Trump's renewed interest in Greenland & the Panama Canal sparks global debate. From Cold War strategy to rare earth minerals & Arctic trade routes, U.S. expansionism is back in focus. But is acquisition even feasible under international law? 🇺🇸🌍 #Geopolitics #Greenland #Panama

Greenland may seem like just an icy landmass, but it is becoming a hot topic in global politics. Recent comments by Donald Trump about buying Greenland have revived an old debate. This island is not just a frozen wasteland—it holds military and economic importance that major powers are eager to control.

A Long History of Interest 
Denmark has controlled Greenland since the 18th century, though it has given the island more autonomy over time. Greenlanders see themselves as their own people, separate from both Denmark and the U.S. However, powerful nations have long seen Greenland as a valuable asset. The U.S. has even tried to buy it before and still maintains a military presence there.
​
During the Cold War, Greenland was vital to U.S. defense, and today, its importance has only grown. As Arctic ice melts, Greenland's location makes it a key player in global trade and security. The U.S., Russia, and China all recognize its rising value.

More Than Just a Military Base 
Greenland is not only important for defense—it is also rich in resources. It holds large reserves of rare minerals like lithium and uranium, which are essential to modern technology. But Greenland lacks the infrastructure and workforce to fully develop these resources on its own.

If Greenland stays under Denmark, it will continue to rely on subsidies. If it becomes independent, it risks economic struggles and foreign exploitation. The U.S. sees an opportunity here, and Trump's comments, though controversial, reflect a simple reality: whoever controls Greenland will have strong influence over the future economy.

What’s Next for Greenland? 
Greenland has three main options, each with challenges. It can stay with Denmark and risk slow development. It can seek full independence but face financial hardship. Or it can find a middle ground, perhaps forming a partnership with the U.S. like the Compact of Free Association used by small Pacific nations.

Whatever Greenland decides, it must take charge of its own future before larger nations do it for them. The world has largely ignored Greenland in the past, but that is changing fast. Its next move could shape the global balance of power for years to come.

The conversation surrounding abortion remains one of the most contentious debates in American politics, with deeply entrenched beliefs on both sides. The recent March for Life in Washington, D.C., showcased the passion and commitment of pro-life advocates, bringing together thousands to champion the rights of the unborn. However, beyond the symbolic significance of the march, the political landscape continues to shift, raising questions about the future of abortion access and advocacy in the United States.

Trump’s Legacy on Abortion Policy

One of the most significant changes in recent years was the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a historic decision largely attributed to former President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointments. This ruling effectively returned abortion legislation to the states, leading to a patchwork of laws across the country. Trump’s stance on abortion, while not universally embraced by all pro-life advocates, cemented his legacy as the most consequential president for the anti-abortion movement in modern history.

His recent actions—pardoning pro-life activists convicted under the FACE Act—further reinforce his commitment to the cause. The FACE Act, designed to prevent intimidation or obstruction at reproductive health clinics, has been criticized by conservatives as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. The pardons highlight the tension between religious activism and federal law enforcement, with pro-life groups celebrating these individuals as "political prisoners" and the Biden administration defending their convictions as a matter of legal precedent.

The FACE Act and Free Speech Concerns
​
At the heart of this debate is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which criminalizes interference with those seeking reproductive services. Pro-life advocates argue that this law selectively targets their movement while allowing other forms of protest—such as demonstrations outside the homes of Supreme Court justices—to go unchecked. If the presence of prayer groups near clinics indeed influences decisions regarding abortion, as some pro-life sources claim, should this be classified as interference or as the free exercise of religious expression?

The pardons granted by Trump signal an attempt to rally the pro-life base by positioning the Biden administration as an opponent of religious liberty. This narrative aligns with a broader conservative argument: that the Democratic Party supports abortion not merely as a right but as an ideological pillar.

The Political Crossroads of the Abortion DebateDespite the energy behind the pro-life movement, the reality is that public opinion on abortion remains divided. While many Americans support restrictions, most do not align with a total ban. This discrepancy between political activism and broader public sentiment presents a challenge for Republican politicians, many of whom avoid discussing abortion openly for fear of alienating moderate voters.

The 2024 election cycle will further test the limits of abortion as a winning political issue. Pro-life activists argue that victories, such as state-level abortion bans and court rulings, should be celebrated and expanded. Meanwhile, Democrats will likely use high-profile cases of restrictive abortion laws to galvanize their base.

What Comes Next?

Looking ahead, the future of abortion rights in America remains unpredictable. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was not the end of the fight—it was merely the beginning of a new phase. With states enacting conflicting laws, federal legislation on the horizon, and the possibility of a Trump re-election, abortion will remain at the forefront of political discourse.

