What's Going on With Greenland?

The media make Trump out to be some cartoonish despot intent on ripping Greenland from the hands of poor Denmark.

The slightly more informed make out that this is an attack by Trump on NATO and the alliance.

In reality, there's a lot more in the background going on.

The main reason for Trump's claim on Greenland, is it's of huge strategic significance in the North American geographic area. It provides land for bases that America uses to defend itself against the Russian threat.

Under normal circumstances, Greenland under Danish control is a friend to the Americans and gladly accedes to any requests for land for American requirements.

Trump's claims reflect the breakdown in the relationship between American and the European Elites.

It's quite clear that the European political class is no friend of Trumps. 

We have seen it with the comments by David Lammy and other European political leaders. The European political elite is staunchly socialist (Communist) in it's political outlook (the reasons for which I've already blogged about) and hate Trump. 

Trump is airing in public in his typical way that he regards Europe not as a political ally. He regards Denmark and their leadership not as political allies also. He's stating that if the attacks on Trump, America and American companies (especially tech companies) and the First Amendment continue, he will use American force to "stabilise" the Greenland situation.

Right now, Greenland under Danish control is not considered as an allied administration by the Trump government.   

What does America do when it sees effectively hostile forces in close proximity? It neutralises them. Greenland is fast becoming the new Cuba.

All I'm hearing at the moment on the media is that Europe must band together against America. 

Bad Move guys.....

And just think, if Europe succumbs to the Muslim influx in 10 or 20 year's time, all the nukes, all the weapons, territory and manpower that Europe possesses will be in alignment against America. By then NATO is just a note in a history book anyway. 

Trump is just ahead of the curve.

Why Asylum Seekers Get Preferential Treatment

 ,,, And if you think they don't, you are an idiot.

I have commented on many post on X, YouTube regarding asylum seekers getting preferential treatment when it comes to housing, and why that is the case, and I think I need to flesh it out here to sort of put a pin in it, so to speak.

Anyone who says asylum seekers don't get preferential treatment is delude, lying, or just plain misinformed. Our government has, by the treaties it has signed up to, given asylum seekers statutory status, which means legally they are bound to provide services to them. Where no such statutory duties exist for normal citizens born here.

The first, is the 1951 Refugee Convention:

Core principles of the 1951 Convention

The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

The document outlines the basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, including the right to housing, work and education while displaced so they can lead a dignified and independent life. It also defines a refugee’s obligations to host countries and specifies certain categories of people, such as war criminals, who do not qualify for refugee status.

In addition, it details the legal obligations of the States that are party to one or both of these instruments.

The convention, as stated above, disallows the receiving state from instantly returning the asylum seeker, or refusing entry to the country. We have to receive them.

The next point is that under the Convention, asylum seekers are granted certain rights, by law (because they are part of the convention we signed up to).

So, asylum seekers as stated, have the right to housing, education, medical care, etc.

Again, under UK law, ordinary citizens have no such "rights". Which is why funds and services are given to asylum seekers before ordinary citizens.

So when politicians say that asylum seekers aren't at the head of the queue when it comes to housing. They are lying. The 1951 Convention give those asylum seekers the right to housing. A right that you don't have. So they get put in housing before you and your family, who have lived here since birth and have been on the housing list for decades.

It's also why preferential medical services are provided to Asylum Seekers. That's why they get access to a Doctor nurse and dentist with almost private standards of care. You don't get that, because the government aren't forced to provide it to you by law. But asylum seekers...

This is the loophole exploited by traffickers. EVERYONE that arrives in a dinghy instantly claims asylum, whether they are fleeing a war, persecution or even if they are not. 

I'd say they aren't, given that France, the last country they came from, isn't some bomb-ravaged craterscape.

But, that's the mechanism they exploit.

But now here comes the double-whammy of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is the law that we signed up to that affords even criminals the right to family life. So for instance we already have to house asylum seekers, but the ECHR now makes it law that we can't just put them anywhere, we have to consider their family. By family, that's their extended family of cousins, aunties, etc. In other words we have to put them all together. By law. Creating an enclave for them. Even wondered why they all appear in a single area? Now you know.

We can't say "we've found a suitable house for you in Scotland". They have rights. The right to live with the other 34 members of their family that have come across in a rubber dinghy. 

While we are considering their asylum application, if the rights they have don't give them enough, if they go out and steal stuff, it's the ECHR that stops us saying "Sorry mate, but by stealing you have proved you're not the type of person we would like to accept into our country" and deport them. 

First, the process takes so long that it gives them time to find some desperate fat ugly bird, have sex with them and have a kid. And then instantly the asylum seeker gains family ties to the UK through the poor sprog born in this country. 

Just to interject, there is a correlation that most fat ugly birds are left-leaning politically, so that's a driver for why they would want a never-ending stream of "boyfriends" from Somalia. 

Of course there are only so many fat ugly birds, the supply is limited. the desperation of the asylum seekers mounts up. Their instructions are to have sex with a girl in the UK and get her pregnant. 

So we get desperate asylum seekers trying to shag any girl or woman they see. Possibly a driver for the massive number of rapes we are seeing perpetrated by them. That's not to make light of the crime of rape. But if you are from Somalia and you've been told the gravy train absolutely relies on you getting a British girl pregnant, it is your primary mission to avoid being sent back to your shithole country, then you're gonna do the deed with anything bar a corpse. Finesse, courting, charm, all go out the window. 

And anything old enough to get pregnant is fair game too.

Shag the bird, get her pregnant, make sure she doesn't have an abortion (tell her it's against your religion or something) and has the kid and then you are set for life with those welfare payments you and your 34 cousins can send to your gangster Gran back home.

This just scrapes the surface of the drivers and legislation involved.

But if anyone says that asylum seekers don't get preferential treatment, our better treatment, or are prioritised above normal citizens, then  tell them they are talking bollocks. They are, because it is the law.