Alan Zweibel

They don't need to get a warrant for every illegal that they arrest. They need to get warrants to enter someone's home. Some might make all kinds of hysterical claims like this is an emergency situation. or that Democrats imported illegals. Or that the influx of illegals could be classed as an invasion by foreign terrorists and criminals. They are certainly entitled to make all kinds of claims. What they aren't allowed to do is use them to circumvent Constitutional protections. And since when can an executive order overrule the Constitution?

Now Porter stansberry is a name I recognize: In 2002, Stansberry sent out an email offering to sell for $1,000 the name of a company purportedly about to obtain a contract to dismantle nuclear weapons for Russia.[5] The Securities and Exchange Commission sued him in 2003[6] on this basis and for his newsletters containing "nothing more than baseless speculation and outright lies",[5] accusing him of a "scheme to defraud public investors by disseminating false information in several Internet newsletters."[2][5] The case went to trial in 2005,[7] and a federal court found that Stansberry had sent out a newsletter to subscribers predicting one company's stock, USEC Inc., would increase by over 100%. Stansberry maintains his information came from a company executive; the court ruled he fabricated the source.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Stansberry

You don't seem to understand that it isn't the fact of masking itself that's the problem. It's the fact that ICE agents are masked while they are engaged in enforcement actions. If ICE agents want to pose masked when they're guarding parked vehicles in the middle of nowhere, no one would have a problem with that.

No, I don't have have any tine or use for people who don't put their claims into writing. The thing is it's a lot easier to fact check and analyze the written word than it is to do the same for videos. So, my presumption is, that if they won't put it in writing, why should I bother to pay attention to them?

This is a remarkable demonstration of ignorance. The Constitution does not Grant a president the right to appoint US attorneys without the approval of the Senate. The law does allow the president to appoint a tempory US attorney for one 120 day period. But that's it. Anyway, riclag's post is instructional in that it shows how ignorance and support for Trump or symbiotic.

The door was only the leader of a corrupt band of thugs who still rule Venezuela. In fact, Maduro's number two person, Delcy Rodriguez, was praised by Trump as being a "terrific person." And while it's true that Venezuela ran down his oil facilities, it was the United States that kept them from extracting the full amount they're run down infrastructure could still extract. And given thatthe same thugs are still in power, your hope that Trump will take care of Venezuelans is bizarre to say the least As for the oil reserves in Venezuela having monumental implications for AI, why? First off, as has been pointed out before, Hugo Chavez decided to arbitrarily raise Venezuela's proven reserves from 100 billion barrels to 300 billion barrels Secondly, even if there were any additional 200 billion barrels of Venezuelan crude in proven reserves, how would that affect the AI revolution? Very little electric power is generated by petroleum. It's a lot more expensive to use than coal which is more expensive to use than renewables. or natural gas, which is also now being supplanted by renewables because they're more cost competitive. Most new electric power coming online in the world today is coming from solar and wind because they're cheaper.

Why should anyone pay attention to this Lena Petrova person? Looks like just another panicmonger.

Will one of the few people riclag hasn't canceled tell him that "Daddy" has found out that his disobedient children just demonstrated that they won't put up with his BS. Daddy backed down bigtime.

Yes, Carney was talking about a new order. Not a referral what right wingers talk about but the fact that Trump has ruptured the ties that used to bind western democracies. So, of course, these western democracies have recognized the drastic change that Trump has created. In fact, The US has a treaty with Denmark dating from 1951 that allows it pretty much free rein to do as it pleases in Denmark when it comes to defense. So, no, the US doesn't need to own Greenland in order to defend it. I'm guessing you believed Trump when he said that the US was going after Venezuela because of drug trafficking or the fact that it was a dictatorship when, in fact, his real motive was Venezuela's oil. Same kind of thinking applies to Trump's real motive for trying to grab Greenland.

Maybe this scared Trump off?

Well, this is pretty much par for the course. When Trump does a u-turn, his fans suddenly are stricken with a selective case of amnesia.

He actually violated treaties with his threats.