For now, both sides must reckon with an evolving reality: pro-lifers have won significant legal battles, but public opinion remains a major obstacle to long-term policy success. Conversely, abortion rights advocates must adapt to a landscape where access is no longer federally protected and fight legal battles on a state-by-state basis.

One thing is clear—this debate is far from over.

Some critics argue that immigration law enforcement contradicts Christian principles, often citing Scripture to support their claims. The political cartoon above exemplifies this perspective, portraying Jesus Christ outside a detention center, surrounded by migrant children, while an ICE officer and a government official mock Him. The officer, misinterpreting Jesus’ name, asks if he should "whack" Him, while the official dismissively calls Him a "weirdo in a bathrobe." Above them, Jesus references Matthew 25:40:
​
"I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me."

This cartoon perpetuates a flawed theological argument—that border enforcement is inherently un-Christian and that refusing illegal migrants equates to rejecting Christ Himself. However, this interpretation of Scripture is misguided and oversimplifies Christian ethics. The real moral failing is not enforcing the law—it is allowing disorder and injustice to persist under the guise of compassion.

While Christians are indeed called to love the stranger, love does not equate to lawlessness. Governments are responsible for establishing just policies that ensure both security and fairness. Allowing unchecked immigration can lead to increased crime, economic strain, and national instability—all of which harm the very people the government is obligated to protect.

Thomas Aquinas, one of Christianity’s greatest theologians, teaches in the Summa Theologica that love must be rightly ordered (ordo caritatis). We are called to love all people, but not in the same way or to the same degree. Just as a parent has a greater duty to their own children than to strangers, a nation’s leaders have a primary duty to their own citizens before foreigners.

To illustrate this point:

Imagine you are on a plane with your own child and a stranger’s child sitting next to you. Suddenly, the plane hits turbulence, and the oxygen masks drop. You have only seconds to act before the cabin loses oxygen.

Who do you help first?

A morally sound person would secure their own child’s mask first—not because the other child is unimportant, but because their own child is directly entrusted to their care. Ignoring one's own child to assist a stranger first would be a failure of responsibility.

This principle applies directly to immigration policy. Americans, like all people, have a right to prioritize their families, communities, and fellow citizens before allocating resources to outsiders. This is not a rejection of charity—it is the proper application of charity. A leader who disregards his own people in favor of foreigners is not being Christ-like—he is being negligent.

Just as securing your own oxygen mask first allows you to help others more effectively, prioritizing the well-being and security of American citizens enables a nation to better contribute to the world. Reversing this moral order is not an act of compassion—it is an act of irresponsibility.

Aquinas teaches that a just government must uphold law and order for the common good. Saying that enforcing immigration laws is “anti-Christian” is like accusing a shepherd of being cruel for guarding his flock against wolves. The shepherd’s duty is to protect his sheep, not to let predators roam freely in the name of kindness. Laws exist to shield the innocent, and when leaders refuse to enforce them, it is the weak who suffer first.

Laken Riley’s murder should have been a wake-up call. Instead, many continue to oppose laws like the Laken Riley Act, refusing to acknowledge the real consequences of illegal immigration. This is not moral high ground—it is deception. As Thomas Sowell points once said:

"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear."

Real compassion requires truth, not feel-good rhetoric. Prioritizing foreign criminals over law-abiding citizens does not help the vulnerable; it endangers them.

A heart that prioritizes criminals over innocent citizens is not compassionate—it is dangerous. A government that allows its people to suffer for the sake of appearing “kind” to the world is not virtuous—it is corrupt.

The Bible repeatedly affirms the importance of law, justice, and national identity. While Scripture calls for kindness to the sojourner, it never commands the abandonment of sovereignty or the dissolution of borders. In fact, the Old Testament makes clear that foreigners were expected to obey the laws of the land they entered (Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:16)


Jesus Himself, though He ministered to all, first prioritized “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). If Christ Himself recognized the moral order of caring for one’s own before extending beyond, why should we reject this principle in national policy?

The false compassion of open-border advocates leads not to justice but to lawlessness and suffering. It undermines the dignity of legal immigrants who follow the rules and endangers American lives. Enforcing immigration laws is not about hate—it is about justice, prudence, and a proper application of Christian love.

It is not un-Christian to prioritize one’s nation—it is a moral imperative. The order of charity, as taught by Aquinas, demands that we first care for our own families and communities before extending resources to outsiders. Immigration laws exist to protect the innocent, maintain social order, and ensure justice—values fully in line with Christian teaching.

