Why the Hell Should We Care If Democrats Don’t?

Townhall 

Most days during the Biden administration, you’d wake up and wonder what Joe was going to trip over, either physically or verbally, today? How many mumblings would end with a “Well, anyway…” like it was pudding time in the nursing home. With the Trump administration, both of them, you wake up wondering what the fake outrage will be and which liberal city might burn. The common problem is that both scenarios are Democrats, either lying to the public about Biden’s mental abilities or lying to the public in the hopes of causing riots.

I used to feel bad for people in the cities overrun by Democrats’ BLM/ANTIFA Brownshirts; who wants to see their fellow Americans going through hell? But then you realize that these people voted for this, and did so repeatedly. I can have sympathy for someone complaining of a headache, but it quickly fades if I find out they have a habit of hitting themselves in the head with a frying pan. After that, I stop caring completely.

We’re too that point with everything Democrats do.

I’ve been to Minneapolis, went there for the convention in 2008 in St. Paul and had a great time. I had a lot of free time, so I went around and saw all the places the Twin Cities had to offer in the way of music that had influenced by childhood – The Replacements, Hüsker Dü, Prince, etc. – it was great. If it now gets destroyed, meh.

That’s a horrible attitude to have, I get that, but I can’t bring myself to care about places or people who won’t care for themselves. If you keep electing idiots who oversee the slow-rolling destruction of your world, I’m out.

I get the idea of stupidly ignoring risk. I used to be a smoker. Hell, I used to be a heavy smoker, as well as a pot smoker, and a heavy drinker. I got older, had kids and began to take my health more seriously. But I also grew out of it. I didn’t “quit,” I just did them less until I didn’t do them at all. I’m not opposed to them – do what you want – but at a certain age, except for a social drink now and then, shouldn’t you learn and get past drinking till you’re drunk or smoking yourself wasted? It gets old as you get older. At least it did for me.

But voting for politicians who oversee your demise while lecturing you about the moral importance of their failures doesn’t get old, apparently. Minneapolis hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1973. December 31, 1973, to be exact, when City Council member Richard Erdall held the job for that day, and that day only, between two Democrat administrations. Other than that, it’s been since 1961 that there was a full Republican term.

How would you guess things have gone there over those 65 years? About as well as Detroit did (last Republican mayor in 1962), Baltimore (last in 1967) and Chicago (1927). The number of murders in those cities over those decades makes war look like marbles, and the economic depression – especially in the majority black neighborhoods – makes Robert Mugabe’s policies in Zimbabwe look sound.

But again, I can’t bring myself to care. They voted for this repeatedly.

Democrats run to “protect” minorities from what they say are the horrible things Republicans would do if they were in power. But even if Republicans were hellbent to destroy the minority families and minority communities, it’s too late; Democrats beat them to it. Democrats somehow sell the idea that it could be worse if Republicans were in power and no one seems to ask how that would be possible.

It wouldn’t. Yet, people still elect Democrats. If you want to smoke through the hole in your neck, I’m not going to stop you.

As Minneapolis teeters on the edge for another week over some moron who stupidly ran her SUV into a federal ICE agent and who was justified in defending himself (whether it was malice or panic, her motivation is irrelevant, both legally and morally, she hit him with her SUV), I’ll just watch the show.

Democrats want more blood; they need it to distract from the largest welfare fraud ever uncovered (at least so far – looking at you, California). Individuals have always been disposable to the left – the progressive movement started and flourished in the 20th century by amassing an enormous pile of bodies. It wasn’t until the progressive National Socialist German Workers Party sullied the word that they retreated from using the word, but they never stopped the mission.

More people may die, and not a single Democrat has condemned the BLM/ANTIFA Brownshirts for attacking federal agents; none have told them to stop. They just insist that protests are “peaceful.” That’s like Harvey Weinstein insisting the young actresses he invited to his hotel room were really, really attracted to him.

But hey, if someone is peeing on you and you’re the one insisting that it’s raining, I’m not going to offer you my umbrella or my help. Repeatedly vote for morons and, well, you’re a moron too. Burn it all down. Maybe Tim Walz and Jacob Frey will bring marshmallows and the media will bring the beer. But don’t expect normal people to care. Unless, of course, one of your goons hurts an officer, then you’ll get even more of what you seem so desperately to want.

