This land is my land, this land is Greenland

From the icy tundra
To the icy tundra
This land was made to protect the Arctic from the Russians and the Coms

From out of left field it definitely is, but filled with sense and sound political instincts. Also taken seriously here, if a bit whimsically: YES TO ACQUIRING GREENLAND!, although mostly taken seriously among the comments:

Why is no one talking about PDJT’s true motivation, which is to keep the Chi-coms out of the Arctic? They have already approached Denmark with the idea to build airports there. The Danes may think they’re too smart to fall for a BRI swindle, but that’s irrelevant. Their Navy isn’t nearly as impressive as it was 1000 years ago, and their sovereignty over Greenland is only as strong as their armed forces. They should sell it while someone is still willing to pay.

Greenland is not a part of Denmark, it is a dependent territory with some self rule. Offer each family in Greenland $1Mil and have them vote on it. It could acquire status similar to Guam or PR, if not statehood. And yes, Greenlanders most certainly feel looked down upon by “mainland” Danes. BTW, it would not be the last real estate transaction between the 2 countries. US bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917.

China apparently tried to build 3 airports in Greenland recently, an obvious threat to the US. Also, the US is trying to check Russian efforts to gain strategic and economic control of the Arctic. It may not be long before Denmark has no choice in the matter. If Denmark were smart, they’d negotiate a percentage of mineral and tourist revenues.

I connected the dots yesterday when I read an article about a speech Pompeo recently gave to the Arctic Council about the need to defend the Arctic from Russian-Chinese encroachment. It mentioned that Greenland has a claim under international law to a huge swath of the Arctic and surrounding ocean. It also revealed that Democrat hero and MSM icon Truman formally offered $100 million for Greenland for the same reason, but was turned down.

Denmark only holds Greenland because of NATO. Without U.S. security guarantees it would be part of the Soviet Union today. (Without U.S. security guarantees there would be a Soviet Union today.)

He was just saying what he thinks

Trump publicly defending Pelosi is the easily the most savage thing he’s ever done to anyone. She’s struggling to maintain control of her party and she’ll be forced to reject his “gesture of goodwill” or her rabid base will become even more convinced she’s a sellout. Genius.Jesse Kelly

PDT interview with Piers Morgan

THE VIDEO HAS BEEN FOUND: The interview can be viewed via Bing here. We’ll see how long this lasts but at least it is available so you can watch it for yourself. Still not on Youtube. My thanks to Eddystone for picking it up.

And in a further update, here is the video once again restored to life.

BUT THIS IS THE MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION – WHY ISN’T THIS THE SCANDAL IT OUGHT TO BE: What the interview showed was how knowledgeable and sensible the President is. It also brought out a warmth you never normally see portrayed. The comments thread at Powerline where the interview was also shown is divided between those who watched the interview as I had, and those who found the video had been removed by Youtube. Here are a couple from the latter group.

This flushing of this video should be a big story, as it clearly demonstrates intention to smother and suppress any story involving Trump that is NOT full-blown accusation. You can find out-of-context quotations from this interview on CNN’s site that follow their narrative. Shocking! I’m SHOCKED!

If Trump came off looking ‘human’ then it’s been relegated to the internet trash can………….never happened.

The video is now unavailable. I can’t find the full version, or transcripts anywhere. I suspect this has been done to prevent anyone from checking on the narrative of his comments that has been/is being spun. Free press, people. An interview with the President is…unavailable.

