http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Joe Biden while campaigning in Iowa, was talking to a 41-year-old special needs educator about his plans for strengthening collective bargaining rights for teachers in states like Iowa. After a short back and forth, Biden grabs the woman’s hand and clutches it firmly throughout the rest of the conversation.”

Apparently the Washington Examiner thinks that this is “news!” Now don’t get me wrong. I do not like Joe Biden. I think this worn-out, aged, hackneyed politician would make a lousy president. But really! This is “news?” Who cares? I suspect that good-old Joe is a sincere guy . . . mostly wrong in his political views, but sincere, and his grasping of someone’s hand is just an innocent part of his personality. Many years back I worked with a sincere friendly guy who was chummy with many of our female co-workers. Occasionally he would innocently put his hand on one of their shoulders. Did they consider this an affront? No! This was who he was. Now granted he was not campaigning to be the President, like “Old Joe,” but if he was, would his hand be “news?”
What if this male co-worker were to be nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice? And what if Christine Blakey Ford had worked with us? Would it then be okay for her to go after him because he and Ms. Blakey Ford had different opinions on certain issues? Most of us would say, “no,” but according to Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, Blakey Ford apparently felt otherwise. Katz said part of Blasey Ford’s “motivation” for coming forward with her unsubstantiated claims against Brett Kavanaugh during his contentious confirmation hearings stemmed from Kavanaugh’s views on abortion. Interestingly, I have not seen anything concerning Debra Katz’s recent statement in our local  liberal newspaper, which apparently does not consider attorney Katz’s statement as “news!”

BTW: When I read about Blasey Ford’s “motivation,” I found myself wondering what Anita Hill’s “motivation” was during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? Maybe this is something which Joe Biden could be asked, as he was a key player in Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Here his answer might well be “news!” 

Another Labor Day Weekend has come and gone.

From Townhall:

While most of the media attention this Labor Day weekend focused on the mass shooting in Odessa and Midland, Texas, where seven people were killed and 22 injured, the death toll in Chicago was the same with 36 people shot. The weekend proved to be more violent than the same time last year when four people were killed over Labor Day weekend and 23 people injured. BTW, all of the weekends in July also had near record-setting numbers of dead and wounded.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took notice, tweeting that “gun control doesn’t work, etc.” Sen. Cruz should keep his mouth shut when mayhem and murder are involved. He has no reason to state the obvious in this situation. Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot took issue with Cruz’s assessment, and lashed out, telling him to “Keep our name out of your mouth. 60% of illegal firearms recovered in Chicago come from outside Illinois – mostly from states dominated by coward Republicans like you who refuse to enact commonsense gun legislation.”

She is right about the numbers, as only 40.4% of the recovered firearms come from Illinois. The rest come from a potpourri of states, from as far away as Texas (1.8%) and Georgia (2.4%). The majority of the out of state guns (21%) come from neighboring Indiana, the northwest corner of which abuts Chicago’s South side, and surely Mayor Lori Lightfoot must know that most likely the guns are brought across the state border by Chicago thugs.

However Mayor Lightfoot should learn not to lash out, when the problem is not solely a matter of where the weapons are coming from. Granted, she is in a bad position, having inherited the city’s violent state of chaos from her predecessor, Rahm Emanuel who served as the 55th mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019. Emanuel tried his best to emasculate Chicago’s Police Force by bringing in Garry McCarthy from Newark to take over the Chicago Police Department in early 2011. McCarthy came in and cleaned house by reflexively demoting most of the police captains, which caused a large number of experienced police officers to retire. These actions of Emanuel and his hired gun, McCarthy, severely damaged the morale of the department, a blow from which it has not yet recovered. The remedy here falls directly on Mayor Lightfoot. Hopefully, she recognizes the severity of the morale problem, and realizes that only she can reverse it.

The other major issue that Emanuel dropped on Lightfoot is the sanctuary city issue. Emanuel was a big proponent of sanctuary cities, and Chicago was made a sanctuary city in 2012 when Mayor Emanuel and the City Council passed the Welcoming City Ordinance. This ordinance meant that the police could not ask about one’s immigration status or disclose that information to authorities, and that the City will not deny city services based on one’s immigration status. Considering that most of the violence on the South and West sides of the city is gang and drug related, and a considerable portion of this is related to criminal illegals, the making of Chicago a Sanctuary City seems almost counter-intuitive! Again with this issue, the remedy will fall directly onto Lightfoot, and whether or not she will have the balls to reverse this sanctuary city designation. 

