The US Had Greenland During WWII

 

Greenland, Geopolitics, and the Weight of History: A Conservative Case for Prudent Interest, Not Conquest

The US Once Had Greenland:

Early in WWII Denmark signed over Greenland to the US. Germany invaded Denmark and took the place in 6 hours. Germany tried to invade Greenland and the US held them off.

At the end of WWII the US gave it back. It looks as Trump is getting it back for the US.

The recent resurgence of discussion around Greenland, fueled by historical footnote and modern political theater, presents a valuable opportunity to examine core conservative principles regarding foreign policy, national sovereignty, and strategic responsibility. A social media post recalling that “The US Once Had Greenland” during World War II, and suggesting a reclamation, simplifies a complex historical episode into a soundbite. From a serious conservative perspective, this moment demands not nostalgia for temporary administrative control, but a clear-eyed assessment of America’s interests, alliances, and the appropriate use of national power in a new era of great-power competition.

The historical facts, while often condensed, are instructive. In April 1940, following Nazi Germany’s swift occupation of Denmark, the United States—still officially neutral—acted to prevent Greenland from falling under Axis control. The Danish minister in Washington, lacking contact with his occupied homeland, signed an agreement acknowledging U.S. responsibility for Greenland’s defense. American forces established weather stations and airfields, most notably Bluie West One, which became a critical node in the Allied air ferry route to Europe. This was not an annexation, but a wartime trusteeship born of dire necessity. Crucially, in 1945, the United States honorably returned administrative control to a liberated Denmark, cementing a transatlantic alliance that would become a cornerstone of the post-war free world.

This history underscores two foundational conservative foreign policy tenets. First, **the pragmatic defense of the homeland is paramount.** The U.S. action in 1941 was not imperial ambition; it was a preemptive move to secure a strategically vital landmass that, in enemy hands, could have threatened North American security. It was an exercise in realist statecraft, recognizing that geography and technology (in this case, weather forecasting for transatlantic flight and the threat of German U-boats) created a legitimate defensive interest. Second, **keeping one’s word and respecting the sovereignty of allies is the bedrock of durable power.** By returning Greenland after the war, the U.S. demonstrated that its actions were born of temporary exigency, not permanent design. This fidelity built immense goodwill and trust with Denmark and Europe, trust that paid incalculable dividends throughout the Cold War. Conservatism values the binding strength of treaties and the moral authority that comes from principled consistency.

Today, the geopolitical landscape has shifted, but Greenland’s strategic significance has only magnified. Its location commands the northern approaches between North America and Europe, and its waters are increasingly navigable due to changing climate patterns. Furthermore, it possesses vast untapped deposits of rare earth elements, minerals critical to modern technology and defense systems, currently dominated by the Chinese market. It is precisely this combination of geography and resources that has drawn the gaze of a revanchist Russia and an expansionist China, both of whom are actively courting influence in the Arctic.

It is within this context that President Trump’s publicly aired interest in purchasing Greenland—while diplomatically clumsy and widely mocked—touched upon a legitimate conservative concern: **the imperative to protect national security and economic interests from adversarial encroachment.** The conservative critique of the Obama-era foreign policy was that it often withdrew U.S. influence from strategic theaters, creating vacuums that adversaries like Russia and China were all too eager to fill. A proactive, albeit more tactfully executed, strategy to deepen ties with Greenland and ensure it remains within the Western sphere of influence is not only reasonable but necessary. The goal is not colonial acquisition, but ensuring that a vast, strategically located territory allied with a NATO partner does not become a beachhead for our adversaries.

However, the blunt instrument of a purchase proposal fails the test of conservative prudence in several key ways. First, it ignores the **primacy of alliance management.** Denmark is not a rival but a steadfast NATO ally. Treating its autonomous territory as a real estate commodity profoundly disrespects that partnership. True conservative statecraft strengthens alliances through diplomacy and mutual interest, not through transactions that humiliate friends. Second, it misconstrues the nature of the challenge. The threat is not that Denmark will sell Greenland to China, but that Chinese state-owned enterprises will secure critical mineral rights, or that Beijing’s “Polar Silk Road” investments will create a dependency that Copenhagen and Nuuk cannot later escape. The response, therefore, should be strategic competition, not annexation.

A truly conservative approach to Greenland would be multi-faceted, quieter, and more effective:

1.  Deepen the Diplomatic and Economic Partnership: The U.S. should formally elevate its engagement with Greenland’s Home Rule government, opening a consulate in Nuuk and increasing development aid and investment specifically targeted at infrastructure and education. This fosters goodwill and provides a preferable alternative to Chinese capital.

2.  Secure the Arctic Through NATO: The U.S. should lead within NATO to reaffirm the Arctic as an area of strategic interest to the Alliance, conducting more frequent joint exercises with Danish and Canadian forces and investing in Arctic-domain awareness. This projects collective strength and deters adventurism under the legitimate umbrella of collective defense.