If we allow misguided morality to dictate national policy, we will not create a more compassionate society—we will create a broken one. A government that prioritizes foreigners over its own people does not exhibit Christian love; it exhibits gross negligence.

It is time to reject the false virtue of open-border advocates and reclaim the true Christian teaching on ordered love, justice, and national duty. To love one’s country is not a sin—it is a responsibility. Enforcing immigration law is not an act of cruelty—it is an act of moral necessity.

It was a moment that captured everything wrong with American politics: Bernie Sanders demanding RFK Jr. denounce a baby onesie. Instead of discussing real issues like vaccine safety, government accountability, or public health policies, a seasoned senator spent time obsessing over infant apparel.
This is modern politics in a nutshell—performative outrage over substance. Congress has become a stage for grandstanding and partisan theater, where serious debate takes a backseat to viral moments.

Sanders was not alone in this circus act. Elizabeth Warren’s questioning of RFK Jr. took a bizarre turn, demanding he pledge not to sue Big Pharma after leaving office. Rather than discussing corruption in regulatory agencies, Warren somehow twisted legal accountability into a bad thing. Meanwhile, Maggie Hassan attacked RFK Jr. for shifting political positions, treating ideological independence as treachery rather than thoughtfulness.

This shift towards media-ready political theater is why Congress is failing. Instead of tackling critical issues, politicians chase social media clout, reinforcing tribal loyalties rather than engaging in real problem-solving.
​
If this is the direction of American politics, we are in trouble. The American people deserve leaders focused on solutions, not senators using baby clothes as weapons in a partisan war.

Los Angeles is in crisis, and its leadership—if we can even call it that—has failed its people. Mayor Karen Bass, whose tenure has been marked by inaction and mismanagement, recently had an exchange with former President Donald Trump that underscored her incompetence. In a discussion about emergency response, Trump, ever the pragmatist, pointed out that residents should be allowed to clean up their own debris in disaster-stricken areas. Bass, in typical bureaucratic fashion, hesitated, buried in red tape and government inefficiency.

The issue at hand was simple: When disaster strikes, should residents be allowed to take action themselves, or should they be forced to wait months—sometimes years—for government contractors to do what a determined community could handle in a weekend? Trump pushed for immediate solutions, emphasizing personal responsibility and efficiency. Bass, however, clung to the same tired policies that have kept Los Angeles buried in bureaucracy, crime, and homelessness.

A City in Decline Under Bass’s Watch
Bass’s mishandling of disaster response is just one symptom of a larger problem. Under her leadership, Los Angeles has spiraled further into chaos. Crime is rampant, homelessness is at record highs, and businesses are fleeing the city in droves. What has she done to stop any of it? The answer is the same as most Democratic leaders—nothing of substance. Instead, she issues press releases, holds performative meetings, and continues pushing policies that are demonstrably ineffective.

Emergency powers exist for a reason. Trump, who understands leadership, told Bass that she has the authority to make sweeping changes to speed up the cleanup process. Yet, she acted as if she were powerless, as if the solution must go through endless layers of bureaucracy before anything could be done. This is the essence of failed leadership: The ability to act but the refusal to do so.

Political Posturing Over Practical Solutions
Instead of embracing real change, Bass, like many of her Democratic peers, prefers political posturing. She was once considered a possible vice-presidential pick for Joe Biden, and that alone tells you everything you need to know about her priorities. She is a career politician who has built her brand on empty promises rather than results. Her handling of Los Angeles has been no different—photo ops, symbolic gestures, and a complete lack of meaningful progress.

Meanwhile, President Trump, even in an informal conversation, demonstrated a more effective approach to problem-solving than Bass has in her entire tenure as mayor. He urged action, pushed for immediate results, and recognized that people should not have to suffer just because their city’s leadership is incompetent.

Los Angeles Deserves Better
​Los Angeles is a city of potential. It should be thriving, a beacon of innovation and prosperity. Instead, under Karen Bass’s leadership, it is drowning in homelessness, crime, and economic stagnation. Her inability to act swiftly and decisively in moments of crisis is just the latest in a long list of failures.

Trump exposed Bass for what she is: A weak leader more concerned with optics than outcomes. If Los Angeles wants to recover, it needs leadership that is willing to take bold action—not another career politician who thinks governing is about waiting for someone else to fix the problem.

The people of Los Angeles deserve better. And unless they demand it, they will continue to suffer under leaders like Karen Bass, who prioritize political survival over the well-being of their city.