Podcast thread for Jan 18

 

nothing to say.

We The Birthright People

It’s never been the law of the land that being born here is enough for citizenship, and lawmakers have made that very clear over the centuries.

American Thinker 

Lawyers will tell you that the United States was founded on jus soli (right of the soil), with citizenship derived based on birth within U.S. borders, not bloodlines, because America’s common law is Britain’s common law. During the Revolutionary era, any infant born within the King's realm was a subject of the King, regardless of its parents' national origin or citizenship. Importantly, that principle never applied to the children of invaders, for the British understood that to hold otherwise would erase their nation.

While the Founders recognized British common law as the baseline for American law, we have long amended, augmented it, and rejected it, replacing it with federal laws and those of our state legislatures—including recognizing that jus soli cannot apply to everyone.

In the beginning, when it came to citizenship, there was chaos. For the duration of the Articles of Confederation, styled as “United States of America,” each state was a sovereign unto itself.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The Articles required the other states to give full faith and credit to citizenship awarded in any other state, but specified no uniform rule of naturalization among the states. Each state decided who its citizens were and who were not within that state’s borders.

This disorder ended with the adoption of the Constitution in 1788. The Framers counted the citizens of the fledgling United States as the free residents of the several states when the Constitution was ratified, excluding Indians not taxed. This Jus Soli grant of citizenship was an obvious necessity because there had previously been no “United” States of America, no uniform rule of naturalization, and no pre-existing citizenry to impart Jus Sanguinis citizenship to their posterity.

This lack of prior citizenry is also reflected in Article II, Section 1 (qualifications for President) because there could be no natural-born citizens without citizen parents. 

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President. (Emphasis added.)

The grant of citizenship explicitly excluded Indians not taxed and implicitly excluded, without once mentioning the word, those held in slavery. Furthermore, the Framers implicitly established the descent of US Citizenship as exclusively Jus Sanguinis, by right of blood, because doing otherwise would imply children born to slaves were citizens. The Southern slave holder interests would never ratify a constitution permitting this. This truth is evident in the earliest immigration law of the Republic, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which held

...that any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on... (Emphasis added.)

Clearly, the citizenship of the fledgling United States, although initially conferred by right of soil to free men only, exempting Indians not taxed and those held in slavery, would descend only by blood without regard to soil to protect the

South’s “peculiar institution.”

When the Civil War ended, there was a significant population of newly emancipated black slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not and could not resolve their citizenship status because only Congress has the authority to naturalize new citizens.

Accordingly, Congress enacted and sent the proposed 13th Amendment to the states, which ratified it on December 6, 1865, ending slavery in the remaining four states where the practice was still legal. At this point, there were roughly four million emancipated slaves in America who had no citizenship in any country, including the United States. Congress chose to address this issue through both statute and amendment. It seemed that Congress returned to jus soli citizenship, which had not been applied since the founding of the current Republic in 1788.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (“CRA 1866”) attempted to address this issue:

All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

Two years later, however, the 14th Amendment, however, slightly changed that language:

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

We see that “under the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment replaced “not subject to any foreign power” in CRA 1866. However, because the authors of both documents were the same men, we may infer that these phrases are synonymous. Further evidence for this is found in the Congressional Globe.

A word about the Globe is in order here. The Congressional Record, with which we are familiar, was not always so titled. In earlier times, it bore different names: Annals of Congress (1789-1824), Register of Debates in Congress (1824-1837), and Congressional Globe (1833-1873).

The authors of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause spoke regularly on the topic of citizenship before and after its ratification. Their statements and defenses clarify what they thought their words meant.

The Hon. John A. Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and its sponsor in the House, made numerous references in Congress to the definition of natural born citizenship. In 1862, he emphasized allegiance to America:

All from other lands, who by the terms of laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. (Emphasis added.)

In 1866, he made the same point about a parent’s allegiance to America:

...every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Emphasis added.)

And four years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, he still rejected blanket birthright citizenship:

...a natural-born citizen of the United States...born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States... (Emphasis added.)

In the same vein, in May 1866, Senator Jacob Howard, one of the sponsors of the 14th Amendment, had this to say:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. (Emphasis added.)

