A giant reservoir of “secret” fresh water off the East Coast that could potentially supply a city the size of New York City for 800 years may have formed during the last ice age, when the region was covered in glaciers, researchers say.
Preliminary analyses suggest the reservoir, which sits beneath the seafloor and appears to stretch from offshore New Jersey as far north as Maine, was locked in place under frigid conditions around 20,000 years ago, hinting that it formed in the last glacial period due, partly, to thick ice sheets.
At issue is not a lack of goodwill or insufficient urgency around Gaza. Rather, the problem is structural. The Board’s design, scope, and governance diverge sharply from the mandate provided by UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which authorized a Gaza-specific, UN-anchored, and time-limited stabilization mechanism linked to a credible political horizon. Instead, the Board of Peace was introduced as a quasi-permanent institution, chaired for life, funded through high entry fees, and endowed—at least rhetorically—with ambitions extending well beyond Gaza. Notably, the word “Gaza” does not appear in the Board’s charter at all.
These choices were not lost on the international community. Nor were they merely inferred. Trump himself publicly suggested that the Board might one day replace or supersede the United Nations, and he repeatedly floated roles for the Board beyond the Gaza context. For many governments, this raised unavoidable questions about institutional overlap, mandate creep, and the erosion of existing international frameworks. The result has been hesitation where unity was expected — and absence where legitimacy was required.
“Unity was expected”? Give me a break. The article goes on to say that Europe’s leaders think it threatens the UN – which I am pretty sure it does, but that’s a feature rather than a bug. Speaking of “legitimacy,” the UN has lost all it ever had.
And about those Arab nations:
The pattern among Muslim-majority states is more nuanced, but no less revealing. Eight such states joined the Board, yet none of the Arab signatories did so at the head-of-state level. This was not accidental. It was a signal.
Across the Muslim world, there is broad consensus on a core point: without the Palestinian Authority, there can be no unified Palestinian governance, and without unified governance, there can be no credible path to statehood.
I think the last thing they actually want is Palestinian statehood.
Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who played a leading role in brokering that agreement, leaned into optimism …
A map of Gaza was pulled up on a screen to show how the enclave would be developed.
A “coastal tourism” zone would run along the seafront — long enough for up to 180 skyscrapers, many likely earmarked as hotels. …
Kushner highlighted two urban developments, which he referred to as New Rafah and New Gaza.
At “New Rafah,” more than 100,000 permanent housing units would be built, along with over 200 schools and more than 75 medical facilities, he said. He expressed hope that the construction would be completed within two to three years. Work has already begun to remove the rubble, he said. …
“New Gaza” is to be a center of industry, with the aim of achieving 100% full employment, Kushner said. Computer-generated images suggest a metropolis bearing a strong resemblance to Persian Gulf cities like Doha and Dubai, with gleaming waterside accommodations and office locations. …
The presentation said that heavy weapons, tunnels, military infrastructure, munitions and production facilities will be destroyed, but it did not dictate how the process will be carried out.
Seems like a fantasy – to put it mildly – albeit a pleasant one. It would take a great deal more than real estate to transform a population raised on hate and destruction into this vision. The optimistic point of view says that the people in charge of this aren’t naive idiots (after all, the Abraham Accords probably seemed absurdly unrealistic at first) but time will tell.
And when it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right, other leaders in NATO are right: we need to defend the Arctic. We know that the sea lanes are opening up. We know that China and Russia are increasingly active in the Arctic. There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic. Seven are a member of NATO, that’s Finland and Sweden and Norway and Denmark, Iceland, Canada and the US. And there’s only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO, that’s Russia.
And I would argue there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region. So, President Trump and other leaders are right. We have to do more there. We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence. And that is exactly what NATO ambassadors decided to do in September. We are working on that, making sure that, collectively, will we defend the Arctic region. …
There was one big irritant on the on the American side with NATO, and the big irritant, since Eisenhower, was that they were spending, the US was spending, so much more than Europe was spending. Even today, the US is spending 3.5% of GDP on core defence; we are spending in Europe average 2% on defence. And here’s my question to the audience. I mean, many of you, I know, criticize Donald Trump, but do you really think that without Donald Trump, eight big economies in Europe, including Spain and Italy and Belgium, Canada, by the way, also outside Europe, would have come to 2% in 2025 when they were only on 1.5% at the beginning of the year?
No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They are all on 2% now.
On this Twitter thread from Fox News about Rutte’s remarks, about half the responses are anti-Trump.
