Unlawful Not so Simple

This merits clarification.

No. "The fact they're here illegally" isn't itself a crime.

“Illegal presence” isn’t a crime. It’s civil. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984).

He also mentions visa overstays (about half of unlawful presence). Those aren’t crimes either. It's a civil process.

Crimes do exist for… https://t.co/0GOuNcHQzL

— Rob Doar (@robdoar) February 2, 2026

 

Te following is the applicable portion of the interview of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Sunday,February by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  They are being released across the country as well by judges. And the president said he was going to prioritize those who had criminal records, but about 70 percent at least of those who have been detained don't have criminal records.

BLANCHE:  Well, just -- hang on. The fact that they're here illegally is a crime. And so when you say they don't have criminal records, they are -- by their presence being here without status, having come into this country illegally or overstayed illegally, that is a crime. And so, we have to be careful.

And you're right, there is a schism in the law right now about whether an illegal alien can be held pending their proceeding or whether they need to be released on bail. We very strongly believe that they should be held and there's a bunch of appellate cases.

So that's another example of something where a number of district court judges have reached a conclusion that we very much believe is contrary to law and there will be an appellate court and ultimately, probably the Supreme Court that will be asked to interpret that. So -- so, we should be -- we should wait before we withhold judgment until the appellate courts have had their opportunity to weigh in.

The tweet is interesting.  A close reading of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) would suggest that, consistent with Doar's interpretation, that mere presence of an immigrant illegally present in the USA is not a criminal offense. In her majority opinion, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court Sandra Day O'Connor ruled against Lopez-Mendoza, stating "the mere fact of an illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent hearing."

Nonetheless, in his dissent, Justice White noted "unregistered presence in this country, without more, ante at 468 U.S. 1047, does not constitute a crime, rather, unregistered presence plus willfulness muist be shown." Without referring to this case itself, the the Immigrants' Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union in 2010 explained

The act of being present in the United states in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime. While federal immigration law does criminalize some actions that may be related to undocumented presence in the United States, undocumented presence alone is not a violation of federal criminal law. Thus, many believe that the term "illegal alien," which may suggest a criminal violation, is inaccurate or misleading.... 

Undocumented presence in the United States is only criminally punishable if it occurs after an individual was previously formally removed from the United States and then returned without permission. (8 U.S. Code Section 1326) (any individual previously "deported or removed" who "enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in" the United States without authroization may be punished by imprisonment up to two years). Mere undocumented presence in the United States alon, however, in the absence of a previous removal order and unathorized reentry, is not a crime under federal law.

Deputy Attorney General Blanch, therefore, probably was wrong when he said of the "millions and millions and millions of undocumented illegal aliens (who have flooded our country" that "the fact that they're here illegally is a crime."

To give Blanch his due- those this was not what he stated- individuals who have "flooded our country illegally" are not guilty of a mere civil offense. In that same 2010 report, the ACLU noted

Entering the United States without being inspected and admitted, i.e., illegal entry, is a misdemeanor or can be a felony, depending on the circumstanstances. (8 U.S. Code, Section 1325.) But many undocumented immigrants do not enter the United States illegally. They enter legally but overstay, work without authorization, drop out of school or violate the conditions of their visas in some other way. Current estimates are that approximately 45% f undoumented immigrants did not enter illegally. See Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entr for the Unauthorized Migrant Population (May 22, 2006). 

As Doar points out, Section 1325 applies to individuals entering the USA illegally for the first time and Section 1326 pertains to persons re-entering illegally (or previously denied permission to enter), as they have since enacted in the late 1920s.  (The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996  made the law tougher/more punitive.) Although estimates vary, it appears that the number of persons who have overstayed their visa (or Master Card) constitutes a very minority of the total number here on an unauthorized basis. Unlike the foreigners who have entered or re-entered illegally, they are guilty only of  a civil offense.

Civil vs. criminal and misdemeanor vs. felony are critical distinctions. Of course, that leaves us with such problems as apprehension in schools and at courthouses, separation of children from their parents, camera phobia, excessive force, wearing of masks, warrantless home raids, and quotas (almost always bad things). Confronting tyranny is a tall order.

