of the boy, desperately boarded the bus, while an older man jumped in front of the vehicle to prevent it from leaving. Meanwhile, neighbors called and recorded the events. The civilians’ action was ultimately successful: the boy was freed.

The army is finding it increasingly difficult to fill its ranks, and fear and distrust are growing among the population. Just this past November, MN reports that near a school in Cherkasy, Ukraine, a mother reported that she was walking with her children in the playground when a man was surrounded by TCK men. Three men in military uniforms and one in a police uniform got out of the vehicle. 

According to the witness, the group briefly greeted the man and then suddenly punched him in the face.

In downtown Kyiv, passersby witnessed violent scenes in December: TCK employees tried to drag a man out of a store while officers with machine guns stood in ambush. They are no longer even trying to maintain the appearance of legality. 

🇺🇦❕ “If he catches ten men in a night, he’s already got 80 grand. Why the fuck would he go take bullets?”

A Ukrainian conscription officer boasts he can make a nearly $2,000 bonus per night for catching ten men to send to their deaths on the front line.

He says that, working… pic.twitter.com/JJpdvwiTfW

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) August 5, 2025

Recruiters seemingly couldn’t care less if their targets get injured or die during the operation. 

Read more here…

First it was data centers in space. Now it’s nuclear reactors on the moon.

The global space race is heating up again, but it’s more than about just reaching the moon. International partners are teaming up to develop and establish remote posts on the moon utilizing nuclear reactors as the primary energy supply. The Russians are teaming up with the Chinese, the French are teaming up with the Italians, and the Americans are teaming up with… well, more Americans.

The US announced an intention to develop lunar nuclear reactors last summer along with a similar announcement from China and Russia. This was eventually followed up with an executive order titled Ensuring American Space Superiority which explicitly directed the initial establishment of a permanent lunar outpost, including the launch of a lunar reactor, by 2030.

The latest development involves the DOE and NASA signing an MOU to collaborate on deploying reactors on the moon. Instead of pairing up with an international ally in the same way other countries have, the US intends to accomplish this new mission on its own.

“History shows that when American science and innovation come together, from the Manhattan Project to the Apollo Mission, our nation leads the world to reach new frontiers once thought impossible,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “This agreement continues that legacy.”

It’s important to note that this is not the first time moon reactors have been discussed. Years ago, NASA launched a fission surface power project with the target of deploying a 40 kW reactor on the moon. The concept introduces unique challenges: due to the low gravity, the fluids used for coolants won’t behave exactly as they do on earth, and surface temperature swings on the moon introduce additional problems on top of that.

Premium subs are already well informed on the potential participants in the new space race, but this latest venture for deploying reactor technology on the lunar surface introduces new potential beneficiaries.

The earlier moon reactor program incorporated six major participants organized into three teams: Lockheed Martin paired with BWXT, Westinghouse joined Aerojet Rocketdyne, and X-energy teamed up with Intuitive Machines.

Given the environment on the moon, the reactor is most likely to be a high-temperature, gas-cooled design, limiting the field of possible reactor developers. There are other novel concepts being developed by companies like Antares Industries, but here are some potential public market participants to consider: BWXT, Westinghouse (Cameco), Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Nano Nuclear, and Terra Innovatum.