3.  Create a Strategic Minerals Alliance: Instead of a unilateral grab, the U.S. should work with Denmark and Greenland to develop a Western consortium, potentially including other allies like Canada and Australia, to finance and develop Greenland’s rare earth deposits. This creates a secure supply chain for the West, provides economic benefit to Greenland, and counters Chinese monopoly—all through free-market partnership.

4.  Invest in Defense Infrastructure: Negotiate a permanent, modernized basing agreement with Denmark for upgraded facilities at Thule Air Base and potentially new locations. This is a continuation of the existing, mutually beneficial defense relationship, not a takeover.

The call to “get it back for the US” fundamentally misunderstands both history and conservative doctrine. We never “had” Greenland in the sense of ownership; we had a defensive mandate during a world war. Seeking to own it now would be a radical departure from our republican principles and a repudiation of the alliance structure that has secured our safety for 75 years. It would be an act of imperial overreach that would alienate every one of our allies, validate every critique of American hegemony, and likely prove fiscally and administratively catastrophic.

In conclusion, the conservative perspective on Greenland is not one of nostalgic reclamation. It is one of sober, strategic interest. Our history there reminds us of our capacity for both decisive action in defense of our homeland and honorable conduct towards our allies. The present moment calls for us to channel that same spirit: to be clear-eyed about the competition with China and Russia, to be robust in defending our interests in the Arctic, but to do so through the frameworks of alliance, diplomacy, and mutually beneficial partnership that have long been the true source of enduring American strength. The task is not to purchase an island, but to fortify a frontier of freedom, ensuring that Greenland remains a partner in security and prosperity, not a chess piece won or lost in a new cold war. That is the path of principled, conservative realism.

#US #Trump #Denmark #Germany #Greenland 

Trump touts 'total access' Greenland deal as NATO asks allies to step up

#Trump #Greenland

Take Over Everything!!!

 TOTALLY SATIRE ... IT'S A JOKE!!!

Geography:

Greenland has 57 Million people. Give each one 1 Million Dollars and have them affiliate with us. Denmark isn't providing them jobs. China and Russia are trying to move in.

We need to take Venezuela, Greenland, Cuba, snatch Canada, and check the possibilities in Mexico. We can be the 'Capitalist Block'.

Oh, I forgot, we can take Gaza, and Iran ... I want Lebanon for the FOOD!!!

You get a country, you get a country, you get a country ... etc ...

The Peril of the " Block": Why Conservative Principles Reject Imperial Fantasy

The recent social media post advocating for the United States to essentially “collect” nations—from Greenland and Venezuela to Canada and Iran—under a so-called “Capitalist Block” is a troubling departure from the core tenets of conservative thought. While cloaked in the language of free enterprise and strategic competition, this fantasy of neo-imperial acquisition represents everything authentic American conservatism stands against: reckless adventurism, a disregard for national sovereignty, fiscal insanity, and a fundamental betrayal of the principles of ordered liberty and self-determination.

At first glance, the post’s frustration is understandable from a conservative viewpoint. The geopolitical maneuvering of adversaries like China and Russia is a legitimate national security concern. The notion that Denmark isn’t “providing jobs” for Greenlanders, or that hostile regimes in Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere destabilize their regions and threaten U.S. interests, touches on real issues. The instinct to assert American strength and promote economic freedom is not, in itself, misguided. However, the proposed solution—a glib, Oprah-esque distribution of nations (“You get a country!”)—is a grotesque caricature of both sound strategy and conservative philosophy.

First Principles: Sovereignty and the Limits of Power

True conservatism is rooted in a sober understanding of human nature and the limits of power, both individual and national. The Founding Fathers, deeply influenced by conservative Enlightenment thinkers, constructed a republic, not an empire. They designed a system of limited government intended to secure the blessings of liberty for its own citizens, not to administer a global collection of territories. The conservative foreign policy tradition, from John Quincy Adams’ warning against going “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” to the Reagan doctrine of supporting those fighting for their own freedom, has emphasized that America’s power is at its most potent and moral when it serves as a beacon, not a conqueror.

The proposal to “take” nations violates this foundational respect for sovereignty. It conflates leadership with domination. To a conservative, the sovereignty of other nations is not a triviality; it is a recognition of the right of all peoples to determine their own political destiny. “Snatching” Canada—our closest ally, trading partner, and a fellow democracy—is not a strategic proposal; it is an act of war against a peaceful neighbor, an idea so antithetical to the conservative value of alliance and treaty that it borders on the absurd. Similarly, the casual acquisition of Gaza or Lebanon “for the FOOD” reduces complex nations with ancient histories and profound internal conflicts to mere commodities, revealing a shocking lack of seriousness and empathy.

Fiscal Conservatism Versus Imperial Overreach

The fiscal implications of this “Capitalist Block” scheme are staggering and fly in the face of every principle of fiscal conservatism. The post’s opening suggestion—to give Greenland’s (fictional) 57 million people one million dollars each—represents a proposed expenditure of $57 trillion, a sum exceeding the entire U.S. national debt. This is not capitalism; it is the worst form of profligate clientelism, a bankrupting bribe masquerading as policy.

