Our Progressive Calendar

posted by Farrel Bloch at American Thinker 

Like the proverbial frog basking unaware in a gradually boiling pot of water, American holiday observance has been modified piecemeal over the last half century to create an increasingly progressive federal calendar. This trend should not be surprising given recent history’s leftward political drift.

Calendars, specifically observed holidays, provide insights into societies. For example, the American separation of church and state is reflected in Christmas being the only religious celebration among the six holidays on which schools, offices, factories, banks, financial markets, and all levels of government tend to be closed, the other five being New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day (the Fourth of July), Labor Day, and Thanksgiving. Of course, some people celebrate these holidays, especially Thanksgiving, by attending religious services. And New Years’ Day is of Christian origin, counting the years since the conventional date of Jesus’ birth. Also, the stock market still closes on Good Friday.  

In any event, the last few decades have witnessed striking changes -- all in the progressive direction. The process began in 1971 when celebration of Washington’s Birthday moved to the third Monday in February. Although the holiday’s formal name remained the same, it is commonly called Presidents’ Day. Singular honor for George Washington has been replaced by aggregate recognition of all U.S. presidents. No longer was any American honored with his own federal holiday.

Around the same time, many states dropped their February celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Presumably the disappointment of workers and schoolchildren at the loss of time off for Lincoln’s birthday was somewhat compensated by Presidents’ Day three-day weekends. And employers were certainly pleased: one fewer paid day off in some states as well as heating and other savings from closing workplaces for three consecutive days rather than opening and closing them for single weekdays. With this more efficient closure as well as low employee attendance and the appeal of long weekends, Friday after Thanksgiving has become an increasingly common paid holiday.

The most controversial new holiday was Martin Luther King Day. First proposed in 1979, it became a federal holiday in 1983 but not a holiday in every state until 2000. Objections were commonly interpreted as racism, but also reflected employers’ natural aversion to additional paid time off and consideration even among those with great respect for Dr. King as to whether he should be the only American so honored. A specific objection was that he was not a president or government official, countered by noting Benjamin Franklin’s visage on the $100 bill. At any rate, protests including moving Super Bowl XXVII, played in January 1993, from Tempe, Arizona to Pasadena, California -- from a state reluctant to approve the holiday to one promoting it -- solidified broad acceptance.

In this century local governments have paired or replaced Columbus Day with Indigenous People’s Day, in so doing portraying Columbus as initiating colonization of the New World and brutally treating the indigenous population he encountered rather than honoring him as an intrepid explorer. The latter characterization, in the past not at all controversial, explains longstanding Italian-American honoring of Columbus Day, originally opposed with anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment. In any case, the last calendar celebration of a male of European ancestry is apparently on the road to removal.  

The most recent calendar change is the addition of Juneteenth, commemorating 1865 enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation in Texas, slavery having ended mostly but not entirely elsewhere (the laggards were Delaware and Kentucky, border states not part of the Confederacy and therefore not subject to the Proclamation). This holiday became widely enshrined with little controversy, perhaps to avoid accusations of racism and controversy like that for Martin Luther King Day. Some view these two holidays as celebrations mainly for African Americans.

If these trends continue, Americans can expect further erosion of Columbus Day in favor of Indigenous People’s Day; perhaps an eventual conflation of Veterans’ Day and Memorial Day, to deemphasize the military; and, finally, much less likely although promoted in occasional articles, a replacement of July 4 by Juneteenth, or at least more equal stature of those two days.

Future federal holidays may be enacted. In recent years many individuals have been honored on U.S. coins, primarily as part of commemorative series or official designs. Almost all the honorees have been women and/or people of color. Fewer dignitaries have been honored on U.S. currency but Harriet Tubman’s likeness is scheduled to replace that of Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill while Jackson’s image will be moved to the reverse side. Also, the back of the $10 bill will highlight Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton; and the back of the $5 bill will feature notables associated with the Lincoln Memorial including Marian Anderson, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Dr. King.

Red Pill News and Badlands Media- Jan 4

 

American Groomer: The Plot To Sexualize Our Children with Elena Barbera on Sat Night Livestream

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

Brace Yourselves for the Left’s Coming Rage

posted by J.T. Young at Townhall 

America, brace yourselves for the Left’s coming rage.  Just as in 2017, expect it again in 2025.  Only worse.  Because this time, the Left understands that America has turned on them.

