"It Was Trump's Advisers Who Persuaded Their Boss to Tone Down His Demands" — Note to Denmark and Greenland: Let Nobody Ever Comment on Donald Trump Again Unless They Have Read "The Art of the Deal"

Everybody in Denmark, from the politicians and the MSM to the rest of the population, seems giddy. Giddy over what? A deal over Greenland? That, plus the fact that they bested, or even fooled, Donald Trump!  

In Danish media outlets (as in American MSM ones), news of the Greenland agreement is being presented as a victory for Denmark — and even a defeat for Donald Trump. "Shhh: Don't Mention to Trump that It Is the Kingdom of Denmark that Has Triumphed," whispers Jacob Heinel Jensen in Berlingske Tidende.

Again, if you are a leftist or live in a leftist society — whether in the USA or abroad — there is not a grain of gratitude — ever — in your soul, a soul harboring nothing but resentment, outrage, and mockery. 

It was surreal to listen to talking heads on Danish TV during and after the signing of the agreement in New York on Tuesday as it was invariably presented, again and again, as, "Thank God for the White House advisors who managed to persuade their unbalanced boss to tone down his demands." 

And although Mette Frederiksen presented President Trump as a true friend of Denmark, Greenland, Europe, and NATO, this was presented as being merely diplomatic (perhaps not wrongly, by the way) in a sophomoric way while the drama queens proceeded to duly warn us not to forget that this dangerous foe had two more years in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, the Danish television studio kept trying to get their UN correspondent to ask Trump whether he ever really intended to use troops to invade the Danish island.

As I have repeated time and again over the past ten years, no one — and certainly not a member of the media (whether inside or outside the US, whether American or foreign) — should ever speak publicly about Donald Trump unless they have read his book, The Art of the Deal.

The truth is that the US President achieved exactly what he wanted; this businessman's books state clearly that one begins with an extreme position (nothing more than the age-old tradition of haggling) — one that startles, destabilizes, and agitates the opponent — before arriving at the conclusion Trump was secretly aiming for all along.

Donald Trump states on Truth Social that he has secured a good deal with Greenland and Denmark, while Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen describes it as "a binding agreement that strengthens security in the Arctic and North Atlantic, and thereby also our shared security within NATO and Europe."

Doesn't that sound like a win-win? Shouldn't POTUS47 get a modicum of praise for that win-win? (Or, as Greenland’s Jens Frederik Nielsen calls it, a win-win-win.)

(Incidentally, what you are reading now is the English version of an article I am trying to place in the Danish media.) 

People often ask me how on earth I can not dislike — or at least find myself defending — such a repulsive oaf as Donald Trump. Shouldn't I, like millions of Danes, loathe that bully or be scared shitless of him? (Especially given my family connection to Aksel Svane, the Danish Governor of Greenland who welcomed American warships and troops to Godthåb/Nuuk in 1941 — before the US was even drawn into World War II by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.) 

My answer has always been the same: Trump has (had) no intention of annexing Greenland. (Mind you, if Copenhagen had been willing to sell the island, it would have been a bonus Trump surely would hardly have turned down.) When Donald Trump has spoken over the last seven years about buying or annexing Greenland, he isn't addressing the Danes, nor the Greenlanders. No. He is speaking to the Chinese.

As I wrote in the spring in a lengthy treatise — What No One Tells You About Trump, Denmark, and Greenland (a six-part series in Danish) — when Donald Trump first announced in 2019 that he wanted to buy Greenland, he was immediately ridiculed by Denmark's leaders, politicians, and media. What a fool! What on earth is he smoking?! The kindest politicians remarked — as Mark Steyn writes — that Trump's "obsession with Greenland" is "so bewildering." 

And yet, it was not at all a case of a fantasy or a delusion appearing out of thin air; to understand how it all began, one actually has to go back to 2017. Back then, the island’s Prime Minister flew to Beijing to ask the Chinese (and their China Communications Construction Company) to help build or expand one or more airports.

We were all fortunate that the Prime Minister at the time was Lars Løkke Rasmussen and that the current Foreign Minister immediately vetoed the project. 

Say what you will about Trump, say what you will about what are termed his tall tales (alleged or true); by overlooking that 2017 affair — hardly a trivial episode, given that the project was nothing less than "the most expensive infrastructure project in Greenland's history" — while demonizing the "demented" Trump, they did something astonishing (and for once, let’s not sugarcoat it): They lied to the Americans, they lied to the international community, they lied to the Danes, and they lied to themselves. 

