About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

January 8, 2026 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 08 January 2026

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment216

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (216)

Login to comment or vote

Cassandra

Trump Deputy chief of staff Miller questions Denmark’s right to govern Greenland. He raises an interesting question.

Greenland is geologically part of Canada. It has no indigenous people – Inuit arrived in the 13th century. Most of its teachers and doctors are Danes. Norway says that it is actually part of Norway. It was allocated to Denmark post Napoleon in the usual European manner of the times.

While I’d recommend to Pres Trump a more nuanced approach than threatening war, there’s a Monroe element to this matter. Perhaps Trump might strike a deal?
27 16
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 8:01am
- JerJer
  
  Someone needs to clarify a few things with Mr Millar. We have Māori in NZ and they arrived after the non-indigenous people of Greenland. Maori are indigenous because I read it once on stuff and TPM say so. Surely that’s all Mr Millar needs to know /sarc.
  
  19 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:10am
  - KiwiSapper
    
    “…Maori are indigenous because I read it once on stuff and TPM say so…’
    Stuff says “Maori are indigenous” and probably because they claim to have arrived in one of 3 canoes. I wonder why the 2 other life forms arriving in those three 3 canoes, the dog and the rat are clearly declared / named /identified as NOT indigenous to New Zealand.
    
    4 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 6:33pm
- Philview
  
  We have some legal experts on here so would be interesting to know if Trump can actually take a military response in Greenland under the US Constitution. He has pushed the boundaries elsewhere but so did Obama and Biden. Obama/Biden sent the special forces into Pakistan to execute Bin Laden. Pakistan regarded that as an abuse of its sovereignty.
  
  5 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:12am
  - Mike
    
    To be clear: the US has a long record of violating international law when it suits its national interests, as determined by the president, and successive presidents have been give ever-increasing latitude by congress and courts to do so.
    
    15 2
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 12:34pm
    - Don Beckett
      
      And Maduro was indicted by the Biden administration and the $25mil. bounty put on his head.
      
      10 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 12:50pm
    - imalwaysright
      
      ‘International Law’ is a term used to give the impression that there is a Court somewhere that controls all countries.
      
      There isn’t.
      
      We are talking about a country the size of Mexico with the population of Whangarei.
      They shouldnt’ be harmed, but if they want to keep an asset like that to themselves then they should use it or lose it.
      
      4 9
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 12:59pm
      - Mike
        
        Presumably that applies to any country with ‘assets’, so you would be fine if the Chinese, for example, seized the Kermadec Islands as New Zealand is not using the oceanic assets around those islands? Or if the United States seized the northern Cook Islands that it had a long-standing claim over?
        
        7 4
        Report
        January 8, 2026 4:21pm
      - Phronesis
        
        There is a universal rules based order. But these are laws not created by mere men. Supply and demand, survival of the fittest, you only own what you can defend. Immutable laws of reality.
        
        3 3
        Report
        January 8, 2026 4:57pm
    - NZer In Exile
      
      Mike usually taking the best choice out of a bunch of horrible choices. But do continue with your “great satan” belief system.
      
      0 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:11pm
  - virtualmark
    
    If Trump wants Greenland then he has two possible paths:
    
    Path A = Buy it. The US purchased the Danish West Indies from Denmark in 1916 (we know them now as the US Virgin Islands). That required a treaty that was approved by the Senate (as per the Constitution) and an appropriation by Congress for the purchase price (as per the Constitution). So if Trump wants to buy Greenland he needs to get the House of Representatives on board. (He also needs a willing seller and presumably for Greenland to want the deal too).
    
    Path B = Take it by force. The US military is clearly capable of that, but to invade an ally who is no threat to you would clearly be an illegal military order. So clearly an illegal military order that we have to assume senior military officers would refuse it. That would trigger a constitutional crisis (does the Commander-in-chief still have the confidence and support of the military?). It would also destroy NATO, which you have to think would be bad for the US’ own national security (NATO isn’t all one way). Taken together that would surely meet the “high crimes and misdemeanour” threshold for impeachment and I suspect Trump would here have jumped the shark so badly that at least some Republicans would cross the floor to support impeachment. So a major constitutional crisis.
    
    Meanwhile Denmark would allow the US to expand its military presence in Greenland … so why the need to do anything here?
    
    6 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 2:26pm
    - virtualmark
      
      I should also add …
      
      The US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. *However* Denmark and Venezuela are. ICC jurisdiction extends to:
      (a) actions by signatory countries, and, importantly,
      (b) actions that happen within/to signatory countries.
      
      Crimes the ICC has jurisdiction over include “Crimes of Aggression”, which includes (but is not limited to):
      * Invasion or attack by armed forces against territory,
      * Military occupation of territory,
      * Annexation of territory,
      *Use of any weapons against territory,
      * Blockade of ports or coasts,
      (and more).
      
      Venezuela could arguably lay charges against the Trump administration at the ICC. But realpolitik suggests they won’t (at least not while Trump is still President).
      
      If the US were to use military force against Greenland then I suspect Denmark would lay charges in the ICC. AG Pam Bondi isn’t going to deport anyone to The Hague. But a Democratic admin in 2028 might feel that restoring the US’ international standing might be helped by turning over, say, Stephen Miller and Pete Hegseth to the ICC.
      
      And for sure it would mean that anyone charged couldn’t leave the US again, at least not to go to anywhere nice.
      
      6 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 3:49pm
- Dudley Quaffquaff
  
  Deal for what? What legitimate interests does the US actually want of Greenland that it hasn’t already got, or could have, by way of normal economic and political cooperation?
  
  14 3
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:18am
  - Mike
    
    Not a question the Trumpistas have asked, or want to answer.
    
    5 10
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 12:35pm
  - rouppe
    
    Access to the Arctic.
    
    Shipping routes, when or if the Arctic shipping routes open up.
    
    3 3
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 1:05pm
  - septic skeptic
    
    Mining of rare earths?
    
    3 4
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 1:06pm
    - Bullion
      
      American corps can just apply for mining licenses, or they can just buy the extracted minerals on the market. If the people of Greenland don’t want to mine, isn’t that their prerogative in a democracy?
      
      But the US don’t care for democracy.
      
      3 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:15pm
      - Hard Cheese
        
        Rare earths aren’t difficult to find, they’re difficult to process. Going to Greenland to mine them is just stupid. China has a monopoly on rare earths because they ignore the environmental impacts of processing them. Even if the US were willing to turn Greenland into a toxic waste dump, they simply don’t have the processing and refining technology that China has developed over years to do it. Even if they had it, the cost of mining, transportation and labour so close to the Arctic Circle would make them commercially uncompetitive. It’s just another Trump mirage, it’s never going to happen.
        
        3 2
        Report
        January 8, 2026 5:19pm
  - Master Mariner
    
    In simple terms access to the Polar route of which Greenland is front and centre regarding efficient supply chains. The Russians already have there Route operating with Nuclear Ice Breakers and the US is scrambling to build 6 by Finland ( Against the Jones Act) and a final 2 in the US.
    Its all about supply chains.
    You can say anything else about Trump but at least he understands securing Supply Chains.
    Is this not what “the rules based order” is about ? Freedom of Navigation and Supply Chains.
    FWIW There is nothing legally binding / and or mentioning this so called “Rules Based Order” and the likes of the EU throw it around without even understanding what they are talking about.
    Mean while in Singapore Anchorage with shite internet.
    
    6 4
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 3:14pm
    - virtualmark
      
      In what way are Greenland and Denmark stopping the United States from accessing the Arctic?
      