The greatest lie of the 2024 election was Kamala Harris’ claim of a campaign of joy.  It was because the Left is the most joyless ideology there is. Their entire Marxist belief system is built on a zero-sum equation of exploitation: one group advances only at the expense of the other.  Accordingly, everywhere they see and seek this conflict.

America’s Left is even more miserable still.  In their Woke vision, they do not see just Marx’s single bipolar conflict (between capitalists and proletarians), but an ever-expanding multiplicity of them.  Accordingly, they will not be happy until everyone is as miserable as they are.  And they are plenty miserable, which is why they are always angry, always shouting.   There’s a reason why polling consistently shows liberals are less happy than conservatives.

America can expect the leftist condition to become even more strident with Trump’s inauguration.   After all, it did after his first one.

In 2016, the Left was dismissive of Trump.  After he won, they were dismissiveof his victory.  To them, Hillary Clinton had lost more than he had triumphed; she was unlikeable and not far enough left anyway.  Now, she was gone and the Democrat establishment discredited with her.  The path was open for Sanders to finish what he had started in 2016’s primaries.

And so, beginning in 2017, the Left rampaged that way for eight years.  While Trump was in office, they railed against him.  When Biden replaced him, the Left forced their agenda through his administration.  

After Trump’s first victory, the Left had an assurance, a certainty: Trump and his victory could be dismissed. To the Left’s mind, 2020 proved them correct.  Up until November 5^th of 2024, the Left could still feel that way.  

Then, the Left lost.   What’s more, they lost not just the election; they lost the American people.  Incredibly, Trump won the popular vote—something no Republican presidential candidate had done in 20 years.  He won every one of the swing states—something neither he nor Biden had done in either of the previous two elections.  

And the Left had lost with one of their own.  Kamala Harris’ defeat did not offer the Left the buffer that Biden’s would have.  To the Left, Trump beating Biden would have been a reprisal of Clinton’s 2016 defeat: they could have blamed it on the Democrat Party’s establishment.  They could have blamed it on Biden’s attributes—too old, too white, too male.

But Harris’ defeat meant the whole blow fell directly on them.  Harris was one of them, and one with them.  Hers was their agenda—illegal immigration, radical environmentalism, abortion extremism.  The Left knew that Harris had always fronted for them.  Her failure was therefore their failure.

Even if the Left will not explicitly admit these things, they know them.  They know too that things could get worse.  Trump is already proving more popular in transition than he did in campaigning.  In office, Trump could prove more popular still.   Once Trump is gone, his conservative populism could not just live on but prove even more attractive to the American people, if embraced by someone without Trump’s personal baggage.

After 2016 and over the next four years, the Left were outraged—at Trump, at Hillary Clinton, at the Democrat establishment.  Following 2024, they are outraged at the American people.  

In 2025, the Left’s outrage will be distilled down to rage.  They will act out their anger, something they excel at.  Already we are seeing it as Democrat officeholders vow resistance to the incoming Trump administration.  

They are vowing it on the Left’s issues—transgender surgery, illegal immigration, environmental extremism—the same issues that lost them the election.   Such stances are nonsensical politically.  But emotionally, they make perfect sense…to the Left.  This is who they are, what they believe, and if the American people do not, then to hell with the American people.

Knowing they have lost the American people, the Left knows they have nothing left to lose.  The outrage they once reserved for Trump and his administration, they can—and will—now loose broadly without hesitation.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Kristi Noem: The Homeland Security Director America Needs

by Tiffany Justice for The Federalist

As America contemplates the next Director of Homeland Security, the stakes couldn't be higher, especially for moms who are at the heart of family safety and community well-being. We need a leader who understands the complexities of security but also the daily realities of family life.

That leader is Kristi Noem.

Moms should care because Noem's approach to emergency preparedness would mean better disaster management, ensuring our families are ready for whatever crisis might come next, from natural disasters to public health emergencies. Her focus on child safety, particularly with unaccompanied minors and school security, speaks directly to our concerns about our children's well-being. With policies aimed at keeping families together and combating human trafficking, Noem would address the humane aspects of border and immigration security. Her commitment to cybersecurity would protect our children in an increasingly digital world, while her support for local law enforcement would make our neighborhoods safer for our kids to grow up in. Noem's oversight of infrastructure protection would secure the daily environments where our families live, learn, and play. Her emphasis on public information and education would empower us with knowledge to protect our families from various threats.

