Take Your Compass

#iamCharlie - Worldview, culture, faith, more...

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@twh99 @LelandVittert @IlhanMN Ditto

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@Empty_America There are multiple answers

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@brad_polumbo It's an improvement.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (https://t.co/VxZ1Q47jsh), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it.

Long story short - which may surprise some - the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.

Let's look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.

1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent."

It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement."

2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities" at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig." Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent," a US interest rather than a NATO one.

Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland" and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement." What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.

Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use" of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.

3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.

The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea," but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland."

The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea."

That's it: "May" becomes "shall," and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters," i.e. submarines.

4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.

5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state" (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information...within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties."

Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.

6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US.

The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." The new one lists the defense of "the American continent" as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role" of the United States military as well as "the United States' indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland," and names the establishment of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense system as a key goal.

So, to sum up:
- The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not
- The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)
- Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the "implementation details"
- Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island
- And all of it is now justified by the defense of "the American continent"

I don't know in which universe this even remotely "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination," as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (https://t.co/dHOavrPB3r).

Yes, the preamble of the text cynically "reaffirms" Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but "recognized sovereignty" 🤷

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

Hear, hear!

[Megan Basham @megbasham]

Jonah, the “intellectual Nerf bat” here is your inability to draw a distinction between what the constitution protects regarding religious liberty and the worldview that INSPIRED that protection, which was explicitly Christian, as Charlie Kirk so ably demonstrated here.

The American Founding was the political fruit of a people formed by Scripture, church, and a Christian account of man, which includes that we are created equal, born fallen, accountable to God, and endowed with rights no king may revoke.

John Adams made the point EXPLICITLY when he told Jefferson that “the general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity,” and that those principles are “as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” (Perhaps you have not read this?)

That is WHY the Declaration speaks of a Creator, of Nature’s God, and of rights that are unalienable rather than granted by Parliament.

A Christian worldview supplied the moral architecture that religious liberty is not something the government permits us and it also recognized that government itself is limited because it stands under the higher moral law of the Creator.

James Madison also illustrated why the founders protected religious liberty the Virginia Declaration of Rights when he wrote that “Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”

They even knew such a constitution cannot survive a people who have abandoned the habits of Christianity. (Or what morality did you think Adams was referring to in his oft-quoted line, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”)

Washington said the same in his Farewell Address (“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.”)

So I suggest a little more reading and that you try to think in distinctions between cause and effect.

[Darwin to Jesus @darwintojesus]

Christianity is true, defend it.

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@megbasham @JonahDispatch What a strange community note. It doesn't actually add anything other than agreeing with Megan that we have religious liberty.

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@CA_Worman @megbasham @JonahDispatch It's definitely a strange community note. It doesn't actually add anything other than agreeing with Megan that we have religious liberty. I think you're right that it's a weak attempt at a gotcha.

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@megbasham @pickledswans @JonahDispatch Absolutely

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@megbasham @JonahDispatch Illiterate and moronic.

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@BMcGrewvy That's some high level scumbaggery right there.

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@SohrabAhmari @RichardHanania Damn, that's some high level scumbaggery right there.

[Bethel McGrew @BMcGrewvy]

Boomers get a bad rap. But the average age of a 9/11 victim was 39. The average 9/11 victim was a boomer.

Boomer men making split-second choices to help colleagues. Boomer women on the planes coolly relaying info. Boomer police and firemen.

Give the boomers their flowers.

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@itxMaggei 52

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@Conley76 That's a good community note. It would be a great community note if it pointed out the guy is a flat out liar.

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@Conley76 That's a crazy lie. This level of lying should be studied. Intentional gaslighting? Memory lapse? Pathological liar? Insanity?

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@EveKeneinan Leftism is an inversion of reality.

[John Ʌ Konrad V @johnkonrad]

We had a good thing, Canada.

A quiet arrangement.

You kept watch up north, didn’t make noise, didn’t screw around.

We covered the heavy lifting.

You backed us up, built a few ships, some icebreakers, flew the flag at NATO, pretended to be a country that gave a damn. We saluted your officers and let you slide when things got bloody.

We asked for help and you sent 26,000 to places like Korea while we sent 1.1 million. We suffered more deaths than your total deployed forces and that was ok because you were nice and you had to remain focused on keeping the north defended.

Now look at you.

Your navy’s a joke, less combat power than a drug cartel with Zodiac boats.

Your GDP’s circling the drain, and instead of fixing it, you’re too busy playing dress-up at climate conferences and pretending that TikTok diplomacy will stop a hypersonic missile. You have 3 rusty submarines in commission and a few at the Edmonton Mall plus a few small frigates. You have more generals and Admiral than working tanks. You spend less per GDP on defense than Albania or Slovakia.

You won’t spend.
You won’t build.
You won’t fight.

You have the longest arctic shoreline in the world but most of your unimpressive “icebreaker” fleet are small patrol craft that would be crushed in heavy ice.

You are a Pacific Nation but couldn’t defend your selves from the Chinese fishing fleet let alone their Coast Guard or Navy.

But you’ll sure as hell talk.

Talk about “shared values” while you freeload off the defense umbrella we pay for. Talk about “peacekeeping” while China cuts your undersea cables and Russia maps your Arctic. Talk about how important your role is in NATO knowing full well your only authority is the billets, joint exercises and training we give you,

You think this continent defends itself?

You think because you’re polite and bilingual and serve maple syrup at the G7, you get a pass?

You think getting angry about memes will protect you from ismalocommies already inside the gate?

That someone else, USA, will show up when it gets hot in the Arctic or North Pacific?

Not gonna happen because we don’t have a single icebreaker that hasn’t suffered a catastrophic loss and no longer have a fleet capable of evacuating our bases in the Pacific let alone defending your coast.

You had a good thing.
You could’ve been useful.
You chose to be a burden.
And when the day comes, and it will come, don’t expect a call back.

We’re done babysitting the unarmed.

You had two jobs. Two. Stop the spread of Communism by nodding along with our anti-marxist rhetoric and defending your own coast. You have failed miserably at both.

And now you’re no longer even nice. You roll over to china and waive fentanyl through our border while booing the American flag and banning our products.

Then when we call out the truth you start pulling on our sympathy strings with posts talking about what great allies you were in WW2 and Korea.

I love and admire all you lost and all Canadians who served but that was a long time ago and I absolutely zero respect for today’s Royal Canadian “navy” or your politicians.

We had a great thing going Canada and paid you trillions in sweetheart deals like NAFTA, open borders and all our best intel vis five eyes.

All you had to do was be nice, not elect commies and patrol your own coast in return. You blew it.

[Take Your Compass @TakeYourCompass]

@AllenChris163 @GrahamAllen Doesn't sound shitty, sounds absolutely evil.