Greenland: Not American Security but World Environmental Security Is at Stake

US ownership of Greenland is the path to environmental insecurity.

After the American Century

Every generation or so, some American politician gets the notion that the United States ought to acquire Greenland. Often, this is justified by reference to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in the 1820s, which proclaimed that European powers should stay out of the Americas. However, this is a rather silly attempt to dignify acquisition of Greenland, which has been part of the Kingdom of Denmark for one thousand years. Long before Columbus discovered America, the Vikings had explored Iceland and Greenland. The idea that the Monroe Doctrine applies to events more than eight centuries before it was proclaimed is absurd. Nor is the US close to Greenland, which lies between Iceland and the coast of Canada. The people of Greenland do not want to be bought or sold. Nor does Denmark want to sell Greenland. 

Map courtesy of the Arctic Center, University of Lapland
Its extensive home pages provide a wealth of useful information.

Whatever the justification for buying (or seizing) Greenland, there are two reasons why its acquisition looks attractive: Natural resources and military bases. There seldom seems to be any US government interest in the Greenlanders themselves, whose language and culture could easily be utterly destroyed after acquisition. There are only about 60,000 people living on the vast island, much of which is frozen all year round. Almost the entire population lives along the southwestern coast, one third in the capital, Nuuk. There are no roads connecting most of the towns together. 

In military terms, Greenland looks important because it is halfway between Washington and Moscow. For that reason, the Americans already have one base on the island, Thule, which is on the west coast, just about the only settlement in the far north. Another American base, called Century, was located inland on the great Greenland ice sheet. Established in 1959 in a series of tunnels and excavations into the ice sheet, it was occupied full time until 1964, it became a seasonal base (closed in winter), and then was abandoned in 1967. Today it lies buried in ice and snow that have since accumulated. In other words, at the height of the Cold War, the US did not find it necessary, and they found it expensive and difficult, to maintain an inland base. Greenland has an extreme environment, and after struggling to sustain bases, it became clear that the Soviets could hardly sneak in and create a meaningful military site, much less continually supply one. It is exceedingly difficult to move around on the inland surface of Greenland, which is why almost all communities are on the coast. In short, this is not a place for ground forces, base camps, and troop movements. It is rather a place for early warning systems and other equipment designed to monitor the sea and the sky. Denmark is a member of NATO, and in addition the Americans have a treaty with the Danish government, allowing them to operate the Thule military base. They can also move ships and submarines around the coast to their heart's content. In short, from a military perspective, owning Greenland will not suddenly improve American security, and if new bases are necessary (although no one seems to have said they are) that could be negotiated. I cannot see any important military advantage to be gained.  "National security" is a bogus argument for acquiring Greenland. 

In terms of resources, Greenland potentially is a bonanza. Even with much of it explored primarily from the air, it is clear that it has uranium, rare earth minerals, oil, and gas, with potentially far more still undiscovered. Why have these resources not been exploited already? First, there is the high cost of development. There are no harbors convenient to or roads to most of these resources. The weather makes it difficult or impossible to operate outside for much of the year. Such practical problems make it uncompetitive with other locations where resources are more accessible. The second reason is important. Many Greenlanders fear that an influx of mining companies will despoil the landscape, pollute the environment, and undermine their way of life. Possibly some limited mining could be negotiated, provided strong environmental safety regulations are enforced. However, the US has a disgraceful history with mining on Native American lands, notably with the uranium mining of Navajo land. More than 30 million tons of uranium ore was extracted. As the American Environmental Protection Agency summarizes, "a legacy of uranium contamination remains, including over 500 abandoned uranium mines as well as homes and water sources with elevated levels of radiation. Potential health effects include lung cancer from inhalation of radioactive particles, as well as bone cancer and impaired kidney function from exposure to radionuclides in drinking water." The mines were closed in 1986, but even in 2025 after spending more than $1 billion, many of the mines are not cleaned up. Something similar could easily in Greenland if mining companies operated with the weakened standards and poor oversight likely under the Trump administration.