The other problem which Mayor Lightfoot did not address or even mention has to do with the often light sentencing of gun offenders.  As Dana Loesch recently pointed out, “Classic example of ridiculous sentencing in Chicago allowing repeat offenders to drive gun homicide: Felon fires off gun in public, and prosecutors let him plead guilty to a reduced charge of unlawful use of a weapon & drop two counts of felony possession.”

So unless things are changed it will be “Sundown” and like “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald” for Lightfoot and Chicago!

Just about everybody agrees that there is a housing crisis in California. Even the politicians in Sacramento agree that this is a significant issue. As the price of houses continue to go up, fewer and fewer are able to afford to buy a home. This problem disproportionately affects those in the middle and lower strata of income levels, as they become increasingly unable to save the necessary down payment which goes up as the price of housing goes up. Just today in our local newspaper a sub-headline noted that the average cost of a house in San Diego had risen to $580,000. With a 20% down payment this equates to $116,000 down, and at 10%, $58,000 down . . . to purchase an average house. For those who are at the entry level in the housing market (without any equity in a present home), saving $58,000-$116,000 is nearly impossible, especially now with the cost of water rising 6% this month. (Another typical example of a “left hand, right hand” story – for another day!)

In response to this housing affordability problem, what do the Democratic politicians in Sacramento do? . . . Of course they exacerbate the problem making the cost of new homes even more expensive! Beginning in January, 2020, newly constructed homes must have solar panels. Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?According to California’s Energy Commission (CEC), that mandate will add between $8,000 and $10,000 to the cost of a new home, which translates into an increased downpayment. Sure over the long haul, the decrease in their cost of electricity will most likely pay for these solar panels, but again, this does little for those trying to scrape together enough for a downpayment.

Danielle Hale, chief economist at Realtor.com, told CNBC’s “On the Money” that the new solar requirement could undermine a segment of the real estate market that’s struggled to add to new homes relative to demand . . . those exact people that I have referenced above. (Is this another situation where the Democrats in charge in Sacramento do things that are going to have a disproportionately deleterious effect on those at the lower levels of society? It certainly seems that way to me!)

In the same newspaper, on the same day, another example of the left hand seemingly not knowing what the right hand is doing. A front page story noted that the rates to ride public transportation are going up at the beginning of next month. Again, all I can do is to shake my head when I read about the things that our enlightened Democratic City Council passes. On one hand those in charge locally are trying do discourage driving by expanding bike lanes especially downtown. However, in the next breath they have okayed the rise in the cost of public transportation . . . which will, of course, discourage the use of public transportation, and cause more people to drive. Expanding the use of bike lanes in downtown may well encourage an increased use of bicycles downtown, but 95% of the populace does not live downtown! Aye-yay-aye! (Again, not to bore you with the same theme, but doesn’t increasing the cost of public transportation disproportionately effect those at the lower levels of society that need to work, but cannot afford a car?) 

Last week in what I initially thought was a “tongue-in-cheek” letter to the editor, someone suggested that the best way to encourage the use of public transportation would be to make it free, as it is in some Scandinavian countries. The more I think about it, this “tongue-in-cheek” guy might be onto something. Hopefully, the Democratic politicians did not read his letter, as they will screw it up for sure (left hand, right hand)!

Who will end up as the Democratic candidate? This will be up in the air for a long time to come. Biden, Harris, Sanders, and Warren are the favorites at this time, and I doubt that this will change much in the next year. However, once the field gets narrowed down, the focus will be on the potential running mate. Just as important as who is the presidential nominee, is the question of who will be his/her V.P. It will be a tough 12 months for all of the  potential presidential candidates, and for sure enemies will be made! Just like the situation with Trump on the campaign trail precluded him from picking his V.P. from the multitude that were on the stage with him for the debates . . . too many “enemies” were made! The same thing could potentially happen with Democrats. For example, this point, I could not fathom Joe Biden choosing Kamala Harris as his running mate after she made a point going after him in their first debate.