The role of the United States military is to maintain national security, ensure the readiness of its forces, and uphold its mission as the most formidable fighting force in the world. However, the recent push for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives has threatened to undermine these objectives by prioritizing ideology over operational effectiveness. President Trump's executive orders that seek to eliminate DEI programs from military and government operations serve as a necessary corrective to this growing problem, reinforcing efficiency, meritocracy, and national interest over divisive identity politics.

One of the key executive orders signed by President Trump barred individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from enlisting in the military. This decision aligns with the long-established medical standards that disqualify individuals with various mental health conditions from service. Conditions such as clinical depression have historically precluded individuals from military enlistment, as they could potentially compromise the operational effectiveness and stability of the force. Gender dysphoria, classified as a diagnosable condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), is another such condition warranting exclusion. The order also seeks to uphold traditional gender distinctions within military infrastructure by prohibiting individuals assigned male at birth from utilizing female facilities and eliminating the military’s financial responsibility for transition-related medical care.

The insistence on accommodating DEI ideology within military ranks has introduced unnecessary distractions and inefficiencies. Critics argue that transgender service members are capable, dedicated individuals whose exclusion undermines military readiness. According to reports, approximately 15,000 active service members identify as transgender, and a group of 56 retired generals has asserted that these individuals are fully capable of fulfilling their duties. However, the reality is that the military is not an institution designed for social experiments—it is a war-fighting force. Readiness and lethality must take precedence over political agendas, and allowing ideological considerations to dictate policy weakens the very purpose of military service.

Beyond domestic military policy, the Trump administration has also taken significant steps to reassess foreign aid distribution, another arena in which DEI-driven policies have had a detrimental effect. The administration’s efforts to curtail foreign aid spending have prompted widespread debate among international aid organizations. Some critics argue that the abrupt halt of U.S. funding disrupts vital humanitarian efforts, including demining operations, HIV prevention programs, and food security initiatives. However, much of this funding has been funneled into projects that align with ideological objectives rather than essential national security concerns. The fundamental question posed by these policies is whether American taxpayer dollars should be allocated to international programs with uncertain or minimal returns, particularly when domestic challenges remain pressing.
The DEI-driven foreign aid approach has led to accusations of inefficiency and corruption. Proponents of cutting these expenditures argue that while some foreign aid is undoubtedly beneficial, much of it is misallocated, enriching corrupt regimes rather than directly assisting those in need. By reassessing these expenditures, the administration seeks to ensure that financial resources are directed toward initiatives that serve definitive American interests rather than being indiscriminately distributed to satisfy progressive agendas.

President Trump's policy changes extend beyond military and foreign aid matters into broader governmental restructuring, including the elimination of DEI-related bureaucratic bloat. The administration has moved swiftly to remove career officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies, asserting that these individuals were politically motivated actors rather than impartial enforcers of the law. The dismissal of prosecutors associated with investigations into President Trump himself has led to accusations of politicization within the DOJ. However, the administration maintains that such personnel decisions fall within the well-established precedent of presidential discretion in appointing and dismissing officials aligned with their policy priorities.

These executive actions have elicited both staunch support and fierce opposition. Supporters argue that the administration is systematically dismantling inefficiencies and ensuring that government agencies operate in alignment with constitutional priorities. Conversely, opponents contend that such measures represent an overreach of executive power and a departure from the principles of fairness and inclusivity. However, the reality remains that DEI policies have eroded standards in favor of ideological compliance, leading to a less efficient, more fractured government structure.
​
In conclusion, President Trump’s executive orders to eliminate DEI-driven policies reflect a broader effort to restore merit-based governance in military policy, foreign aid, and governmental operations. The exclusion of gender-based identity politics from the military, the reduction of ideologically driven foreign aid expenditures, and the restructuring of governmental agencies all stem from a commitment to reinforcing national security and ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently. While these measures have provoked significant debate, they underscore the administration’s approach to governance—one that prioritizes pragmatic considerations over divisive and ineffective ideological narratives. The future of the United States depends on policies that enhance strength and unity, not those that fracture institutions for the sake of political conformity.

The executive order “Putting People Over Fish” is a straightforward correction to misguided environmental policies that have prioritized a small fish over human needs. For years, water access in Southern California has been severely restricted to protect the Delta smelt, a species with minimal ecological or economic significance. This policy shift ensures that human survival, agriculture, and economic stability take precedence over excessive regulation.

Environmentalists claim that loosening these restrictions could cause ecological harm, but the reality is clear: water shortages have devastated farms, businesses, and communities while bureaucrats focused on preserving a species few even recognize. Protecting human livelihoods must come before abstract environmental concerns.
​
Water is an essential resource, not a bargaining chip for ideological agendas. If protecting the Delta smelt means limiting access to a critical necessity, the decision is obvious—people must come first.