      3 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 5:24pm
      - Master Mariner
        
        Good question,
        Greenland would be a perfect entry exit to Non Russian vessels for entering the Artic under preferable countries like Norway, Canada, etc. Basically the other hemispere to Russian territory.
        
        1 2
        Report
        January 8, 2026 9:07pm
    - Hard Cheese
      
      “You can say anything else about Trump but at least he understands securing Supply Chains”
      
      No he fucking doesn’t. You’ll know the answer to these questions.
      
      1. Who handles the bulk of sea cargo shipping for the US Military?
      2. Who handles a large percentage of shipping and container freight to the USA?
      3, That company is from which country?
      
      I’m sure you can follow the breadcrumbs where Dozy Donald can’t.
      
      4 4
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 5:27pm
      - Master Mariner
        
        Try Chedar, its softer on the pallet.
        Whats your point ?
        Supply lines through the Arctic would cut times down by 30% at least by Western seaboard to Eastern. Look at a map ?
        The US already holds the Aleutians. What they dont control is the other side.
        Hence Greenland.
        
        2 2
        Report
        January 8, 2026 9:16pm
      - NZer In Exile
        
        Can I offer you some tissues to wipe the froth off your mouth?
        
        Please feel free to let us know what your point is. Please, the short version.
        
        0 0
        Report
        January 8, 2026 9:17pm
- Yvette
  
  In probably an over-simplification, Putin is stuck in a personal time warp of desiring the Soviet Union to revert to be as he knew it, and wants Ukraine as a buffer between himself and “Western” Europe.
  There is also the limits on military action now that is less than atomic, and that on the second day of what was to be a couple of days push-over, he had his tanks and trucks traffic-jammed on the routes in, leaving them as targets to be picked off.
  
  As well as wanting Greenland for similar military reasons, Trump probably has mineral hopes for Greenland as much a he has ideas for Venezuelan oil – along with “democratic” measures and stopping drug running to the consumers in USA, who make it profitable for the cartels of South America.
  
  Expanding US bases in Greenland could be achieved diplomatically, even welcomed, but it is the other aims Trump has that are bit of a bugger to be met in the same way.
  
  9 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:22am
  - Master Mariner
    
    Russia has always stated the Ukraine NOT become a member of Nato and is a Red Line since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
    Nato and the US have breached this agreement since day 1.
    The simplest answer is quite often the right answer regardless of MSM rantings.
    
    4 6
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 3:18pm
    - Mike
      
      Russia does not have a veto over the alliance arrangements of its neighbors. Otherwise, Ukraine today, why not Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or Finland tomorrow?
      
      1 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:32pm
      - NZer In Exile
        
        “Why not Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or Finland tomorrow?”
        
        Because it would involve war with all of NATO?
        
        0 0
        Report
        January 8, 2026 9:20pm
  - virtualmark
    
    If the United States wanted to secure mineral concessions in Greenland then do you think either Denmark or Greenland would say no?
    
    If the United States wants rare earths etc from Greenland wouldn’t it be easier to reach commercial terms for those rather than (preposterously) invade and annex Greenland?
    
    3 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 5:26pm
- Albie
  
  “No indigenous people, the Inuit arrived in the 13th century”. Oh dear, what does that mean for us in the land of the long white cloud?
  
  20 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:31am
  - Mike
    
    Nothing
    
    5 6
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 12:43pm
    - Don Beckett
      
      It means there are no indigenous people – except perhaps the previous occupiers as told in Maori oral history stories of their arrival -who got eaten.
      
      2 3
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:08pm
      - Mike
        
        There were no ‘previous occupiers’. And there are indigenous people, a defined concept, even if some people pretend not to understand it.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples
        
        2 3
        Report
        January 8, 2026 4:40pm
    - Albie
      
      Exactly Mike. Nothing. It seems we will forever be beholden to the special people purely on the basis they got here literally the day before we did in historical terms.
      
      2 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:57pm
  - NZer In Exile
    
    My ancestors lived in Africa for 100s of thousands of years. Give me money.
    
    0 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:22pm
- Mike
  
  Denmark and, nore importantly, the Greenlanders, are very clear about this. The future of Greenland is for its people to decide.
  Geology and history have little relevance. Trump and his craziest henchmen are persistently raising the idea of taking Greenland by force. That is, attacking a NATO ally and acquiring territory ahainst the will of that territory’s government and people.
  
  25 27
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:33am
  - RoboRob
    
    ‘The future of Greenland is for its people to decide’ and Trump is trying to convince them to sell.
    
    Pretty simple.
    
    10 6
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:02am
    - RichardX
      
      How do you sell sovereignty?
      
      5 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 12:47pm
      - Cassandra
        
        Ask the inhabitants of Louisiana and Alaska.
        
        6 4
        Report
        January 8, 2026 3:29pm
      - Mike
        
        The 19th century inhabitants of those present-day states were not consulted.
        
        5 0
        Report
        January 8, 2026 4:41pm
    - Master Mariner
      
      No different to Argentina offering Falkland Islanders
      cash settlement to agree to Argentinian rule.
      
      6 3
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 3:19pm
      - Mike
        
        So, you would be comfortable with Argentina threatening military action as part of offering such a deal?
        
        3 0
        Report
        January 8, 2026 4:43pm
      - Hard Cheese
        
        Ultimately the Danish Parliament has to agree to the terms of separation if Greenland wants to become independent, if they know Trump has paid for their referendum votes there’s no way Denmark would ratify it.
        
        2 2
        Report
        January 8, 2026 5:41pm
      - Master Mariner
        
        @Mike,
        So, you would be comfortable with Argentina threatening military action as part of offering such a deal?
        Yep it was called the Falklands war after the locals declined.
        
        1 0
        Report
        January 8, 2026 9:21pm
    - virtualmark
      
      Fair to ask. Wrong to insist.
      
      3 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 5:27pm
  - Gary Benner
    
    Mike, in an ideal world where everyone “played by the rules” I might be tempted to agree with you. But we do not have that, and already the USA is cleaning out it’s back yards. Russia, China, and Cuba were active in Venuzuela, and apparently similar things are happening around Greenland.
    
    Denmark has little or no ability and resource to maintain the sovereignty of Greenland, and so the USA cannot rely on them. Hell, they can’t even keep themselves safe from migrant invasion in their own country.
    
    It would be lovely if we lived in a world where everyone abided by “international rules”, told the truth, respected everyone else’s property and lands, accepted each other religion etc. But we do not.
    
    The world is an incredibly dangerous place, and I respect the right for everyone to protect themselves as best they can.
    
    34 16
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:09am
    - Northshoredoc
      
      ‘Denmark has little or no ability and resource to maintain the sovereignty of Greenland, …’
      
      Demark and by extension Greenland are members of Nato. Nato is quite capable of defending the sovereignty of Greenland.
      
      15 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 10:09am
      - Cassandra
        
        But they wouldn’t. Can you imagine Europe doing a Falklands? Nah! And the Uk will continue to back all sides of this hexagon.
        
        9 10
        Report
        January 8, 2026 12:06pm
      - Paulus
        
        What makes you think that NATO will defend any member ? – seems still to be dreaming about such things ,like the so called EC, and who is the largest payer of NATO ?
        
        6 6
        Report
        January 8, 2026 1:52pm
      - Northshoredoc
        
        ‘What makes you think that NATO will defend any member ?’
        
        Article 5 of the Treaty is fairly clear and it has served to limit bad actors for the last 75 years from attacking any member state.
        
        Of course this is fact irrelevant compared to the randoms ramblings of pseudonymous commenters on an NZ blog.
        