.

Share |

We're Giving False Hope

In "A not 'toned down' Trump regime prepares for ethnic cleansing in Ohio," Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch makes several good points about President Trump's immigration spolicy and practices.

Among them is that the Administration is not in the least pulling back from its harsh, objectively inhumane, actions.  The evidence includes the upcoming raids on Springfield, Ohio. Bunch notes

On Tuesday, some 350,000 Haitian refugees are slated — under a Trump regime order — to lose the temporary protected status (TPS) that was granted to them by the Biden administration and has allowed them to stay legally in the United States after fleeing an epidemic of gang violence and murder in their Caribbean homeland.

Advocates for the large Haitian diaspora are fighting Trump’s revocation in court, so there is a chance the move can be forestalled. However, top officials including Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, have said the Department of Homeland Security has plans in place to immediately swarm the industrial epicenter of Haitian migration — Springfield, Ohio — with a massive force of federal agents to begin deportation raids.

You probably remember Springfield from its prominence in the 2024 presidential campaign. Over the last decade, a surge of Haitian migrants into a once nearly comatose factory town — some 12,000 to 15,000 people, or now a quarter of the small city’s population — revitalized Springfield yet triggered a moral panic among some white neighbors who shared utterly unfounded rumors of animal abuse.

As of 3/31/25, approximately 1,297, 635 individuals from 17 nations were residing in the USA- fewer now, no doubt- due to Temporary Protected Status, which is

a government beneift granted by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to eligible foreign-born individuals who are unable to return home safely due to conditions or circumstances preventing their country from adequately handling the return.....

The DHS Secretary can extend TPS after a review of country conditions. A decision concerning an extension should typically be made at least 60 days before the TPS designation is set to expire. The Secretary can extend the TPS designation for a six, 12 or 18-month period or decide to cancel the designation.

TPS now applies to individuals from 12 nations. The Administration is now in the process of taking away the designation from Venezuela and Nicaragua. Bunch denounces ICE

zeroing in on so many Venezuelans, who came to America to escape the rule of a man the Trump regime has now arrested as a criminal dictator of a nation that the U.S. State Department has deemed violent and unsafe? Why deport the thousands of Latinos who worked tirelessly to rebuild New Orleans after it was decimated by Hurricane Katrina?

Not only is Trump’s mass deportation not nabbing many violent criminals, but his unholy war is undoing the very foundation of the story that America tells itself to live — that our willingness to accept the huddled masses fleeing political violence or persecution made us an exceptional nation. It was always an uneven narrative, but the regime’s masked men are now erasing it in service of unapologetic white supremacy.

But we have been willing to accept those huddled masses with TPS, which lacks a "lawful path to permanent residence (a green card) or citizenship."  The beneficiaries could mow our lawns, construct or clean buildings, pick crops, wash dishes or serve food at our restaurants. Low wages, few benefits, and arbitrary termination from employment are common.

What these individuals could not, and cannot, obtain is citizenship.In 2020, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services explained

Citizenship is the common thread that connects all Americans. We are a nation bound not by race or religion, but by the shared values of freedom, liberty, and equality.

Throughout our history, the United States has welcomed newcomers from all over the world. Immigrants have helped shape and define the country we know today. Their contributions help preserve our legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity. More than 200 years after our founding, naturalized citizens are still an important part of our democracy. By becoming a U.S. citizen, you too will have a voice in how our nation is governed.

The decision to apply is a significant one. Citizenship offers many benefits and equally important responsibilities. By applying, you are demonstrating your commitment to this country and our form of government.

Elizabeth Bruenig of The Atlantic (subscription required) recently reminded us that the USA was founded on "the idea that a nationcould be baound not by race, ethnicity, or language but by fidelity to a set of principles- liberty, equality,self-governance, and inalienable rights."

It's an idea expressed, in one way or another at one time or another, by such notables as Ronald Reagan, Joe Biden, and Lindsey Graham. Yet, it's something we need to be reminded of as the promiscuous implementation of Temporary Protection Status belies the ideal.

