He's running for President? Good luck with that. On the other hand, the way things seem to be going ….

/

Now he tells us — Duh

More on the media's "reporting" on the Greenland deal

/

The Great Greenland Gaslight: What Happens When Pacman Rescues the Princess?

Scott Pinsker:

They were shocked! That rude, disgraceful vulgarian did it again!

Because in international diplomacy, negotiations aren’t really negotiations — they’re wish lists, performative art, and virtue signaling. The purpose, after all, isn’t to get results. 

It’s to express political sympathies while protecting the status quo. (And take a lovely photo-op at the cocktail party.)

But that ain’t how it works in New York real estate: You come in high and hard, manufacture leverage, and negotiate from a position of strength. Boom, boom, boom. Sharks and minnows.

Because in New York real estate, the purpose is to sign the best possible deal.

So when President Donald Trump started talking about seizing Greenland, diplomats all over Europe were aghast. “Why, sir! Have you no shame?”

It was a dreadful breach of decorum! (Plus, it totally killed the vibe of the cocktail party.)

But y’know what? It worked.

Just as “peace through strength” worked for Ronald Reagan, “negotiating through strength” worked for Trump. Because human nature is constant; the common denominator is strength.

And in life, whoever projects the most strength usually wins. It demotivates aggression and wobbles knees in negotiations.

Been that way since the dawn of time. It’s simply who we are.

Yesterday, it led to a stunning diplomatic breakthrough: The U.S. just came within a whisker of annexing Greenland — and we did it without paying a dime or firing a single bullet.

….

Almost immediately, a media consensus emerged: Yawn. This is no big deal — it’s the same as before. And since Greenland isn’t “officially” part of America, Trump lost the negotiations.

The Atlantic: The Greenland Fiasco Stumbles to an End

Washington Post: Trump Hails Greenland Security Deal That Falls Short of Takeover

Daily Beast: Trump Suffers Humiliating Defeat of His Crackpot Plan to Own Greenland

Reuters: Greenland, Denmark Say U.S. Deal Will Not Cede Sovereignty

New York Times: ‘Nervous and Skeptical,’ Greenlanders Question the New Deal With Trump

NBC News: After Greenland Threats, Trump Settles for a Deal That Avoids Further Angering Allies

DW News: Greenland Deal Gives U.S. What It Already Had

Times of India: Trump’s Greenland Dream FAILS! ‘Wanted to Buy’ Island, but Denmark Keeps Control Despite U.S. Deal

….We gained permanent rights, control, and access to Greenland, completely independent of NATO — and also independent of Greenland declaring itself a sovereign nation. It’s now de facto American territory.

Additionally, Russia and China are frozen out. Forever.

From the American point of view, it was a helluva victory. Best of all, it didn’t cost taxpayers a penny.

In exchange for lifting the (completely manufactured!) leverage of annexing Greenland, Trump got EVERYTHING he wanted on a silver platter.

And that’s great news for the American people — and a much-needed break for the GOP with the midterms 45-ish days away.

Because winning begets winning. The Greenland breakthrough won’t shift the midterms all on its own, but it can do something even more meaningful.

It can signal the start of a new narrative: the great American winning streak!

Too much of the midterms' focus has been on what’s going wrong. From gas prices to groceries to the Iran War to AI doomerism, it’s been a season of discontent.

But there’s so much positivity to report: The border is secure. Crime is at record lows. So is the poverty rate. 

Yet the Republicans refuse to spike the damn football!

I don’t know how else to say this, boys and girls: If we don’t forcefully — and passionately — tell voters our story, they’re not gonna hear it.

‘Cause the media sure as hell won’t tell them for us.

(FWIW) And As proof of that:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Y’all were quiet at $5.02 a gallon and 9.1% inflation. Now gas is $4.06 and inflation is 3.4% and suddenly it’s a crisis. The numbers didn’t change sides. You did. <a href="https://t.co/t6GrskAh0B">pic.twitter.com/t6GrskAh0B</a></p>&mdash; Mike Bales 🫡🇺🇸 (@MikeBales) <a href="https://x.com/MikeBales/status/2100905576846836019?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Score another one for Orange Man

/

Trump Secures a HUGE and Historic Deal with Greenland

Matt Margolis, J Media:

The United States, Denmark, and Greenland signed a permanent agreement Friday that hands Washington lasting military rights across the island while permanently shutting out China, Russia, and every other non-NATO adversary. The deal gives the U.S. permanent access, basing, and overflight rights in Greenland, along with the authority to build new military installations there whenever it decides it needs to, according to a senior U.S. official who briefed Fox News Digital.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio wasted no time celebrating. "This historic deal is a huge win for the United States and the American people," he said. "This historic agreement permanently guarantees U.S. security interests in the Arctic at zero cost to the U.S. taxpayer."