 
From my perspective it will be imperative for the Dems for have a woman on the ticket. However, if Warren, Harris, or any of the other female long-shots were to be their presidential nominee, they could not have two females, one as the presidential and one as the vice presidential candidate. If they do end up with a female nominee for president, the VP candidate on the ticket would be . . . Who? This would be a big problem for the Dems. Biden would be off of the short list. But who would be on the list? Buttigieg, O’Rourke, de Blasio, and Castro either have too little experience on the national level or have alienated too many people. Unlikely to be one of the present or ex-governors, senators, or House members, all of whom have poor name recognition, and bring little to the table. Tom Steyer or Andrew Yang? Don’t make me laugh! What about Bernie Sanders? The way to make sure that the Sanders’ backers vote, is to place him on the ticket, but Bernie is just too old, and his ideas are now hackneyed and no longer fresh. If Sen. Elizabeth Warren gets the nod, then Sen. Cory Booker is a possible V.P. candidate, whereas if Sen. Kamala Harris wins the nomination, Harris/ Booker would not be a viable potentially winning option (two people of color). At this point I see only one viable combination of a female presidential candidate and a male vice-presidential candidate. . . Warren/Booker. However, this would be a loser for the Dems, and a winner for Trump!
Now what about if Biden wins the Democratic nomination. Who would his V.P. be? Remember Biden would be the oldest person elected President, and you can be absolutely sure that Donald Trump will stress Biden’s age over and over and over again! However as I said before, I think that the Dems will need to have a female somewhere on the ticket. Voters would have to seriously consider if his V.P. could step up and do the job. I think that the top females, Warren and Harris, are too liberal for Biden. Ditto for Klobuchar and Gillebrand. Williamson, ha-ha! His best choice might be Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, but Biden/Gabbard would be a loser for the Dems, and a winner for Trump!

There is however one other potential female vice-presidential candidate who would fire up the base, and would even attract the votes of many independents . . . Obama!      No, not Barack, but Michelle! In 2008 and 2012, the winning ticket was Obama/Biden. Could the potential winner in 2020 be Biden/Obama?

One Thursday last month while waiting in line to order at In-N-Out, I noticed an unusual site in line just in front of me. I am not sure exactly how to describe Pat/Pat, who was not only wearing a dress, but also had make-up and lipstick on his/her face. The dilemma was that he/she was sporting more than a five-o’clock shadow, and had thick black hair on both calves above the pumps on his/her feet. Not cool.

Years ago I would have chuckled to myself and just shook my head, however on that particular Thursday I had a feeling of sadness for this unfortunate individual with his/her gender confusion. Later I subsequently wondered if he/she was going to get gender transformation surgery . . . irreversible gender transformation surgery, and also simultaneously wondered if he/she had the necessary insurance coverage to pay for this expensive surgery.

By the next day Pat/Pat was no longer on my radar, and for the last month I did not think about gender dysphoria . . . until this morning when I read about one of the latest rulings to come down from The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involved 31-year-old Adree Edmo, an inmate in an Idaho prison, who was born a male but identifies as female. Edmo sued the state of Idaho for refusing to pay for his gender reassignment surgery. Not unexpectedly, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the State of Idaho must pay for his/her gender reassignment surgery. Oh yeah, BTW Mr./Ms. Edmo is currently serving three to 10 years for sexual abuse of a child.

After reading this I said to myself, “Let me get this straight. The state of Idaho (i.e. the taxpayers of the state of Idaho) must pay upwards of $75,000-$100,000 for sex reassignment surgery for a sex offender.” Granted, The Ninth Circuit never really uses any common sense when it makes these rulings, but if this ruling stands, there will inevitably be some not unforeseen consequences.

Consider the situation of Pat/Pat noted above. He/she wants gender reassignment surgery, but cannot afford it. A dilemma that can potentially be solved by committing and being convicted of a sex abuse offense or any criminal offense, and once imprisoned for his/her crime, demand sex reassignment surgery. Wallah, if in prison in a state which is under the auspices of The Ninth Circuit, he/she will get the surgery paid for by the taxpayers of that state. As Chuck Larabee, the retired black marine on Last Man Standing, would say,”Not cool!”

This will never happen, you say. Actually, there is another much less expensive but potential practical solution to this problem:  When someone in prison demands sex reassignment surgery, release him/her from prison, so that the taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for this questionably effective surgery! Again,”Not cool!”

Obviously, neither of the above would be an acceptable solution for anybody. Is there a solution?

Yes, I have one!!! Create a separate fund for “prisoner sex reassignment surgery (PSRS).” Anyone who thinks that a prisoner deserves to have whatever he/she wishes in terms of this type of surgery, can then contribute to this fund. When enough money for this surgery is contributed to this PSRS escrow account, then the surgery can proceed! I would predict that this escrow account would be funded only by those on the left . . . if at all. It is commonly said that those on the left of the political spectrum have an easy time spending other people’s money, as in this situation is evidenced by this decision by The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I wonder just how much money those jurists Is to on The Ninth Circuit would actually contribute to Pat’s PSRS fund?