Furthermore, true capitalism is not imposed at gunpoint; it emerges organically from cultural values, the rule of law, and respect for property rights. You cannot “give” a country capitalism through annexation. The administrative, military, and financial cost of occupying, securing, and governing unwilling populations from Venezuela to Iran would dwarf any conceivable economic benefit, draining the U.S. treasury, overextending our military, and crippling our economy. Conservatives understand that unsustainable spending is a path to national decline, not strength. An empire is a fiscally draining enterprise, as history has repeatedly shown, and it ultimately undermines the liberty and prosperity of the citizens at home who are forced to pay for it.

Strategic Realism Versus Reckless Expansion

A conservative foreign policy is realist and pragmatic. It focuses on concrete national interests and understands that power must be balanced with prudence. The post correctly identifies adversaries like China and Russia, but its prescribed remedy—wholesale, unilateral land-grabs—would achieve the exact opposite of containment. It would instantly unite the entire world against the United States, transforming current allies into fearful neutrals and hardening the resolve of our enemies. It would make America the rogue state, the aggressor that validates every piece of anti-American propaganda.

A realist conservative strategy focuses on strengthening alliances (like NATO), competing economically and technologically, and using diplomatic and financial leverage to check adversary influence. It means supporting democratic movements within countries like Venezuela and Cuba, not invading them. It means offering Greenland a mutually beneficial economic partnership, not treating its people like lottery winners in a geopolitical game show. It means maintaining such overwhelming conventional and nuclear deterrence that nations like Iran are contained without needing a ground war. Expansionism dissipates strength; focused deterrence and alliance-building concentrate it.

The Moral Hazard of "Easy" Solutions

Finally, the flippant tone of the post exposes a deeper moral hazard: the attraction of easy, drastic solutions to complex problems. Conservatism is inherently skeptical of grand schemes and utopian visions, recognizing that societal change is slow, difficult, and often messy. The problems of international relations—terrorism, economic coercion, ideological subversion—are not solved by drawing new lines on a map. They are managed through persistent, disciplined statecraft.

The desire for a “Capitalist Block” is, in essence, an impatient rejection of the hard work of diplomacy, economic competition, and cultural persuasion. It is the foreign policy equivalent of demanding a single pill to solve obesity rather than committing to the daily disciplines of diet and exercise. It promises a quick, clean victory that does not and cannot exist.

In conclusion, the vision of a neo-imperial “Capitalist Block” is a profound betrayal of conservative values. It swaps the sober realism of limited government and national sovereignty for the intoxication of limitless power. It trades fiscal responsibility for fantasy economics. It abandons the moral high ground of leading by example for the morally bankrupt path of conquest. True American strength does not lie in how many countries we can “take,” but in how successfully we uphold our own principles at home, how reliably we stand with our allies, and how wisely we deter our adversaries. We do not need an empire; we need to faithfully conserve the exceptional republic we already have.

#ForeignPolicy #Venezuela #Cuba #Greenland #Iran

Professional Protesters Play Stupid Games

Professional Protesters Play Stupid Games

The crazy lady in Minneapolis had gone to 2 other sites to harrass Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers that same day. I guess when they say '3rd Time Is a Charm' means something.

"You gotta know when to holdem', know when to foldem', know when to walk away, know when to run" ... ~ Kenny Rogers 

She rolled the dice ... and LOST!!!

Professional Protesters Play Stupid Games

A recent incident in Minneapolis has reignited a crucial debate about the nature of protest, law and order, and personal responsibility. A woman, identified as a repeat activist, confronted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers—her third such confrontation in a single day. The encounter ended as these situations often do: with her arrest. The online commentary was swift and stark, borrowing from Kenny Rogers’ timeless wisdom in *The Gambler*: “You gotta know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” In this case, the protester, having rolled the dice one too many times, lost.

From a conservative perspective, this episode is not an isolated event but a symptom of a broader cultural malady. It exemplifies the rise of the “professional protester”—individuals who engage in performative civil disobedience not as a last resort of the oppressed, but as a primary vocation, often detached from the practical realities of governance and the rule of law. This phenomenon represents a dangerous shift from earnest civic engagement to theatrical antagonism, and its consequences undermine both social order and the very causes these protesters claim to champion.

The Theater of Grievance vs. The Reality of Law

The central issue here is one of deliberate escalation and disregard for lawful process. ICE officers, whether one agrees with their mission or not, are federal agents carrying out duties mandated by laws passed by Congress. They are not a roving militia but a component of the executive branch’s enforcement apparatus. To seek out and deliberately harass these officers at multiple locations in a single day is not protest; it is a targeted campaign of obstruction and intimidation.