Governor Noem's approach during the covid health crisis was strong. She navigated South Dakota through the storm with a strategy that balanced public health with personal liberty. By choosing to keep her state open, she demonstrated a trust in individuals to act responsibly, a philosophy that should redefine how we approach security threats.

Noem has shown us what leadership looks like under pressure. Facing criticism head-on, she has never shied away from making tough decisions or standing by her convictions. This resilience is crucial for the Director of Homeland Security, where every decision can be politically charged, and only the strongest resolve will serve our nation's interests.

America could use a Mother’s perspective on protecting children. The crisis of 300,000 undocumented children unaccounted for in the U.S. demands urgent action. Noem, as a mother, brings a personal commitment to this issue that transcends policy. Her empathy, combined with her drive for solutions, could provide the leadership needed to address this humanitarian challenge effectively. Moreover, her focus on school safety, ensuring our children are protected in their learning environments, and her commitment to combatting child trafficking are priorities that resonate deeply with moms.

Kristi Noem has been a vocal and consistent supporter of President Donald J. Trump's vision for America. Her loyalty to his policies signifies not just political alignment but a dedication to an America First agenda in security matters.

Noem's record as governor is a testament to her executive capabilities. From budget management to crisis response, her experience in South Dakota shows she understands the operational demands of leading a massive department like Homeland Security. She's managed law enforcement, dealt with natural disasters, and balanced state budgets - all skills directly applicable to her potential role in Washington.

In an era where our country is divided, we need a unifying figure who can bridge gaps while safeguarding our nation. Kristi Noem's leadership, courage, maternal insight, loyalty to core American values, and proven executive experience make her uniquely qualified for this position.

I ask all Americans, especially moms, to consider these points, engage with their senators, and advocate for Noem's appointment. It's not just about who leads Homeland Security; it's about ensuring that leadership reflects our values and vision for a secure, free, and prosperous America where our children can thrive.

How Biden Screwed the Steelworkers

 Back in April, when President Joe Biden was still running for re-election, he told a gathering of steelworkers in Pittsburgh that “I have your back.” 

On Friday afternoon, just three weeks before leaving office, he stuck a knife in their backs.

STEELWORKERS ATTEND A RALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE SALE OF U.S. STEEL TO NIPPON STEEL IN CLAIRTON, PENNSYLVANIA ON DECEMBER 12, 2024.

He did so by blocking Japan’s Nippon Steel’s proposed $14.9 billion purchase of the once-iconic, now-declining U.S. Steel. The ostensible rationale was “national security.” As Biden put it in a statement Friday morning, “It is my solemn responsibility as president to ensure that, now and long into the future, America has a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry.” He added, “And it is a fulfillment of that responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company.”

If only. Blocking the deal is just going to hurt the U.S. steel industry, and everyone in the industry, including the workers themselves, knows it. The real reason Biden stopped Nippon Steel from buying U.S. Steel was politics—a combination of placating his union allies and a misguided belief that U.S. Steel must remain in American hands at all costs. The irony is that this economic nationalism and union nostalgia could kill 3,000 union jobs and push U.S. Steel out of Pittsburgh.

During the election, the proposed takeover of U.S. Steel by a Japanese company became a heated issue in Pennsylvania. While Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris cited national security concerns, Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post that the tariffs he planned to place on imported steel would revive the industry. The far more likely result, however, is that Pennsylvania steelworkers will soon be out of work, as U.S. Steel had vowed to move to non-union Arkansas if its deal with Nippon Steel were turned down.

“They’re simply being ignorant and unknowledgeable,” Troy Stephenson, treasurer of United Steelworkers (USW) Local 2227, told The Free Press. “They pride themselves on foreign investments and saving jobs, and that’s not what they’re about,” added the fourth-generation steelworker, who, like many of his peers, voted for Trump.

“If there’s no company, what good are tariffs?” said Andy Macey, a mechanical repairman at U.S. Steel’s Clairton Works. Macey, 70, was a steelworker in the 1980s when U.S. Steel, unable to compete with cheap foreign imports—much of it from Japan—began shutting down factories. “When I walked out of that steel mill with my coworkers, we had tears in our eyes,” he said, remembering the daily food and unemployment lines. Macey said that a locker buddy committed suicide the night he was laid off. He pushed for the Nippon deal because he didn’t want younger steelworkers to suffer the same fate.