Full story at these two hyperlinks:

• Bombshell Revelation! Lexington Institute Explains the Exact Event Which Caused Trump 45 to Want to Acquire Greenland; ADDENDUM: Here Is What Is Wrong with Greenland's Status Quo

• NOT SO DELUSIONAL — The Donroe Doctrine and Beijing's "Polar Silk Road": Last Month, a Report by None Other than Danish Intelligence Itself Warned About the Russian and Chinese Threats to Greenland and the Arctic

Incidentally, given that the Copenhagen veto caused the government in Nuuk to collapse, what does that say about "the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination" when a Nuuk government falls apart because those Greenlanders would rather strike deals with Beijing's communists than with the elected officials of Copenhagen (or, for that matter, Washington)?

If a Dane cannot see the difference between the USA and China — when Beijing's assistance amounts to a Trojan Horse, according to The Economist, which adds that China and Russia have chilling plans for the Arctic — this is how Beijing's strategy works:

Beijing approaches a country with limited resources—mainly, but not exclusively, in Asia and Africa—and offers them very good deals regarding investments. When the country cannot pay its bills, the offer turns out to be a Trojan Horse, with Beijing taking over all or part of a city's infrastructure.

Isn't it reminiscent of the Cold War, where the US and the USSR were described as "equally bad"? Now comes the worst comparison to the Cold War: A key argument of the All-Holy Peacemakers, who said that more understanding of the Kremlin's position had to be shown, explaining that the "Soviet state and its vassals" were acceptable because it was understandable that the Russians simply wanted control over their "near abroad" (then also the members of the Warsaw Pact). How is it different from what Donald Trump has sought since 2019, albeit for completely different reasons (which also have to do with Moscow's and Beijing's threats) and regarding a different continent? 

Doesn't it all remind you of the same ostrich policy during the Cold War — perhaps it should rather be called Denmark's Hygge mentality — where Denmark's typical jokers laughed at American fears of communism and said "Don't worry", that there was no danger whatsoever from the Soviet Union? 

"Donald Trump says on Truth that he has got a good agreement with Greenland and Denmark," the aforementioned Jacob Heinel Jensen writes further. "He has that too — but Greenland remains part of the Kingdom." Whether he does or says, whatever he doesn't do or say, the derision for Donald Trump remains as strong as before; never do we see thee slightest amount of doubt that perhaps he was not the diabolical scoundrel he is described as, that perhaps he never thought of the Danes or the Greenlanders as enemies, and that in reality he did not want Greenland at all to begin with. 

No, it is not a victory for Denmark and a defeat for Donald Trump. It is a defeat for Beijing and Moscow and a victory for the entire West. Who is to thank for that? 

“Trump’s new deal with Greenland is exactly the same as the old one!” Not true at all. Key new details: Duration: The 1951 deal lasted only as long as NATO existed and Greenland remained part of NATO. Trump’s 2026 deal lasts indefinitely, even if NATO implodes or Greenland becomes independent. New Military Bases: In the 1951 deal, the U.S. could establish “defense areas” in Greenland only if Denmark gave the go-ahead. In Trump’s 2026 deal, the U.S. can establish military installations as it sees fit, with or without Denmark’s approval. Third Countries: In the 1951 deal, Denmark retained the right to allow foreign nations, like China, to establish a presence in Greenland. Trump’s 2026 deal explicitly forbids foreign nations from doing anything in Greenland without U.S. approval. Foreign Investments: The 1951 deal placed no restrictions on foreign nations making investments in Greenland, such as port build-outs, critical mineral mining, or undersea cable installations. Trump’s 2026 deal requires U.S. approval before foreign nations can invest in Greenland. Simply put, Trump’s new Greenland deal is an absolutely massive geopolitical accomplishment, further establishing America’s dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

— Matt Morse (@MattMorseTV) September 18, 2026

As Matt Morse reports on X (Stephen Green comments that "GREENLAND WILL EFFECTIVELY BECOME A US PROTECTORATE" if not a… "Protrumptorate") in response (bold added by me) to the mainstream media charge charge (Danish as well as American) that “Trump’s new deal with Greenland is exactly the same as the old one!” (not with Orangeland),

Not true at all. Key new details:

Duration: The 1951 deal lasted only as long as NATO existed and Greenland remained part of NATO. Trump’s 2026 deal lasts indefinitely, even if NATO implodes or Greenland becomes independent.