I seem to recall that Trump has been harping on this “Europe doesn’t pay its share of defense” message for a long time. He seems to be making good on the goal of making them pay more of their share.
Oh, and Greenland? Stay tuned, but here’s what he’s saying now:
Based on a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
… [E]ssentially it’s total access. It’s, there’s no end, there’s no time limit. We’re not doing a 99 or 10 year or anything else. You know, the famous 99 year deals that you hear about because countries can’t do it for that countries go on longer. And so I think it’s going to be something that’s very well. Already it’s being reviewed very well. Well, I noticed the stock market went up very substantially after we announced it, but the details are being negotiated now. It’ll be very good.
Pipe dream? Empty braggadocio? I doubt the details will be as rosy as that picture, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the results are advantageous to both the US and Europe – and maybe even to the people of Greenland.
U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the region, confirmed the squadron’s presence in the Middle East with an official photo posted on social media Jan. 20. C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft have also flown from Britain to the Middle East on missions that appear to be supporting the fighter squadron’s deployment.
“The F-15’s presence enhances combat readiness and promotes regional security and stability,” CENTCOM wrote in a post on X accompanying the photo. The command did not offer any further comment.
The U.S. military has also dispatched an aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, to the Middle East. …
Speaking during a press conference at the White House on Jan. 20, Trump left open the option of some military action against Iran.
“We’re just going to have to see what happens with Iran. There’s a military option,” Trump said.
In recent days, Trump has also suggested he wants the Iranian regime to fall.
“It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran,” he told POLITICO Jan. 17.
The beefed-up American airpower could assuage fears that the U.S. does not have enough firepower in the region, particularly if even more aircraft are deployed.
It’s even possible that the threats regarding Greenland were cover for whatever might be going on militarily regarding Iran.
One thing about Trump, he keeps everyone guessing – even the people who think they have him all figured out for good or for evil.
President Donald Trump told the World Economic Forum that he won’t use force to take Greenland from Denmark.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” Trump said, reported by Politico. “That’s probably the biggest statement I made, because people thought I would use force, but I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force.”
Trump also reinforced that him wanting Greenland has nothing to do with power or greed.
It has to do with protection:
“We want a piece of ice for world protection… We’ve never asked for anything else—and we could have kept that piece of land, and we didn’t. So, they have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”
The reference is to Golden Dome.
I tend to assume that Trump is very strategic and tactical, even when it sounds like he’s impulsively mouthing off. That doesn’t always mean the mouthing off works as planned. Sometimes it doesn’t, although more often it has. Was his previous insinuation that maybe he would use force a tactical feint? I think probably, to make the alternative – negotiating and ultimately giving in – seem better to the Europeans. Was it counterproductive? I don’t know.
Much-appreciated longtime commenter “Paolo Pagliaro” gave the view from Italy yesterday, before Trump backed off on the consideration of using force:
You can bet that “Trump’s mild saber-rattling about Greenland gives his enemies ammunition for stirring up fear.”
Promising to get your hands on a land legitimately belonging to another country who did nothing to you, and with which you could entertain any kind of joint collaboration, resorting to bullying from the beginning, is not a great strategy to win consensus and trust, to say the least.
The vast, vast majority of the people here in Europe is now convinced that Trump is a deranged buffoon bent on destroying everything in order to appease his ego: the media is immensely partisan, but why should they think differently? No one is normally interested in spending time understanding what’s really happening in the US, if the PotUS never tries to be diplomatic and his standard approach is “if you don’t obey I will punish you, because I only do my interests”.
On Greenland Trump is simply wrong: you can have all the legit reason to desire this land, but once you assert your **right** to it just because you are interested, what can you say to China or any Communist regime?
Of course, as Paolo indicates, most of Europe and the European press probably already think Trump is “a deranged buffon bent on destroying everything in order to appease his ego.” So perhaps his initial hint at using force over Greenland doesn’t matter because they already detest and fear him quite enough. What was it that Machiavelli (another Italian) wrote – that if you can’t be both loved and feared, it’s better to be feared than loved. I imagine Trump has taken that counsel to heart.
At any rate, his explanation makes sense – at least to me. I make no predictions about what will happen in subsequent negotiations.
[NOTE: This has little to do with the post, but it has to do with Greenland.
I once was coming back from Europe and flew over Greenland on a very clear day. It was exceptionally beautiful, with the icebergs sparkling in the sun.
(1) I’ve written about it before, but I’ll say it again: I don’t like how Trump handled Iran, promising to help the demonstrators and then doing nothing when thousands upon thousands were murdered. Then again, it’s not over; perhaps he’s got good reasons or perhaps he (or the Israelis) have something up their sleeves. But right now I don’t see it.