Wow. They took it down. I watched it just in time. Really impressive interview- Morgan was civil and Trump is just so impressive: both with his grasp of wide-ranging topics and his self-deprecating humor. This video made me like him even more. Could that be why it was taken down?? 🤔

And this is the last of the comments from someone who was able to watch the interview:

What strikes me is how this puts the lie to the idea, universally proclaimed in the mainstream media, that President Trump is an ignorant, uneducated buffoon. Morgan touches in quick succession upon a very wide range of topics, presumably without the President having being informed in advance so that he could have brushed up on those matters, and I don’t detect one time when Trump stumbles. In particular, with regard to an area I have studied extensively, Trump gets the history and details discussed of World War II and Winston Churchill quite correct, such as Churchill’s reaction to Pearl Harbor, which he relates dramatically in his history of World War II. Morgan on the other hand stumbles on a major historical point when he mistakenly says repeatedly that Churchill declared war on Germany from the Cabinet War Rooms where the interview was filmed. It was in fact Neville Chamberlain who declared war on September 3, 1939, and he did so not from the Cabinet War Rooms — which had only just started operating a week before — but via a BBC broadcast from 10 Downing Street. That same day Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and did not replace Chamberlain as Prime Minister until May 10 the following year.

The notion that we get anything remotely like a reflection of reality from the media has seldom been more clearly shown. This is what you get instead if it shows the President in a positive light.

Topics covered:

Meghan Markle
Climate change
Winston Churchill
Ronald Reagan
Jeremy Corbyn
Conservative Party leadership
D-Day
Vietnam War
LGBT in the military
Iran
Nuclear weapons
John McCain
2020 election
Guns
Who’s the British Trump?

The video has gone. So this:

And this:

Watching the human side of the President where he explains himself and his policies is apparently not seen as suitable for television. Same problem shown at Powerline where I found the interview in the first place.

The Queen may be the only one in England who really likes Donald Trump

Image result for queen trump

In contrast, let us say, with Theresa May: Donald Trump to get parting shot from Theresa May during London visit.

US President Donald Trump and Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May. Picture: Getty

Here’s some text.

Theresa May will give Donald Trump a copy of Winston Churchill’s blueprint for the United Nations in a parting shot at his America First approach to international and trade relations.

The prime minister today will hand the US president a framed copy of the wartime leader’s Atlantic Charter agreed with Franklin D Roosevelt in August 1941.

The eight-point agreement on Allied war aims and vision of a post-war world became the basis of multilateral institutions including the UN and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The document, with Churchill’s handwritten amendments, is an explicit reminder that many of the institutions opposed by President Trump were conceived by the US and UK.

President Trump has repeatedly criticised multilateral bodies including the UN and his willingness to use tariffs to further US economic aims runs directly counter to one of the key tenets of the Atlantic Charter.

Mrs May’s choice of gift may lack subtlety but is consistent — she has been trying to give him the same lesson since he took office.

At least on this one matter, she can agree with the leader of the Labour Party: Jeremy Corbyn to lead massive protest against Trump in London

Do you think things might have changed just a tad since 1941? I imagine that Churchill and Trump would have gotten on extremely well. I cannot think of anything of importance they would have disagreed about.

And from P in the comments:

These are truly people who like each other.

Art Laffer receives Presidential Medal of Freedom

Both of the following links were found at Powerline: Trump Gives World’s Worst Economist the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Trump is giving Arthur Laffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Economists aren’t smiling.

These sour economic vandals. It’s not even that they are incapable of understanding what he says, but they are even unwilling to listen. The belief that economies are driven from the demand side is so inane that I find it hard to see how anyone with any sense can take it seriously. Everything about how an economy is driven forward and jobs created is dependent on individuals making decisions to do things, then working out what needs to be done and then doing it. No economy in history has ever slowed because there was an unwillingness to buy things. The idea is so stupid it is hard to imagine how it could ever happen in the world as we know it.

The core issue is Say’s Law. If you don’t understand Say’s Law, let me impress on you that you are incapable of understanding how an economy works. If you are interested, however, you can find out from my Free Market Economics, Third Edition, An Introduction for the General Reader. This is what Art Laffer himself wrote about the book, which you can find on the back cover of the text:

‘This book presents the very embodiment of supply-side economics. At its very core is the entrepreneur trying to work out what to do in a world of deep uncertainty in which the future cannot be known. Crucially, the book is entirely un-Keynesian, restoring Say’s Law to the centre of economic theory, with its focus on value-adding production as the source of demand. If you would like to understand how an economy actually works, this is one of the few places I know of where you can find out.’