Another challenger is stepping into the ring, the political ring, that is. With umpteen people already thinking that they have a chance at the nomination, does America really need another disillusioned individual spouting off as to why he is running for the highest office in the land ? Whether we need it or not we now have another, as the candidate announced in an exclusive interview with George Stephanopolis (G.S.) on his ABC Sunday news show.

The new candidate announced, “Friends, I’m in. We can’t take four more years of Donald Trump. And that’s why I’m running for President. It won’t be easy, but bravery is never easy. But together, we can do it.”

Although I did not listen to the entire interview, I can imagine that the rest went something like this:
G.S.: “Why do you think that you are qualified to be the President?” New candidate: “As you know, George, I do have a radio talk show.”
G.S.: “Do you have any experience in politics?” New candidate: “As you know, George, I have just as much experience in Congress as Beto O’Rourke, as we both served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives.”
G.S. : “Like Beto, after two years in the House, did you then run for the U.S.Senate?” New candidate: “As you know, George, my district was redrawn in 2012, and in my remapped district I was then defeated in 2013.”
G.S.: “Is there anything else that my audience should know about your candidacy?” New candidate: “ As you know, George, I am not a racist even though in 2014, I was pulled off the air during my radio show for using racist slurs. I do stand by my previous “birther” comments that I made during former President Barack Obama’s time in office and I still say that Obama was only elected because he was black.”
G.S.: “Perhaps with your being a new candidate, ABC can arrange for a special debate including yourself, Michael Bennett, Bill de Blasio, Steve Bullock, John Delaney, and Wayne Messam. You get the idea!” New candidate: “But as you know, George, I am a Republican and the rest of those names that you mentioned are all Democrats.”
G.S.: “I am well aware of your political affiliation, Mr. Walsh. This special debate would be a “loser’s debate,” limited only to those ego-maniacs, like yourself, who have no chance whatsoever. However, Joe, to be fair we could include in this debate, Bill Weld, another “no chance in hell” Republican, who has declared himself as a candidate, even though Mr. Weld has even less name recognition than you!” New candidate: “Thank you, George, for getting my sprint to the finish-line campaign off to a rousing start!” 

I am not making up this Joe Walsh story, even though, believe it or not, I did make up the dialog of the interview. Joe Walsh did actually declare himself to be a candidate for the Republican nomination.

Who are these yo-yos? . . . Bennett, de Blasio, Bullock, Delaney, etc. and now Joe Walsh. Stephanopolis’ show must be in bad shape if he has to have the likes of Joe Walsh on his show.

BTW: My response to Joe Walsh’s announcement . . . YAWN!

The response of Tim Murtaugh, President Trump’s campaign spokesman . . . “Whatever.”

“We are right! We know what is best for you (wkwibfy). Actually not only do we know what is best for you, but we know what is best for everybody!” Whenever you hear this, or in essence what amounts to the same thing, you should think, “danger,” as these wkwibfy-ers are much more interested in taking away another of yours and my personal freedoms. This way of thinking is becoming more and more often a standard in California, and it is growing, basically because this “we know what is best for you” (wkwibfy) is one of the standard tenets of the present liberal religion here in California. Year after year, the liberal Democratic State Legislature passes bill after bill that espouses this philosophy, and it has spread down to the local community levels. 

This week the city of Santee, a suburb in San Diego County, capitulated to the “wkwibfy” dictum. Santee had been the final holdout for one personal freedom in San Diego County . . . the personal freedom of smoking in a public space, specifically in its city parks, which the last time I checked were open air parks.

Before I go any further, let me explain my position on smoking: 

-Smoking is bad! 

-People die because of their smoking – e.g. my father.

-There is little or no redeeming value to smoking, and it should be discouraged.

-Second hand smoke can be deleterious to exposed individuals.

-Smoking is enclosed spaces (bars, restaurants, airplanes, buses, etc) should be      frowned upon as this practice exposes others to second hand smoke.

-There is no smoking in my house. Those that want can smoke in my open-air back     yard.

-I do not smoke, and no one in my family smokes.

However the fact that I am 100% against smoking does not mean that I would have the chutzpah to demand that an individual cannot smoke. If he/she wants to smoke, as long as it does not infringe on someone else, then that is a personal choice that each individual should be able to make on his/her own. 