Conservatives believe in the fundamental necessity of a society governed by laws, not by mobs or individual passions. The right to peacefully assemble and petition the government is sacrosanct and enshrined in our First Amendment. This right, however, does not confer a license to block buildings, disrupt lawful operations, or harass public servants performing their sworn duties. There is a profound difference between holding a sign in a public square and actively seeking to impede the function of government. The former is dissent; the latter is often delinquency masquerading as civil rights activism.

The “professional protester” model thrives on blurring this line. Their currency is the viral video clip, the dramatic arrest photo—the “martyrdom” moment designed for social media amplification. The goal is less about persuading the public or changing policy through reasoned discourse and more about staging a spectacle of conflict. In doing so, they treat law enforcement not as fellow citizens in uniform but as props in a political theater piece. This dehumanization is corrosive. It ignores the reality that these officers have a job to do, families to support, and a right to safety while performing their duties.

The Cult of Stupid Games and Stupid Prizes

The adage “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” is a blunt but accurate piece of folk wisdom. It speaks to a core conservative belief in causality and personal accountability. Actions have consequences. If you choose to repeatedly confront and obstruct armed federal agents, the probable consequence is arrest and prosecution. This is not oppression; it is the predictable outcome of a deliberate choice.

A stable society depends on its citizens understanding and respecting this basic social contract. When certain groups are encouraged—by activist networks, partisan media, or a permissive cultural narrative—to believe they are exempt from these consequences because their cause is “just,” it fosters a dangerous entitlement. It creates a class of individuals who believe their moral self-certification places them above the law. This is the antithesis of the equality under the law that is the bedrock of the American system.

The Kenny Rogers lyric cited in the commentary is profoundly apt. It is about strategic judgment, a virtue often absent in the heat of performative activism. Knowing “when to run” isn’t cowardice; it is the prudence of living to fight another day within the bounds of the law and effective strategy. The relentless, confrontational approach disregards this wisdom. It mistakes constant escalation for commitment and views any de-escalation as surrender. This mindset leads to losing battles that never needed to be fought in such a manner, draining energy from more productive, long-term efforts like lobbying, public education campaigns, or judicial challenges.

The Undermining of Legitimate Dissent

Perhaps the most damaging effect of the “professional protester” industry is the cheapening of legitimate, grassroots dissent. When every policy disagreement is met with the same toolkit of staged confrontations and performative outrage, it creates protest fatigue among the general public. Serious citizens with genuine grievances are lumped in with serial harassers and agitators.

For conservatives who may themselves protest federal overreach, state mandates, or other issues, this is particularly frustrating. It allows opponents to dismiss all protest as the work of unhinged or unserious people. It moves the Overton Window away from substantive debate about the scope, scale, and methods of government agencies like ICE, and refocuses the conversation solely on the drama of the confrontation itself. The woman in Minneapolis is no longer a citizen with a viewpoint on immigration policy; she is “the crazy lady” who wouldn’t stop harassing officers. Her cause, whatever its merits, is instantly marginalized by her conduct.

The Path Forward: Principled and Prudent Opposition

Conservatism at its best is not merely about supporting law enforcement uncritically. It is about upholding the rule of law as the indispensable framework for a free society. This framework allows for—indeed, protects—vigorous political debate and change. The proper conservative response to an agency one believes is overstepping or acting unjustly is not to harass its rank-and-file officers but to use the powerful tools our system provides: vote for representatives who will change the law, support lawsuits that challenge unconstitutional actions, engage in public persuasion to shift the consensus, and peacefully picket in designated areas.

The individual in Minneapolis had every right to oppose ICE’s actions. She had no right to persistently obstruct its officers. Her choice to do so resulted in a “stupid prize” that was entirely avoidable. Her story serves as a cautionary tale about the dead end of performative activism. Real, lasting change is built through the hard, unglamorous work of democratic engagement—work that respects the very structures it seeks to reform. It is built by citizens who know not just when to hold ’em, but when to use the legitimate political tools at their disposal, and when to walk away from counterproductive theatrics that serve only to make them the main character in a story of their own defeat.

#Good #Minneapolis #ILLEGALS #Shooting #ICE #Protesters #ReneeNicoleGood

An Unholy Alliance: Hezbollah’s Foothold in Venezuela and the Threat to Hemispheric Security

 

An Unholy Alliance: Hezbollah’s Foothold in Venezuela and the Threat to Hemispheric Security

From a conservative perspective, national security is predicated on a clear-eyed assessment of threats, both overt and covert. It requires calling malign actors by their proper names and opposing the ideologies that fuel them, regardless of political expediency. Few alliances so perfectly encapsulate a failure of this duty than the deepening, deliberate partnership between the socialist dictatorship in Venezuela and the Iranian-backed terrorist organization, Hezbollah. This is not a matter of speculation or alarmism; it is a documented, strategic penetration of the Western Hemisphere by a dedicated enemy of the United States and its allies, facilitated by a corrupt and anti-American regime in Caracas.