Furthermore, if oil drilling is permitted, Greenland will contribute to the global warming that already is melting their ice sheet. This is not a small matter. Greenland impounds an astonishingly large portion of the earth's fresh water. Its ice has been shrinking every year for 28 years. The United Nations estimates that during 2024 it lost "50 million litres per minute, 9,000 million litres per hour" for a total of 80 gigatons of water during that single year.  Scientists estimate that were all of Greenland's ice to dissolve into the sea, the oceans would rise about 7 meters. If CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced, within one lifetime the ice melt from Greenland (with even more water released from Antartica) will flood coastal cities in all parts of the world, including Copenhagen, New York, much of Bangladesh, about half of Florida, and many island nations, to make a suggestive short list.  Greenlanders take global warming seriously, but the current President of the United States does not. Trump calls global warming a hoax, and he is passing legislation designed to increase fossil fuel exploration and consumption. If the he acquires Greenland, it will be in order to "Drill, baby drill." This makes the United States the worst possible owner of Denmark. 

Ownership of Greenland is a matter of security. But it is not a matter of American military security but the security of Greenland, as a landscape and a people. Allowing the United States to seize Greenalnd endangers the world's environmental security. It also violates a fundamental principle of international law: respect for international borders.

The Supreme Court's Decline in the Polls

After the American Century

A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

For decades the Supreme Court enjoyed a high rating in the polls. It was generally approved by more than half the population, who believed it upheld the law and the Constitution. Back in the middle 1990s the Court enjoyed immense popularity with approval ratings as high as 80%. In 2000, more than 60% of the public approved of the court, and less than 30% disapproved. But as the Court has become increasingly polarized, public trust in the Court has fallen. Between 2014 and 2018 more people disapproved than approved of the Court. Then it briefly recovered its good standing with the people until 2022 when it fell precipitously. Since that time, its disapproval rating has been higher than 50%.  In January, 2025,  just 38.8% approved of the Court.  

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

More than 60% of the public do not trust the justices to do the right thing. It does not help that the Court lacks ethical guidelines concerning conflict of interest. Nor does a majority of the public agree with its decision that presidents are immune from prosecution for their actions. Nor are the Court's decisions on abortion approved by a majority of Americans. Nor are Clarence Thomas's acceptance of many expensive trips and gifts from wealthy conservatives acceptable. Nor has it been a good thing for American democracy that the court has sanctified unlimited private spending by candidates, equating campaign donations with freedom of speech. The Court no longer seems impartial or wise.

Back in the 1990s, both Repblicans and Democrats had extremely high levels of satisfaction with the Court. No more. Today, only one in four Democrats approves of the Court. In contrst. 3 out of 4 Republicans like what it is doing. The Court has adopted a partisan agenda, and in doing so it has lost its aura of impartiality. It risks seeming an illegitimate rubber stamp that most Democrats and a majority of the American public disdain.

In short, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was once unassailable, but now it is questionable. Will the Court's reputation decline further during the Trump second term? How much lower can it go before it loses the credibility and respect that are necessary before its decisions will be accepted? A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

Trump's illusion of a "Golden Age"

After the American Century

In one of the worst inaugural addresses in American history, the new Felon in Chief spouted falsities and insults, made vague promises, and proclaimed that the United States had entered a new golden age. There was not a single new idea in the speech, nor a single line that will be recalled with respect generations from now. The Republicans who repeated rose to their feet and clapped at his inanities demonstrated a level of servility and stupidity that I never thought possible in the United States.

Trump has pardoned the treasonous and in some cases murderous acts of thousands of men and women who attacked the Congress of the United States on January 6, 2021. That day will live in infamy, along with his false characterization of these convicted criminals as "political prisoners."  They physically attacked the Congress. They maimed and murdered police officers, and they will always be remembered as a rabble of traitors inspired into action by Trump himself, who watched the attack on Congress in the White House and did nothing for hours. That he could be nominated and elected president is a now a permanent stain on the national character. 