Back to Santee where smoking in public places was outlawed this week. The thrust of this restriction was to insure that smoking was prohibited in parks – open air parks. Can anyone explain how cigarette smoke, drifting up into the atmosphere can do any harm to anyone? I am not aware of any scientific data that confirms that smoke from a cigarette is harmful to anybody when it drifts into the open air. Certainly if a smoker blows his/her smoke directly into the face of an asthmatic child, this could aggravate the asthma. Likewise second hand smoke in an enclosed area is deleterious for asthmatics and others with pulmonary disease. However, that is not what this about. This latest Santee ban is very similar to present banning of smoking at San Diego beaches where the wind constantly blows in from the ocean. At the beach any cigarette smoke is instantly dissipated up into the open air. 

Now if the argument is that the cigarette-butt-litter problem makes it imperative to ban the cause of that butt-litter, then that is a different story. Perhaps substantial fines for littering cigarette butts would be appropriate, as it is with any other kind of littering. However in Santee the case was unabashedly not about the litter problem. As Santee City Councilman Stephen Houlihan said, “All that matters is that the parks of Santee will be 100% smoke-free for the children, the elderly, the asthmatic population, and for the people of planet Earth.” 

“The people of Planet Earth!!” Take a guess as to whether or not Mr.Houlihan is a member of the “wkwibfy” church!

Is a recession coming? There appears to be an intense media drive to convince us that a recession is coming in the near future. Some of the talking heads on MSNC are not only predicting a recession, but are trying to convince us that a recession will be a good thing! . . . perhaps a good thing for most MSNBC viewers who have a vested interest in anything which is anti-Trump. Of course, President Trump says, “I do not think we are having a recession. We’re doing tremendously well.”

Forget MSNBC and ignore what President Trump thinks for a second. Is a recession coming or not? What do those who are supposed to be more learned about the economy think about the question of upcoming recession or no recession? A survey of economists by the National Association of Business Economists reveals that 74% of U.S. business economists expect a recession by the end of 2021. This number is down from 77% in the same survey that was done six months ago. In the same survey, 38% felt that there would be a recession in 2020 – down from 42% six months ago. Within the past week Charles Paine had two separate articles on Townhall Finance. One was titled “Recession? Wishful Thinking While Ignoring the Facts.” The second, “Bottom Line: No Evidence of a Recession.” Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, recently sounded FDR-esque when he said. “We have nothing to fear about a recession right now, except for fear of recession.” . . .  whatever that means!

So what are we left with? 

What would you say, if I told you that one of the best ways to predict “recession or no recession” is to go to Elkhart, Indiana. That’s right, according to the Wall Street Journal, Elkhart, Indiana! That is because Elkhart, Indiana is the capital of this nation’s recreational-vehicle industry. Waning sales of luxury items is often one of the early signs of an upcoming slowdown, and multiyear drops in recreational-vehicle shipments have preceded the last three recessions. Shipments of recreational-vehicles fell 4.1% last year, and shipments to dealers have fallen about 20% this year! This makes it look like a recession is coming! However, some RV shipment skeptics attribute this year’s slowdown merely to overbuilding after an increase in demand in 2017 which left dealers with more than enough inventory. The RV Industry Association is, in fact, forecasting a 2.5% increase in shipments to dealers in 2020. So maybe there will be no recession after all!

I guess the final answer to the question of “recession or no recession” in our future is still up in the air. From my perspective, if a recession is coming, hopefully it will hold off until after November 3, 2020. 🤞🤞

Let’s assume that Joe Biden will be the Democratic presidential nominee. At this point that is a reasonable assumption as he has a significant lead in the latest CNN telephone poll taken August 15-18. (Biden = 29%; Sanders = 15%; Warren = 14%). Is this good news or bad news for my Democratic friends? Although Joe is not nearly as far left as most of the other horses in the Democratic stable, his does have some problems as far as his electability.
Everyone is  cognizant that Joe is gaffe prone . . . his latest being that both MLK and RFK were assassinated in the late 70s. There is not enough time or enough space in this piece to detail his long litany of one faux pas after another. However, from my perspective his multiple verbal blunders are not his biggest problem. 

Joe also has a history of “stretching the truth,” and during his 1988 aborted run for the Democratic presidential nomination, these “mis-speaks” were his downfall. For example, he did not graduate in the top half of his class (in college he ranked 506 out of 688 and in law school he ranked 76 out of 85.) Also his statements back then about getting three degrees in college, about getting a full scholarship to law school, and about marching in the civil rights movement . . . all false! However these past “creative memories,” from my perspective are not his biggest problem.

