Archive for the ‘Uncomfortable Truths’ Category

Greenland? Why Not?

Posted: August 17, 2019 by ng36b in Uncomfortable Truths
Tags: , ,

There is much ado about President Trump offering to purchase Greenland, and the Danish government politely turning it down. Was it stupid to make the offer in the first place? It’s not the first time the U.S. has offered to buy Greenland, which captured the interest of William Seward in 1867 and President Truman in 1946. Trump’s offer is looked at as rude, but its actually a bit genius.

The biggest under reported piece about Greenland is timing with China. China recently tried to purchase the Grønnedal naval base on the western side of the island. It wasn’t economically viable, but it would give them a foothold in Greenland to work from. China looked at other purchases of various mines in Greenland, including mines near the North Pole and mines for uranium and rare earth metals.

The Danish government’s response has been tepid. The local Greenland government, longing for independence, needs viable economic development in order to be independent of Denmark. Keep in mind that the majority of the 58,000 mostly Inuit people on Greenland don’t really identify as Danish, and have been creeping closer to independence over the past 20 years. Heck, Greenland isn’t even part of the EU anymore. China needs a claim to the Arctic, and has plenty of experience loaning money in debt diplomacy, so it seems like a win for China.

Enter Trump and the “bombastic” claim to purchase Greenland. How can Denmark respond?

  1. Denmark can take the offer. Greenland becomes essentially like an independent Indian nation inside the US.

Sounds crazy? Right now, Greenland operates under it’s own laws, and allows Denmark to manage foreign affairs and security. What about US Indian tribes?

“These tribes possess the right to form their own governments, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal) within their lands, to tax, to establish requirements for membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone, and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money (this includes paper currency).” (from Wikipedia)

That doesn’t sound like a bad deal.

  1. Denmark can reject the offer and say that Greenland belongs to them.

By doing so, Denmark will have to say how important Greenland is…which will spark it to show it can protect the area, perhaps invest in it, address Inuit concerns and, most importantly, not allow China a foothold.

Trump’s offer comes on the heels of Secretary of State Pompeo making fun of China’s claim to be a “near-Arctic” nation. “Near-Arctic” means…nothing. It’s a poor attempt for China to get in on the “global superpower” game, and Pompeo rightly laughed them off the stage. Trump crushing China’s hopes in Greenland provide much-needed follow-through on this Arctic-denial strategy.

Trump’s offer is a win-win for the U.S. It starts serious dialog about Greenland and makes the Denmark government, who have to defend Greenland, become more serious about its defense. No surprise, Denmark is increasing its defense budget, although still falling short of the 2% GDP NATO limit. And most importantly, it directly kicks China out of the running for Arctic Nation status.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

by baldilocks

From a recent conversation:

Them: “I didn’t vote for President Obama either time. You know that. But I like him.”

Me: “Really?”

Them: “I can’t stand Trump! I know you’re on the Trump Team.”

The Trump Team? We’re on teams now?

Me: “I’m not on the ‘Trump Team.’ I’m on the side of our country. And President Trump has done many good things for it.”

Them (scoffs): “What has he done?”

Me: His policies have brought about lower unemployment. Black unemployment is at its lowest since …”

Them (interrupts): “NO, IT’S NOT! IT’S THE SAME AS IT WAS WHEN OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT!”

That’s when I knew I had to compose this post. But before I did, I created a page containing links to my many posts during the 2016 presidential campaign in which I expressed skepticism about Donald Trump’s intentions. In short, I thought he was playing conservatives and was in cahoots with Hillary Clinton to get her into the White House.

There are a lot of links on that page, so if you don’t have time to read them, don’t worry. But, I don’t believe in hiding my errors.

Also on that page are indications of my evolution into becoming a supporter of now President Trump.

Do I like him? It’s a question that does not matter. He’s not my friend or my boss. He’s not going to marry into my family nor will anyone in my family marry into his. I like that he is mostly good for our country, I like that he wants that which is good for it, and I like that he isn’t all talk.

I could post the many forms of beneficial action which President Trump has taken, but I want to focus on the most recent topic since the majority of my American family lives in the South and Southwest: Illegal immigration.

Yes, I’ve ranted about it before but, as I type this, we are seeing the beginning of results of this president putting Mexico’s feet to the fire.

Mexico has long been allowing MILLIONS of citizens of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to walk through its southern border and sojourn through its land en route to the United States.

And why wouldn’t Mexico allow this? Why the flock not? Hey, it’s a chance to shake down these people, rape them, rape their children and turn them into drug mules. And, just spit-balling here, it’s also a chance for Mexican banks to get their hands on monies belonging to international organizations like Pueblo Sin Fronteras (PSF). The Chicago-based PSF has been at the forefront of bringing Central Americans through Mexico to the United States since 2008.

One thing: this flood of illegal aliens has been nothing but a hindrance to the well-being of Americans who are black.  Did I mention that the person I was talking to is black?

But what really got to me was the notion of Barack Obama’s “likability.”