Trump denies the reality of global warming, and he has become a tool of the oil corporations, amping up CO2 emissions instead of leading the adoption of the wind and solar power, which are cheaper, which create more jobs, and which produce less pollution, than drilling for petroleum. Far from creating a golden age, he is hastening a global warming apocalypse. It will be measured in forest fires, frequent hurricanes, tornados, and irregular rainfall. And to make certain that these disasters cause long-term damage, he is now threatening to get rid of FEMA, the federal agency that deals with disasters. He says the problems can be dealt with at the state level. This is nonsense, as disasters do not respect borders. When the Mississippi rises over its banks, state borders do not halt the flood.

Trump has withdrawn from the World Health Organization, offering the idiotic reason that the US pays too much. If that were the problem, then he could negotiate rather that withdraw. He also attacked the WHO's handling on the COVID crisis, when it is he, Donald Trump, who is personally responsible for spreading disinformation about the disease, politicizing the response to the crisis, and undercutting the medical profession. Any doubts about Trump's stupidity on this issue are laid aside by his appointment of Mr. Kennedy to oversee the nation's health. He rejects the very idea of vaccination, including well-tested shots that have saved millions of lives. 

Trump has resurrected the jingoistic language of Manifest Destiny and made factually inaccurate statements to justify his demands that the United States take over the Panama Canal, take control of Greenland, and annex Canada. This is naked imperialism and colonialism, and it has nothing to do with national security.  The United States already has bases in Greenland, for example, which falls under the protection of NATO, since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member.  Trump's language and actions have aroused anger in Latin America, Canada, and the Nordic countries and poison relations with the European Union. A nation that attacks its friends on all sides is not entering a golden age.

Further lowering American prestige, Trump has threatened to raise a high tariff wall against imports from the EU, China, Canada, and Mexico. Such threats and blustering do not bring in a golden age. They bring in protectionism, bankrupt companies, higher prices, and weaker economies.

And to end a short list of Trump's recklessness and nasty behavior, he has launched an attack on undocumented immigrants to the United States and sent the army to close the Mexican border. This macho posturing is popular with his base, but it will not solve the problem, as many illegal immigrants come by plane on student or tourist visas and then remain after their expiration date. Moreover, several million "illegals" were brought to the United States as children, and they know no other country, but through no fault of their own are caught in a no-man's land with no citizenship. Nor will the economy improve if Trump drives out millions of people, many of them in housing construction and caring professions, such as nursing homes.  The immigration problem is complex, and it will not be solved by sending troops to the border.

There is nothing noble about Mr. Trump. He is a bully, a liar, and a charlatan, and the above is a short list of only his most recent predations. If he carries out his full program, the United States will enter not a golden age but a dark tunnel of distrust. division, hatred, and chaos. The nation has already lost much of the world's respect. This is a wannabe emperor, not a president, and the "golden age" he conjures up is an illusion. The minister of the gospel and the teacher will long struggle to explain why this vain, corrupt, licentious, litigious, prevaricating felon could ever be elected president. He brings shame on the United States.

Electric Vehicle Sales predict state political alignments

After the American Century

A poll by PEW Research has found a correlation between sales of electric vehicles (EVs) in a State and its presidential preferences. California had by far the highest sale of new EVs, around 25 percent, and it voted solidly for Biden in 2020.  At the other extreme, with less than 2 percent EV sales are some extreme Trump states: North Dakota, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Wyoming. In fact, every one of the seventeen states with the fewest EVs sold voted for Trump, while nineteen of the twenty states with the highest EV sales voted for Biden. (The exception was Utah, but Mormons are exceptions in many things).  All the swing states were in the middle, including Michigan (3.96%), Wisconsin (4.08%), Pennsylvania (623%), Georgia (7.35%), and Arizona (9.06%).  

It seems likely that EV sales will be weak in a state like Mississippi where few people believe that global warming is real.  But there is another reason why states might not want EVs to sell well: such cars do not pay fuel tax. Most states get between 4% and 8% of their annual tax revenue from a tax on gasoline. If the public gets EVs, then the state budget will be in trouble.