Ace believes that the pernicious Tucker Carlson has an influence on Trump. It’s certainly possible, but I don’t agree. However, the jury’s still out on whether he has an influence with Vance.
(2) I also think the way the Gaza oversight is shaping up is quite dangerous. Turkey and Qatar? What??:
At the same time, a senior Israeli official said that including Turkish and Qatari representatives on the Gaza Executive Board, the council that would oversee Gaza’s reconstruction, was not part of the original understanding between Israel and the U.S., and it remains unclear what powers this new body will have and what its exact role will be. …
According to the senior official, the “inclusion of Turkey and Qatar was on Netanyahu’s head. This is Kushner’s and Witkoff’s revenge on him, because of his insistence not to open the crossing before the return of hostage Ran Gvili.”
To be blunt, that sounds like garbage from one of Netanyahu’s many critics/enemies.
More:
The cabinet’s decision comes against the backdrop of remarks made Monday evening by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Knesset plenum, in which he said: “We are on the verge of Phase II, which means one simple thing: Hamas will be disarmed and Gaza will be demilitarized, either the easy way or the hard way.” He added that “Turkish and Qatari soldiers will not be in Gaza. “We have a certain argument with our friends in the US on the makeup of the council of advisers that will accompany the processes in Gaza.” …
… Trump announced the establishment of the “Gaza Executive Board” and revealed its members. In addition to Witkoff and Kushner, the council will include Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari official Ali al-Thawadi.
Also on the board are: Hassan Rashad, head of Egyptian intelligence; Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Mark Rowan, the Jewish?American billionaire; Reem al?Hashimi, a minister from the United Arab Emirates; Nikolay Mladenov, former Bulgarian Foreign and Defense Minister and former U.N. special envoy to the Middle East peace process; Yakir Gabay, an Israeli?Cypriot businessman specializing in real estate, technology and international investments; and Sigrid Kaag, the U.N. representative.
This body will operate below the “Board of Peace” — and above the technocratic Palestinian government that is supposed to manage affairs on the ground in place of Hamas. The Board of Peace is headed by Trump himself, with Witkoff, Kushner, Blair and Rowan also serving, along with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Robert Gabriel.
The technocratic government that will manage the Gaza Strip, called the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, will include 15 Palestinians, led by Ali Shaath, who has held official roles in the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.
Who will actually control things, and who will be there just for show?
(3) Trump’s mild saber-rattling about Greenland gives his enemies ammunition for stirring up fear. I don’t really think he has any intention of boots on the ground on Greenland, but it’s part of the negotiating schtick.
The footage is disgusting. It was not a peaceful protest. It was thuggery and intimidation in a house of worship.
As a backlash rightfully mounted online, Lemon claimed in a follow-up video that he was not affiliated with the group and merely a journalist on the scene of a news event — and whined that he’s being criticized because he’s black and gay.
At the center of the operation is Patricia Golder, who, according to the footage, has turned the alleged manipulation of the asylum process into her business. Golder says she takes a portion of the pay given to the Mauritanian migrants in exchange for helping them navigate the system, and she claims she can bribe judges to rule in the migrants’ favor. The footage also suggests that many of the migrants involved neither embrace nor intend to adopt core American values, even as they access public resources designed to protect legitimate asylum seekers. …
“You get the lawyer and you say, ‘Okay, we have this sheet of paper. I need you to ask the judge how much to carry these people two more year in this country? Probably until we get this project done.’ He say, ‘Okay, give me $50,000.'”
That $50,000 will get split up between everybody, Golder says.
I have long assumed this sort of thing goes on, plus lesser forms of deception and gaming the system. I really don’t see how it could be otherwise, and not just in Ohio by any means.
A great many articles discussing this mention that bribery is standard operating procedure in many parts of the world. So of course immigrants from such countries will consider it both necessary and noncontroversial. And that’s where we are.
It’s not as though it’s limited to immigrants, however. When the subject of political bribery comes up, I often think of this song from the long-ago (and not often revived) musical Fiorello!, which I sas as a child. Here’s the musical number; enjoy:
Hordes of leftist activists are roaming Minneapolis and some other areas of Minnesota, attacking anyone suspected of having something to do with ICE, and the police have apparently have been told to stand down. No doubt the hordes believe themselves to be virtuous, so what they’re doing is A-OK.