        5 0
        Report
        January 8, 2026 4:04pm
      - Wandering Star
        
        “Article 5 of the Treaty is fairly clear and it has served to limit bad actors for the last 75 years from attacking any member state.”
        
        This claim illustrates the difference between theory and reality: the reason nobody has attacked a NATO member state is because it would mean an armed conflict with the United States (in practice, essentially NATO by any other name), not because of what Article 5 says.
        
        For this reason, there is no guarantee whatsoever that any other member of NATO would confront the US in the event of an invasion of Greenland (which, for the record, I do not believe is likely).
        
        1 1
        Report
        January 8, 2026 8:57pm
    - Wandering Star
      
      “The world is an incredibly dangerous place, and I respect the right for everyone to protect themselves as best they can.”
      
      Everyone, or just those you favour?
      
      Well, Russia or China might like Greenland then, don’t you think? No argument from you? Just protecting themselves from the Americans. And why were/are “Russia, China, and Cuba active in Venuzuela [sic]” – to help protect themselves the best way they can, presumably vis a vis America.
      
      “…and apparently similar things are happening around Greenland.” “Apparently” according to who? The Americans?
      
      You may have further comment and clarification, but I suspect you don’t actually believe your own premise, and that if the Russians or the Chinese behaved the way the Americans do, you’d be calling for the Americans to “save the world” from “the forces of evil” or some such.
      
      8 5
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 11:32am
    - virtualmark
      
      So would you support China taking New Zealand by force because it would clean up China’s backyard, and no one needs to play by the rules, and the world is a dangerous place yada yada yada?
      
      It’s the smaller countries like New Zealand that benefit the most from international rules and norms. Seems short-sighted for a Kiwi to say “Ah bugger that, let’s just let the law of the jungle play out”.
      
      8 3
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 2:30pm
  - Cassandra
    
    Mike: the US will not invade Greenland. Trump will do a deal. Betcha.
    
    32 10
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:09am
    - Lance
      
      Straight out of the Godfather.. they will be made an offer they can’t refuse.
      Has the USA really come to this?
      
      12 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 10:40am
      - Master Mariner
        
        It did when the bought Alaska, With one congressman saying the bought a Sucked Lemon.
        Look at Chagros Islands given away?
        
        5 4
        Report
        January 8, 2026 3:22pm
    - Don Beckett
      
      Agreed. I recognise that Trump really pisses off a lot of people with his tub thumping & braggadacio, but you have to look beyond that to get to the guts of the matter.
      He has put the possibility of extreme option out there – as is his MO – but wait a few months & he will make a deal with Denmark & the Greenlanders. This will probably include a payment to Denmark to lease parts of Greenland for various operations – including defensive military installations, & pay Greenlanders/Denmark royalties on any resources that are mined etc.
      That’s my take, anyway.
      
      13 10
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 10:48am
      - Wandering Star
        
        “…including defensive military installations.”
        
        Defensive? Nobody ever seems to have or announce any “offensive” capabilities, do they (especially the Americans). No, all just “defensive.”
        
        4 6
        Report
        January 8, 2026 11:37am
    - mogg
      
      Same here
      
      2 4
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 11:21am
    - Hard Cheese
      
      There’s no deal Trump can make. Denmark have made it clear that Greenland isn’t for sale, and any “let’s pay each Greenlander $1 million to vote for independence” plan is futile because any independence treaty between Greenland and Denmark has to be agreed to by Denmark.
      
      2 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 5:48pm
  - All_on_Red
    
    ‘Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told lawmakers (Congress) that President Trump plans to buy Greenland rather than invade it, while Mr. Trump has asked aides to give him an updated plan for acquiring the territory, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.’
    
    Apparently Rubio met people from Denmark and Greenland very recently.
    They will end up negotiating to expand their bases there for various things in return as consideration.
    The whole ‘invade’ thing was for the gullible and to ensure this issue got taken seriously.
    
    24 11
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:09am
    - Northshoredoc
      
      The US had multiple bases in Greenland see the attached link for a brief history lesson.
      
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/brief-history-of-us-military-bases-in-greenland
      
      12 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:20am
    - Mike
      
      Does it feel good to sane-wash Trumpista nonsense?
      Greenland has hosted more US militart facilities in the past and there is no reason to suppose a NATO ally would mot want to counter Russian or Chinese ambitions in the arctic. Threateninguse of force against an ally is not a produxtive negotiating tactic, even if it is music to the ears of gullible Trumpistas.
      
      12 7
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:24am
    - slightlyrighty
      
      Do the US Taxpayers really want to foot that bill?
      
      5 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 10:15am
      - Wandering Star
        
        The US has a national debt of almost $40 trillion, which is a debt to GDP ratio of around 120%. This is only possible while the USD is the world’s reserve currency, which is really only so due to their apparent military strength which maintains their monopoly money. This is the reality and should be the principle context of everything they say, do, and propose to do. When reality catches up with them, it’s going to get ugly.
        
        7 4
        Report
        January 8, 2026 12:21pm
    - peterwn
      
      Seems Rubio is to meet the Danes again presumably with making an offer to buy Greenland. The issue here is if Trump wants to buy Greenland who is the vendor? It is not for the Danes to sell, otherwise the people of Greenland would be treated as mere chattels.
      My price would be $10B to the Greenland government, $1M to each person, USA citizenship for all Greenlanders and immediate admission as the 51st State.
      
      8 10
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 10:22am
      - All_on_Red
        
        Not 51st State.
        Iirc you would need over 75% of every other States to agree
        And I doubt anyone will want to upset the current balance
        Besides creating a ‘State’ and everything that goes with it is a bit pointless for 48,000 people
        There are formats for partnership already in use
        
        7 5
        Report
        January 8, 2026 11:27am
      - MCōs
        
        Healthcare would have to be a very huge issue among a number of huge issues.
        If the hospital(s) are privatized the locals are suddenly faced with either very expensive insurance or winging it. That $1,000,000 could disappear in the blink of an eye.
        And so on . . . .
        Suddenly they need visas to leave the country
        
        5 5
        Report
        January 8, 2026 11:54am
      - Paulus
        
        Like Cuba – Guantanamo – lease part of it
        
        5 1
        Report
        January 8, 2026 1:54pm
    - MCōs
      
      The US had a military presence in Greenland during the cold war. Interestingly there was no talk at the time of purloining the country and making it part of America
      After the Cold War American presence was greatly reduced.
      There’s nothing to stop the USA bumping up their bases once again, if that’s what they really want
      I suspect the real goal is the mineral wealth plus oil and gas, which is currently uneconomical due to environmental considerations; something that Trump wouldn’t be too bothered about
      
      12 3
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 10:40am
  - NothingLeft
    
    The consent of Greenlanders can be bought. How much would it cost to get more than 50% to agree? a few hundred thousand each, a million? Basically like winning lottery for all inhabitants. Throw in option of US citizenship for those that want it at near zero cost. It won’t cost the US even $50 Billion to get existing Greenlanders to vote to change themselves into a US protectorate.
    
    4 7
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:25am
    - Taieri
      
      Basically like winning lottery for all inhabitants.
      ———–
      
      Now, if such an offer was to be made to New Zealand, would it be “like winning lottery for all inhabitants”?
      
      7 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 1:24pm
    - Hard Cheese
      
      They can’t vote to make themselves a US protectorate, they need to negotiate a treaty of independence from Denmark first, which has to be agreed to by the Danish parliament. So, not happening.
      
      2 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 5:57pm
  - imalwaysright
    
    Greenland has the lowest population density in the world.
    a) would they know they have been invaded.
    b) would it matter?
    