New Military Bases: In the 1951 deal, the U.S. could establish “defense areas” in Greenland only if Denmark gave the go-ahead. In Trump’s 2026 deal, the U.S. can establish military installations as it sees fit, with or without Denmark’s approval.

Third Countries: In the 1951 deal, Denmark retained the right to allow foreign nations, like China, to establish a presence in Greenland. Trump’s 2026 deal explicitly forbids foreign nations from doing anything in Greenland without U.S. approval.

Foreign Investments: The 1951 deal placed no restrictions on foreign nations making investments in Greenland, such as port build-outs, critical mineral mining, or undersea cable installations. Trump’s 2026 deal requires U.S. approval before foreign nations can invest in Greenland.

Simply put, Trump’s new Greenland deal is an absolutely massive geopolitical accomplishment, further establishing America’s dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

“Trump’s new deal with Greenland is exactly the same as the old one!” Not true at all. Key new details: Duration: The 1951 deal lasted only as long as NATO existed and Greenland remained part of NATO. Trump’s 2026 deal lasts indefinitely, even if NATO implodes or Greenland becomes independent. New Military Bases: In the 1951 deal, the U.S. could establish “defense areas” in Greenland only if Denmark gave the go-ahead. In Trump’s 2026 deal, the U.S. can establish military installations as it sees fit, with or without Denmark’s approval. Third Countries: In the 1951 deal, Denmark retained the right to allow foreign nations, like China, to establish a presence in Greenland. Trump’s 2026 deal explicitly forbids foreign nations from doing anything in Greenland without U.S. approval. Foreign Investments: The 1951 deal placed no restrictions on foreign nations making investments in Greenland, such as port build-outs, critical mineral mining, or undersea cable installations. Trump’s 2026 deal requires U.S. approval before foreign nations can invest in Greenland. Simply put, Trump’s new Greenland deal is an absolutely massive geopolitical accomplishment, further establishing America’s dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

— Matt Morse (@MattMorseTV) September 18, 2026

StormyT 🌿 adds this helpful diagram:

@MattMorseTV https://t.co/2CidkblOXT

— StormyT 🌿 (@OutLikeA_Lamb) September 18, 2026

Time to Celebrate the Birthday of Sofia Loren

Time to Celebrate the Birthday of Sofia Costanza Brigida Villani Scicolone, aka Sofia Loren, who turns 92 today (merci à Roland), with Bette Midler's MAMBO ITALIANO [Come on baby let's-a do it].

TRUMP'S SWEEPING DEAL BEWEEN USA AND DENMARK OVER GREENLAND (For Years, My Danish Articles on Trump's Viewpoint and Strategy Were Rejected by Editors All Over Denmark)

Exclusive for the readers of this blog: A member of 
the Danish army's special forces, the Jægerkorps

A breaking report about President Donald Trump's historic agreement with Copenhagen over Greenland from Berlingske Tidende and Fox News (which calls it, tongue in cheek, a "Green new deal").

President Donald Trump struck a sweeping agreement with Denmark and Greenland this week granting the United States permanent military rights on the strategically placed Arctic island.

The U.S. will now have permanent access, basing and overflight rights in Greenland, and the ability to establish additional military installations as needed, according to a senior U.S. official who outlined the deal exclusively to Fox News Digital.

The deal bars China, Russia and other non-NATO countries from establishing military bases or maintaining troops in Greenland. It also restricts adversaries from investing in sensitive sectors that could pose a threat to U.S. national security.

In previous news concerning Greenland, Berlingske Tidende reports that China Is Establishing a Permanenet Shipping Route Through the Arctic — an Ice Silk Road which, needless to say and although it is (bizarrely) in the paper's business section, really concerns Beijing's military might. And even nine months ago, the daily reproduced Daniel Michaels and Sune Engel Rasmussen's Wall Street Journal piece warning that China's Arctic Push Opens Alarming Shortcut to U.S. 

 

Leading Ed Driscoll to quote Buzz Patterson making the following quip: 

You want to know why @realDonaldTrump is focused on Greenland? He’s always one step ahead. 

Previously, the Danish newspaper reported that 

The United States is quietly negotiating with Denmark to gain access to three additional defense areas in Greenland – in addition to Pituffik Space Base, the former Thule Air Base in northern Greenland. 

This was stated by General Gregory Guillot, commander of the United States Northern Command – which includes the American military installations and forces in North America and the Arctic, including Greenland – during a Senate hearing in Washington 

Readers of No Pasarán will recall how this blog broke the story about the exact reasons that President Trump started expressing his desires about Greenland in the first place.