It belies the ideal because as we invite people(s) from other countries in, they are not invited to be Americans, not even second-class citizens. They are given a work permit and escape from an ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster,or extraoridnary and temporary conditions.

They are not asked to give a commitment to this country or to  those principles which Bruenig and others cite as foundational principles of America. And in return, they can have their Temporary Protected Status yanked from them whenever the federal government chooses, as the Trump Administration is feverishly attempting.

In the 1984 "America" written by Sammy Johns, Waylon Jennings sang "and my brothers are all black and white, yellow too, and the red man is right; to expect a little from you, promise and then follow through, America."

Promise and then follow through. That's exactly what we don't do with TPS, and no Administration can promise to do because it all can be done.

In some instances, temporary protection status is probably appropriate. However, there should be less of it and more of a program of true citizenship. Individuals would be given an opportunity to work toward citizenship, and over a shorter period of time than has been proposed in the past. Applicants would be assisted in this goal which, if achieved, would beneift this country. If they decided not to participate significantly, their continued presence would not be welcomed.  If they chose to be Americans, to be a part of our continuing experiment, they would be a valuable addition.

Obviously and unfortunately, this is all moot now. This is Donald Trump's government and autocratic strategy and acquiesence to his schemes is necessary to maintain, as Bunch recognizes, "the very foundation of the story that America tells itself to live."

.

Share |

Cultist Finds Her Home, for Now

Pete Hegseth. Kristi Noem. Karoline Leavitt. Donald Trump, himself.  This Administration brings to mind the title of one of Al Franken's books, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."

One of the finest liars in the Trump Administration, however, is the Director of National Intelligence, now in Georgia scouring, probably illegally, for those 11,780 votes from 2020

OMG 🚨

Tulsi Gabbard says Biden was never calling the shots.... and neither was Kamala

She says Hillary, Obama, Blinkin Jake Sullivan and the Deep State

They needed a figurehead they can control

They used the Autopen to run a shadow Govt... and the media wasn't interested pic.twitter.com/jBhWiZDRva

— @Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸 (@Chicago1Ray) January 29, 2026

 

President Biden used an autopen just as have most recent presidents, including Donald Trump himself. This myth began ten months ago by the Liar-in-Chief when he contended about pardons issued by Biden "in other words, Joe Biden did not sign hem but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!"

In a written opinion of July, 2005, the Office of Legal Counsel, argued

The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within gthe meaning of Article 1, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President's signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.

This may have been an unsound opinion, not unlike that of the same office when it decided that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted. (Mr. anti-deep state has not specifically criticized either opinion.

If there were any evidence that President Biden didn't know whom he was pardoning- let alone that there was some sort of "Deep State"- there would have been at least a hint of evidence. None ever has been produced, notwithstanding the Republican Party's enthusiasm for condemning Biden and Democrats' avoidance of defending him- because there is no reason to believe J. Sullivan, A. Blinken, B. Obama, or Hr Clinto had any control whatsoever over the 46th President.

However, my favorite Tulsiism is the following because it is not only preposterous but indicative of deep-seated hypocrisy on the part of the DNI.

One of the main reasons I left the Democrat Party was because of their hostility towards God and those who have faith in or are trying to cultivate their love for God. Those so-called 'protestors' who tried to intimidate and terrorize innocent women, children, and men in the…

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) January 20, 2026

Fourteen months ago, a Hawaiian news organ explained that in 2015 during her second term in the US House of Representatives 

Longtime political activists here were raising alarms about her connections to the Science of Identity Foundation, an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement launched in the 1970s by a Kailua surfer, Chris Butler. Gabbard’s family, including her father, Sen. Mike Gabbard, were adherents of Butler’s and Tulsi Gabbard grew up going to schools run by the group.

Over the years, Gabbard has stopped short of denying her membership in the foundation, which many consider a cult. She married a man whose family also was part of the organization. Questions were raised when she hired friends she’d grown up with in the organization to help advise her on policy and run her congressional office. Later, she paid others affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation to work on her campaign.