    7 8
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:49am
    - Paulus
      
      Mostly Inuits anyway from primative times.
      
      4 8
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 1:55pm
  - NZer In Exile
    
    Mike: “Trump and his craziest henchmen are persistently raising the idea of taking Greenland by force.”
    
    Got any solid links which prove this claim? Or this is just more lefty media BS?
    
    2 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:24pm
- Gussy Fink-Nottle
  
  Indeed. Why should Greenland be run by Denmark, and not the US?
  ‘Because I don’t like Trump’ is not an argument.
  Greenlanders may not wish to be a US state, but a majority don’t want to be run by Denmark, either. They cannot afford to go it alone, though.
  
  For Trump watchers, the MO is not unfamiliar. Scare the horses, then calm the farm.
  I’m picking a deal will be struck.
  
  12 10
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:36am
  - Taieri
    
    Greenland is not being run by Denmark. It is autonomous within the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own government, legislature and judiciary. All that Denmark is responsible for are foreign affairs and defence (and financial assistance amounting to approx. 30% of Greenland’s public revenue).
    
    10 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 1:31pm
    - NeverMindTheBollocks
      
      You mean like the Cook Is?
      
      3 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 8:31pm
    - Master Mariner
      
      Thanks Taieri, Be interesting how much the US bases contribute to the local economy.
      
      0 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:30pm
- G152
  
  I really think that Trump might reconsider a lot of his bombast as the numbers of wanna be assassins grow by the day.
  One could say that he is earmarked
  
  6 8
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:36am
- Inandout
  
  Greenland has no indigenous people because the Inuits didn’t arrive until the 13th century. By that logic NZ also has none. Interesting.
  
  17 3
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:55am
  - NZer In Exile
    
    I doesn’t matter what your ancestors did or didn’t do except as interesting history. We are all (black, brown, polynesian, asian, white etc etc) born into the modern world. What are we going to do now and into the future is what matters. Stop being distracted by stupid shit.
    
    0 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:27pm
- Paulus
  
  Why have we not heard from the people of Greenland whatb they would like ?
  It would appear that Denmark has not been a strong supporters and at times the largest employer is the US AirForce.
  
  14 6
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:15am
  - Northshoredoc
    
    The people of Greenland have responded to US overtures with a resounding no.
    
    8 3
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:21am
    - Paulus
      
      Have they – when was the vote taken ?
      
      3 7
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 1:56pm
  - Scott
    
    My understanding is that the young men of Greenland would be happy to become part of the USA if they could get a McDonald’s. 😃
    
    7 10
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:47am
    - rouppe
      
      There’s got to be one on the military base?
      
      They even had them in Iraq didn’t they?
      
      6 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 1:17pm
    - peterwn
      
      Greenland used to have a McDonalds but it would have appeared to be too challenging to operate profitably.
      
      1 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 6:47pm
    - NZer In Exile
      
      Trump will make sure the ice cream machines work!
      
      0 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:29pm
  - slightlyrighty
    
    We already know that the people of Greenland want self determination, which is what the Danes granted them.
    
    This came after a referendum in 2008, and was enacted into law in 2009.
    
    Greenland can declare full independence if it wishes to pursue it, but it would have to be approved by a referendum among the Greenlandic people and by the Danish parliament. It has been argued that because it was once a colony, under international law Greenland also has, separate from the 2009 law, the right of self-determination and could make a unilateral declaration of independence. A poll in 2016 showed that there was a clear majority (64%) for full independence among the Greenlandic people, but a poll in 2017 showed that there was a clear opposition (78%) if it meant a fall in living standards.
    
    8 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 10:07am
    - Hard Cheese
      
      Only 6% said they wanted to be part of the US, but that’s one and the same thing I guess.
      
      2 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 7:36pm
  - peterwn
    
    Greenland is a democracy so its Prime Minister is quite capable of speaking on behalf of the people. So the people of Greenland seem quite happy with existing arrangements. Greenland could declare full independence if it chose to.
    
    15 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 10:12am
    - G the giant from Dunedin
      
      the PM of Greenland was talking on TV yesterday, he said you don’t threaten us or state you will bomb us, he said you talk diplomatically, I suggest Trumps words are working.
      
      2 9
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 10:35am
    - Graeme Hall
      
      Greenland has a population just under 57,000, about the same as a small municipality here. Their government, if you can call it that, has a strong Green component that has stopped any development from mining Greenland’s resources. They choose to rely instead on Denmark to subsidise them.
      
      Do you think the USA will allow China or Russia to take over Greenland as in the Pacific Islands?
      
      As Trump said recently, Denmark has just updated security. They have added another dogsled. The Green Greenlanders will have no real say in what happens.
      
      9 7
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 11:05am
  - slijmbal
    
    @Paulus
    
    Greenlanders had a referendum and decided to stay as is a while ago. Recent polls show only 6% in favour of becoming part of the US.
    
    5 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 10:30am
- Cassandra
  
  News from Washington a few minutes ago: the House Speaker said that diplomacy is the first option, ruling military action out. Rubio is meeting with the Danish Government next week.
  
  Let’s settle down. Mike owes me a pie.
  
  12 11
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:53am
  - Philview
    
    Trump does have a negotiating tactic with Europe that the US can walk away from protecting their Eastern flank by withdrawing the discussed security guarantee in the Ukraine.
    
    4 3
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 11:56am
  - Gravelroad
    
    Servo or humble?
    
    6 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 12:24pm
  - Jethrod
    
    Be careful what you wish for Cassandra!!
    
    3 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 2:31pm
    - Cassandra
      
      Very good advice!
      
      2 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 3:34pm
- G the giant from Dunedin
  
  I think Trumps rhetoric is about softening up Greenland to build a military base on Greenland. you will note he is always talking about Chinese and Russian vessels and forces there, i don’t think he wants to bomb the Greenland state off the map, it’s his usual bluster that usually works.
  
  I see the PM of Greenland says you don’t threaten war or a takeover, you come and talk diplomatically
  , that comment suggests his rhetoric maybe working.
  
  4 7
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 10:31am
  - Dudley Quaffquaff
    
    There’s already a US military base on Greenland. There used to be more but the US reduced its presence there
    
    6 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 2:41pm
    - Mike
      
      They left one of their nukes behind.
      
      2 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:50pm
- slijmbal
  
  @Cassandra
  
  geological arguments are completely irrelevant.
  
  Every fictional reason the toddler-in-chief uses to take Greenland falls over.
  
  According to him Putin is OK if he gets chunks of Utrecht and won’t carry on his acquisitions. So why should the US be scared of them attacking?
  
  The US decided to significantly reduce their militry presence in Greenland and have had a green (pun accidental) light to put their forces there since whenever. So they can manage any perceived threat.
  
  This is all about Trump wanting to acquire stuff and would also like to get the potentially massive resources Greenland has access to.
  
  That Fifa peace prize looking a bit dubious now 🙂
  
  9 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 10:34am
  - rouppe
    
    Utrecht? Putin is in the Netherlands now?
    
    6 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 1:24pm
    - slijmbal
      
      @rouppe – Utrecht – hahahaa – fat fingers and predictive text – but you knew what I meant.
      
      3 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:38pm
- crikey
  
  “ Greenland is geologically part of Canada. It has no indigenous people – Inuit arrived in the 13th century.”
  
  On the same basis, NZ has no indigenous people.
  
  10 3
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 10:42am
  - Paulus
    
    We know about New Zealand, Niu Tirena as was, but so called part Maori do not !
    