The American economy is the only economy that has fully recovered from the effects of the stimulus which followed the GFC. It is also the only economy in the world that is managed largely by the supply-side principles, which is why PDT is giving Art Laffer this award.

“For his friends, no explanation was ever necessary; for his enemies, none would ever have sufficed.”

Conrad Black receives A Full Presidential Pardon. I paid close attention to the case at the time, partly because we are almost contemporaries and even remember him – not personally – from my university days in Canada. Also because Mark Steyn was covering the story so closely. And if ever you have seen an example of injustice meted out by some leftist judge, that was it. This is from his article, up to the moment when the President comes on the line.

The two counts for which I have just received a presidential pardon, and of which I was “convicted” in 2011, after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated them, only to have a self-serving appellate judge reinstate them, were for wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

The alleged fraud was reception of $285,000 in my office in Toronto while I was in England, from our American company, which was approved by independent directors, referred to in public filings of the corporation, but which the company secretary had not completely formalized, in what the trial judge correctly regarded, in the secretary’s case, as a clerical error. The reinvention of this crime enabled the appellate panel—to whom the Supreme Court remanded the vacated counts “to assess the gravity of their own errors”—to resuscitate a count of obstruction of justice against me. This consisted of my removal of boxes of personal papers and material that already had been furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission—which I took out under security cameras I had had installed, with the approval of the acting president of the company and the principal member present of the court-appointed inspector—as I vacated my office of 27 years from a building I chiefly owned, on an unjust local court order of a publicity-seeking judge.

The local jurisdiction found no cause of action nor any violation of a document retention order. I was always presumptively innocent in the initial jurisdiction. It was nonsense, all of it; there was never a word of truth to any of it. And now it is over, after 16 years, including three years and two weeks in U.S. federal prisons.

Only once before, 18 years ago, had I received a telephone call from an incumbent president of the United States, prior to Monday of last week, and I had not spoken to the current president since he took office. When my assistant said there was a call from the White House, I picked up, said “Hello” and started to ask if this was a prank, (suspecting my friends in the British tabloid media), but the caller spoke politely over me: “Please hold for the president,” and two seconds later probably the best known voice in the world said “Is that the great Lord Black?” I said “Mr. President, you do me great honor telephoning me.”

Now do read on. And then this, unrelated in any way to the above other than it is the same person writing: Conrad Black on Democrats Start To Perceive Debacle They Face, being how almost impregnable PDT’s current election prospects are. But of particular interest are Black’s comments on China-US trade.

In the trade dispute with China, where even the Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, sides with the president, the United States cannot lose. China’s tremendous economic progress is based on debt-financed infrastructure, dumping cheap goods abroad, especially in the United States, and requiring industrial-intelligence disclosure from sophisticated foreign companies that seek access to Chinese markets.

Everyone agrees that China cheats and ignores World Trade Organization rulings, and practically every trading nation in the world applauds the U.S. president’s stance in this dispute. Eighty percent of the U.S. GDP is domestic commerce, and with a year to reorient itself, it could practically end all imports. China is a debt-ridden house of cards built on what is still a 40% command economy, rotten with official corruption in a country with few natural resources and 300 million people who still live as their ancestors did a thousand years ago.

One more example showing how centralised economies do not and cannot work. The kinds of things perhaps only those who have run large businesses can really understand.

“Everyone agrees China cheats and ignores WTO rulings”

Conrad Black on Democrats Start To Perceive Debacle They Face, being how almost impregnable PDT’s current election prospects are. But of particular interest are Black’s comments on China-US trade.

In the trade dispute with China, where even the Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, sides with the president, the United States cannot lose. China’s tremendous economic progress is based on debt-financed infrastructure, dumping cheap goods abroad, especially in the United States, and requiring industrial-intelligence disclosure from sophisticated foreign companies that seek access to Chinese markets.