The foundation of this alliance is not incidental but ideological and strategic. The Bolivarian revolution, initiated by Hugo Chávez and ruthlessly maintained by Nicolás Maduro, was from its inception built on a foundation of virulent anti-Americanism. Chávez did not merely seek a different economic model; he actively sought to build a global axis of resistance against U.S. influence. This naturally led him into the arms of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism and a regime whose foundational creed is likewise opposition to “The Great Satan.” From this state-level partnership between Caracas and Tehran sprouted the operational branch: Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful and capable terrorist proxy.

Hezbollah’s role in Venezuela is multifaceted, operating across three interconnected domains: criminal finance, logistical support, and ideological solidarity. Firstly, Venezuela has become a critical node in Hezbollah’s global financial network. The regime’s rampant corruption, control over natural resources, and porous borders have created a paradise for illicit finance. Hezbollah’s external security apparatus, along with its allies in the Lebanese diaspora in the tri-border area of South America, have leveraged Venezuelan resources for decades. Key to this has been the regime’s complicity.

Reports from the U.S. Treasury Department and investigative journalists have detailed how Venezuelan state entities, including the national oil company PDVSA, have been used to launder money and move resources, often through complex schemes involving overvalued contracts, shell companies, and trade-based money laundering. The Maduro regime, in exchange for hard currency and political support from Iran, has provided Hezbollah facilitators with Venezuelan identity documents, passports, and diplomatic cover. This transforms terrorists into “businessmen,” allowing them to move freely and bank securely. The profits from narcotrafficking, embezzlement, and fraud flowing through these channels directly fund Hezbollah’s military arsenal in Lebanon and its global terrorist operations. In short, the collapse of the Venezuelan economy under socialism has created a black market bonanza that helps bankroll jihadism.

Secondly, Venezuela serves as a potential logistical and operational platform in America’s backyard. Conservatives understand that terrorism thrives in ungoverned spaces. The Venezuelan regime’s deliberate collapse of institutional controls, combined with its control over ports, airports, and vast, remote land borders, has created such a space. There is deep concern among national security experts that Venezuela could be used as a launchpad for attacks, a transit point for operatives entering North America, or a safe haven for planning. The presence of sympathetic regime elements in intelligence and military units lowers the barrier for such activities. While Hezbollah’s primary theater remains the Middle East, its history of catastrophic attacks in Buenos Aires in the 1990s proves its capability and willingness to strike in the Western Hemisphere. A friendly regime like Maduro’s provides an invaluable contingency option, a threat-in-being that constrains U.S. options and provides Iran with leverage.

Thirdly, there is a disturbing ideological synergy. The Maduro regime and Hezbollah both style themselves as revolutionary vanguards in a global struggle against American “imperialism” and “Zionism.” State media in Venezuela has consistently parroted Iranian and Hezbollah propaganda. This is not a mere marriage of convenience but a meeting of revolutionary minds. For conservatives, this highlights the truly global nature of the anti-American, anti-Western coalition. It bridges the socialist “Bolivarian” left and the Islamist far-right, united only by their hatred for the United States, Israel, and the concept of liberal democracy. This alliance demonstrates that the threat is ideological as much as it is military; it is a coalition of those who seek to dismantle the U.S.-led international order.

The response from successive U.S. administrations, until recently, has been woefully inadequate, often hamstrung by a reluctance to confront the full nature of the regimes involved. From a conservative viewpoint, a robust strategy to counter this threat must be unequivocal and multi-pronged:

1.  Maximum Pressure and Designation: The U.S. must maintain and intensify maximum pressure campaigns on both the Maduro and Iranian regimes. Every individual and entity facilitating this nexus must be hit with crushing sanctions. Venezuela must be formally designated, without ambiguity, as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. This is not a symbolic gesture; it triggers a cascade of legal and financial consequences that can disrupt the alliance’s lifelines.

2. Support for Democratic Legitimacy: U.S. policy must remain unequivocally aligned with the cause of Venezuelan freedom. This means recognizing the legitimate, democratically elected National Assembly and continuing support for the Venezuelan people’s right to self-determination. A free, democratic Venezuela would naturally expel Hezbollah and rejoin the community of peaceful nations. Support must be material, diplomatic, and rhetorical.

3. Hemispheric Solidarity and Intelligence Sharing: The U.S. must lead a concerted effort with regional allies, particularly Colombia and Brazil, to share intelligence, secure borders, and dismantle the criminal-terrorist networks operating in the region. This is a shared threat to hemispheric security, not just a U.S. problem.

4. Military Deterrence and Preparedness: The U.S. Southern Command must be resourced appropriately to monitor, deter, and, if necessary, neutralize any emergent terrorist threat from Venezuelan soil. This includes enhanced surveillance, cyber capabilities, and clear messaging that the use of Venezuelan territory for attacks will be met with a devastating response.