    3 3
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 2:01pm
  - MCōs
    
    So it transpires the Garden of Eden, probably located in Mesopotamia, had the only indigenous people
    
    4 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 3:27pm
    - Cassandra
      
      I think, arbitrarily, that occupation of, say, 4,000 years qualifies as indigenous.
      
      2 4
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 3:36pm
- Wandering Star
  
  “…there’s a Monroe element to this matter.”
  
  Ludicrous argument, First, the “Monroe Doctrine” is not a law of physics, it is a 200 year old political policy. There is no necessity at all in invoking it. Second, the Monroe Doctrine is about protecting the United States from threats by preventing (assumed at the time to be European) involvement in the US’s geographical sphere. There is no such plausible threat to the US or outside involvement which would necessitate taking control of Greenland.
  
  Even if the argument were that Russia is a threat (which is greatly exaggerated for rhetorical purposes – including to advance bizarre policies such as gaining control of Greenland), the US already encircles Russia via its network of 100s of strategically places military installations in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
  
  7 6
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 11:11am
- MCōs
  
  Footnote
  Chris Liddell held the same position as Millar in the last Trump admin. I don’t recall him ever sticking his head above the ramparts
  
  4 3
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 11:24am
- Wayne1749
  
  If the Inuit are dismissed as non-indigenous because they arrived “only” in the 13th century, does that imply they have no legitimate claim to the land? Many populations around the world cannot trace continuous ancestry in their present homelands back to that period—yet no one would seriously argue that this makes invasion or dispossession justifiable.
  
  4 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 3:28pm
  - Don Beckett
    
    No they cannot be dispossessed, but the Vikings got to Greenland around the 10 th. century – are they (the original Norse settlers) claiming to be indigenous?
    
    0 3
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 5:38pm
    - Mike
      
      The Innuit migrated south as the climate cooled. The Norse settler were not so adaptable and had all moved or died by 15th? century.
      
      3 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 5:43pm
    - Wayne1749
      
      Regardless of who got there first (and Google it, it was the Innits), any group that has been living in a place for 700 years has some right to that place. FFS, are you saying Europeans, Pacific Islanders, Chinese etc who came to NZ over the past couple of centuries don’t belong here??????????
      
      0 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:18pm
  - Beach Haven expat
    
    Working to that theory, Trump would have trouble defending the current US state as owners of that part of the Americas.
    
    1 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 6:33pm
- NZer In Exile
  
  The lefty media are, true to form, producing a lot of BS around this Greenland thing.
  
  0 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 7:58pm
artemisia

Larry Page is very rich. Said to be the second richest person in the world. Apparently has quietly relocated multiple businesses out of California in case a proposed wealth tax is voted in.

Wealth tax to end poverty is NZ Green Party policy.
36 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 8:14am
- herb1
  
  Sat beside him in Wanaka Indian restaurant couple of years ago. The wine told me “ I know him” and a couple of Google attempts confirmed it. Nobody at our table seemed to know who Larry Page was even though they all lived by his Google search , maps and Google earth, on a daily basis
  
  9 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:21am
- Cassandra
  
  Apparently the proposed law would apply retrospectively from Jan 1 2026, meaning California residents would have had to have left last year to avoid the tax. I’m not too sure how California could backdate this and anyway Governor Newsm opposes the proposal so it may not pass.
  
  19 3
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:25am
  - artemisia
    
    Mr Page will be gone either way. Rich people have options, and as France found out, there are countries with wide open arms.
    
    20 2
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 8:30am
    - kowtow
      
      UK has lost an awul lot too .
      
      5 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 8:41am
    - RoboRob
      
      Yup. The threat of the tax is enough. Move now so that in 2 years when the tax is introduced you will have hopefully been gone for any retrospective tax.
      
      5 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:05am
    - cmm
      
      “Mr Page will be gone either way.”
      
      More correctly, Mr Page has already been squirreling away out of state assets for 20 years or so (since the Google IPO).
      
      These people don’t get caught with their pants down. That’s for the plebs.
      
      19 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:05am
    - NZer In Exile
      
      I’d say a lot of rich people will be quietly shuffling their way out of Germany as well. It’s teetering on the brink of economic collapse thanks to falling hard for the climate scam and pissing away 100s of billions on unreliables and thus making energy too expensive for industry to prosper. Then they’ve create another right royal mess with very very dumb immigration policy. A lot of the sheeple there are too afraid they might be called Nazis if they resist. That is slowly turning around though.
      
      0 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 8:07pm
  - RoboRob
    
    I wouldn’t trust anything Newsom says. That man is as slippery as they get. Good luck to the Dems if he is their candidate in the next presidential election.
    
    8 4
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:06am
- G the giant from Dunedin
  
  Mondarni is saying anyone with a house worth more than $1 million will be paying a 2% tax, he is saying it will be done to make black, brown and yellow people equal, he says he will break the white middle class, but no mention of the black, yellow and brown middle class, there will be a huge shift out of NY very soon, he is also talking about a wealth tax for people on more than a million a year as well. I wonder how that will go down with the banking system and stock markets and huge legal fraternity in NY.
  
  9 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 10:40am
  - Bloody Dago
    
    Who were the Dum..Ars…’s who voted for this communist? He will destroy the New York and as usual flee to the Russians, then cuddle up with Assad and his entourage. Bloody dictators/communists should all be permanently vacated to a small island somewhere a long way from anywhere preferably.
    
    2 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 1:09pm
  - rouppe
    
    Must have been talking to Chloe and Marama.
    
    2 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 1:33pm
- NothingLeft
  
  Spent a lot of time in NZ too – was here during Covid, used to come here skiing, and used to own electric VTOL plane company Wisk in Christchurch (now Boeing owned).
  
  4 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 11:18am
Toes on the nose

No more Herald… me & siblings then retired dad 10+ years of delivery incl into Muldoon’s peachbox letterbox at the bach. 2nd to last straw .. subjecting myself to the latest boo hoo/redemption BS about Lou Vincent. Final straw ..Millie Holmes has a new BF … absolute loser convicted DUI, burglary, beating the missus. Oh but he’s the Maori Queen’s (passed over) bro. He has a fancy harley and motorbike. Good bye Herald… I’m now reading RNZ for NZ news and while slightly woke I doubt I’d see either of the above BS ‘news’ stories…
16 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 8:32am
- NZer In Exile
  
  Toes on the nose: “I’m now reading RNZ for NZ news”
  
  You’re still dumpster-diving there!
  
  Try The Centrist.
  
  The Platform (https://theplatform.kiwi) is good too.
  
  Reddit r/Auckland and r/New Zealand is worth checking in on too. Reddit is run by woke 20 somethings and is highly censorious (of anti-woke comment) but you still get a good feel for the crime that is really happening in NZ.
  
  1 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:13pm
Maggy Wassilieff

Rubbish research
Self-selected nonsense
Irresponsible (ignorant) reporting

The core finding sounds reassuring: 63 percent of respondents to an online survey of nearly 5,000 people reported no negative effects from alcohol or drug use in the previous six months.

But read the methodology carefully. The sample is self-selected.
:
Those who are dead, incarcerated, hospitalised, psychotic, estranged, or otherwise detached from “polite survey populations” are absent by design.

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2026/01/peter-bassett-headline-promises-lot-but.html
36 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 8:49am
- artemisia
  
  Well responders would say that, wouldn’t they.
  
  19 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:13am
- mandk
  
  And can be sure that the 63% who reported no negative effects are correct in their self-assessment?
  
  I doubt it.
  
  6 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:15am
- cmm
  
  Astounding. Even from that self selecting study, 37% report some negative effects.
  