Minneapolis police appeared to be missing in action as anti-ICE agitators carried out a series of alarming incidents, some violent, throughout the city on Saturday. In some instances, the mere perception that an individual might be pro-ICE was enough to draw the demonstrators’ ire.
One media outlet went so far as to claim that the MPSD had “completely turned over the city to leftists, as they are now forming groups to hunt down anyone who appears to support ICE, with this man [in the clip below] being saved by the feds just moments before being beaten for simply wearing camo.”
Actually, the beating stopped when one of the agitators shouted to his comrades, “He’s one of us.” …
In an extraordinary development on Saturday, anti-ICE agitators mistakenly identified a group of five tech engineers who were having lunch at a Minneapolis deli as undercover ICE agents and accosted them. …
In another case, a man wearing a hoodie emblazoned with the U.S. flag and the word “freedom” was forced to take it off if he didn’t want to get hurt.
More examples can be found at the link.
And then of course there was the church attack, featuring none other than Don Lemon:
Disgraced former CNN host Don Lemon colluded with anti-ICE activists now under investigation for storming a Minnesota church on Sunday—a “clandestine” operation that Lemon helped keep secret ahead of time before publicizing it once it began. …
… [T]he operation targeted Cities Church because an associate pastor is allegedly the acting director of Saint Paul’s ICE office. …
At the church, [the activists, including Lemon] disrupted the service with shouts of “ICE Out!” and other slogans. The pastor targeted in the operation was not present at the church on Sunday. …
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon said Sunday that she is investigating the incident for a potential violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it illegal to block access to houses of worship. Dhillon also took a swipe at Lemon, writing that his “pseudo journalism” is not protected by the First Amendment.
NOTE: I know you almost certainly know who and what the Brown Shirts were, but a little summary can’t hurt.]
[Today is Martin Luther King Day, and this is a repeat of a previous post. The first link in the speech, to the text of MLK’s 1960 DePauw speech, unfotunately isn’t working anymore.]
From a speech Reverend Martin Luther King delivered at DePauw University in September of 1960:
Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy, and God is not interested merely in the freedom of black men and brown men and yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race and the creation of a society where all men will live together as brothers, and all men will respect the dignity and the worth of all human personality.
It’s enough to make you weep, if you think of the fact that such a statement would now be highly controversial and unlikely to find a home on any college campus.
It would probably be problematic on three fronts at least. The first is its use of the phrase “black supremacy” as similar to “white supremacy,” when we all know that according to the Gospel of Marx they are totally different in every way because of the power differentials. The second is the idea that white lives matter too, and that we are one human race who are brothers (actually, come to think of it, MLK’s use of the term “brothers” and “men” to mean “humanity” would probably be a huge no-no as well). The third is his assertion that God is a large part of the reason that all people are one and all need to be respected.
You know what I mean: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note, also, that the words say “the pursuit of happiness” – that is, the opportunity to seek it, not the right to have it. All people are not going to be happy, and they are not going to be equal in their life conditions. But they are created equal, and given liberty to, among other things, pursue happiness.
It is no accident that King was a minister. The black community has long been an especially religious one (statistics for 2014 can be found here; I’m not sure what’s been happening in the ensuing years). Also, the underpinnings and strength of the idea of equality has inherent religious dimensions. Without religion, it’s certainly possible to believe the same thing – or at least pay lip service to it. But for many people, leftism has become their religion and leftism says that people must be regarded as different and judged by different standards, according to a hierarchy of victimhood, class, race, and gender that the left sets up.
Also, some religions have been taken over by leftism. One only has to look at Barack Obama’s own church in Chicago, which was headed by another Reverend, Jeremiah Wright, to see what I mean.
Speaking of Obama, remember this sort of thing? It’s a fascinating segment of a speech, because Obama is stating the application of the Declaration to all in the US and quoting the document, but cites the doctrine of equality while leaving out the Creator as the one doing the “endowing.” It’s a significant omission, I believe, and no accident:
Certainly, a person can believe in these truths without believing in God. Also, there are churches and other religious groups that have embraced leftism and its racial blaming and hierarchies. But Martin Luther King’s vision loses much of its potency when its religious underpinnings are weakened. I believe that is at least part of what has happened to it in the last few decades.
Why was King addressing “black supremacy” back in 1960, when there was still not just de facto discrimination in the US but also de jure discrimination? It’s because there has long been a tension and an argument even in the black community and the civil rights community (including white people) between inclusiveness and separatism, love and rage. It’s not new. In the late 60s, not too long after that speech of King’s, it reached a fever pitch. Now the temperature of the fever is even higher.