The Hezbollah-Venezuela nexus is a chilling case study in the consequences of American weakness and ideological blindness. It is the direct result of allowing a hostile, socialist regime to consolidate power, collapse a once-prosperous nation, and open its doors to the world’s most sophisticated terrorist organization. For conservatives, this is a stark reminder that isolationism is a luxury we cannot afford. Threats gather in the shadows of failed states and are nurtured by regimes that hate us. To protect the homeland, we must be willing to confront evil abroad, name it accurately, and act decisively to counter it. The people of Venezuela are the first victims of this unholy alliance, but if left unchecked, we will not be the last. The time for clear-eyed recognition and resolute action is now.

#Hezbollah #Iran #Venezuela #Marudo #Lebanon

37 Year Old Woman Shot By ICE

 

37 Year Old Woman Shot By ICE

See The Video

Video shows the moment an ICE agent fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, 2026. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey calls the claim the shooting was self-defense "bullshit" and is a "garbage narrative" after seeing video of the shooting.

#ICE #Minneapolis #Shooting

US discussing options to acquire Greenland, including use of military, says White House

 

US discussing options to acquire Greenland, including use of military, says White House

#GreenLand #Denmark #Whitehouse

The Monroe Doctrine: The Foundational Pillar of American Sovereignty and Strategic Independence

 

The Monroe Doctrine: The Foundational Pillar of American Sovereignty and Strategic Independence

The Monroe Doctrine: The Foundational Pillar of American Sovereignty and Strategic Independence

In an era of resurgent great power competition and often muddled American foreign policy, a clear-eyed re-examination of foundational principles is not merely an academic exercise—it is a strategic necessity. From a conservative viewpoint, few doctrines are as vital to understanding America’s proper role in the world, and as desperately in need of reaffirmation, as the Monroe Doctrine. Articulated by President James Monroe in 1823, this policy was far more than a statement of hemispheric interest; it was a bold declaration of American sovereignty, strategic independence, and a distinct vision of republican liberty standing apart from the corrupt, imperial systems of the Old World.

At its core, the Monroe Doctrine rested upon two interlocking pillars, both deeply rooted in a conservative understanding of national interest and constitutional republicanism. The first was a definitive declaration of separation. The United States would regard any future attempt by European powers to colonize, control, or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Western Hemisphere as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” This was not issued from a position of overwhelming military strength, but from one of profound moral and strategic clarity. America, having won its own independence through revolution, would not stand idly by as the reactionary monarchies of the Holy Alliance—namely Spain, France, and Russia—sought to reimpose colonial subjugation on Latin American republics. The Doctrine drew a clean, philosophical line between the New World, committed to self-government and popular sovereignty, and the Old World, clinging to hereditary privilege and empire.

The second pillar was a reciprocal promise of restraint. In return for this protective barrier against European encroachment, the United States vowed not to interfere in the internal affairs or existing colonies of European nations, nor to involve itself in Europe’s endless dynastic and imperial wars. “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so,” Monroe stated. This was the essence of strategic independence—a refusal to be drawn into alliances that would compromise American liberty or entangle the republic in conflicts that served no vital national interest. It was a foreign policy of dignified neutrality, aimed at providing the space and security necessary for the fragile American experiment to grow and solidify at home.

From a modern conservative perspective, the genius of the Monroe Doctrine lies in this elegant balance. It was neither isolationist nor interventionist in the modern, misguided senses of those terms. It was **strategically delineated**. It clearly defined the Western Hemisphere as a region of vital national interest, where external threats would be met with firm resistance. Simultaneously, it recognized the limits of American power and interest, wisely avoiding the quagmires of European power politics. This philosophy guided American statecraft for nearly a century, allowing the nation to develop its economic might, expand across the continent, and avoid the bloodletting that periodically consumed Europe.

The 20th century, however, saw the Doctrine evolve, tested by global ideological struggles. The Roosevelt Corollary (1904), while often criticized for justifying American interventionism, was, in its original context, a conservative attempt to preempt European intervention by ensuring stability and responsible governance in the hemisphere. Its principle—that chronic wrongdoing or instability which invited European action would require the U.S. to exercise “an international police power”—was a logical, if heavy-handed, extension of the original Doctrine’s preventative logic. Later, during the Cold War, the Doctrine found renewed purpose as a bulwark against Soviet communist expansion in the hemisphere. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 represented the Doctrine’s starkest modern enforcement: the introduction of offensive Soviet missiles into Cuba was correctly seen not merely as a strategic threat, but as a fundamental violation of the hemispheric sovereignty the Doctrine had proclaimed for 140 years. President Kennedy’s blockade was a direct descendant of Monroe’s original warning.

Today, the Monroe Doctrine is not an anachronism; its core principles are more relevant than ever. A conservative foreign policy revival must center on its restoration, understood in modern terms. The fundamental threats to hemispheric sovereignty and American security are no longer Spanish galleons or Holy Alliance armies, but new forms of imperialism and corruption.

