With the usual anonymous spies in the administration of President Donald Trump supplying the fodder, the mainstream media wasted no time in ridiculing the President of the United States for allegedly suggesting that our country ought to buy Greenland from Denmark.
Excerpts from a New York Times editorial provide a taste of the typical disdain exhibited towards the President:
I want to buy Greenland, said President Trump. No way, said the Danes and Greenlanders, who share control over the giant frozen island and its rich mineral treasures. Then I’m not going to visit your queen, shot back the self-proclaimed master of the real estate deal, who can’t stand being rebuffed. “Is this some sort of joke?” tweeted Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a former Danish prime minister, speaking for everyone.
That’s the gist of it, one of the more astounding plays by a president who finds new ways to amaze, alienate and infuriate almost daily. …
When first reported in The Wall Street Journal last Friday, the idea drew howls of hilarity. But when Mr. Trump made clear he was serious, amusement turned to astonishment and, in Denmark and Greenland, to indignation. Mr. Trump’s claim that “Denmark essentially owns it” overlooked the fact that Greenland effectively runs its own affairs while Denmark, its sovereign owner, takes care of defense and foreign policy. …
It’s too tiresome to try to point out all the lies, distortions, false assertions, and outright false quotes in the editorial as well as in the fake news articles to which it points.
Try to parse the last quoted sentence, which scoffs at the President for saying Denmark “owns” Greenland but then goes on to admit that Denmark is Greenland’s “sovereign owner.” Huh?
Instead of fairly and accurately reporting facts about the issue, the mainstream progressive media waste all of their readers’ time and money building a false image that President Trump is ignorant, incompetent, befuddled, perhaps demented, naive, egotistical, narcissistic, and little more than a real estate con artist. But we know different.
Articles that do try to explain why Trump might want to “buy Greenland,” in typical progressive fashion, suggest racism (against Greenland’s Inuit majority), neo-slavery (again, to “buy” the island’s residents), neocolonialism (white supremacy, you see), greed (to steal the territory’s mineral resources), a narcissistic desire to go down in history like Andrew Johnson (who bought Alaska) or Thomas Jefferson (who bought the Louisiana Territory), among other nefarious ulterior motives. Anything but the real, legitimate reasons why the idea makes sense, as it did to Democrat President Harry Truman.
Some articles, a few, do bother to mention that Greenland contains a strategically important U.S. military base and that Greenland, a relatively “autonomous constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark,” is currently, rather alarmingly, being courted by (and/or bought up piecemeal by) China.
In addition, new sea lanes opening in the region can be used by China as well as by Russia (a country the media love to hate) to threaten the safety of our nation and that of our allies.
Mind you, there’s a reason why the progressive mainstream media–who nearly to a person oppose President Trump and avidly long for his removal from office–don’t want to report why it’s perfectly reasonable for a U.S. president to brainstorm about purchasing land in Greenland (or even the entire island) from Denmark.
To the progressive mainstream media, showing President Trump thinking strategically, putting the welfare of the United States at the top of his list of priorities, and ensuring the safety and security of our country’s citizens, would conflict with the narrative they want to tell and the false image they want to project about the President.
President Trump must be seen as an incompetent, naive, demented old white man who’s completely out of his element as he play-acts at being President of the United States.
To list and explain the many valid reasons why it would be a good move for our country to buy Greenland undermines the “resistance” to President Trump.
Heaven forbid! Trump might get reelected! All hands on deck to defeat him.
President Trump no doubt has an “all of the above” attitude regarding reasons why he wants more than a foothold in Greenland and why that would be a good thing for our country, going forward.
President Trump is thinking towards the future. Thinking about what’s best for this country–his #1 priority.
There are indeed new sea lanes from which enemies could attack us via armed submarines or interfere with international trade.
Greenland is located between the U.S. and Russia. The purchase of Alaska proves the importance of having a buffer between us and nations that are not our allies.