"The Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts"

After the American Century

The Supreme Court has ruled that the President of the United States cannot be held legally accountable for his actions as head of the government. This is an absurdity in a democratic nation, but more to the point, it violates the intentions of the founding fathers of the United States. The fought a Revolution to escape from the rule of the King of England, and they had no desire to make the president a replacement monarch.

But this week. the Court decided that presidential immunity applies to all official acts of the president, including acts that discredit and interfere with elections, as well as actions that encourage mob violence against Congress.  I urge everyone to read the decision in its tortured and incompetent reasoning, but here are the main points, as summarized by the justices themselves: 

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election.  The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results.  Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties.  The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.  The D. C. Circuit affirmed.  Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. 

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.  And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.  There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

On the following page: "The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

This is rank treason. The Supreme Court's decision subverts and undermines the Constitution, giving unlimited power to the chief executive, making him immune from the checks and balances envisioned by the architects of the federal government. Given this decision, neither Congress nor the Courts have any power to prevent crimes by the chief executive. They have left a gaping hole in their decision, failing to define what are official acts as distinguished from unofficial acts. The specific case involves an attack on Congress on January 6th, 2021.  Can a mob attack Congress, encouraged by the president in a speech immediately before it occurred, and these proceedings be considered an official act? Apparently, the justices think so. The six justices who made this decision have lost credibility. They have severely undermined the reputation of the Court. They have created legal sanctions for dictatorship. 

The majority who made this decision have also discredited their own institution. Why should anyone respect court opinions in the future? There is a bit of satisfaction in knowing that the six justices who signed the decision have inscribed their names in history as incompetents who failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution. They will be reviled forever by historians and legal scholars, and Chief Justice Roberts in particular will go down as the worst head of the Court since it began. If the nation survives his tenure, it will be no thanks to him.

In contrast. history will honor the three dissenting justices.

"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. 

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency.  It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President. . .  the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.  Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."

The Failed Presidential Debate: Presage to Chaos?

After the American Century

The so-called debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was a sad farce and a warning that both political parties are unable to choose acceptable candidates for the office of president. Both were an embarrasment, but for different reasons.

Trump did not answer many of the questions but rambled on about whatever he felt like, often repeating himself. He made sweeping generalizations, seldom had a correct fact or example to support his argument, and lied outrageously about almost every topic. He refused to prose he would abide by the election results, and he misrepresented and defended the attack on the Congress made after the last election. There was not a pleasant word or intentional joke in his whole performance, in which he was sour, angry, focused on the past, and unable to articulate any specific plans. Had he been taking an oral exam at a university, he would have failed.

Biden, in contrast, would have passed based on content, but received a low grade for his presentation. He did answer the questions, and tried to go into detail, which was not a good idea given thetiny one or two minute time slots. The format demanded sound bites, not analysis. The viewer had to work to understand what Biden was saying. His content was actually good, but it was so poorly presented that the focus became his frailty. He did not look like a man who could continue to be president until 2029. Biden did not fail the exam, but he did not appear able to carry on.

The debate was also a failure due to its organization. There was never a challenge to exaggerations or false claims. Candidates could get away with saying ridiculous things, particularly Donald Trump. Nor did the format give either candidate sufficient time to articulate a vision of what they hoped to achieve in a second term. Future debates ought to include an opening statement from each candidate, so they could explain their vision for the country.

On every level, this was a depressing event. I disliked was the gaudy decor of the studio where it was held. The questions were often poor, with little insistance that they be answered. The insertion of advertisements into the middle of the debate was offensive, distracting, and an unacceptable trivialization of the seriousness of the occasion.  On every level -- aesthetics, content, style, organization, -- this event was an embarrassment. It showed the world not only a polarized nation, but one incapable of holding a serious debate on its future. It is hard to see how it could have been worse. 

Was this the nadir of American democracy, or intimations of its demise? The Republican Party at present appears beyond any hope of change, so long as it is in the grip of Trump. The Democratic Party might be able to rescue itself and the country by finding another candidate, but it might also fritter away the chance to do so with internal strife. There are times in human affairs, when inaction inexorably leads to doom. 