U.S. Steel is now down to 20,000 workers from its high of 340,000 in the 1940s. In 2021, it scrapped a $1.5 billion upgrade to the Mon Valley Works in the Pittsburgh area and purchased a new lower-cost steel mill in Arkansas instead, closing older mills and laying off 4,000 union workers as it idled mills in St. Louis and Detroit. When Nippon Steel offered to buy U.S. Steel in late 2023, it could have been—should have been—the U.S. company’s salvation.

Nippon Steel promised to invest $2.7 billion in U.S. Steel’s aging union facilities, including $1 billion in the Mon Valley. The Japanese even sweetened the pot with a $5,000 bonus for workers if the deal passed.

In recent weeks, in a last-ditch effort to save the deal, Nippon Steel made a series of even more extravagant promises, including offering the federal government a veto over any reduction in U.S. Steel’s production capacity, and a “full-time board observer.” And it agreed to provide U.S. Steel with “sufficient resources” to pursue trade complaints against foreign steel producers, including their Japanese owners—a remarkable concession.

But none of it was enough.

U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works rests along the Monongahela River in Clairton, Pennsylvania on December 17, 2024.

Local union leaders from two of the three Mon Valley plants supported Nippon, with Jason Zugai, vice president of USW Local 2227, saying that 95 percent of the union members at his Irvin Works support the deal. U.S. Steel’s corporate executives, elected officials, and hundreds of workers rallied to show their support in late November. That same month, Japanese prime minister Shigeru Ishiba warned in a letter to Biden that blocking the deal would “cast a shadow on the achievements you have accumulated over the past four years,” weakening an alliance critical to countering China.

But none of that support could override the fierce opposition of the national United Steelworkers brass, who endorsed Biden in 2020 and again in 2024 before he dropped out. USW president David McCall claimed Nippon intended to shut down Mon Valley steelmaking and subject American steel producers to Japanese dumping, a threat to U.S. national security and supply chains—claims that Nippon Steel has vehemently disputed.

McCall wants U.S. Steel to come crawling to its Ohio-based rival Cleveland-Cliffs, which made an unsolicited offer to buy it out in 2023 and lost a bidding war to the much wealthier Nippon. Waiting in the wings for Biden to block the Japanese steel giant, Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves called Japan “not a friend” in March.

Goncalves couldn’t be more wrong. Japan is one of Uncle Sam’s closest allies. It harbors the Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy and is our largest source of foreign direct investment. The U.S. has insisted that the Japanese hold back their semiconductor equipment exports to help the U.S. maintain its competitive edge in the AI race with China, our actual foe. Why should Japan partner with us if we ignore their government’s pleas and block investment in American steel?

Shortly before Christmas, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is part of the executive branch and includes representatives from a number of cabinet departments, found itself unable to come to a unanimous decision about whether or not the Nippon Steel deal should be stopped. According to the Financial Times, the three most important committee members—the Treasury Department (which leads the committee), the State Department, and the Pentagon—found no security risks. In other words, in kowtowing to a union leader who has been a long-time political ally, Biden ignored the wishes of an important ally, Japan; members of his own cabinet; and the union workers themselves. He is also hurting the country, which would be far better served if Nippon Steel reinvigorated U.S. Steel, something it is uniquely positioned to do.

A final irony: On the same day Biden blocked the Nippon Steel deal on “national security” grounds, the U.S. approved the sale of $3.6 billion worth of air-to-air missiles to Japan.

It’s all so needless. The president’s political life is over. Yes, he’s spent his long career portraying himself as a friend of unions, and especially of unionized steelworkers. But blocking the Nippon Steel deal will simply add to his already tarnished legacy.

https://www.thefp.com/p/how-biden-screwed-the-steelworkers-nippon-steel-japan?utm_campaign=email-post&r=rd3ao&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

John Bolton: Trump Wants to ‘Put a Casino’ in Greenland

 Trump’s former national security adviser thinks the U.S. can come to an agreement with Denmark for Greenland. But to do so, Trump needs to ‘close his mouth.

The idea of the United States buying Greenland isn’t new.

