OlDawg

Seemed like a scapegoat case all along. The Superintendent/Principal/Maintenance Supervisor of the school was more responsible by not fixing a door lock they’d been notified was faulty long in advance. I don’t remember if anyone in the ISD was ever held responsible or not.

I’m all for national defense. Part of that equation is the national debt. Regardless of where it came from, debt is debt. As Trump wants the defense budget ramped up to $1.5 Trillion, we go further and deeper. It WILL be a cudgel. There are already rumblings from what I’ve read about debt buying caution from foreign institutions. There are multiple better ways to handle the Greenland situation without buying it. Hopefully, they’ve settled on one of these autonomous lease zones and other rights for defense type arrangements. Let Denmark keep paying the welfare.

You’re missing the point that Greenland is pretty much a worthless piece of ice for the foreseeable future that you’d be paying a heck of a lot for, with a guarantee of forever welfare for the people, and gain nothing you don’t already have when you’re already over $38 Trillion in debt.

Who is attacking them right now? Wasn’t aware they were under attack…

Y'all are missing the point. The U.S. already has unfettered authority to do whatever they want on Greenland with a tacit 'check-in' to the local representative and Denmark. I've previously posted the agreements and links to the others. So, there's nothing to really be gained on the defensive front. As far as the minerals/resources, to my knowledge there's no technology available that would make these safely accessible in any near term future. I don't know how many fools there are that would be willing to invest billions in a smallish, unstable icesheet with an island that's less than 1/4 of the size of the contiguous U.S. Not to mention, the power requirements that would be needed to even contemplate much development. At the height of it's population, Greenland has had a little under 60,000 people. Most are indigenous, and don't want to be a part of Denmark or the U.S. They want independence, and to live in their own 'tribalish' way. They speak their own language, lack any in-depth technical knowledge, and seem to have no desire to change. They survive on ancestral fishing techniques, and massive subsidies from Denmark. Without Denmark's subsidies, they wouldn't survive. The Dem's would be happy. They'd have 3 places they could add Senators after adding statehood. Greenland, Puerto Rico, and D.C. All 3 would be basically guaranteed liberal strongholds. Greenland is socialist already. For all the kudos about cutting budgets with DOGE, why the heck would you want to take on a 'forever' welfare territory that really offers nothing you don't already have? If you must, create formal, indefinite land leases with air & sea rights similar to Gitmo. Make them survivable regardless of whether Denmark remains in charge, or Greenland goes independent. When you have a bigger footprint, possibly bring some development, and show the population what CAN be, maybe they will be more perceptive to a merger. If China or Russia come calling, make sure the arrangement has a ‘right of first refusal’, or a block on non-NATO ownership/leases. Until then, you have all the access necessary without the cost. Use it. Greenland isn’t Venezuela. Far from it. Unless it's all about ego...

He’s getting bad advice on Greenland.

The latest mutual defense agreement between the U.S. and the Kingdom of Denmark, and the Home Rule Government of Greenland. Signed in 2004 by Colin Powell and the Denmark Representative. [Hidden Content]

From the article posted earlier: The 1951 agreement gave the US the authority to "construct, install, maintain, and operate" military installations in specific locations, most notably Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base). Between these locations and across Greenland's national territory, including its territorial seas and airspace, US forces are granted "unrestricted freedom of operation" under Article V. The Kingdom of Denmark's authority over Greenland is expressly acknowledged in the agreement. The US has "exclusive jurisdiction" over its military troops and defensive zones, which includes exemption from several Danish laws and fees. [Hidden Content] Don't know that much about the base. Good up-to-date article that describes all the in's and out's, including the history and current staffing, etc. Sounds to me like the agreement with Denmark basically gives the U,S. carte blanche anyway. So, this seems more about ownership of minerals to me.

The U.S. Air Force Base in Greenland & It’s Strategic Goal [Hidden Content] (Not a duty station I would request. I’m a 70 & above type person. Not a -70. 😂)

If Trump can get them to understand the strategic importance of Greenland to everyone, it’s a good thing. The other NATO countries haven’t been paying attention as climate change opens up more passageways and access. The Russians and Chinese have been paying attention. Russia used to have more icebreakers than anyone. Don’t know for sure now. But, it’s probably still true. So many people haven’t been paying attention to global events that have been building for decades. Trump is bringing them up now, and people are being caught flat-footed. He really needs to explain his vision and reasons to the American public to get their understanding & buy-in. Lord knows, he talks about a bunch of other useless, petty crap.

Own enough. Have used more. The 2nd protects the 1st. As far as the original OP, I question whether the State Law itself is actually legal. I could care less about buy backs one way or the other. But, not sure the State should have the ability to ban them from a local authority. They are voluntary by both directly involved parties. If my right to own shouldn’t be infringed, why should my right to sell? Is an FFL involved at these buy backs?

Just going to drop this down again right here. I think I've read where 1992 and the Rodney King/LA riots were the last time it was used.

You’re being myopic on the ‘what rights you or I would lose'. That’s a very limited view of something being unconstitutional. I think we are in agreement about so-called sanctuary jurisdictions being an issue. I also don’t know all of the laws in every single sanctuary jurisdiction. I did find the below link. Interesting angle I hadn’t considered on the ‘harboring.’ I think most of the cases I’ve read about have involved forced/coerced cooperation with the Feds—which has been found to violate the 10th. As a State’s Rights federalism type person, I agree with these so far. But, I do think the Feds should be able to withhold certain funds. I don’t think I’ve heard of a case involving harboring yet. But, I may have missed it. Anyway…interesting read. Let me know your thoughts on this angle. Seems to be a legitimate argument. NOTE: I'm not specifically speaking about the Houston/Harris County issue with this link. Although, it could apply by knowingly rendering material aid. Apply this logical legal argument in a broad sense to an unspecified sanctuary locale policy/law for the intent of finding a way to end sanctuary policies. [Hidden Content]

Three men arrested for 'attempted murder' of feds in Minneapolis ID’d as illegal immigrants from Venezuela [Hidden Content] A Federal judge declined Minnesota’s request for a temporary restraining order against ICE on Wednesday.

Really seems there's a big rush for control of rare earth minerals by the superpowers.