Longtime political activists here were raising alarms about her connections to the Science of Identity Foundation, an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement launched in the 1970s by a Kailua surfer, Chris Butler. Gabbard’s family, including her father, Sen. Mike Gabbard, were adherents of Butler’s and Tulsi Gabbard grew up going to schools run by the group.

Over the years, Gabbard has stopped short of denying her membership in the foundation, which many consider a cult. She married a man whose family also was part of the organization. Questions were raised when she hired friends she’d grown up with in the organization to help advise her on policy and run her congressional office. Later, she paid others affiliated with the Science of Identity Foundation to work on her campaign.

When Gabbard decries Democrats' alleged "hostility towards God," it is not clear what she means by "God."  There was this from six years ago: "Imagine there's no heaven; easy if you try. No sky above us; no religion, too."

 

Gabbard has re-invented herself as a cultural right-winger to a left-winger, now to a right-winger in the Trump orbit (and Administration). She may have found the God of the Old and New testaments, but it's not probable. In either case, it's rich that someone who belonged to a Hindu cult and promoted John Lennon's atheism should now accuse Donald Trump's critics of "hostility towards God."

It may have been sheer ambition that Tulsi Gabbard, after being squashed in her bid to become the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, decided to swithc jerseys. Her afffinity for Vladimir Putin's Russia may have been a factor. And that may not be all. 

At the 50th anniversary gala in 2016 of ISKCON, the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, Gabbard remarked

Real spiritual understanding, or real religion, transcends sectarianism. Each and every one of us, whether we call ourselfves a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu or any other designation, we each have this intrinsic opportunity to cultivate our own personal loving relationship with God.

Muslim, Christian, Hindu.  It's not surprising that the same individual who  absurdly slams President Biden would omit the party of Jake Sullivan, Chuck Schumer, and J.B. Pritzker. Or maybe Tulsi Gabbard is just generally clueless. 

  

Share |

No Change in Strategy

There is an obvious answer to Bill O'Reilly's question.

Host: Why is Trump backing down?

O'Reilly: “He’s not backing down! He’s trying to defuse. Why would you say he’s backing down? You want a CNN contract? He’s not backing down, he’s diffusing the way he should”pic.twitter.com/A8BYokpPiH

— Red Line News (@RedLineNewsUSA) January 27, 2026

For context, below is the video of the entire interview. At 5:41, the podcaster and ex-Fox News broadcaster remarks

If you continue- and I mean "you" in a general sense- to allow states and cities to not enforce federal law, you don't have a country. It goes. O.K.?   Everybody should understand.

After NewsNation's Leland Vitter asks "so why is Trump backing down," O'Reilly responds

He's not backing down. Why would you say he's backing down? He's trying to diffuse. Do you want a CNN contract? Now, here's the most important part of this whole thing- unreported....

The obvious answer to "why would you say he's backing down" is that Donald frequently backs down. TACO. While he occasionally holds to his position when he sees the tide turning against it, he never diffuses. It would be inimical to everything he stands for. It would run contrary to the goal he hopes to achieve, and there is a very recent example.

Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar held a town halll meting in her Minnesota congressional district on Tuesday evening when a man approached, and sprayed, her with a syring containing a liquid.  He was tackled by her security force, identified as Anthony James Kazmierczak, and charged with 3rd degree assault for evidently/allegedly attacking the congresswoman with apple cider vinegar.  Notably 

Just hours before, at a rally in Clive, Iowa, the president waged another one of his bigoted attacks on Omar — one of countless times he’s fixated on the lawmaker in recent months.

When speaking about supposed violence caused by immigrants, Trump said immigrants must “show that they can love our country, they have to be proud. Not like Ilhan Omar.” The crowd booed.

He went on to make racist remarks about Somalia and Somali people, as he’s done numerous times in recent months, and relished in the idea of committing violence against them.