Both Bingham and Howard define what was meant by “Jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, as “owing allegiance to no other country” and “not…[to] include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,” i.e., jurisdiction does not extend to a citizen or subject of any foreign power.

If one is a citizen or subject of some foreign power, then that power has a claim to that citizen’s/subject’s allegiance—exactly as the British long understood. Clearly, the citizenship clause’s purpose was to exclude such persons.

Regrettably, many of our judges and elected leaders have perverted the meaning of ‘Jurisdiction’ to mean the geographical jurisdiction of the United States, which is not at all what Bingham and Howard thought this meant. We, the people, must correct this misunderstanding. To do so means a return to Jus Sanguinis descent of citizenship. All immigration must remain subject to a uniform rule of naturalization.

Proposed 30th Amendment:

“All persons born in the United States of one citizen parent are naturalized citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No person who has been or yet to be born in the United States to foreign, alien or non-citizen parents is born a citizen of the United States.”

Greenland and the Return of Great-Power Politics

Townhall 

Greenland, the largest island in the globe, is no longer remote. It is the ice-covered, cold piece of land amid the rapidly warming global strategic competition, mainly between the United States of America, China, and Russia. As the ice melts, the urgency to control its strategic location and the resources beneath it intensifies. Blind selfishness coupled with strategic shortsightedness on the part of the Kingdom of Denmark and the European Union has been destructively unhelpful. On the contrary, these amateurishly emotional reactions have greatly contributed to the increase in the many risk factors present in any attempt to exclusively control the area of the Northern Arctic.

The currently existing legal status of Greenland is as murky as the Danish government's illusory position at a chaotic intersection of local self-rule, Danish sovereignty, and intensifying global interests in the Northern Arctic. Greenland's population is smaller than the capacity of a medium-sized football stadium, but its strategic geography is outsized. Politically as well as legally, Greenland is self-governing in most domestic matters, while remaining part of the Kingdom of Denmark, with the latter retaining responsibilities for defense and major aspects of foreign affairs under the Self-Government framework established in 2009. In addition, this framework lays out a legal path to independence, based on Greenlandic decision.

As a result, Greenland's domestic and foreign policies are dominated by two intertwined questions: how to broaden economic options and how to manage diplomacy and security. Realistically, Denmark is not in a position to fund economic development alone or to defend Greenland against the mounting threats to the island's independence. Moreover, Denmark has had a grossly abysmal record of treating the island and its population. From total neglect through inhuman discrimination and degradation, the history of Danish overlordship of Greenland will remain a shameful episode in the Kingdom of Denmark's otherwise civilized existence. Finally, President Trump's intention to resolve the Greenland issue unambiguously and, if needed, unilaterally raised the stakes within NATO regarding the unity of this multinational military organization.

The good news regarding a possible transatlantic rift is that the United States of America and all other NATO members agree that there is a global strategic threat to the Northern Arctic. Compared to this reality, the core disagreement concerns the relationship between strategic necessity and sovereignty as an overriding principle among NATO member states. From President Trump's perspective, Greenland is a national security question. Primarily, early warning, space tracking, and North Atlantic access have been embedded in American defense architecture through long-standing agreements and the Pituffik Space Base. More recently, China's overwhelming military aggression in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, coupled with the Baltic Sea and the Northern Arctic, put the White House on high alert regarding future threats to the American mainland from Alaska to the other 48 states.

From the European perspective, Greenland is mainly a sovereignty question within NATO. President Trump's declaration that Greenland will be "one way or the other" an integral part of the United States of America, the European member states of NATO hear in this a direct attack on the premise that the organization is a voluntary collective defense pact among sovereign and equal states, not a hierarchy between the United States of America and the rest. Clearly, the European position is not merely rhetorical. In essence, it indicates that if territorial integrity becomes negotiable within NATO, deterrence against external adversaries, particularly the Russian Federation, will become extremely difficult. More importantly, such a conundrum will increase the relevance of Article 5 globally. Finally, Article 42, Section 7 of the Treaty on European Union, with its own mutual defense clause that complements but remains subordinate to Article 5, cannot be ignored legally.