A senior official added, "The difference here is we're not spending any money for the right" to expand the U.S. military footprint on the island.

The agreement has no expiration date, and it doesn't transfer Greenland's sovereignty to the United States, no matter how badly the left wanted to paint this as some kind of hostile annexation.

Trump himself was the first to celebrate the news, posting on Truth Social that the agreement "completely addresses ALL of our many U.S. concerns" and that "from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval." He called it an "Infinite Life" agreement, one built to last even if Greenland someday becomes independent.

This deal has been over a century in the making. American presidents have long recognized Greenland's strategic Arctic importance, but none of them closed the gap between recognizing the problem and fixing it. The U.S. has operated Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, under a defense agreement dating back to 1951, and this new deal dramatically expands that relationship as Russia and China build up their own military and economic footprint in the region.

Denmark and Greenland no longer hold veto power over future U.S. installations. Washington will still consult both governments, but it can now build wherever it decides is necessary without waiting for their approval. Officials view the expanded presence as a likely component of Trump's planned Golden Dome missile defense system, and under the new terms, only the United States and its allies will be permitted to make "sensitive investments" in Greenland's telecommunications infrastructure, undersea cables, ports, and critical minerals.

Trump has been ridiculed for wanting Greenland, but on Friday, he secured its permanent defense on America's terms, at no cost to a single U.S. taxpayer, with no expiration date and no way for anyone to undo it. It’s a huge win for our country, and for Trump.

The Washington Post, naturally, is scornful:

Trump hails Greenland security deal that falls short of takeover

The agreement, which Danish officials said is not final, stops far short of Trump's often-stated goal of taking possession of the territory.

And the BBC professes to wonder what the big deal is, literally:

Without the official text being released [sure it has - it’s here Ed] it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland.

The US already has more than 100 military personnel permanently stationed at its Pituffik base in the north-western tip of the territory.

It then proceeds to answer itself, without admitting it:

  • Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.

  • The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.

  • It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".

  • The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".

  • The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".

Credit where due, NPR managed to report this objectively:

NPR

On Friday, President Trump declared a deal has been struck with Denmark over its oversight of Greenland. Trump has long coveted the mineral-rich island, which Denmark has controlled since the 1700s. Nick Schifrin reports.

Geoff Bennett:

Late today, President Donald Trump announced a deal had been struck with Denmark and Greenland. Mr. Trump has long coveted the mineral-rich island which has been part of the kingdom of Denmark since the 1700s. On social media, Mr. Trump wrote that the deal -- quote -- "gives the United States permanent control over security and all other needs in Greenland, completely addressing all of our many U.S. concerns. There will be no cost to the United States."

With us here to unpack this late-breaking development is Nick Schifrin.

So, Nick, what's in this deal?

Nick Schifrin:

Geoff, reminder that the U.S.-Greenland pressure has caused a rift between the United States and Europe and really led to questions in Europe about whether the United States was an ally. And so this was a huge deal when the president started this.

And I have talked to U.S. and European officials just in the last few minutes, and both sides seem to be happy. That's the real headline here. So let's look at what's exactly in this deal.

The top line is this. It provides U.S. permanent basing, access and overflight rights. What does that mean? The U.S. can create new bases on Greenland. It can fly over Greenland and it can keep that ability no matter what Greenland chooses for its own political future in any kind of self-referendum.

Number two, it bans non-NATO bases. That means no Russia, no China bases are allowed on Greenland. There's also this part, the third part, a screening mechanism for investments. That means no Chinese or Russian investments.

And, in return, this last point that is really key for Greenland and Denmark, the Greenland population can choose its political future. That means that they can choose to be independent, which some people on Greenland want to be. And no territory of Greenland is transferred to the United States.

And that, again, was the core of the rift. The president didn't say, we want a little bit more access to Greenland. He said, we want Greenland. And that is a real -- was a real threat to European sovereignty. And that's why the Europeans tonight are breathing a sigh of relief, in addition to the U.S. officials saying this is a good deal.