First is the expansionist agenda of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Through its “Belt and Road Initiative,” predatory lending practices (“debt-trap diplomacy”), and strategic investments in ports, telecommunications, and critical infrastructure across Latin America and the Caribbean, Beijing is engaging in a form of neo-colonialism. It seeks not to plant flags, but to buy political influence, control resources, and establish military and logistical footholds within what has historically been America’s strategic backyard. This economic and strategic penetration directly undermines the sovereignty of nations in the hemisphere and poses a long-term threat to American national security. A reaffirmed Monroe Doctrine would recognize this not as benign investment, but as a hostile geopolitical maneuver to be countered with robust American alternatives based on fair trade, transparency, and support for genuine sovereignty.

Second is the threat of transnational criminal empires and narco-terrorist networks that corrupt governments, destabilize nations, and unleash waves of migration and violence that spill across borders. These entities create the very conditions of lawlessness and failed governance that the original Doctrine and its Corollary sought to prevent. A modern application demands a focus on strengthening the rule of law, supporting legitimate security forces, and dismantling the financial networks of these cartels—not out of a desire for hegemony, but from a necessity for collective hemispheric defense and stability.

To embrace the Monroe Doctrine today is not to advocate for a return to 19th-century gunboat diplomacy or unilateral diktats. It is to reclaim a foreign policy rooted in clear-eyed national interest, strategic clarity, and republican principle. It means:

1.  Reasserting Hemispheric Primacy: Clearly communicating that adversarial powers like China, Russia, or Iran seeking military bases, intelligence facilities, or coercive economic control in the Americas will be met with unwavering diplomatic, economic, and strategic resistance from the United States.

2.  Promoting Liberty through Partnership: Leading with an affirmative vision of partnership based on mutual respect, shared security against criminal and ideological threats, and economic cooperation that fosters independence from predatory regimes, rather than dependence on them.

3.  Renewing Strategic Independence: Applying the Doctrine’s wisdom of delineation globally. While defending the hemisphere as a primary interest, America must avoid endless “nation-building” in distant lands and entangling alliances that drain national treasure for objectives peripheral to core security. Strength at home is the prerequisite for effective policy abroad.

In a world where American foreign policy has too often oscillated between naive globalism and reactionary isolationism, the Monroe Doctrine offers a timeless conservative compass. It is a declaration that American security is inextricably linked to a hemisphere free from hostile Old World powers. It is a commitment to preserving the space for republican self-government to flourish. And it is a reminder that a strong, confident, and sovereign United States, minding its own vital interests while respecting the sovereignty of its neighbors, is the surest guarantor of peace and freedom. To dismiss it is to forget who we are. To revive it is to secure our future.

#TheMonroeDoctrine #AmericanSovereignty #Strategic #Independence

Manny Noriega - Panama -Just Cause

 

Manny Noriega - Panama

I went to Officer Basic Course at FT Lee, VA after graduating college and getting my commission in 1989. Right after I arrived we were shut down for Christmas so I went home.  I was watching TV on my parents living room floor and fell asleep. I like sleeping on the floor. I had the TV on Channel 8 ABC Tulsa that had Don Woods on the weather. Anyway, I woke up watching the US Invasion of Panama going after Manny Noriega. He was doing the same thing Marudo was doing with the drug trafficking and he wouldn't leave either. Bush 41 wasn't having it. So there I was watching a battle in real time from my parent's house on Christmas leave.

So I was assigned to FT. Bragg. After Officer Basic Course I went to Airborne School at FT. Benning, GA. Then I went to FT Bragg. When I got there I was assigned to a Company where in which one Lieutenant was refueling vehicles while getting shot at in Panama while I was watching it on TV. An E-6 Staff Seargent who was in a Graves Registration Platoon described how he jumped in with the 82nd Airborne Division and laid in the prone position for 6 hours because it was so chaotic. I did Group Guard Duty one night. I was the OIC. The NCOIC had served in Panama. He told me he and his family were due to transfer to FT. Bragg from Panama, but the invasion broke out. So, all of their household item were in a warehouse waiting to be transported. He said he had to call his wife and tell her he 'blew up their stuft'. A SNIPER was on top of the building. He had to go, and the 'stuff' didn't matter.

One guy was described as landing on the airstrip and broke his ankle...Combat jumps are only from 500 ft. At Airborne school it's 1200 ft. At 500 feet there is no room for mistakes or equipment or mental malfunctions. Another guy caught a 9mm round in his web gear. He was lucky it wasn't a 50 Cal ... he would uave been cut in half.

War is Hell. Amazing the Military and Law Enforcement were able to go into Venezuela, and catch and capture, and arrest a married couple in a city of 5 Million and didn't lose anyone.

"PANAMAAAAA" ~ David Lee Roth

BTW, Manny Noriega held out in the Vatican Embassy. The Army Phsyops Units played HEAVY METAL Music on BLAST until he was talked into leaving and surrendered.