  I would argue that if 37% of people are having negative effects from drugs and alcohol that’s a problem.
  
  Bassett’s article is bang on. I grew up in an alcoholic household. My alcoholic father would have reported having no negative effects. He never saw his alcoholism as a problem and never even admitted having any problem at all despite driving drunk at least twice a week and getting drunk every day.
  
  Unfortunately where the personal responsibility argument falls down is that those suffering the consequences are very often not the people enjoying the drugs and alcohol. Instead the sufferers are the family members, fellow road users and such.
  
  And no, I am not a wowser. While I no longer drink myself due to health and medical reasons, I am not opposed to people drinking (or even taking drugs) in a responsible fashion and have at times been a heavy drinker.
  
  22 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:17am
  - slijmbal
    
    @cmm
    
    If you did such a self selected study on eating then I would expect not dissimilar results on negative effects of over eating. It’s a useless number.
    
    Having said that more robust studies do show still significant effects but 37% is just bollocks. Still a problem I agree.
    
    6 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 10:37am
    - cmm
      
      Quite.
      All self selecting studies are statistical bollocks and generally set out to “prove” some pre-determined outcome.
      
      6 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 2:46pm
  - nova
    
    It really is a poor survey with poor reporting. LSD and cocaine have the lowest harm index from the survey, but this is likely for two reasons. First, these users are probably in a different socio-economic group to methamphetamine users, and they are also less likely to believe they are suffering any harm from it.
    The survey is almost useless, as Basset points out, and apparently they need more money in order to do very basic statistical analysis, that should take a couple of minutes. I was flabbergasted by this quote in the article: “Wilkins said his team was applying for more funding so they could dive more deeply into the data. He cannot yet say, for example, what proportion of methamphetamine users reported no harm from their use in the previous six months.”
    
    7 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 10:43am
  - Paulus
    
    For partly medical, and unknown other reasons, I gave up drinking, which was wine some 10 years ago – I did not have to but still look at my Red wine collections over many years and wonder why.
    My children and husbands are helping me move it to their houses.
    I am saying one day soon I will open a bottle of very good wine.
    For a chiller I drink a bottle alc free Steiny around 4pm.
    I am told I am better for not drinking, but cannot really see it.
    I am 86 years old so have had a great life with wines really.
    
    10 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 2:10pm
    - cmm
      
      My father died at 92. He didn’t really suffer ill effects from his drinking. Everyone else suffered the ill effects for him.
      
      Some people can be moderate (or even heavy) drinkers with little impact on their own lives and those around them, but some people just can’t.
      
      9 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 2:45pm
    - Don Beckett
      
      I glass of red wine – preferably a good shiraz – is excellent for the health & the heart.
      However, if you have a second, then that undoes the benefit from the first.
      Everything in moderation; most evenings I have one or two stouts – Speights Old Dark or Black Macs Porter, & a while later – most nights – one smallish -ish glass of a good shiraz. Yum yum. I’m in my 84th.year and all’s well. 🙂
      
      8 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 3:08pm
- Wayne1749
  
  I agree. It is UTTERLY irresponsible reporting.
  And even using the author’s own methodology, looking at it the other way, if some substance has a 37% chance of causing an acute negative response within half a year, that in itself would be fucking dangerous.
  Also getting druggies to self-report —WTF —feeling stoned may feel great for them, but what about the impact on the country from lost productivity, accidents etc.
  
  4 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 3:31pm
Maggy Wassilieff

Take the money and ~~run~~ fly.

https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/_mps_expenses_numbers

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2026/01/matua-kahurangi-lefties-at-trough-left.html
19 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 9:04am
- RoboRob
  
  Funny how its almost always the MPs who do the least that rack up the big expenses. Note that TPM has the highest avg spend per MP and Act (with about the same # of MPs) has the lowest. 175k vs 130k. That is not an insubstantial amount.
  
  11 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:11am
- cas
  
  Rawiri has a big electorate . But…. folks say he is never seen in or around it so I guess his expenditure is flights overseas and he probably lives in Auckland with his wife.
  
  8 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:56am
Cassandra

Luigi was interviewed by the Times of Rome in 1945. “Some of my best friends are Jews. I only voted for Mussolini and the Fascists from 1928 until 1943 because I wanted the trains to run on time”.
14 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 9:06am
- RoboRob
  
  What was Winston Peters doing in Rome in 1945?
  
  6 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:12am
- kowtow
  
  The west post the Russian revolution was in real serious danger of falling to the Soviets. Post WW1 and the Depression were real hard times for many ( it’s the economy ,stupid) .
  
  The rise of so many extremist parties in the west must be seen in the context of the fear of Bolshevism and the economy , as well as other social/cultural issues.
  
  Oddly enough the west faces much of the same now.
  The Great and the Good obsess over Trump , while Putin invades Ukr , Xi commands his military to “prepare for war’ , the Mullahs have been exporting genocidal terrorism for decades ( and Maduro is tied in there) .
  
  Even Germany today is still in thrall to Moscow and desperate for their cheap energy and investment .
  
  But our betters tell us the bad guy is Trump , for preparing the defence of his heimat.
  
  3 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:34am
TripeWryter

I like watching this guy’s videos.
He speaks plainly and in reasonably short, simple sentences, which I find remarkable for a lawyer.
Our tame, mainstream media won’t touch him, and you can see why.
He says things that they don’t and won’t.
He won’t be on Young Jack’s earnest Sunday morning offerings any time soon.
Heather, I’m sad to say, will find a reason not to interview him just as she found an excuse not to delve into the McCarten-Jackson-Muma imbroglio.
Not very interesting. A scrap between two old mates, she said on her final show of the year.
Anyway, for your viewing and listening pleasure …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhcH4tPMuJs&t=8s
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 9:20am
Yvette

Water
Précis – A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that riverbeds can be included in Māori customary marine title orders, meaning courts can recognise traditional rights over inland waterways as part of Crown law – a big legal shift for freshwater governance in Aotearoa. It’s expected to set the tone for freshwater rights disputes and policy in 2026, with implications for iwi involvement, environmental limits, regional planning, and how water resources are shared or protected under the evolving Resource Management system. This comes amid broader national debates over freshwater quality and reform.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/570060/supreme-court-gives-green-light-to-riverbeds-inclusion-in-maori-customary-marine-title-orders?utm_source=chatgpt.com

We have always said, that we’re not interested in owning the water assets. What we’re interested in is the proprietor rights over water, and that is a discussion to be had with the Crown, not with councils.” – Tukuriorangi Morgan
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/03/09/claims-maori-will-own-nzs-water-infrastructure-dismissed/
(Proprietary rights, also termed property rights, are the rights that accompany legal ownership of tangible or intangible property; rights over or in respect of property)

The statement that the greater affinity Māori have in water is written into New Zealand law refers to the legal recognition of the Māori world view and relationship with water, primarily through the concept of Te Mana o te Wai and specific Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation.
This is a recognition of the deep spiritual and cultural connection Māori have with water bodies, viewing them as living beings with their own mauri (life force), rather than just a resource or commodity.

… despite we will all die without sufficient water, which seems to me to define a certain affinity with quality and quantity and inherent spirit of life.

There is still a Maori Advisory Council linked to the National Water Regulator.
Te Puna, the Board is responsible for the governance of the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai and Te Puna is integral to the success of that governance. The Memorandum of Understanding sets out their expectations and intentions to work as partners.

You haven’t heard much from Morgan recently – but that is likely to change this Election year.
11 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 9:41am
- muzled
  
  I find the whole – water is a taonga argument one of the most absurd pieces of marketing I’ve ever heard.
  