“They’re good at one thing: pirates. But they don’t do that anymore. You know why? Because they get the same treatment from us as the drug dealers get: Boom, boom, boom,” he said to laughter and applause, referring to his administration’s illegal boat strike campaign. “When we see them going in, ping, that’s the end of that.”

Trump has relentlessly attacked Omar as his administration has unleashed violence on Minnesota, sometimes for days in a row. He has said that she should be “thrown the hell out” of the U.S. while spreading lies about her status as a citizen; repeated false conspiracy theories about her; and, just on Monday, said that his administration is investigating her.

Only the assailant, not the President, is responsible for the apparent assault. However, Donald is responsible for his response to the incident.and

In a phone interview Tuesday evening with ABC News' Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott, Trump said he hadn't seen video of the incident and without providing evidence accused Omar of staging the attack.

"I don't think about her. I think she's a fraud," Trump said. "She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her."

By "diffuse," O'Reilly probably meant "de-escalate," an effort to calm things down, to ease tensions. 

Trump has dropped the extraordinarily nasty comments directed toward Minnesota goveror Tim Walz and Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, sent Customs and Border Protection director Tom Homan to Minneapolis to talk to Walz, and himself spoken to the Governor.

But these minor moves reflect only a short-term strategic shift in tactics. Donald will pivot back to his unique (except among dictators) approach, reassert his modus operandi, once he perceives it politically advantageous. Trump may modulate his words, but not his tone. He will not curtail his venom for more than a moment in time. He does not diffuse or de-escalate tensions or any situation. It is not his way.

Establishing autocracy is President Trump's goal and creating, or contributing to, crisis creates the chaotic and tumultuous situation he needs. The finished product is absolute power and creating havoc is a critical step in the recipe.

Share |

Election Theft

It's another "wait, what?" moment from this Administration. We learn that

Attorney General Pam Bondi on Saturday outlined terms to “restore the rule of law” in Minnesota, just hours after a second person was fatally shot by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis.

“You and your office must restore the rule of law, support ICE officers, and bring an end to the chaos in Minnesota,” Bondi wrote in a letter to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) obtained by multiple outlets. “Fortunately, there are common sense solutions to these problems that I hope we can accomplish together.”

In the letter, Bondi pressed Walz to hand over information about the state’s welfare programs amid mounting scrutiny over a massive fraud scandal, and she asked that he get rid of immigration sanctuary policies and let the Department of Justice see voter rolls “to confirm that Minnesota’s voter registration practices comply with federal law.”

“I am confident that these simple steps will help bring back law and order to Minnesota and improve the lives of Americans,” Bondi said in the letter.

One of the three steps the Attorney General proposed is for Minnesota to

allow the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to accesss voter rolls to confirm that Minnesota's voter registration practices comply with federal law as authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Fulfilling this common sense request will beteter guarantee free and fair elections and boost confidence in the rule of law.

You might wonder what in the world voter rolls have to do with the "chaos in Minnesota."  Allow Connecticult's junior senator to make sense of this:

 

Pam Bondi just sent a letter to Minnesota officials saying ICE will leave if the state turns over its voter database to Trump.

Guess what? This has never been about safety or immigration. It’s a pretext for Trump to take over elections in swing states. pic.twitter.com/BHrQJUECJY

— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 25, 2026

One of those stipulations, Murphy remarks, was

that the state turn over its voter rolls to the federal government. This has never been about public saety. Minneapolis is a much less safe place today because ICE is there. this is likely bout trying to rig and steal the election. Donald Trump is wildly unpopular. He's not committed to democracy and knows the only way his movement is to retain power, the only way that his corporate allies retain power, his billioner allies retain power this November, is for Trump to steal the election and so he's saying to Minneapolis "if you don't give me control of the voter rolls, then ICE isn't leaving and you can see if he gets away with it in Minnesota, he's likely going to try it in places like Philadelphia and Pheoenix, other key cities in swing states.... the underlying game here may be to steal the 2026 election.

Actually, Murphy was being overly generous to the Attorney General. She offered no quid pro quo and no olive branch at all, avoiding a promise, even a wish, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents could under any circumstances be withdrwn. She concluded by commenting "Whether state and local politicians stand in the way or not, we will work every day to protect Americans and make Minnesota Safe Again. I request that you joinus in this effort."