What difference does that make? Various world leaders have come to a locale to talk about various world trade issues. Do you believe that they are there to talk to the officers of the WEF rather than with each other? That the WRF somehow dictates what these world leaders talk about? That the issues featured weren't planned in advance in consultation with various governments?

Not sure what their levearge is but you're sure it exists? He's addressing the leaders of various nations who happen to be at an event hosted by the WEF. As for who agreed to globalization? Really? Maybe you should look up a thing called GATT.

What's insane is claiming that the WEF imposed globalization on all Western countries. What is their leverage? Or did they use sorcery?

Clearly, it was obvious to the dullest blades. Not so much to the rest of us. TACO prevails: Stocks jump after Trump calls off Greenland tariffs US stocks ripped higher late in Wednesday's session as Trump walked back his latest tariff threats. The president said he had reached a framework deal with NATO countries over Greenland. The president soothed markets earlier after he said he wouldn't use force to take over Greenland. https://archive.ph/D3A62#selection-2007.0-2019.97

They are what's called Constitutional monarchies. Do you understand what the means as far as the power of their titular royals go?

Because Lutnick talks a good game about sovereignty, but in reality doesn't have much respect for it. And whatever the motives of Greenlanders may be in choosing to remain with Greenland or not, what has that got to do with Trump's attacks on national sovereignty? But you did get it right about the outcome of Trump's threats. And it was educational, too, since it shows that Trump can't be counted on to keep his word.

"When pressed on the issue of Greenland, Lutnick said “our national security people are on it,” and added that “the Western Hemisphere matters to the United States of America.” He was later asked how his emphasis on the importance of sovereignty could be reconciled with the ongoing threats to take control of Greenland in the face of opposition from both the territory and its parent state, Denmark, and to impose new retaliatory tariffs on countries that have criticized the plan." https://www.newsweek.com/us-tells-davos-globalization-failed-us-11392980

Trump steps back from the brink on Greenland. But the damage has been done. The president’s effort to acquire Greenland, even with the threat of force off the table, has changed the way allies see the U.S. After two weeks of escalating threats toward Europe, President Donald Trump blinked on Wednesday, backing away from the unthinkable brink of a potential war against a NATO ally during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos... But his continued heckling of allies as “ungrateful” for not simply giving the U.S. “ownership and title” of what he said was just “a piece of ice” did little to reverse a deepening sentiment among NATO leaders and other longtime allies that they can no longer consider the United States — for 80 years the linchpin of the transatlantic alliance — a reliable ally. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/21/trump-greenland-military-deal-00739427 Trump Drops Tariff Threat After Meeting Yields ‘Framework’ of Future Greenland Deal President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he had reached what he called a “framework of a future deal” with NATO over Greenland, easing a standoff with European allies and backing away from plans to impose new tariffs that had rattled global markets for days. The announcement, delivered first in a post on his Truth Social platform and later amplified in brief remarks to reporters, followed a meeting with Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Trump said the understanding would avert tariffs that had been scheduled to take effect on Feb. 1 on goods from eight European countries that had resisted his demands over Greenland. https://time.com/7355850/trump-greenland-deal-tariffs-davos/ Does the "framework of a future deal" mean the same thing as a "concept of a plan"?

Actually. It's more. Fitting the plane out is expected to cost anywhere from a bit less than $400 million up to 1.5 billion. The Trump foundation gets to take the 747 after Trump leaves office.

29% of Americans say they would support the U.S. purchasing Greenland, while 51% are opposed Republicans are significantly more likely to support purchasing Greenland than they are to support using military force to take control of it (58% vs. 22%) https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53917-american-knowledge-greenland-varies-few-support-military-takeover-january-16-19-2026-economist-yougov-poll https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/53897-most-americans-remain-opposed-to-seizing-greenland-with-military-force

Given the sentiments you've expressed here, if they're typical of your compatriots, you might want to look closer to home.

Fair enough, I should have specified that I was only referring to those who have permanently transplanted themselves outside of the USA.

Apparently, the distinction is obvious to you, but not the significance of it. Tourists will return to the United States, expats choose not to live in it.