• Bombshell Revelation! Lexington Institute Explains the Exact Event Which Caused Trump 45 to Want to Acquire Greenland; ADDENDUM: Here Is What Is Wrong with Greenland's Status Quo

• NOT SO DELUSIONAL — The Donroe Doctrine and Beijing's "Polar Silk Road": Last Month, a Report by None Other than Danish Intelligence Itself Warned About the Russian and Chinese Threat to Greenland and the Arctic

As a fluent Danish speaker, I have been trying to present these (undeniable) facts to the Danish public for years. With no success whatsoever.

It will not surprise our readers that not a single member of Denmark's leftist MSM answered showed the slightest interest. Mostly, I got no answers, and the few answers I did get were far from polite. Even Denmark's right-leaning blogs (in spite of the fact that most lean pro-American) would not touch the article.

  

The (very long) article I wrote is on the Danish Yank blog, and What Nobody Tells You About Trump, Greenland, and Denmark is obviously in a language few people outside Scandinavia can understand — although this can obviously be changed by copying/pasting on apps like Google Translate.

Berlingske Tidende:

USA er med stilfærdige forhandlinger med Danmark godt i gang med at få adgang til yderligere tre forsvarsområder i Grønland – ud over Pituffik Space Base, den tidligere Thule Air Base i Nordgrønland.

Det fortalte general Gregory Guillot, øverstkommanderende for United States Northern Command – der omfatter de amerikanske militære installationer og styrker i Nordamerika og Arktis, herunder Grønland – under en senatshøring i Washington torsdag den 19. marts.

As Matt Morse reports on X (Stephen Green comments that "GREENLAND WILL EFFECTIVELY BECOME A US PROTECTORATE" if not a… "Protrumptorate") in response (bold added by me) to the mainstream media charge charge (Danish as well as American) that “Trump’s new deal with Greenland is exactly the same as the old one!” (not with Orangeland),

Not true at all. Key new details:

Duration: The 1951 deal lasted only as long as NATO existed and Greenland remained part of NATO. Trump’s 2026 deal lasts indefinitely, even if NATO implodes or Greenland becomes independent.

New Military Bases: In the 1951 deal, the U.S. could establish “defense areas” in Greenland only if Denmark gave the go-ahead. In Trump’s 2026 deal, the U.S. can establish military installations as it sees fit, with or without Denmark’s approval.

Third Countries: In the 1951 deal, Denmark retained the right to allow foreign nations, like China, to establish a presence in Greenland. Trump’s 2026 deal explicitly forbids foreign nations from doing anything in Greenland without U.S. approval.

Foreign Investments: The 1951 deal placed no restrictions on foreign nations making investments in Greenland, such as port build-outs, critical mineral mining, or undersea cable installations. Trump’s 2026 deal requires U.S. approval before foreign nations can invest in Greenland.

Simply put, Trump’s new Greenland deal is an absolutely massive geopolitical accomplishment, further establishing America’s dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

“Trump’s new deal with Greenland is exactly the same as the old one!” Not true at all. Key new details: Duration: The 1951 deal lasted only as long as NATO existed and Greenland remained part of NATO. Trump’s 2026 deal lasts indefinitely, even if NATO implodes or Greenland becomes independent. New Military Bases: In the 1951 deal, the U.S. could establish “defense areas” in Greenland only if Denmark gave the go-ahead. In Trump’s 2026 deal, the U.S. can establish military installations as it sees fit, with or without Denmark’s approval. Third Countries: In the 1951 deal, Denmark retained the right to allow foreign nations, like China, to establish a presence in Greenland. Trump’s 2026 deal explicitly forbids foreign nations from doing anything in Greenland without U.S. approval. Foreign Investments: The 1951 deal placed no restrictions on foreign nations making investments in Greenland, such as port build-outs, critical mineral mining, or undersea cable installations. Trump’s 2026 deal requires U.S. approval before foreign nations can invest in Greenland. Simply put, Trump’s new Greenland deal is an absolutely massive geopolitical accomplishment, further establishing America’s dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

— Matt Morse (@MattMorseTV) September 18, 2026

StormyT 🌿 adds this helpful diagram:

@MattMorseTV https://t.co/2CidkblOXT

— StormyT 🌿 (@OutLikeA_Lamb) September 18, 2026

Berlingske Tidende today:

Trump annoncerer aftale mellem USA, Danmark og Grønland

Den amerikanske præsident, Donald Trump, annoncerer i et opslag på Truth Social, at USA, Danmark og Grønland har indgået en aftale.