Heads we win, tails you lose. However, the Senator correctly identified the Administration's goal as retaining power and its means the acquisitition of voter rolls. In The Guardian, Austin Sarat, a professor jurisprudence and political science, recently explained 

Donald Trump touted his accomplishments and suggested that they were so great that “we shouldn’t even have an election” in November. Not surprisingly, that comment made headlines.

But it is at best a distraction from the real threat: the United States will have elections this year, but they will not be free and fair.

Far more important than his musings about calling off the midterms was what the president told the New York Times in another Oval Office interview. As the Times noted, he said that “he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states after his loss in the 2020 election.”

Talking about the capacity of the national guard to execute that plan, he explained: “I don’t know that they are sophisticated enough … I’m not sure that they’re sophisticated enough in the ways of crooked Democrats, and the way they cheat, to figure that out.”

As the Times observed, “Mr. Trump’s expression of regret … was ... a warning sign that he had not given up on the idea that voting machines were dangerous or that they could be seized in an effort to curb fraud.” We should take that warning seriously.

Sarat pointed out that Robert Kagan, a historian and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, maintains

“There’s no chance in the world that Donald Trump is going to allow himself to lose in the 2026 elections, because that would be the end of his ability to wield total power. Unless they got up on the rooftop and said: ‘We are going to subvert the 2026 election,’ they could not be more obvious about what their intention is"

The administration’s “wide-ranging efforts seek to expand on some of the strategies he and his advisers and allies used to try to reverse the 2020 results”. Moreover, Trump and his allies are much better prepared to rig the 2026 election or discredit the results than they were in 2020.

This unsurprisingly reflects proposals of Project 2025, of which

One was to transfer the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting election crimes to the Department of Justice’s criminal division. Liza Gordon-Rogers, a research associate at the Center for Science and Democracy, argues that his shift would “significantly jeopardize the United States’ multi-racial democracy by changing the focus from interference with voting rights to criminalizing the act of voting itself”.

Project 2025 also called for the federal government to withdraw from arrangements that in the past have helped election officials do their jobs. It recommended what Gordon-Rogers calls “substantive cuts to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which has provided essential cyber and physical security support to election offices across the country to make sure our elections are secure”.

Sarat wrote prior to the killing of Minnesota's Alex Pretti to argue that the Democratic Party has been complacent, evidently confident that the mid-term elections will be business as usual. That may change with the continuing assault on Minneapolis. Senator Murphy concludes

I have been arguing all weekend that the Senate should not pass funding for the Deparment of Homeland Security, first and foremost because this is a rogue agency that's operating outside of the law and it'ss killing American citizens but also because the underlying aim here may be to steal the 202 election. And no Senator, but in particular no Democratic senator, should play a part in that.  

Share |

Erasing History

It's hard to imagine there is a connection between the Greenland controversy and slavery once common in the American south. Consider, though, that since it first deployed soldiers in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 18,000 Danish soldiers were deployed to Afghanistand and 33 were killed in action.

aA explained a couple of years ago on the 9/11 Memorial & Museum website

On September 12, 2001, the day after the 9/11 attacks, NATO met in an emergency session. For the first and only time in its history, NATO invoked Article 5. All 18 of the United States’s allies stated they would support America’s response to the attacks…

Since 2001, troops from the U.S.'s NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in Afghanistan. More than one thousand of these soldiers have paid the ultimate price. In 2017, NATO inaugurated its new headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Near its entrance, a memorial composed of a piece of mangled steel from the 107th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower sits atop a pedestal. In front of it, an inscription on a plaque pays tribute to the singular use of Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty. During a public program at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, Jens Stoltenberg, the current NATO Secretary General, reflected on the memorial. He remarked, “It serves as a powerful symbol of the enduring partnership and friendship between the United States and its NATO Allies across Europe and Canada. It is also a daily reminder of the deadly dangers posed by terrorism, the importance of standing together to protect our people and our values.”