Trump: Abuse of Power, 2016-2020

After the American Century

The most serious aspect of Trump's perforance as president from 2017-2021 was how he abused his position and seized power. A Constitutional crisis emerged in the Trump years. The office of the president was abused, the foreign service weakened, scientific expertise dismantled, and the Justice Department turned into a political tool. The problems began with Trump’s 2016 campaign and continued in the White House. As the New York Times summarized the conclusion of the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, released in late August 2020: “Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought and maintained close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected. The Trump campaign accepted their offers of help. The campaign secretly provided Russian officials with key polling data. The campaign coordinated the timing of the release of stolen information to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” The Times concluded: “the American people could reelect a man who received a foreign government’s help to win one election and has shown neither remorse nor reservations about doing so again.” Only in a deeply troubled country could a politician receive 70 million votes in 2020 after such revelations. 

Trump not only received Russian help, but orchestrated many illegal actions by his closest aids, many of whom ended up pleading guilty to felonies. His longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen paid $130,000 in hush money to two women whom Trump had affairs with. Cohen pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion, and violating campaign finance laws. Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted on eight counts of bank and tax fraud, and he was accused of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to launder money. Trump’s assistant campaign manager, Rick Gates, was convicted of money laundering, tax evasion, and bank fraud. George Papadopoulos, Trump’s foreign policy advisor, served as a go-between to the Russians and relayed valuable information about what they had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He was convicted of lying to the FBI about these activities. All of the crimes were committed by close associates to assist Trump. Yet after these crimes and other suspicious activities were uncovered by the House of Representatives’ impeachment enquiry, the Republicans blocked all attempts to investigate further. Trump was never questioned in person, and he was not held accountable. His closest associates were convicted as criminals, but the Republican-controlled Senate found it unnecessary to call a single witness in a sham impeachment trial. 

The fact that Trump was never held accountable for his collusion with Russia was part of a larger pattern. The federal government under his control operated with inadequate Congressional oversight or control. The Constitution decrees that only Congress can allocate funds. But when Congress refused to pay for a wall along the Mexican border, President Trump seized money allocated for other purposes and used it illegally to start building the wall. Furthermore, the president often ignored Congress in other ways. He refused to send officials to testify before Housecommittees, including matters of national security. 

Many departments of government were headed by appointees who had never been approved by the Senate, as required by the Constitution.  Trump fired cabinet secretaries and other important officials and then appointed an “acting” head who was never vetted by the Senate. They included individuals with grossly inadequate qualifications, who were selected because of their loyalty to the president. Acting secretaries may temporarily fill a position until there is time for a Senate hearing. But repeated appointment of loyalists with little or no experience while avoiding Senate hearings violated Trump’s oath of office. Like every president, he swore to abide by the Constitution, which declares that the Senate must approve cabinet appointments. He had 21 cabinet secretaries confirmed in Senate hearings, but he fired many of them and appointed 28 acting secretaries without hearings. They included the acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, an outspoken conservative and Trump loyalist with no qualifications in the area of intelligence. Grenell replaced another acting director, Joseph Maguire. Even Homeland Security has had an acting director, Chad Wolf.  The Republican-controlled Senate did not fulfill its constitutional duty to evaluate, and if necessary to reject, those nominated, and the press did not treat the massive avoidance of confirmation hearings as a major problem. 

During the Trump years, the placement of the Justice Department in the executive branch became a major problem, because it was investigating the president and his advisors. The Justice Department does not simply carry out programs mandated by Congress. It must seek out and prosecute crime. The problem with locating Justice in the Executive branch of government became obvious in the case of Michael Flynn, one of Trump’s close associates. Flynn confessed to several crimes and was awaiting sentencing. But under pressure from the White House, the Justice Department suddenly announced that it no longer would prosecute the case. Likewise, when a special prosecutor of impeccable reputation was assigned to investigate the possible collusion between Russia and the Trump election campaign, the president obstructed and openly attacked the investigation. It would be more sensible to place Justice under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Then the president could not fire or intimidate attorneys who prosecute cases that affect him or his associates. To preserve the integrity of the Department of Justice, it ought to be removed from the Executive’s control. That change requires an amendment to the Constitution. 