Aftalen forlyder, at USA får permanent kontrol over sikkerheden og »alle andre behov« i Grønland, skriver præsidenten:

»et vil IKKE medføre nogen omkostninger for USA! På min foranledning har vi samarbejdet med repræsentanter for Danmark og Grønland for at sikre, at USA FOR EVIGT vil have fuldstændig beføjelse til at gøre det, der er nødvendigt i Grønland for at sikre og forsvare sikkerheden i både Grønland og USA.«

Donald Trump skriver videre, at »ingen af USAs modstandere« fremover nogensinde vil have en base, militær tilstedeværelse eller foretage følsomme investeringer i Grønland uden USAs skriftlige godkendelse:

»I over 100 år har præsidenterne været klar over Grønlands strategiske betydning, men INGEN af dem var i stand til at gøre noget ved det,« lyder det fra Trump …

Michael Desronvil Identified: The Holdout Juror Faced with Vitriol Steps Forth

Reporting for the Daily Mail, MELISSA KOENIG and WILL POTTER share the revelation of the identity of the holdout juror in the Lindsasy Clancy trial, as he has come forward to defend himself.

The holdout juror who refused to acquit Lindsay Clancy has told of how he held firm as the other 11 tried to convince him to find her not guilty by reason of insanity of strangling her three children.

The juror, whom NewsNation identified as Michael P Desronvil, told the outlet he 'didn't have any doubts' - refuting jury foreperson Roni Carlson's earlier remarks.

He said: 'As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberations, I kept getting cut off as I had doubts based on the evidence present.'

The juror explained to the network that based on all the evidence he ‘thought it was enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing and planned' to kill her three children – Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan. 

He also shared his thoughts about the high-profile case in an interview with Ray Marcel of Fugitive TV, saying he was convinced Clancy 'knew right from wrong'.

 … The holdout juror also said he had been stunned by the vitriol he faced after he voted to convict Clancy, and felt the backlash from his fellow jurors was because he was a 'black Republican,' Marcel claimed. 

But wait! The story keeps getting better. (Or worse!) You can't make this up: It's not enough that he was facing vitriol for being a "black Republican" (the horror! the horror!), it turns out that the previous accusations of domestic violence seem to have been lies made by a wife (i.e., his own spouse) who wanted to retaliate against him after he found out to his great surprise she was an… illegal alien! (In the AWFULs' minds, probably Mrs. Desronvil should also be forgiven for her lies and her deceit in addition to her fake accusations.)

He said Desronvil told him the allegations stemmed from a turbulent 'fraudulent marriage,' and their relationship rapidly deteriorated when he allegedly discovered she was an illegal immigrant. 

'He didn't know that, and he told me that's pretty much when everything hit the fan,' Marcel said on his YouTube show. 

He said Desronvil told him that his former partner raised domestic violence allegations in retaliation after he filed for divorce.

 Related: • The Only Good Woman Is a Leftist Woman and the only good "Negro" is a leftist "Negro"

Speaking of "Black Republicans", Abraham Lincoln held a speech in February 1860 (indeed, his Cooper Union speech galvanized the Republicans to eventually choose him as their candidate) in which he told his audience how he would address himself to them as if they were composed of Southerners and Democrats:

  … when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to [Republicans]. In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism] as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, so to speak — among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

"Muslims have finally cracked the code on the West"; For Islam, "Socialism Is THE Trojan Horse" to power — Larry Taunton's September 11th keynote address

Secularism is no match for Islam. It's why Islam is steamrolling the West. Muslims have finally cracked the code on the West. They have learned that Islam doesn't sell well, but socialism does — with the young. And so that has become the Trojan horse to power. I promise you, Ilhan Omar cares nothing for the equal distribution of wealth. She's a Jihadist. The [mayor] of New York cares nothing for that either. It is a path to power. And the same is true for the mayor of London, the same is true for the mayors of dozens of towns in the UK. The same is true for what is happening in places like Dearborn, Minneapolis, and so forth. They have recognized that socialism is the Trojan horse. And they are using ir. 

— Larry Alex Taunton in his September 11th keynote address

In the same perspective (shookhran to Sarah for the Instalink), do also check out Ayaan Hirsi Ali's comments on The Lie About Islam, Europe, and the Dangers We Face. 

As promised, my September 11th keynote address recounting my experiences at Ground Zero and with Islam. It’s bare-knuckled.