And now, this:

Trump on NATO: "I've always said, will they be there if we ever needed them? That's really the ultimate test. I'm not sure of that. We've never needed them. They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan and this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, off the front… pic.twitter.com/fA0i1S3LxY

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) January 22, 2026

This is a case not only of hostility toward allies but also of rewriting history. And so it is that  

Outraged critics accused President Donald Trump of “whitewashing history” on Friday after the National Park Service removed an exhibit on slavery at Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park in response to his executive order “restoring truth and sanity to American history” at the nation’s museums, parks and landmarks.

Empty bolt holes and shadows are all that remains on the brick walls where explanatory panels were displayed at the President’s House Site, where George and Martha Washington lived with the people they owned as property when Philadelphia was the nation’s capital. One woman cried silently at their absence. Someone left a bouquet of flowers. A hand-lettered sign said “Slavery was real”….

Workers on Thursday removed the exhibit, which included biographical details about the nine people enslaved by the Washingtons at the presidential mansion. Just their names — Austin, Paris, Hercules, Christopher Sheels, Richmond, Giles, Oney Judge, Moll and Joe — remain engraved into a cement wall.

The President of the USA insults our allies by stomping over the history of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance and the National Park Service "whitewashes" history by removing exhibits at museums, parks, and landmarks. Donald Trump also has demolished the East Wing of the White House and plastered a White House walkway with bronze plaques of each USA president. 

We are to believe that President Obama was "one of the most divisive political figures in American history" and that the Affordable Care Act was "highly ineffective."  And we're told that Joe Biden, represented by an autopen rather than a portrait, assumed office only "as a result of the most corrupt election evr seen in the United States and as President presided over the "worst inflation ever recorded." 

Ridiculous, but consistent with Donald's behavior throughout his presidency. Rewriting history, in the matter of describing ex- Presidents, removing cultural artifacts from public view, and lying about NATO history all are examples of rewriting history. 

A Philadelphian who recently visited Independence National Historical Park and lamented the purge of a portion of the nation's history remarked "You show all of it- the good, the bad, and the ugly." But that's becoming increasingly uncommon. Writing in 2021, one journalist noted that in dictatorships such as Russia and China, "a single version of history prevails, stamped and sealed by the leadership and imposed in classrooms, through culture, and on the internet."  Donald Trum is still in the early stages, but he understands this lesson well.

Share |

Acquiescence, And We're Better Off for It

On January 11, the "showdown over Greenland" was

at a “fateful moment,” Denmark’s prime minister warned, as President Donald Trump renewed his threat to seize the Arctic island "one way or the other”….

Trump has insisted that the U.S. must take control of Greenland to prevent Russia or China from doing the same — an argument Beijing dismissed as "an excuse" to pursue his territorial ambitions.

“I am not going to let that happen,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One late Sunday of allowing America's geopolitical rivals to control the vast, mineral-rich territory.

Asked if there was any deal either Greenland or Denmark could offer to prevent military action, Trump said he would love to make a deal. “It’s easier,” he said, adding: “But one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.”

Europeans were not amused. Consequently, as of January 16, they had

begun to complement their strategy of engagement with deterrence. The idea is to raise the stakes of any forceful U.S. action on Greenland and demonstrate that annexing the island will not be an easy win, but have “unprecedented knock-on effects,” as French President Emmanuel Macron put it. Europeans hope that Trump is just testing the boundaries of how much resistance he will evoke, and that standing firmly united will make him back off.

To achieve this, European leaders are working with members of the U.S. Congress with the hope of future legislation that would make it more difficult for the president to make a move on Greenland. A bipartisan congressional delegation currently visiting Denmark and the island is meant to convey the message that there is no interest whatsoever for a U.S. takeover. In addition, Europeans are signaling to Congress that the possession of an island that is much smaller than it appears on the standard Mercator projection map is not worth the dissolution of NATO.