  Water isn’t a taonga, it’s life and death.
  
  For everything that ever existed on the planet.
  
  11 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 1:51pm
- Paulus
  
  Are we still talking about river waters in Aotearoa or New Zealand ?
  
  5 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 2:13pm
Southern Raider

West Midlands Police are in a whole heap of trouble.

Anyone got a comparison for another police department that has been caught blatantly lying to media and Parliament, demonising a group from another country, conspiring a coverup with local terrorist groups and then hiding real reason for their decisions was because of evidence of terrorist gangs arming themselves and being the real threat?

The UK is lost
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 9:43am
Flossie

A week or so back I visited a marae for a joyful occasion. Prior to entering, the assembled group, which included a good number of foreigners, were told (rather emphatically) of the protocols required.
These included no hats – not specifically men – or sunglasses, no talking, laughing, or even smiling (that’s considered disrespectful don’t you know!) until we were advised the formal proceedings had concluded. Everyone dutifully obeyed.
Now why can’t TPM do the right thing in parliament.
38 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 10:04am
- MCōs
  
  Pretty much as I remember going to Mass at a Catholic Church.
  
  12 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 10:20am
- kowtow
  
  Not just TMP, Greens, Labour too.
  
  No respect. For the institution , for the people who put them there and indeed in the longer run for themselves.
  But what would one expect from people who want to tear it all down and recreate it in their own image.
  
  12 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 10:35am
- Wandering Star
  
  “Now why can’t TPM do the right thing in parliament.”
  
  Lack of enforcement, obviously.
  
  17 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 12:25pm
  - R
    
    Ignorance and lack of respect! Can’t put 20 words into an intelligible sentence
    
    0 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:18pm
slightlyrighty

ICE Agents have just shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis, claiming self defence after the claimed she used her vehicle in a threatening manner.

However, there are at least 2 separate videos showing the shooting that show those claims to be a total fabrication.

The mayor of Minnesota has called for ICE agents to (pardon the language) “Get the fuck out of Minneapolis” in a press conference.
12 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 10:13am
- Lance
  
  Trump gave high calibre weapons to low calibre people and let them loose with bugger all training.
  Whoda thunk it would go bad?
  
  5 6
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 12:52pm
  - All_on_Red
    
    Don’t be stupid
    ICE have used the same weapons for years and years
    Just like other Agencies
    You have no idea
    
    7 7
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 3:58pm
    - Don Beckett
      
      Furthermore, they are well trained.
      
      5 6
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:12pm
      - Mike
        
        In perjury?
        
        3 6
        Report
        January 8, 2026 4:53pm
- artemisia
  
  There will be serious investigation of the ICE fatality and the circumstances. No problem with opinions, and there will be many, but there will eventually be agreed facts.
  
  8 1
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 2:39pm
  - Mike
    
    I think you are optimistic to think there will be agreed facts. There will be ‘alternative facts’.
    
    2 4
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 4:54pm
- cmm
  
  There are videos from other angles showing that she was using the vehicle as a weapon.
  
  12 6
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 2:48pm
  - virtualmark
    
    Do you have any links to those videos?
    
    Because the three videos I’ve seen show the officer shooting her is standing to the left hand side of the car, with the car’s front wheels turned to the right. And the photos of the car show the bullet entry point in the lower right-hand corner of the windscreen … which isn’t inconsistent with a fatal shot taken from in front of the car.
    
    5 2
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 5:18pm
    - Christopher Thomson
      
      The officer that shot was walking across in front of her car when she drove it at him.
      
      The law of self-defence will exonerate his actions.
      
      0 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 9, 2026 4:03am
- rouppe
  
  Walz is apparently “preparing the national guard”.
  
  The end result being the National Guard facing off against the Federal Police?
  
  That’s going to be interesting.
  
  1 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 3:50pm
  - Christopher Thomson
    
    How many of the National Guard will be prepared to take up arms against the federal government.
    
    The moment they do, they become insurrectionists.
    
    Will they don grey uniforms too?
    
    0 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 9, 2026 4:05am
- rouppe
  
  At the beginning of the video you can see and hear officers ordering her out of the car. At that moment failure to comply is an offense.
  
  Even for a Lt Col.
  https://youtu.be/aF9POGCDJvM?si=3fGOE1P8PMFiqhRU
  
  3 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 4:04pm
- Christopher Thomson
  
  There is a video that shows the ICE officer being hit by the car.
  
  0 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 9, 2026 4:24am
I remember when

Remember when January was holiday time and people looked forward to warm, sunny weather.
The weather in January took a turn for the worst for a number of years but perhaps things are on the improve.
Not for the gloomsters.
‘Scorching’ hot weather complete with the mandatory yellow, orange and red map, as well as the prediction of thunderstorms for the Herald.

It’s going to be hot, sunny with maybe the odd thunderstorm is no longer enough.
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 10:18am
- Don Beckett
  
  Ain’t it great – just how I remember it in the 1960’s. 🙂
  
  6 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 1:07pm
Handyman

“Police shoot Bondi beachgoer” could have been the recent Herald headline. Factually correct but misleading and biased.
Today’s headline is “ICE shoots woman during ICE operation”. Again factually correct but misleading and biased.
Near the end of the article it quotes a Homeland Security official statement that she attempted to “run over” ICE officers.
The full sentence from which the two words “run over” were selected, is:
Today, ICE officers in Minneapolis were conducting targeted operations when rioters began blocking ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism”.
Selective reporting? You be the judge.
7 6
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 10:23am
- Dudley Quaffquaff
  
  So why has this comment got an uptick while slightlyrighty’s remark above, that video evidence showed that the victim didn’t do that, has not? Hmm.
  
  3 6
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 12:13pm
  - NothingLeft
    
    She had just backed up slightly, then put it in drive straightened up wheels to point at the officer just in front of her who shot her and accelerated – the front wheels were spinning and broke traction.
    https://youtu.be/hiE_chT_Cl4?t=25
    
    The lying media and other organs of the left will try and pretend it was otherwise, but the guy in front of the vehicle was in serious danger of being run over, and responded in a reasonable way in the circumstances.
    
    And the dead lady, like so many unable to regulate their emotions thought that she had a free pass from having to conform to normal standards of behavior expected of adults (especially of men).
    
    11 5
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 12:47pm
- slightlyrighty
  
  Having viewed the video, the ICE version of the events is fanciful at best and an outright lie at worst.
  
  The woman in question was a US Citizen, named as Renee Nicole Good.
  
  10 7
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 12:15pm
- MCōs
  
  It’s a lot easier to decide if you see a video of the incident
  The guy was hardly acting in self defence if he shot her through the window on the driver’s door, but that’s just my observation
  https://x.com/jonfavs/status/2008968193948504371?s=61
  
  9 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 12:28pm
  - Lance
    
    A state prosecutor has just pointed out it is illegal to fire at a fleeing vehicle in the USA, which they actually were not BTW.
    Yes, it’s in the movies all the time, but unless someone’s life is in immediate peril, law enforcement cannot do that.
    
    I see the liar in chief, dear old Don, has just claimed an ICE officer was actually RUN OVER.
    FFS, is there a limit to Trump’s idiotic lies?
    
    7 9
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 1:29pm
    - Christopher Thomson
      
      There appears to be no limit to yours.
      
      0 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 9, 2026 4:11am
  - NothingLeft
    
    she gunned her engine and drove at an agent in front of her vehicle. Intentionally using her vehicle as a weapon in a way that could kill. At that point it is not unreasonable to shoot the driver to prevent them doing harm to others, but especially in a heat of the moment split second decision for the officer in question.
    