Everyone agrees that China cheats and ignores World Trade Organization rulings, and practically every trading nation in the world applauds the U.S. president’s stance in this dispute. Eighty percent of the U.S. GDP is domestic commerce, and with a year to reorient itself, it could practically end all imports. China is a debt-ridden house of cards built on what is still a 40% command economy, rotten with official corruption in a country with few natural resources and 300 million people who still live as their ancestors did a thousand years ago.

One more example showing how centralised economies do not and cannot work.

Trump and his tax returns

Losing money in business is part of the risk of entrepreneurship. For the left in America to raise tax losses as an example of anything only shows their ignorance, and the ignorance of the people who follow them.

This is Rush Limbaugh: Trump Discussed His Business Losses on The Apprentice!. In fact, he wrote them up in one of his books where he discussed the importance of luck in getting things to turn out right. The left are repulsive in so many ways, with this just one more. The video, by the way, is a treat.

RUSH: I have here a show open from Donald Trump on The Apprentice. I want you to listen to how Trump introduced himself as The Apprentice debuted on the NBC network.

TRUMP: My name is Donald Trump, and I’m the largest real estate developer in New York. I own buildings all over the place, model agencies, the Miss Universe pageant, jetliners, golf courses, casinos, and private resorts like Mar-a-Lago, one of the most spectacular estates anywhere in the world. But it wasn’t always so easy. About 13 years ago, I was seriously in trouble. I was billions of dollars in debt. But I fought back, and I won, big league. I used my brain. I used my negotiating skills, and I worked it all out. Now my company’s bigger than it ever was and stronger than it ever was, and I’m having more fun than I ever had.

RUSH: So the New York Times is breaking these news stories three years ago and then yesterday that Trump lost a billion dollars, that Trump didn’t pay any taxes, that Trump’s a lousy businessman. Trump admitted it all! He admitted it all when doing his intro to the TV show The Apprentice. Trump has never hidden this, by the way.

And yet the New York Times twice now has acted like they have uncovered and discovered the biggest secret Donald Trump wants no one to know, when in fact Donald Trump has bragged about it, talked about it, written books about it. The New York Times has hailed him as the comeback kid. I’ll tell you, folks, the desperation on the part of the left is getting tough to watch here.

RUSH: By the way, that Trump sound bite we just played from The Apprentice in 2004, like 15 years ago. People are making fools of themselves and don’t know it yet, so they’re gonna keep doing it. And we’ll keep monitoring and pointing it out to you.

There is also a discussion of this same idiocy at Ace of Spades: New York Times Bombshell Nothingburger: During the Period When Four of Trump’s Businesses Notoriously Declared Bankruptcy, Trump Himself Suffered Losses and Paid Little Income Tax on the Money He Was Not Actually Making (Due to the Bankruptcies). This comes at the end:

If memory serves, when Twitter and FaceBook-approved Conspiracy Theorist Rachel Maddow announced her BLOCKBUSTER! (nothingburger) Trump tax leak, it turned out that much of the losses in some years was just carried-forward losses from earlier YUGE years of losses.

The idea of this is simple: Let’s say in one year you are absolutely wiped out. You lose one hundred million, and pay no tax.

The next year you earn $100 million.

How should you be taxed? You weren’t taxed that one year you lost $100 million. But should you pay normal tax rates for the next year — say, $50 million in federal taxes.

Or would a rational tax code look at these two years together and say that really, for both years combined, you actually made about zero dollars cumulatively?

Legislators have decided taxing half your money that second year wouldn’t be a fair representation of your actual multiyear-term income, and so they let you take the losses from that one year and carry them over to reduce your income in later years.

But you know, we’re in the End Times now, the Time of Chaos, and Democrats and their media masters (yeah, it’s the media calling the shots now, especially social media tech monsters) will decide that following the law is now against the law.