Europeans are also weighing their economic and military options to deter Trump’s threat. On the economic side, the use of limited sanctions, further punitive measures against U.S. tech companies, and the European Union’s (EU) anti-coercion instrument—which was already considered but discarded as a response to U.S. tariffs—are back as actions of last resort. However, Trump’s threat to use tariffs once again over Greenland may discourage some Europeans for fear of escalation.

On the military side, France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden have deployed a small number of troops to Greenland to deter a fait accompli from the U.S. side (and France has proposed sending more). However, Europeans are fully aware that a military conflict with the United States would be a disastrous scenario that they will only lose. Other “nuclear options,” like limiting U.S. access to bases in Europe, are technically available. But this tactic would assume that the transatlantic relationship is already irreparably harmed.

Donald Trump heard this loud and clear and after his speech at Davos, announced on Wednesday that he and NATO Secretary Mark Rutte had "formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region."   "One way or another, we're going to have Greenland," the President had said. Europe called his bluff, and now we've agreed to negotiate.

Yet Glenn Beck, asking "what is the key to what happened yesterday,"  holds fast to his crush, remarking

I can guarantee you he- Donald Trump- or someone said to Mark, a message from the President, "Mark, you've gotta make this happen, you've gotta tell the truth and I'm not making a threat. I'm making a promise to you.

You bet that wasn't a threat, if such a conversation did actually take place.  "One way or another, we're going to have Greenland," the President earlier had boasted, Europe countered, and Donald was in no position to make the threat for a second time.

According to Beck, Trump or his respresentative added

If we don't get Greenland, if this doesn't happen, if we don't find a way so that we have control over the things that we have to have control over in Greenland, I'm out of NATO and you won't survive.

If NATO had not survived that, Donald Trump would have been the assassin and Vladimir Putin the beneficiary. Beck continued

And I won't say that, embarrass NATO, I can't say it aloud but I'm telling you that this is the end game here. We're out of NATO because it's worthless. I can guarantee you that's what happened. Everything in me says that's what happened.

It’s just a theory, but I bet Trump promised NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that the U.S. would leave NATO if a Greenland deal isn't made. That's how Trump changed NATO’s mind so fast: Negotiate or you're on your own. And Rutte would know he's not bluffing. pic.twitter.com/MaP7hRJdh8

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) January 22, 2026

We can't be sure this did not happen, though clearly if it did, it was not Trump himself. "And I won't say that, embarrass NATO, I can't say it aloud" is something which never would be uttered by America's, nay the world's, leading narcissist. If Trump can't be the center of attention, he can't be anything.

If there had been no announcement of negotiations, er, uh, a "framework," for a deal, Glenn Beck and his fellow travelers would have proclaimed it a total victory for the great dealmaker. President Trump's confrontational style would have persuaded those awful people across the Atlantic to back down, we would have been assured.

But that's not what happened. Instead, someone stood up to the demonic force. As Beck argued, the military might of NATO minus the USA would not have been able to withstand an onslaught from the USA. However, that onslaught would have been short-lived, for a reason Beck overlooked..Had there been an American casualty, Americans would have been out. Death would have been the key.

After his visit to the White House last March, Bill Maher pleaded "one good thing about Trump: he really, really doe not like war." Yet, the President's aversion may be not to war itself, but to the possibility of Americans dying in battle. Sensitive to public opinion, he is keenly aware that the instinct to rally around the flag rapidly loses its appeal once American deaths enter the picture.

In either case, when NATO nations faced President Trump down, he backed down. His prior bluster was belied by the willingness to talk and make a deal for what the President could have achieved without the controversy and distrust his shtick incited. That was no problem for the man who must always be the center of attention. This will be a problem for allies and for the United States of America itself.

Oh, Trump will eventually declare victory, in his signature fashion, exalting himself and deriding others. However, notwithstanding what Glenn Beck contends, President Trump overplayed his hand. He (apparently) believed he could and would intimidate Denmark into capitulating to his demand to turn Greenland over, perhaps for mere pennies on the dollar.

Donald Trump didn't completely capitulate. But he did stand down and the coalition of the free, here (thus far) and abroad, weakened, survives for another day.

Share |