— Larry Alex Taunton (@LarryTaunton) September 15, 2026

SUNDAY'S SUPER-CLOSE ELECTION — "Open borders stopped the right from winning": "This could be the first election where the Muslim immigration community decides the outcome"

"This could be the first election in Sweden", declared the rightist party leader Jimmie Åkesson, "where the Muslim immigration community decides the outcome." 

The results of Sunday's election in Sweden should have been known by that evening, with the right expected to be the winners. Instead, the rightists are in trouble in what is a super-close election, dominated by the left — if only by 0.4% — and with the right and the left tottering between, respectively, 49.1% and 49.5%. 

And the reason, according to Berlingske's Peter Suppli Benson, quoting the Sweden Democrats leader, is that "a political wave has hit Sweden," with the migrant community suddenly starting to participate in local and national elections.

"One thing that the Swedish election has made clear" writes Peter Imanuelsen: "Open borders stopped the right from winning."  

Does this remind you of similar elections in other countries and states?

Listen, if you can. In Swedish elections, votes of Muslims proved decisive. An imam had predicted this, stating that Sweden has effectively been conquered and that Muslims will soon become majority. This is because, unlike Swedes, they have many children. They had warned us. https://t.co/kpOTWxfHCV

— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) September 14, 2026

As Stephen Green commented on Facebook, quoting Peter Sweden: 

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT OPEN BORDERS* 
(*And why the Left loves them.)

70% of people with a non European background voted for the left wing bloc in the Swedish election today according to exit poll by Valu. Now you know why the left supports open borders.

— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) September 13, 2026

PeterSweden brings the inescapable conclusion:

One thing that the Swedish election has made clear. 

Open borders stopped the right from winning. 

People with a non European background overwhelmingly voted left. 

The left supports open borders because it is a strategic political move to stay in power. 

9-11 Documentary: "Inside the Twin Towers"

Just watched an excellent documentary, 9-11: Inside the Twin Towers (thanks to Jack Posobiec). Also billed simply as 9-11: the Twin Towers when it appeared 20 years ago, the 1h26 movie is descibed as

a television special documentary film which uses re-enactments and computer-generated imagery to re-create a minute-by-minute account of what happened inside the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City during the September 11th attacks. 

If someone suggests using a Nazi concentration camp for their opponents, aren't they in fact the actual… Nazis?

 
Who are really the actual Nazis? While visiting Dachau concentration camp, a leftist made the following remark as she stood, smiling, in front of the crematorium ovens. 

North Carolina Democrat state legislative candidate Shelly Headen posted a Facebook story from a vacation showing her in front of ovens in a German concentration camp memorial, saying, 

“Visiting Dauchau [sic] Concentration Camp in Germany… This is where Trump supporters belong.” 

 … In social media photos, Headen is seen smiling as she stands in front of what appears to be crematorium ovens, which were used by the Nazi SS to burn the bodies of Jews and other prisoners who died or were murdered at the camp. 

Headen faces incumbent Republican state Rep. John Blust in a suburban Guilford County district. On her Facebook page, Headen says she is a CPA and business owner “running to restore human decency,” an ironic statement after saying political opponents should be in concentration camps while posing and smiling in front of ovens at a Holocaust memorial site.

Indeed. Doesn't this raise the question: if someone is a Nazi, or a neo-Nazi, isn't the logical conclusion that it is the ones suggesting using (ahem) a… Nazi concentration camp for their opponents?! Wouldn't they be the prime candidates?! Has it occurred to any leftist that it might be time for an Are we the baddies moment? (Vielen Dank an Ed für den Instalink.)

The rhetoric expressed by Headen is growing among Democrat candidates and left-wing agitators across the nation. 

 … The apparent call to burn Trump supporters isn’t her only expression of support for violence. In another Facebook post, Headen appears to call for an unspecified terrorist attack against America, writing,

“I think our only hope is an attack on US soil… preferably Alabama, Louisiana… where the stupid people are.”

It transpires that after after inflammatory social media posts she made resurfaced, the Guilford County Democratic Party is withdrawing its support for the statehouse candidate.

Doesn't that seem a bit odd? 

Why would they do that? 

As I wrote in a post 16 years ago, while Barack Obama was in the White House during his first term (not once during eight years did I call him "President Obama" — similarly with Joe Biden — unless I was quoting another person or media outlet), if Republicans were really as awful and atrocious as regularly depicted, then the only (the final?) solution is that they needed to be submitted to some serious reeducation in special camps. 