An additional major problem is that Greenland is both "inside" and "outside" of the European continent. The crux of this situation is that NATO was established to deter external aggression. The issue of territorial disagreements among NATO member states has never been addressed within the alliance. Here, the position of the Greenland government cannot be ignored: "We accept allied defense, but not an ownership conversation." Realistically, however, global strategic considerations must override these legal arguments. Any armed conflict within the alliance would undermine the credibility of unified deterrence.

President Trump's other offer, namely, buying Greenland like it happened with the Danish West Indies on March 31, 1917, for $25 million, primarily for strategic military reasons during World War I, to prevent German control over the three islands, could be problematic because of the 2009 treaty between the Kingdom of Denmark and the self-governing autonomous island with its rights for self-determination. The situation becomes even more complicated when the opinions of the Greenlanders are researched. According to a 2019 poll, almost 70 percent of locals prefer full independence to the current situation. A more recent poll taken in 2025 was even more unambiguous: 84 percent of Greenlanders professed support for full independence.

Thus, President Trump's offer of purchasing Greenland is presently the most realistic way to solve the Greenland "problem." The most compelling reason is that nobody can predict the future, and surely not in the long run. Mainly, the Kingdom of Denmark's legal claim to Greenland has also been tenuous at best. Additionally, its long-standing neglect and mistreatment of the Greenlanders have demonstrated that the Danish people did not care about Greenland's present and future. Finally, the Kingdom of Denmark cannot legitimately maintain control over Greenland because Greenlanders want independence.

In conclusion, the best solution would be Greenland's independence, followed by a referendum on remaining independent or joining the United States of America as the 51st state. Yet, the situation is pressing. Therefore, purchasing Greenland now is the most practical and least controversial decision for all concerned.

🎭 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. 

Former Obama Advisor Warns Dems Why They Are Going to Lose in 2028 Without Big Changes, and It Gets Worse

RedState 

Democrats won some of the elections in 2025. 

Going into the midterms, remember that off-year elections also generally favor the party out of power. 

But former Obama advisor David Plouffe warned in an op-ed in The New York Times that, despite those facts, Democrats were going to be in big trouble going forward unless they change their ways because of how the electoral map is changing. 

"Democrats Will Lose in 2028 Unless They Change Course Now” was the title of his piece. However, it was actually worse than that because he is talking about beyond 2028. 

Right now, Democrats have no credible path to sustained control of the Senate and the White House. After the adjustments to the Electoral College map that look likely to come with the next census, the Democratic presidential nominee could win all states won by Kamala Harris plus the blue wall of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. An already unforgiving map gets more so, equally so in the Senate.

What is he talking about here? He's talking about the shifting in the electoral map and big apportionment changes after the 2030 census. We're already seeing a jump on that thought with the redistricting battles. 

Because of the outflow of people from places like California and New York, the Democrats would lose seats, while even more would go to the South, with places like Florida and Texas gaining more seats and electors. So it's going to become even harder for the Dems to find a presidential path. This may be why they're fighting to hold onto illegal aliens so hard. 

So what are Plouffe's answers to this? They include tossing out the leaders they have now, and concentrating on affordability. On both of those, he's right. 

The Democrats' problem is that their policies are a failure when it comes to the economy, and everything else has just been either "hate Trump" or extreme positions, such as on transgender issues. 

The Republicans have much better policies and can point out what they are doing regarding the economy versus the mess that Biden/Harris left us. But they have put that message out there, and they have to show a more steady momentum in Congress on Trump's agenda. There's a reason people are fleeing those blue states to red states, and the Republicans have to drive that message home. They have to be the ones talking about the economy because they have the better positions.  

Moreover, it doesn't sound like Democrats are listening to what he's saying. Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL-23), the former DNC head, said she didn't agree with him in a Friday appearance on CNN, pointing to the races they won in 2025 and saying they were focused under House Minority Leader, Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (NY-8). So she's not seeing that so many of their people want the old leadership out. 

Given the warnings people like Jeffries have given about how the party would go after people if they got back in power, we should do all we can to make Plouffe's warning a reality and block the Democrats out for the foreseeable future. 