The relatively “autonomous” people of Greenland are majority Inuit, who currently want independence from Denmark but who are also economically dependent upon that country, especially when it comes to funding their government and social services. Some Greenlanders are open to “investment” from China, because they see it as a means by which they can afford a total break with Denmark.
Greenland has already withdrawn from the European “community.” If they should become totally independent of Denmark, will majority-white Europe be their allies or will they align themselves with countries that are not in NATO?
Obviously, should an independent Greenland align itself with either China or Russia, that’s very bad for the U.S.A.
Besides its strategic location, Greenland has many important natural resources, including rare minerals, gold, and coal. Would it be better for Russia, China, or the U.S. to be their new “patron”, if they should gain independence?
Because Denmark currently “owns” Greenland, that country has a say in anything the U.S. does at our Thule Air Base in Greenland. What becomes of that base if Greenland becomes independent of both Denmark and NATO?
Denmark is one of the many countries that has not paid its “fair share” towards NATO for a long time. While committed since 2006 to paying 2% of GDP towards NATO (and thus their own defense), Denmark paid a measly 1.2% ($3.31 billion) in 2015, which freed up money from their own defense, money they then spent on the social welfare state that is so admired by progressives in our own country.
In effect, U.S. taxpayers subsidize socialism in Denmark while our brave troops defend that nation from their enemies, including (perhaps especially) Russia.
Denmark owes NATO, and by extension the U.S., billions of dollars in “back taxes” so to speak. By comparison, the U.S. funded 70% of NATO outlays, using 3.6% of its GDP, in 2017 alone!
Do you ever wonder how it is that so many European countries can afford such beautiful infrastructure, such generous welfare benefits? Imagine how beautiful our own cities, roads, and bridges would be if we similarly stiffed NATO by reducing our contribution to just 1.2% of GDP.
Our 2017 contribution of 3.6% of GDP came to 685,957 million dollars! Imagine what all those millions would buy here in this country, money that instead goes to defend Europe, including Denmark, while they refuse to pony up for their own defense.
NATO countries not paying their fair share has been a particular thorn in President Trump’s side, as should have been, but sadly wasn’t, a thorn in the side of every president since 2006, when NATO countries committed to paying 2% of GDP towards their own defense.
Helge Pedersen, a Copenhagen-based chief economist at Nordea Bank AB, estimates that meeting the 2 percent mark again would require about 15 billion kroner in extra defense spending. That’s how much Denmark spends each year on supporting its universities, or five years of child support for its families.
After the Cold War, Denmark raised its participation in military operations abroad, with Danish soldiers and pilots fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya and Syria. But military spending is still a fraction of the cost of its welfare state—less than one-twenty-fifth, according to the Finance Ministry’s 2017 budget draft—and certainly less popular.PM Lars Lokke Rasmussen has pledged to add 800 million kroner in security spending starting next year. Finding the money isn’t easy. Defense Minister Peter Christensen has said the government is struggling to gain support for its economic policy amid competing demands for tax cuts and more welfare from its parliamentary allies.
In any case, Denmark’s “budget deficit is already close to the EU’s budget limits,” Pedersen said. “There’s really no way we can increase defense spending without cutting costs elsewhere.”
Cry me a river.
We have our own deficit and debt, but we still pay almost twice our “fair share” to fund NATO.
President Trump may have planned on telling Denmark,
Let’s make a deal. Greenland in return for the money you owe NATO.
Having canceled his state visit to Denmark, we won’t know exactly what the President planned to say to their rude, smart-ass prime minister or to Denmark’s royal family.
That’s thanks to the spies in the administration–those always anonymous treacherous people who can’t wait to hightail it to the progressive mainstream media to undercut and undermine President Trump (not to mention our country).
The media and their anonymous spies, in their eagerness to work against the President, end up working against the welfare of We the People and the national security of their own country (provided, that is, they actually feel towards the U.S. as if it is their own country).