The president illegally reallocated funds for projects that Congress did not approve, he brazenly ignored Congress when it suited him, he interfered with the work of the Justice Department when it investigated him, he escaped accountability for felonies committed for him by his lawyers and campaign managers, and he misused his office by pardoning associates convicted of felonies, so that they never went to prison. When the legislature loses control over the expenditure of funds, when it loses control over leadership appointments, when the president orders the civil service not to testify at its hearings, when he constantly interferes with the Department of Justice, when he pardons those convicted for crimes by associates to aid him, then there is a deep constitutional crisis. The federal government became unbalanced under Republican control. Crimes went unpunished, and the president’s usurpation of power was not challenged. 

Encouraged by his successful contempt for Congress and the rule of law, the logical next step after he lost the 2020 election was to attack the election itself and the legal system, and then orchestrate an insurrection.  Should be be elected again in 2024, then the worst is yet to come, and it is certain.

Trump: The Anti-Science President

First paragraph revised, Jan 27, 2025

After the American Century

At the beginning of his second term, Trump again curtailed many activities at the NIH, including the distribution of research funds and all research on race and gender. He has appointed Robert Kennedy Jr. to the top position, and he rejects the safety and validity of vaccination.  He has also withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization.

Perhaps readers have forgotten that during his first term Trump displayed an ignorance of science matched by his attacks on such scientific insitututions.

The Trump attack on science was so egregious that respected journals which never took sides in politics felt they had to do so in 2020. During 175 years of publication Scientific American never endorsed a presidential candidate, but in 2020 it broke with tradition and endorsed Biden, declaring, “Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” It noted, “Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges. Congress countermanded his reductions. Yet he kept trying, slashing programs that would ready us for future pandemics and withdrawing from the World Health Organization. These and other actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again.” The damage to these major scientific institutions had to be repaired, along with establishing a science-based response to the COVID-19 pandemic, once Biden took office.

The most prestigious scientific publication of all, Nature, warned in January, 2024, that Trump "promised to limit the authority of federal agencies and employees, including scientists." That would weaken the US, even as US leadership in science and technology is being challenged by other nations that have increased their investment research and education.

Most people recall the later Trump years of the pandemic, when he made silly recomendations about COVID that revealed an astounding ignorance. But his hostility to science was present from the beginning of his presidency. His first budget contained large cuts in key scientific institutions, notably the National Institute of Health. 

Reagan vs Trump on the value of NATO

After the American Century

NATO is under attack. Not from Russia but from Donald Trump. He is the first American president ever to suggest that US allies ought to be attacked. He is the first to openly encourage Russia to make such an attack. If he becomes president, he will drive Europe away from the US, increase the danger of a wider war in Europe, and undermine the rule of law internationally.

Trump is a disgrace to himself and to the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan would not vote for anyone holding such views.

This is what Reagan said forty years ago, on the 35th anniversay of NATO's establishment:

"Throughout its history, the NATO Alliance has been challenged by the military power and political ambitions of the Soviet Union. Yet, in every decade, the nations of the Alliance have consistently pulled together to maintain peace through their collective strength and determination. On the basis of that strength and unity, the nations of the Alliance also have taken the initiative to seek a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union.

"Over the years, NATO has grown from its original twelve members to include Greece, Turkey, the Federal Republic of Germany, and, most recently, Spain. It has demonstrated a capacity to adapt to evolving political and security challenges and to meet the changing needs of its members. The Alliance's commitment to collective security has been sustained through full democratic respect for the sovereign independence of each member.
I am proud to rededicate the United States to the ideals and responsibilities of our Alliance."

President Ronald Reagn, March 6, 1984


Why do Republicans honor the memory of Reagan and yet support Trump. Have they not lost their way?