'We're Going to Get Answers': Congress Signals Investigation Over Ilhan Omar's Sudden Wealth

RedState 

It's a common enough conundrum to ponder: How do so many politicians grow so rich on what is honestly a fairly modest Congressional salary? Before we feign too much amazement, well, we all know that there are all too often some kind of shady dealings going on. 

Which brings me to Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar (MN-05). In 2025, we explored some of Rep. Omar and her husband's meteoric rise to wealth, all the more amazing to behold, since Omar arrived in these United States as a refugee with barely a nickel to her name. Now she's enjoying the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, with all the trappings except an ongoing narration from Robin Leach. 

Last September, I wrote:

Isn't it remarkable how leftist politicians - and Ilhan Omar is somewhere to the left of Che Guevara - always shout about the need to tax the rich, to soak the productive, to smash capitalism and break up the fortunes of millionaires (until they become one) and billionaires - but they also always seem to grow mysteriously rich. Omar, in particular, could be the primary villain in an Ayn Rand novel: A corrupt, twisted looter, a parasite on the country who has never contributed anything but hot air, who trades not in ideas but in pull.

Now, that pull, and Rep. Omar's sudden wealth has drawn the attention of the House Oversight Committee.

The House Oversight Committee is probing “Squad” Rep. Ilhan Omar’s skyrocketing family wealth after a $9 billion Somali social services fraud scandal exploded in her district,The Post has learned. 

Oversight panel Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said staff lawyers are exploring the extraordinary step of subpoenaing Omar’s spouse over his allegedly shady business practices.

“We’re going to get answers, whether it’s through the Ethics Committee or the Oversight Committee, one of the two,” he told The Post.

We should note that it's the Congresswoman's husband, Tim Mynett, who has officially made most of this money. But from where? 

Republicans want to know how Somali-born Omar (D-Minn.) and her politically-connected husband Tim Mynett went from nearly broke to being worth up to $30 million in just a year, according to her 2024 disclosure forms.

“There are a lot of questions as to how her husband accumulated so much wealth over the past two years,” Comer said. “It’s not possible. It’s not. I’m a money guy. It’s not possible.”

It's not possible, that is, legally. There are many ways to accumulate money quickly if one is politically connected, and Tim Mynett is politically connected; he has sources other than whatever pillow talk he shares with Rep. Omar - and if that's not a mental image that will trouble you for weeks to come, I don't know what might be.

Separately, federal law enforcement is also probing.

“We are investigating all politicians potentially connected to any of this [fraud] in Minnesota. You can read between the lines,” said a law enforcement source.

Unlike the Biden administration, which took no apparent action, Team Trump is “on top of it,” the source said.

The Biden administration took no apparent action on much of anything, other than making sure old Joe got his afternoon pudding cup before his nap. But there is, as the saying goes, a new sheriff in town. We can still be skeptical about any real consequences for Rep. Omar, like, say, expulsion from the House of Representatives, revocation of her citizenship, and deportation back to Somalia. But we've all seen too many cases like this result in some angry press releases, and not much in the way of consequences.

Still, this case may be egregious enough to be the exception. Here's the onion:

Investment firm Rose Lake Capital, formed by Mynett and partner Will Hailer in 2022, is part of a web of companies created by the lefty “Squad” member’s husband of five years.

Rose Lake Capital had a paltry $42.44 in its bank account in late 2022, according to court documents in a lawsuit against a related company filed in South Dakota.

Yet the firm rocketed in value from zero to up to $25 million in just a year, according to Omar’s 2024 filing.

Associates were perplexed enough in 2024 about alleged irregularities and questions about where the money was coming from that they brought information to the attention of federal investigators, sources said.

From $42 to $25 million. In a year. That's a track record of Pelosian scale. House Oversight, or the Justice Department, should be getting to the bottom of this, and we can hope that the Attorney General's office will become involved as well. If these unprecedented gains came from the same sorts of activities that we've seen in the Minneapolis area, so often associated with the Somali community there, then this couple richly (hah) deserves to have charges filed.

As for Rep. Omar: I'd like to wish her luck... But I think we all know I'd be lying.

Pres. Trump Calmly Lays Out the Harsh Truth on Iran's 'Leadership' After New Taunts by Khamenei

RedState 

When it comes to authoritarian regimes like the one currently ruling Iran, any threats to their iron grip on power are met with brutal repression and violence, something we are unfortunately seeing play out on the street of Tehran and across the Middle Eastern country over the past three weeks. While we don't yet know the exact death toll, estimates reach into the thousands - or more.

