From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

The media and the intelligentsia are laughing at President Donald Trump’s idea of the United States acquiring Greenland from Denmark. At first hearing of what seemed to be an outlandish idea, I guffawed too.

Trump’s argument is that Greenland is of strategic military and national security value to the United States. He is also betting this giant island has other rare and undiscovered assets. There is no question that it would serve as a strategic buffer between the United States and Russia and perhaps other hostile nations, including China.

This would be a purchase, not a conquest. But does it make sense? Let’s turn back the clock.

Anyone who paid attention to their U.S. history class in high school has heard of “Seward’s Folly.” This was the American acquisition of Alaska in 1867 by then-Secretary of State William Seward. The price tag was $7 million. That would be the equivalent of less than $1 billion today — or less than what Washington spends every day. Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, so Russia practically gave it away to us.

The purchase of Alaska was showered with widespread criticism; it was an “icebox” that was viewed as uninhabitable and more suitable for polar bears than people.

How wrong the skeptics were. Alaska was soon discovered to have vast quantities of gold in the Yukon and played a strategic role during World War II. Then, of course, the North Slope of Alaska was discovered to have massive deposits of oil and gas. No doubt, Putin would love today to have Alaska in his portfolio.

Thank God for William Seward.

The idea of purchasing land in order to expand freedom and America’s manifest destiny predates the purchase of Alaska. In the first hundred years of our country’s history, we repeatedly acquired land to expand America’s reach. Most famously, was Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase — which roughly doubled America’s land area from the original 13 colonies/states. That purchase was criticized as a “land grab” as well. But it was the gateway to the development of the West.

Florida came shortly thereafter — a virtual gift from Spain. The “Republic of Texas” was an independent territory and joined the U.S. voluntarily and we gladly and wisely brought the Lone Star state into the fold.

Needless to say, none of these acquisitions or additions was “folly.”

Which brings us back to Greenland. Why does Denmark need it? It is hard to imagine anything that would add more income, wealth and security to the less than 100,000 people living in Greenland than to plant the American flag there and make it a U.S. territory. The residents of Greenland would be able to bequeath to their children one of the greatest assets on the planet — a U.S. passport.

While we are on the topic of acquisitions, if Trump is really thinking big, he should also consider offering to bury from Mexico a 50-to-100 mile stretch of coastal land stretching from San Diego down the Pacific coast. If Mexico were to sell that land to us, this idyllic beachfront property might instantly become some of the most valuable land in the world — inflating in price by perhaps 10- to 20-fold.

Here is another thought experiment. Imagine how rich Cuba would be today, if it were an American territory. Cuba could and would be the Hong Kong of the western hemisphere if it detoured from its near seven-decade long excursion into communism.

Trump is not an imperialist. He wants to spread freedom, prosperity and peace to much of the rest of the world. The old joke about Greenland is that it is neither green nor land.

It is a vast sheet of floating ice. Plant the American flag on that ice and suddenly it becomes a hot property.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre left CP24 news host Phil Perkins at a loss for words when asked about an executive order by President Donald Trump recognizing two biological sexes.

Trump signed the executive order Monday, shortly after taking office, ending recognition of “gender identity” and prohibiting the use of “gender ideology.” Perkins asked Poilievre about the order during an interview.

“First day on the job, President Trump signed an executive order, you know, the U.S. government only recognizing two genders, male, female. They’re unchangeable,” Perkins said. “You know, if elected as prime minister, is that something that you’re going to kind of walk in line with? Or what are your feelings on that executive order?”

WATCH:

“Well, I don’t know. Do you have any other genders that you’d like to name?” Poilievre responded, with Perkins asking, “Me personally?”

Trump’s campaign ran ads featuring Vice President Kamala Harris discussing how she pushed “behind the scenes” for transgender prisoners to receive sex changes while serving as California’s attorney general, while Trump said he supported banning biological men from competing in women’s sports during an Oct. 16 town hall moderated by Fox News host Harris Faulkner.

“I’m just asking more so if you’re in line with what he is saying. Do you agree with what he’s saying? Is that something that you would be lockstep with if elected as prime minister?” Perkins asked.

“Well, I — I’m not aware of any other genders than men and women. I mean, if you have any other that you want me to consider, you’re welcome to tell me right now,” Poilievre responded.

Trump’s order directed federal agencies to protect women’s privacy in “intimate spaces” and to use the term “sex” instead of “gender.”

Poilievre is the favorite to become Canada’s next prime minister after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was stepping down as leader of Canada’s Liberal Party. The Liberal Party will elect a new leader March 9.

“[People] say they’re gender neutral. There — you know, they’re — they’re a trans person. Is that something that you would recognize here? Whereas in the states, at least with their U.S. government, the way they’re seeing it, there’s only two?” Perkins asked.

“I’m only aware of two, but, I mean, if you have — if you come up with another list, then you’re welcome to do that. But I’m aware of two,” Poilievre responded. “And as far as I’m concerned, we should have a government that just minds its own damn business and leaves people alone.”