As I pointed out back in July 2010, if liberal opinions are

taken to their logical conclusion…

…then Americans should go through some sort of reeducation centers to be made to understand the good they are being bestowed, and to be made to refrain from criticizing (at least, not too much) the Spiritual Guide who is benevolently bestowing them upon us;

…then democracy should be curtailed and elections banned (polls as well, probably), at least temporarily, so that the benevolent Great Helmsman can implement his (benevolent) policies in the absence of obstacles from clueless idiots— be they common citizens or the unpatriotic naysayers in the opposition;

…in fact, then Barack Obama should be allowed to dictate his (benevolent) policies to the nation (the nation of clueless clods who are preventing him from carrying those dashing avant-garde ideas of his through to completion).

(And liberals, leftists, and statists wonder why, and think we are exaggerating when, some of us issue warnings about socialism and when we warn about it being a path to tyranny?!)

Related: • RIP Charlie Kirk — This Is What Is Bound to Happen When You Constantly Refer to Your Adversaries as "Fascists" and as "Threats to Democracy"

• Charlie Kirk and the Glorification of Terrorism: "broadcast outlets did their best to hide the obvious connection between the shooter and the left’s obsession that everyone on the right is 'fascist'"

• The Only Good Woman Is a Leftist Woman

Frenchman Is Certain — and Delighted — that Donald Trump's Final Goal Is the Overthrow of the Tehran Régime

Philippe Karsenty at the 911 commemoration 
in Paris (glasses, red tie, behind pole)

Following his interview with the Emet station, a viewer or listener called in to complain that Philippe Karsenty seemed to be becoming either anti-Netanyahu or a raging leftist, if not both. So the station decided to interview the head of the Comité Trump France again, and he assured Emet's Jean-Patrick Grumberg (video) that neither is true. 

Beyond that, the main subject of the interview concerned the war in Iran and Donald Trump's strategy, and in that perspective Philippe Karsenty has no doubt that the American president's final goal — even if it cannot be voiced — is the full overthrow of the Tehran régime.

9-11 Ceremony: Paris Remembers

Paris n'oublie pas — Paris does not forget

At 11 am on September 11, 2026, American expatriates, diplomats, and servicemen 
joined with Frenchmen and other foreigners at la Place des États-Unis to commemorate 
the 25th anniversary of the 911 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.

 

Members of Republicans Overseas France (ROF) and friends

Most people thought that the flags at the entrance of le Square Thomas Jefferson were 
installed in an official capacity by some bureaucrats, but it seems to turn out that they were 
all the initiative of one single  French-American, Nicholas Conquer (see following pictures)

  

 

 

After the ceremony, three people — Erik Svane, Nicholas Conquer, and Philippe 
in full rocker regalia — plus photographer JBG headed to Place du Trocadéro 
to take some shots with the Eiffel Tower in the background

Charlie Kirk and the Glorification of Terrorism: "broadcast outlets did their best to hide the obvious connection between the shooter and the left’s obsession that everyone on the right is 'fascist' "

One year after his brutal death, Fox News presents a handful of pieces on Charlie Kirk, including the 10 most powerful moments from college campuses to the Republican National Convention (Turning Point USA founder debated Hasan Piker, Bill Maher and Oxford students before his 2025 assassination) — well worth reading and watching — along with a personal testimony from Andrew Kolvet, the executive producer of "The Charlie Kirk Show" and a spokesman for Turning Point USA: I spent eight years beside Charlie Kirk. Here’s what the world never understood (What Charlie’s critics never understood about him was how hard he was willing to work to accomplish what many believed was an impossible goal). 

He was also very deliberate. You could tell that Charlie hated wasting time. Without being rude, he wanted to get right into the meat of the discussion, and as we talked, it was impossible not to notice his oversized suit, the dress shoes that seemed more appropriate for a 70-year-old man, or his overall Midwestern disdain for trends.

 … And, of course, there were the constant attacks. When I started working with Charlie, conservative media was awash in cheap hit pieces and op-eds attacking him and the organization. He was too abrasive, they said, too confrontational, too aggressive. They called him a charlatan, a grifter, and said TPUSA was all smoke and mirrors. 

 … What Charlie’s critics never understood about Charlie was how hard he was willing to work to accomplish what many believed was an impossible goal. They never saw the machine he was building brick by brick to turn back a generational tide that was decades in the making. Charlie knew the next crisis, the next challenge and the next hit piece was just around the corner. But he never gave in to despair or "black-pilled" thinking. He was a happy warrior until the end, always willing to work harder than everyone else, to do his part and to honor his word. He did it all with boundless energy, decency, unflinching faith and a belief in the greatness of America. 