But in a new interview published Saturday by Politico, President Donald Trump points out that there is another regular tool that despots like Iran's mullahs employ. I'll swing back to that in a minute. 

The comments by the president come in the wake of Iran allegedly canceling a planned execution of potentially hundreds of protesters, and making a threat of an assassination attempt on the U.S. president, as RedState wrote.

Pres. Trump vowed that the U.S. would "come to their rescue," if the deaths by Iran were carried out.

On Saturday, Trump first addressed the possibility of U.S. forces intervening in Iran, telling Politico that "The best decision he [Khamenei] ever made was not hanging more than 800 people two days ago."

The remarks on how authoritarians utilise the tactic of blatant lying and propaganda came up when the interviewer read a series of barbed taunts aimed at Trump, via posts on Khamenei's official X account.

One of them tried to blame Trump personally for the thousands of deaths of Iranians since the people began to rise up in protest over decades of repression:

Another post accused him of slandering the people of Iran by saying they were the ones causing the violence and mayhem:

Notice how whoever wrote the post dishonestly tried to couch the killings and destruction as being caused by "groups." As I pointed out earlier, this violence and mayhem can be laid squarely at the feet of the brutal regime. 

Trump refused to respond in kind to the taunts, though. What he did was calmly speak about the truth of what the mullahs' "leadership" is actually doing, and that it isn't how you lead a country by any normal definition. 

“Leadership is about respect, not fear and death,” Pres. Trump said, adding that “[t]he man is a sick man who should run his country properly and stop killing people."

“His country is the worst place to live anywhere in the world because of poor leadership,” he said.

Speaking specifically about Khamenei, the president did not mince words:

“What he is guilty of, as the leader of a country, is the complete destruction of the country and the use of violence at levels never seen before. In order to keep the country functioning — even though that function is a very low level — the leadership should focus on running his country properly, like I do with the United States, and not killing people by the thousands in order to keep control.”

This was exactly how an American president should respond, instead of showing weakness like the Biden administration, when they kept coddling the regime with nuclear deals that did little to nothing to end Iran's ambitions. In this case, instead of lashing out at the direct threats of assassination and these new insults, Trump did the right thing and reminded everyone in the world what's actually happening in Iran. Stay tuned, readers.

U.S. Strike in Syria Kills Terrorist Linked to Murder of American Soldiers

Townhall 

U.S. forces killed a leader affiliated with Al-Qaeda in a strike in northwest Syria on Jan. 16 

U.S. Central Command said that Bilal Hasan al-Jasim, the leader, had ties to an ISIS terrorist responsible for an ambush that killed two U.S. service members and an American interpreter on Dec. 13, 2025. Bilal Hasan al-Jasim was an experienced terrorist leader who plotted attacks and was directly connected with the ISIS gunman who killed and injured American and Syrian personnel last month in Palmyra, Syria.

“The death of a terrorist operative linked the death of three Americans demonstrates our resolve in pursuing terrorists who attack our forces,” said Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander. “There is no safe place for those who conduct, plot, or inspire attacks on American citizens and our warfighters. We will find you.”

CENTCOM launched large-scale strikes in Syria in response to the Dec. 13 attack. The operation, dubbed Hawkeye Strike, resulted in U.S. and partner forces hitting more than 100 ISIS infrastructure and weapons site targets with over 200 precision munitions.

U.S. and partner forces have captured more than 300 ISIS operatives and killed over 20 across Syria during the past year, removing terrorists who posed a direct threat to the United States and regional security.

President Trump Announces New Tariffs Against “EU Leadership” Nations Attempting to Interfere in North American Strategic Defense and Greenland Negotiations

Conservative Treehouse 

President Trump has announced a new tariff regime against Germany, the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands and Finland. The two-stage tariffs are in response to European leadership undermining U.S. strategic security discussions with Greenland.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years by not charging them Tariffs, or any other forms of remuneration. Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake! China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it. They currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently.

Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake.

On top of everything else, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown. This is a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet. These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable.”