Geoff Bennett:

And, Nick, remind us why President Trump was so focused on Greenland in the first place.

Nick Schifrin:

He's been talking about this for years, right?

Geoff Bennett:

Right.

Nick Schifrin:

And, really, let's look at the map. And the reason that he's been so focused is that Greenland is the shortest distance between Russia and the United States, so very key for air defense.

And we have also seen Russian and Chinese ships use routes around Greenland that have been opening up because of the warming climate. And so those were the national security concerns. And, in addition, the president has simply seen Greenland as a good investment place.

And he wanted to secure American investment rights, and not Chinese and Russian investment rights when it comes to critical minerals, and it seems like he has with this deal.

Geoff Bennett:

All right, Nick Schifrin, our thanks to you.

Well sure she would, and so would any Democrat: swap out 5 free-thinking Americans with one dependent sheep? it’s their great replacement theory

/

Facebook/Hallie Shoffner

Arkansas Dem: I'd Trade Five Americans for One Illegal Alien

It’s illuminating to learn that this senatorial candidate views Americans as objects that belong to the government, to be traded or sold at their owners’ whim; very much in her Democrat party’s tradition.

Pending near Whitby

/

993 Lake Avenue, guide price $3.5 million, is reported pending after 43 days on the market. That’s a better result than the previous owners achieved: they listed it for $2.695 million in 2011 (I showed it to clients — it wasn’t worth that), and finally sold it to these owners for $1.970 million in 2016. It needed a lot of work and, presumably, that’s been done.

The listing makes no mention of the house being “sun-filled” or on “the most coveted street in town”, which is good: it’s down a long, long shared driveway leading deep into the forest.

This is good news; assuming our P&Z doesn't shoot it down

/

Development Dodged: Greenwich's Last Commercial Horse Farm Preserved

Kelsey Farm—a 10-acre fixture at 1016 Lake Avenue and Greenwich’s last remaining commercial horse farm—has changed hands after 77 years. The sale marks an exciting victory for backcountry equestrian life and open space preservation, ensuring the storied property remains a working farm rather than a high-density residential subdivision.

From Playland Ponies to Backcountry Staple

Founded in 1949 by Elise "Sis" Kelsey and her husband C.W., the farm began when Sis brought home two Playland ponies—Peter Pan and Tiny Tim—to offer winter riding lessons. That humble start grew into a beloved community institution featuring 18 horses, riding rings, a long-running Pony Day Camp, Pegasus Therapeutic Riding program and vital access to the Greenwich Riding and Trails Association’s (GRTA) 150-mile trail network.

In 1989, daughter Elise "Easy" Kelsey took over management, eventually buying out her siblings in 2019 to preserve the working farm. For generations, local families cherished its annual, unrated horse show—a relaxed, low-stress tradition where kids showed off their skills without the pressure of circuit competition.

New Ownership

This October, Ruth Nicodemus and her husband Ted Grogan will relocate Serenity Show Stables from Redding to 1016 Lake Avenue. Alongside competitive training, the farm will host The Serenity Project, a non-profit equine therapy program executive-directed by Ted. To support both programs, the owners have requested a Planning & Zoning permit to increase the farm's horse count from 14 to 24.

Our P&Z specializes in making most land use projects difficult, especially when a change would allow a commercial venture to survive, so we’ll have to wait to see what happens here. Break a leg!

"The Rule of Law" or “Rule of Judges?” He claims the first, practices the second

/

Can We Start Impeaching Judges Now?

David Strom:

Judges are supposed to use judgment. 

It's in the name of the position. They aren't supposed to become a second executive branch or override the legislature unless it violates the Constitution, and they certainly aren't supposed to become political actors who run campaigns to influence public opinion. 

…. A case in point is Judge Patrick Schiltz, who sat down with The New York Times to discuss the conspiracy among Minneapolis federal judges to thwart the Trump administration's efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens from Minnesota because they didn't like the policy. 

He explains, in loving detail, how they threw out their responsibilities to judge cases by the facts before them and created a system that pretty much automatically impeded the application of federal law. And he's proud of it as a card-carrying member of the #resistance. 

Now, I am a big fan of the rule of law, and I believe the law applies to all of us; if the president or his agents break the law, they should be held accountable. 

But the same holds true for judges: it is not their role to create systems that decide which laws apply to them and which do not, and they should not take pains to thwart the enforcement of laws they do not like. Creating systems where the decisions are not based on the application of the law and just rubber-stamping decisions not applicable to the case before you is banana republic stuff.