Meanwhile, Dan Gainor focused on how, In the year since we lost Charlie Kirk, the media has done its best to act its worst:

It has already been a year since conservative icon Charlie Kirk was assassinated and the attack has brought out the worst in some of the worst people in our media and celebrity culture. False claims that the alleged assassin was conservative, false quotes and hateful comments have filled TV, radio and, of course, the internet.

 … The left and media moved on quickly from the assassination to the character assassination of the victim. Charlie Kirk was bashed as "hateful," "bigoted," a "hatemonger" and a "prominent Christian nationalist" who "has been known to make racist statements." Even major news outlets fired or suspended some of those who bashed Kirk. But broadcast outlets did their best to hide the obvious connection between the alleged shooter and the left’s obsession that everyone on the right is "fascist." 

 … Former "Daily Show" host Trevor Noah couldn’t get past how pro-Second Amendment Kirk "was shot while defending guns." He called it, "an incongruous funny thing that happens." "You are there. You're onstage, like, ‘Let me tell you why people should have guns.’ Wa-pow!" That’s the neutral individual who hosted the White House Correspondents' Dinner a couple years ago. 

As Philippe Karsenty pointed out within a week of of the assassination of Charlie Kirk regarding the Left's rants, "It has strictly nothing to do with free speech; it is the glorification of terrorism!"

Related: • "My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans; Zero clue"

• RIP Charlie Kirk — This Is What Is Bound to Happen When You Constantly Refer to Your Adversaries as "Fascists" and as "Threats to Democracy"  

That attack on Charlie's personality that it is allegedly ironic (and therefore fitting) that he "was shot while defending guns" — which might seem offhand to present a modicum of validity — is something that this blog answered in depth last December.

Three irrefutable points were presented in the following post: "Reaping What You Sow"?! Did Charlie Kirk Really Deserve His Fate Due to His "Insensitive" Declarations in Favor of the "Repulsive" 2nd Amendment? (Includes the Full "Controversial" Text & Video). 

1) Two Basic Attitudes of Liberals That They Are Totally Oblivious About 
2) Mass Shootings That the MSM Never Covers 
3) Wouldn't Gun Control, European-Style, End Shootings in the First Place?

Do check all three points out. (Thanks for the Instalink, Ed.)

As I wrote in the introduction to my in-depth (and dispassionate) study on the issue of gun control,

In the 18th century — the century at the end of which the Second Amendment was being passed in the newly-born United States — the biggest problem for the majority of the world's population was not the right to keep and bear arms.

It was the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.

In the 19th century, likewise, the greatest problem for most people on this planet was not the absence of gun control.

It was the presence of gun control.

In the 20th century, most people did not suffer from the right to keep and bear arms.

They suffered from the lack of the right to keep and bear arms.

As can be attested by the victims (assuming they could talk) of the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Milosevic, along with the Hutus… As an aside, one of the first measures taken by each of the aforementioned (ahem) leaders after coming to power — for the good of the people, needless to say — was to impose or to tighten arms control.

And it is no different today.

Look at Saddam's Iraq, at Khadaffi's Libya, at the Assads' Syria…

(Would not the average Iraqi citizen, the average Libyan citizen, the average Syrian citizen over the past 30 to 40 years have been better off with the right to keep and bear arms?)

“Do not mess with us” (with Israel), Warns Netanyahu; Israeli Elections on October 27: Is it "time to prepare for the post-Bibi era"?

On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu threatened Iran with 'blow beyond anything it can imagine', vowing to 'complete' the mission. 

"We are determined to defend ourselves," Netanyahu continued [during a Rosh Hashanah toast in Jerusalem]. "We are determined to strike our enemies. They are not attacking us. Iran is refraining from doing so, and it knows why.

"Of course, it could make the mistake of attacking us. If it does, it will suffer a blow beyond anything it can even imagine."

Four days earlier, Philippe Karsenty told Jean-Patrick Grumberg on the Emet station that "it is time to prepare for the after-Bibi era." This came in turn three months after predicting that Benjamin Netanyahu will lose the Israeli elections this Fall — and especially that the Trump administration is counting on the fact that Netanyahu will soon be out of a job.

In any case, says the head of the Comité Trump France, Israel's new PM must come from the right, to resist against the pressure of countries such as France and Spain to commit suicide by giving in to Palestinian demands.