I didn’t want to ask why this person likes the former president because we were already past the point of reasoning together. But I tried to think of what was likable about Former President Obama versus the things that would cause a person to dislike President Trump. Of course, that didn’t take long.

One president talks in a calm, even manner. He’s youthful, slim and has close-cropped salt-and-pepper hair. He will compliment you and try to assuage your doubts.

The other president is old, a little overweight, and funny-looking; that hair, though. And he speaks bluntly and will hurt your feelings.

It would be easy to like the “likable” one, if we didn’t also know that, as a state senator, he voted against saving babies who are born following botched abortions.

… if he hadn’t said that wouldn’t “punish” one of his own daughters with a baby, if one of them had become pregnant before age 18.

… if we didn’t know about Benghazi

… if we didn’t know about Operation Fast and Furious.

… if we didn’t know what he did for Iran.

(If I listed everything that President Likable did to harm this country and its people, this post would be endless.)

But, because he fornicated us with a smile, he’s likable.

Conversely, it’s okay to dislike the one who does almost everything alleged conservatives say they want and who, among many other things, is executing effective action to secure this nation’s borders and strengthen its economy.

Fact is, most people will accept tyranny if the tyrant blows smoke up their a**es.

And will hate the harsh one with the old man hair;  the one who tries to fix things.

Even the things they care about.

Even while they are prospering.

Thinking about this, I’m glad that Jesus never told His followers to like their neighbor as themselves, since I spend a lot of time disliking my neighbors — even the ones that I love.

Even the ones who are unable to discern friend from foe or good from evil.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow her on FacebookTwitterMeWeand Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar or hit Juliette’s!

Andrew Yang

by baldilocks

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

— Matthew 6:1-4

But, then, there are other schools of thought on this matter.

New York entrepreneur and Democratic 2020 [POTUS] candidate Andrew Yang wants to implement a system in which a government-run mobile app rewards Americans with “digital social credits” (DSCs) for good behavior.

Americans would receive DSCs under Yang’s system for things such as “participating in a town fair,” “fixing a neighbor’s appliance” or “tutoring a student,” his presidential campaign website explains.

“As individuals rack up DSCs, they would have both a permanent balance they’ve earned over their lifetime and a current balance. They could cash the points in for experiences, purchases with participating vendors, support for causes, and transfer points to others for special occasions,” Yang states on his website.

“As their permanent balance gets higher, they might qualify for various perks like throwing a pitch at a local ballgame, an audience with their local Congressperson or meeting their state’s most civic-minded athlete or celebrity.”

What could go wrong?

Yang’s social credit plan bears some similarities to the social credit system implemented by China’s authoritarian government.

Every citizen in China is assigned a social credit score that determines whether they can buy plane or train tickets.

Unlike the Chinese system, Yang’s plan does not include using digital social credit for punitive measures.

Emphasis mine. Such an app probably wouldn’t have the ability to dish out the type of punishment that the Chinese government does. However, wouldn’t it be interesting for such an app to contain a shaming measure for “bad behavior” — eating at Chick-Fil-A or supporting a pro-life organization, for examples?

Bad behavior could earn the offender a shame-swarm on Twitter or, perhaps, a visit from that chapter of ANTIFA which last seen paying call at Tucker Carlson’s house.

Surely, such a feature bug would never be built into this app. Surely not. (Insert side-eye here.)

Leave it to a Democrat politician to creep us all out. And, unlike Representative-elect Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, this one appears to have more than a few IQ points. Even creepier.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

by baldilocks

Every now and then, the Left tells you [JAO: Tweet has been delete] what its ultimate goal is.

I’ve said for some time that Leftism’s success requires the earth’s rapid depopulation and that nearly all the Left’s advocacy is geared toward that end: radical feminism — which tends to alienate men and women from each other — homosexual and transsexual indoctrination of the very young; and, of course, abortion.

These advocacies are necessary for the depopulation goal because the Left’s old methods — used by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, King Leopold of Belgium, Pol Pot, etc. — were too alarming. Such methods have a tendency to energize the opposition and their allies — that is, those who would forcefully object to, say, being forcibly relocated to a G.U.L.A.G. The new methods are much more insidious.

The special thing about Bill Gates’ notion that there are too many people in Africa is his lack of self-awareness and historical perspective. Has Gates — a prime mover of the Organized Left — been too busy storing up his treasures here on earth all this time to even have a cursory awareness of the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, or the European Colonization of Africa?

I bet that he does know about these events and their implications. That’s the sickening part.

Here in the United States, it is well-known that Planned Parenthood has long had a huge presence in black neighborhoods — the better to entice black women into committing a form of suicide. (Yes, that’s what we have been doing.) My guess is that Gates and those whom he represents dream of a day when the organization can have a similar footprint across the water.

If that happens, I’d say that Margaret Sanger would be smiling were she still here. It’s a safe bet that nothing could make her smile now, though.

Hell, no.

I’d call this the latest in Leftist mob action.

(Thanks to Ace)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!