At issue, Schiltz says, was ICE's failure to follow court orders in a timely manner, but he leaves out a basic fact that changes the story entirely: the orders were churned out at such a pace because the judges never actually considered the cases that it was literally impossible for ICE to keep up. 

In other words, the judges intentionally made it impossible for ICE to meet the deadlines, and then the judges used that as an excuse to torture ICE's lawyers and the federal officers doing their jobs. 

One of the key issues left out of the Times story was this important fact: as the cases went up the ladder to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration was vindicated in most of them. It was the judges who were ignoring the underlying law, not the Trump administration. Most of the decisions were intentional delaying tactics, using cookie-cutter, often sloppy reasoning based on feelz, not the law. 

David Strom’s not the only Minnesota lawyer who’s appalled by this judge, there’s Bill Glahn, of PowerLine:

The rule of judges

…. Until he aged out a few months ago, Schiltz served as chief judge of the Minnesota federal district. He was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in 2006.

Schiltz and the Times look back to the period early this year when Operation Metro Surge was in full swing and habeas corpus petitions, seeking to free detainees, were being filed at a rate of more than one per hour. We’ve already debunked the lie that “hundreds” of court orders were defied by the Trump Administration. Not a single order was ever disobeyed. Not one. Not once.

As it happens, it is Judge Schiltz who is defying the law. Back on March 25, the regional 8th circuit court of appeals ruled that the applicable law says that aliens facing deportation “shall be detained.” Schiltz ended up on the wrong side of this issue.

I have been tracking every one of the more than 350 habeas cases filed in Minnesota since the 8th circuit ruling. You can see the list here.

Judge Schiltz has decided 12 cases since late March, denying two habeas petitions and releasing 10 detainees. So much for “shall be detained.” Luckily, since moving into semi-retired status, he has not taken on any new cases since late June.

It’s not just being wrong on the facts, and wrong on the law, it’s the sanctimony, Schiltz and his fellow judges, as quoted in the Times and relayed by the outlet Minnesota Reformer,

The federal judges described to the Times a chaotic environment where the number of cases ramped up as more people challenged their detention in court. The judges described being constantly near their devices in case they missed a petition.

“The cost of me enjoying a movie could be somebody waking up in New Mexico the next day when they shouldn’t have,” Schiltz told the Times.

“New” Mexico? Rest assured that this concierge, bespoke-level of 24/7 service isn’t available to mere citizens. It is only provided to those that everyone involved acknowledges to be in open defiance of America’s immigration laws.

For my friends, everything.

For my enemies, the law.

As for that interview with the Times? Schlitz may have aged out of his position as Chief Judge of the Minnesota Federal District, but he’s still active, still deciding cases, and so is very much still required to obey the Federal Code of Conduct; he didn’t. Immigration cases are still active, Schlitz is still deciding them

AI Overview

Federal judges are not allowed to grant interviews or comment publicly on active or pending cases.

The Rules on Active Cases

  • No active case comments: Under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, federal judges must not make any public statements about cases currently before them or cases that may come before them on appeal.

  • Speaking through the court: Judges communicate strictly through their written legal opinions, orders, and statements made during official court proceedings in the courtroom.

  • Avoiding bias: This ban protects the integrity, fairness, and impartiality of the judicial process so that outside public pressure does not influence a ruling.

General Public Speaking and Interviews

  • General topics: Outside of pending litigation, federal judges are generally permitted to speak at educational events, law schools, or bar associations, or discuss the general administration of justice.

  • Remaining cautious: Even during general interviews or lectures, judges avoid expressing personal views on controversial political or legal issues that could reasonably cast doubt on their impartiality i

Ask the Model Code: When may a judge talk to the press?

A: The Model Code does not expressly prohibit a judge from speaking with the press. Judges may speak with the press at any time—but not about any matter.

Educating the press and the public about the judicial process is always OK.

But judges should avoid speaking to the press or making any “public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court … or might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing” (Rule 2.10). Translation: Don’t comment on a trial that is in progress or about to start, whether or not it’s your trial.

In Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that judicial candidates may air their views on disputed legal and political issues. However, any active judge who decides to speak with the media to announce a view can be subject to discipline for failing “to perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially” (Rule 2.2).

Judges likely already know that their decision to become a judge comes with limitations on judicial speech.