His proclivity to plagiarism in the past as well as his recent flip-flopping on certain issues are likewise not his biggest problems. Likewise, Joe’s biggest problem is not that he is a white heterosexual male, as his opponent in the 2020 election would also be the same.

From my perspective, J-o-e’s biggest problem is that he is o-l-d. He was born on November 20, 1942 which means that, if elected, he would be 78 years old at his January 2021 inauguration! Recall that President Reagan was 69 in 1980 when he was first elected and was “only 77 years old” at the end of his second term in 1988. Comparatively speaking our present President is “a relative youngster” when compared to Joe, as President Trump was 70 when he was elected in 2016, and will be 74 at the time of the 2020 election. Indeed Joe is o-l-d, and this is his biggest problem, despite that the far-left Politico recently ran with the headline “Why Fears About Biden’s Age are Overblown.” “Good try! But no kewpie doll!” 

Realistically speaking the media will have a difficult time arguing that Joe’s advanced a-g-e is a good thing! According to left-leaning Politico, Joe would have only a 79% chance of completing his first term if he were to be elected. Keep in mind that this is the same Politico that said that John McCain’s age of 71 was “a legitimate issue” when he ran against Barack Obama in 2008. But apparently to the left a-g-e is no longer “a legitimate issue” in 2020?

Let the s-p-i-n  begin!

An article in the Wall Street Journal on 8/16/19 stated that President Trump has expressed some interest in purchasing Greenland. As expected his critics have already come out against this, and are describing it as merely a “legacy” item. A legacy Item? Really!

Let’s first look at some past history. Who was the President when the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia? We have heard of this acquisition as “Seward’s Folly,” because William Seward was the Secretary of State at the time. But who was the President? First a little history: In 1859 Russia, who had owned Alaska since 1744, offered to sell the territory because of its debt from the Crimean War, and also supposedly to avoid Great Britain from seizing it in case of war. (The purchase was finalized 4 months before Canada became a country.) Interestingly  the U.S. initially said ,”no,” but finally in 1867 the U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. Apparently the decision to purchase Alaska passed Congress by one vote! (Amazing How just one vote changed the course of history!) But again, does anybody remember who was the President in 1867? Not exactly a legacy item for . . . President Andrew Johnson!

Ultimately Alaska became a state. Does anybody remember which President admitted Alaska into the U.S., as a state? I had no idea, before I looked it up. Not exactly a legacy item for . . . President Dwight D. Eisenhower!

Other than the Louisiana Purchase can anyone recall another historical U.S. purchase? In 1917 the U.S. purchased “Danish West Indies,” and subsequently renamed it the U.S. Virgin Islands. Who was the President of the U.S. in 1917? Not exactly a legacy item for . . .  President Woodrow Wilson!
Let’s forget for a second that perhaps purchasing Greenland is a Trump idea. Is it a good idea? Has purchasing Greenland ever been considered before? In fact, it has been considered before. Way back in 1867, the U.S. State Department thought that Greenland would an “ideal acquisition,” but that idea never got off of the ground. However, many many years later another U.S.President actually made an offer to buy Greenland from Denmark. Who was this U.S.President? Does anybody know? A potential legacy item for . . . President Truman, whose offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark for $100 million was refused.
One might ask, “Why Greenland?” Greenland is rich in minerals. In 2018 China expressed interest in building three airfields there, probably because of the strategic position of Greenland. The U.S. already has an base in northern Greenland, Thule Air Base, which is well north of the Arctic Circle, again for strategic defense purposes.
Could it be that the purchasing of Greenland by the U.S. might be good for all involved? Who might benefit?

Greenland is 90% covered with ice, and has a population of only 56,000, mostly Greenlandic Inuits, who have a high incidence of suicide, alcoholism, and unemployment. With the U.S. on the scene, almost immediately there would be a plethora of new jobs, which would then most probably lead to less alcoholism and less suicide. This sounds like a winner for the Inuit people.

Denmark would be able to escape the $591 million that goes annually into Greenland’s budget. Denmark would probably require some sort of payback on the minerals subsequently discovered in Greenland, and both the U.S. and Denmark would benefit.

With its strategic importance, the U.S would undoubtedly benefit, and would probably expand its defense capabilities there.The more I think about it, the U.S. purchasing Greenland  . . . What a tremendous legacy item for President Trump!