And it's certainly not new to Donald Trump, who several times during his first term made public statements—jokes and memes included—about wanting to acquire the gigantic landmass in the Arctic that is today part of Denmark.

Since winning the presidential election in November, Trump has resurfaced his intention to pursue an acquisition of Greenland, and added in Canada and the Panama Canal for good measure. Announcing his choice for ambassador to Denmark, Trump said: “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” A few days later on Truth Social, Trump posted a Christmas greeting “to the people of Greenland, which is needed by the United States for National Security purposes.” Trump added that Greenlanders “want the U.S. to be there” and that “we will!”

In 2019, when then-President Trump first floated the idea of acquiring Greenland, he tasked his national security adviser, Ambassador John Bolton, with figuring out the specifics. I called up Bolton, 76, to ask him what he thinks about Trump revisiting the idea. (Bolton resigned in September 2019, and had a public falling-out with Trump. A year later, as Bolton published his memoir The Room Where It Happened, Trump lashed out at Bolton, calling him a “disgruntled boring fool who only wanted to go to war,” and reportedly attempted to halt the book’s publication.)

The following is lightly edited for clarity and concision.

Adam Rubenstein: What’s the case for making Greenland part of the United States?

Ambassador John Bolton: You need to make a case to make it part of the United States. That is an option—although given the way it’s been handled by Trump since 2019, not much of an option is left of it.

But the point is Greenland is intimately connected with our security for a lot of reasons and has been visibly since World War II, after the Danish government fell, to protect the North Atlantic convoys and our own interests against the Nazi threat.

After World War II, we built an Air Force base at Thule (now the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland’s Northwest). It was part of the extended DEW line, the “distant early warning” system against Soviet missile launches. If you look at a map of the Arctic Ocean, there are five countries that have claims of economic zones and so on in the Arctic: the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Russia.

Four of them are NATO members, and Greenland and its territory and its economic zone are a critical part of that. And we know from repeated efforts by the Chinese to extend their influence, they want to become an Arctic power. With global warming, that Northwest passage becomes a more viable maritime route. They want to be part of it. So given Greenland’s geographic proximity to the United States, and everything else I’ve stated, it’s obviously a strategic interest.

Just a couple facts: Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, is closer to Washington than it is to Copenhagen. So if you look at a map, it’s part of the North American landmass, and that makes it a vital security interest for the United States.

AR: I read that following a meeting with the businessman and philanthropist Ronald Lauder in 2019 that getting Greenland was suddenly on Trump’s radar, and that you then had an adviser—Fiona Hill—convene a working group on acquiring Greenland or making some sort of deal with Denmark for Greenland, and that it produced some “options memo.”

JB: Well, I don’t remember much of a group. I asked Fiona to take a look at some of the possibilities, and I don’t remember an options paper. I asked Fiona to take a look at what might be possible. And this was not some crash project.

I remember hearing from Trump on this, which I later learned or figured out came from Ronald Lauder. But Trump first raised it with me in 2019. The first kind of work product that I remember would’ve been in the spring, which raised the possibility of using what’s called the Defense of Greenland Treaty between the U.S. and Denmark, which was written in 1951. It’s been amended since then, I think during the George W. Bush administration. But basically, it’s the framework for U.S. forces that were stationed in Greenland after 1951.

So that was a bit where we might’ve had discussions that don’t get into larger questions of Greenland’s status, or who has sovereignty over it.

And there are other possibilities that occurred to me: commonwealth status, like Puerto Rico. Joint condominium with Denmark. Independence but with a Compact of Free Association with the United States like Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.

There are a lot of possibilities. But they never got anywhere, because Trump talked about everything publicly, and the whole thing blew up.

AR: Was there ever a dollar amount attached to these ideas?

JB: No, no, no.

AR: It never got that far?

JB: As far as I know. I mean, after I left, I can’t speak to, but it never approached that point.

AR: So in your view, it became public before any private dialogue, before the Danes ever had an idea that the U.S. or Trump would be interested in it, or an offer would come their way?

JB: Trump was obviously talking about it to people. And I think sometime in August of 2019—and I remember the time frame very, very vividly, because I resigned on September 12. So this was all right at the end of my tenure.

But somehow there were press stories about it. It was coming to a head because Trump was scheduled to go to the 80th commemoration of Germany’s invasion of Poland. And because there was some idea that Melania Trump wanted to go to Denmark, they had scheduled a visit to Denmark after the ceremony in Warsaw on September 1.