“Therefore, it is imperative that, in order to protect Global Peace and Security, strong measures be taken so that this potentially perilous situation end quickly, and without question. Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above-mentioned Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland), will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America.

On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland. The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern-Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important.

Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with “The Dome,” including for the possible protection of Canada, and this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land is included in it.

The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

DONALD J. TRUMP
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

My message to those who worry about President Trump committing us to something protracted that will eventually end in our being pulled into a European theater of conflict vis-a-vis Ukraine, is to quit worrying.

Trump is telling the EU to quit talking and start actively being responsible for their own security.  In the background Trump has bigger plans.

Hans Mahncke has a solid take on the bigger picture:

“The notion that America wants Greenland for its raw materials is either insanely ignorant or just engagement bait. Extracting anything in the Arctic is prohibitively expensive, and often physically impossible, with extreme cold, thick ice, equipment that won’t function, and no roads, rail or ports to move anything once you have it.

The real reason America needs Greenland is its immense geostrategic military value, which should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, especially anyone who has ever looked at a map from above, with the North Pole at the center.

Sure, some tasks could be outsourced to NATO, but that alliance is on its last legs, burdened by too many countries with conflicting priorities, and has mainly served as a way for Europe to freeload on US security guarantees. Relying on it for American national security is reckless. It’s far smarter to cut out the endless middlemen and take direct control.” (source)

Mahncke is correct. On one side of the ice, you have North America. On the other side of the ice you have, well, the reason for President Trump to order dozens of icebreakers.

The position of Denmark and Greenland is pathetic. Denmark demands the USA protect the “territories of their kingdom” (their words) including Greenland, which they admit they “cannot do without the USA military.” However, they outright reject the notion the United States should gain something, anything, for providing that protection.

As also noted by Jim Ferguson: “Ursula von der Leyen just went on camera and declared that Greenland “belongs to Denmark and NATO” — directly rebuking President Trump.

Let’s translate that. This isn’t about the Greenlandic people. This is about Brussels panicking because Trump is exposing the Arctic power game.

Greenland controls:

• the northern missile corridor
• Arctic shipping lanes
• and the gateway to North America

That makes it one of the most important strategic territories on Earth.

And Trump said the quiet part out loud: If the U.S. doesn’t secure it, China or Russia will.

Von der Leyen’s response wasn’t to protect the West, it was to protect EU control.

She wrapped it in pretty words about “NATO unity” — but what she really meant was: Brussels gets a veto over American security.

That’s what this is about.

Trump isn’t breaking the alliance. he’s breaking the illusion that unelected EU bureaucrats get to decide the future of the Arctic.

Greenland is not a Brussels bargaining chip; it is the northern shield of the United States, and for the first time in decades, America has a president willing to say it.

Ursula doesn’t hate Trump because he’s reckless, she hates him because he won’t let Europe freeload on American security while selling the future to Beijing.”

October, 2025: Finland is slightly smaller than Montana and wedged between Sweden and Russia. Finland, a nation of approximately 5 million people, has a security outlook shaped by its geography, a strategic position within the new NATO/Arctic strategy.

President Trump holds a bilateral discussion with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, as the two leaders’ complete terms for eleven icebreaker ships valued at $6.1 billion. Under terms of the deal, three of the ships will be built by Davie in Galveston, Texas, and four by Bollinger Shipyards in Houma, Louisiana.

Finland is the world leader in icebreaker ship building and will help teach U.S. ship building companies the latest advances in the technology. [SOURCE]

Stay Elevated:

December, 2025: Appearing on Fox News to discuss the Ukraine v Russia conflict, Finland President Alexander Stubb is questioned about the conflicting U.S. intelligence reports pushed by Reuters saying Russia will invade Europe, versus DNI Tulsi Gabbard saying Russia has no capability or intent to invade Europe.

President Stubb notes his agencies work closely with U.S. intelligence and in his view, Tulsi Gabbard is correct regarding President Vladimir Putin’s intention. [SOURCE]

President Trump is dancing through a geopolitical minefield, deconstructing numerous long-standing manipulative institutions along the way, while simultaneously keeping 100 domestic agenda plates spinning on sticks.

It is amazing to watch his navigation skills.  Smile and enjoy this.