#Panama #Venezuela #Noriega #Maduro

60 YEARS OF MAGIC: WHY A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS STILL HOLDS THE HEART OF THE SEASON!

 

60 YEARS OF MAGIC: WHY A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS STILL HOLDS THE HEART OF THE SEASON!

In 1965, it was a risky experiment that executives thought would fail. Today, it is the heartbeat of the holidays. As A Charlie Brown Christmas celebrates its 60th anniversary, we look back at the little cartoon that dared to be different—and ended up changing television history forever.

In a world full of flashy spectacles and loud commercials, why does a scrawny little tree and a group of kids still move us to tears? From Linus’s courageous spotlight moment to the hauntingly beautiful jazz score by Vince Guaraldi, every frame of this masterpiece was designed to point us back to what truly matters. We’re uncovering the behind-the-scenes secrets that almost kept this special off the air, including the bold fight to keep the Nativity story at its core. Is it still possible to find the "true meaning of Christmas" in 2025? Charlie Brown found it 60 years ago, and his discovery is more relevant today than ever.

The tree might be small, but the message is eternal. Click the link below to discover the incredible true story behind the creation of this holiday legend!

#Christmas #CharlieBrown

More On The Story

In a cultural moment saturated with spectacle, where holiday entertainment often means high-budget streaming movies featuring superheroes in Santa hats or relentless, sugary-sweet romances, a simple, 30-minute cartoon from 1965 continues to stand apart. *A Charlie Brown Christmas* is more than a beloved television special; it is a quiet, profound cultural anchor. Six decades after its debut, its magic endures because it speaks to three timeless truths often forgotten in modern December’s frenzy: the courageous validation of holiday melancholy, the restorative power of simple sincerity, and the unapologetic centrality of a traditional, sacred story.

At its core, the special is an empathetic embrace of a feeling many experience but few holiday productions dare to acknowledge: Christmas disillusionment. Charlie Brown’s famous lament, “I think there’s something wrong with me, Linus. Christmas is coming, but I’m not happy,” resonates as powerfully today as it did in 1965. He is overwhelmed by the season’s commercialization—the “dog-eat-dog” scramble for aluminum trees, the pressure of directing the Christmas play, the incessant, joyless noise of his peers. In an era where social media amplifies curated perfection and holiday stress is a marketed commodity, Charlie Brown’s quiet angst is a relief. He gives voice to the universal child (and adult) who feels out of step with mandated merriment. The special’s genius is that it doesn’t mock his feelings as Grinch-like or solve them with a facile platitude. It takes his spiritual search seriously.

This search leads to the special’s second, and most defining, act of courage: its stark, beautiful sincerity. When faced with the task of finding the “true meaning of Christmas,” the show makes a choice that would give modern network executives a panic attack. It stops. In the middle of a prime-time cartoon, on the CBS network, Linus van Pelt walks to center stage, asks for a spotlight “on,” and recites, verbatim, the Gospel of Luke’s account of the Nativity: “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night…” There is no wink to the audience, no ironic detachment, no cutaway gag. The jazzy music falls silent. The animation holds on Linus. It is an act of pure, earnest faith. In a pluralistic society, this moment remains stunning in its artistic and moral conviction. It offers not a vague, secular “holiday spirit,” but a specific, doctrinal answer to Charlie Brown’s question. This is the special’s unwavering spine. It argues that the heart of the season is not found in presents, parties, or even heartfelt sentiment about togetherness, but in the foundational story of Christian tradition. It is a radical anchor in a sea of seasonal drift.

Finally, the special champions authentic, imperfect effort over glossy, artificial perfection. Charlie Brown’s choice of the sad, sparse little tree is the ultimate symbol of this. Rejecting the shiny, metallic fakes, he selects a real, living sapling because it “needs him.” It is a choice met with derision, yet it becomes the vessel for redemption. When the gang, chastened by Linus’s speech, gathers to decorate it, their collective, simple effort transforms it into something glorious. This is a powerful metaphor for community and purpose. The magic isn’t in the tree itself, but in the love and care applied to it. The final, acapella singing of “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” around the redeemed tree is not a polished performance, but a communal act. It models a holiday ethos centered on humble giving, personal responsibility, and shared faith rather than consumerist acquisition.

Sixty years on, the world has changed immeasurably. The television landscape is fragmented, childhood is digitized, and cultural references have sped up. Yet *A Charlie Brown Christmas* holds fast. Its hand-drawn animation, Vince Guaraldi’s melancholically cool jazz score, and the children’s unpolished voice acting are not dated; they are authentic. They provide a respite from the high-definition, algorithmically-driven noise of the modern age. In Charlie Brown’s search, Linus’s recitation, and that pitiful, wonderful little tree, we find an enduring antidote to holiday anxiety. It reminds us that joy is not the absence of melancholy, but often emerges from confronting it. It insists that the season’s deepest magic has a name and a story. And it proves, year after year, that a little sincerity can transform even the barest of branches into a thing of everlasting beauty. That is not just television history; it is a small, annual miracle.