I’m getting ahead of the story, but it turned out Melania didn’t want to go to Denmark. I remember being in a conversation—Trump having a conversation with her on the speakerphone, either in the Oval Office or back in his little dining room, where she said, “I don’t know why people keep saying, I want to go to Denmark. If you want to go to Denmark, I’ll go with you, of course, but I don’t want to go to Denmark.”

But anyway, it was after the September 1 trip that people’s attention began to focus, because that would have been an opportunity to at least discreetly raise the issue with Denmark, where it’s an extraordinarily sensitive topic.

But somehow, it got out that Trump was interested in buying Greenland. This all ties into the Biarritz G7 Summit. I did go to Biarritz, France, at the end of August, a day or two before Trump, to help get things in order. And then my plan was to go from Biarritz to Denmark before the September 1 ceremony in Poland—then to talk quietly to the Danes about Greenland in anticipation that Trump would be visiting on September 2 and 3.

So all of this starts blowing up at the end of August. And at some point, before the G7 Summit, the Danish prime minister said it was absurd, which may have been produced by Trump saying something public.

But after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said this, Trump called her “nasty” and said she was blowing off the United States, which he didn’t like, not showing respect. Calling her “nasty” is not the way I would normally start off a negotiation about buying a chunk of territory as big as Greenland, leaving that aside.

So then, when we find out Melania really doesn’t want to go to Denmark, we canceled the trip, which was fine with me. We weren’t ready yet. We hadn’t talked to the Danes about it, except Trump speaking publicly.

But my plan at that point was still, I would go to Copenhagen and very quietly talk about Greenland’s security. And I told Trump I planned to do this. And even though he wasn’t going, I would go anyway. And he said, ‘No, don’t go. Because I’ve canceled my trip, it looks like we’re trying to beg for their favor again if you go.’ But Trump was adamant. So I never went.

AR: Trump hasn’t taken office yet, and he’s already saying, I guess we can assume they’re jokes, in part, about “Governor Trudeau of the great state of Canada,” and about reclaiming control of the Panama Canal. Do you think these are serious proposals?

JB: Well, who knows with Trump what’s serious and what’s not? If he calls the Danish prime minister “nasty” again, that probably won’t have a good effect. But look, this is an important matter of security for the United States. It is sensitive and delicate, both for the inhabitants of Greenland, who don’t like the idea of being sold without their consent and for the country. So negotiating in public with your friends like this just makes the ultimate objective—whatever it is—harder. And Trump didn’t understand that in 2019. And apparently he doesn’t understand it today.

AR: If you were advising him today, is there a pathway you’d recommend he’d take?

JB: Yeah, close his mouth.

AR: And then do what?

JB: Try a little private negotiation. Send one of your trusted advisers incommunicado to Copenhagen to talk to the prime minister. Send your national security adviser for private discussions. Don’t have any press conferences. Just talk to ’em. How about that? Find out what their current state of mind is before you tell ’em what you’re going to do to ’em.

AR: On that path, where do you see those discussions leaving things? What do you think the U.S.’s goal should be in that process?

JB: There are multiple ways I think we can satisfy our national security interest less changing the current sovereign relationship of Greenland to Denmark. Former secretary of state Jim Baker always used to say to me, “Keep your eyes on the prize. The prize is not sovereignty. The prize is security.”

AR: Do you think that would cut it for Trump?

JB: No, I don’t think so.

AR: So for him, you think it’s less about security and more about a shiny acquisition?

JB: It’s real estate. He wants to put a Trump casino in Nuuk.

AR: Did that ever come up in your conversations?

JB: Trump Nuuk, how is that for posterity? Trump Nuuk. A Trump Tower, too.

AR: When you were talking about this with him, did that ever come up?

JB: I think he did a tweet on Greenland’s real estate. I’m serious, I think he did.

(via Donald Trump/X)

AR: Did it come up in your discussions that it was more about the land for him than any security interest? Territorial acquisition for its own sake, rather than national security?

JB: Well, I explained it to him, but that’s not what—I don’t think he understood that.

https://www.thefp.com/p/john-bolton-trump-greenland-denmark-casino?utm_campaign=260347&utm_source=cross-post&r=rd3ao&utm_medium=email