    10 6
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 2:54pm
    - All_on_Red
      
      Yep, one of the videos is very clear. You can see the officer get hit as he moves to the side away from it and then he shoots.
      In a couple of the videos the Officer next to the car door obscures the Officer standing in front of the car.
      The rush to pile on Trump etc is hilarious.
      
      13 5
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:04pm
      - Vory v zakone
        
        Yep, once she directed her vehicle in the direction of the officer in front of her, that was “assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly or dangerous instrument.” It does not matter if she hit him or he evaded her.
        
        That fact — without more — made her at threat to the safety of the community if she was able to drive away. If she’ll run over and officer in marked clothing giving her a lawful order to stop her vehicle, then the law presumes she will run over a citizen too if necessary.
        
        Use of deadly force is authorized to neutralized a threat to the community, i.e., preventing her from driving away.
        
        You may not like the law, but that is the state of the law. It has developed over dozens of cases all with multiple factual barriers.
        
        Pointing her car at the officer and starting forward was no different legally from pointing a gun at him and firing. The fact that the shooter misses is irrelevant.
        
        4 4
        Report
        January 8, 2026 5:06pm
- Wandering Star
  
  How is the act of “attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them” an act of “domestic terrorism”? It’s attempted murder, sure, but is “terrorism” now just the go-to back-up justification in case the general law does not cover the actions of law enforcement?
  
  7 8
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 12:29pm
  - slightlyrighty
    
    Trump is already claiming that an ICE agent was run over and is recovering in hospital.
    
    No Agent was run over.
    
    we have a woman leaving a situation where she felt threatened. Given she is now dead, that fear was justified.
    
    8 7
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 12:51pm
    - All_on_Red
      
      An agent was hit by the car as he tried to get out of the way
      He would have been run over if he hadnt moved.
      He was the one who fired.
      
      7 5
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:05pm
    - Christopher Thomson
      
      She had been obstructing the ICE operation all day.
      
      Her actions weren’t a one-off.
      
      1 1
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 9:32pm
    - Christopher Thomson
      
      Your comment is nothing more than your opinion.
      
      She had been part of a vehicle blockade that had been obstructing the ICE operations all day.
      
      Now you think she was feeling threatened and trying to leave?
      
      0 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 9, 2026 4:13am
  - cmm
    
    Terrorism will depend on the motive.
    
    3 3
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 2:49pm
    - Wandering Star
      
      Of whom, the perpetrator or the authorities? Usually it’s the latter.
      
      3 7
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 2:57pm
  - NothingLeft
    
    doing a ‘terrorism’ is a magic word-of-power spell invoked upon watching sheep as part of narrative building. Similar to doing a racism, a sexism or a hateism.
    
    Only works on the feeble minded.
    
    4 2
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 2:58pm
- Lance
  
  There are multiple videos.
  Eye witnesses and video (audio) record the motorist being told to move on, and when she did some fuckwit opened fire and killed her.
  You can believe Pam Bondi (no pun intended) or your own eyes.
  
  7 5
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 12:55pm
  - All_on_Red
    
    Oh bullshit
    She was told to open the door and get out of the car.
    She then drove at the Agent standing in front of the car.
    Heres the video
    https://x.com/BNONews/status/2008966410039644438?
    
    8 7
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 4:09pm
    - Wandering Star
      
      Thanks for the video, but it actually disproves your claims that she “drove at the Agent.” She is clearly turning the vehicle to the right to drive off down the street and the officer is standing to the front-left of the vehicle when he shoots at the windscreen. I expected the video to be much more damning to the deceased than it actually is. For the record, I am all for deportations (in fact, they are doing nowhere near enough), so I’m in general pro ICE. But this looks very bad for ICE.
      
      5 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 4:40pm
      - Christopher Thomson
        
        It only looks bad for ICE to those that want it to be so.
        
        Somebody was walking across in front of her car and she accelerated at them.
        
        The law of self-defence justifies the shooting.
        
        0 0
        Report
        January 9, 2026 4:17am
    - RichardX
      
      Nothing in that video justifies killing the driver.
      
      4 2
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 5:17pm
      - Christopher Thomson
        
        If you knew the law you would know that everything in that video justifies the shooting.
        
        0 0
        Report
        January 9, 2026 4:18am
Vory v zakone

Meanwhile earlier this morning…

The United States Press Secretary, Karoline Claire Leavitt:

“Now, nearly ten years later, thanks to the declassification of documents by the Director of National Intelligence,
@DNIGabbard
, the truth has finally come to light—and it vindicates President Trump and his family.

Barack Hussein Obama attempted to overthrow the United States government in 2016, the sitting president in 2017 as part of a ‘seditious conspiracy,’ overthrew it in 2020 to cover it up—and now he’s been caught.”

@PressSec
:
“While pretending to engage in a peaceful transfer of power, in private Barack Hussein Obama went to great and nefarious lengths to sow discord among the public and sabotage his successor, President Trump.

The new evidence released by the Director of National Intelligence confirms that the Obama administration manufactured and politicized intelligence, which was later used as justification for baseless smears against President Trump—an effort to delegitimize his victory before he even took the oath of office.

The truth is that President Trump never had anything to do with Russia, and the Russia-collusion hoax was a massive fraud perpetrated on the American people from the very beginning. The worst part is that Obama knew the truth, as did all the other corrupt officials involved in the scam, including former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and many others.”
9 10
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 12:03pm
- Lance
  
  Thats funny, you used the word “truth” and Trump in the same sentence
  
  7 12
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 12:57pm
  - All_on_Red
    
    Awwww, show us on the Doll where the Orange Man hurt you
    
    12 7
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 4:09pm
  - Christopher Thomson
    
    Lance, the Russia thing was real then?
    
    1 1
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 9:34pm
- Vory v zakone
  
  So who are the ‘many others’ involved…
  
  Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Lisa Monaco, Adam Schiff, Peter Strzok , Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew Weissmann, Valerie Jarrett, Ben Rhodes, John Carlin, Mary McCord, James Baker, Jonathan Moffa, Michael Kortan, David Laufman, Samantha Power, John Kerry, Denis McDonough, Jim Rybicki, Bill Priestap, Christopher Steele, Richard Dearlove, Alexander Downer, Stefan Halper, Josef Mifsud, Sergei Millian, Sidney Blumenthal, Cody Shearer, Terry McAuliffe, Jonathan Winer, John Podesta, Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, Jake Sullivan, Robbie Mook, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Peter Kadzik, Rachel Brand, Matthew Axelrod, Mary Jacoby, Preet Bharara, Josh Campbell, Jennifer Palmieri, Sir Andrew Wood, Robert Hannigan, Alexandra Chalupa, Michael Sussman, Dimitri Alperovitch, and officials from the DNC, CrowdStrike, Fusion GPS, including Glenn Simpson,and Perkins Coie, including Marc Elias, conspired and carried out the Russia-collusion conspiracy hoax—a seditious conspiracy with the sole intent to topple the United States government during the 2016 presidential election. And Christopher Wray.
  
  📝 No one ever expected that a former Democrat, @DNIGabbard, would expose it all—and this is just the beginning.
  #thebestisyettocome
  
  10 4
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 1:04pm
  - NothingLeft
    
    There need to be major consequences visited upon these conspirators to give pause to those who might attempt to do something similar in future. Given the huge power of their positions life without parole would be reasonable.
    
    The damage done to the ability of Trump to pursue his agenda as the duly elected president of the US was immense.
    
    3 2
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 5:10pm
- virtualmark
  
  So presumably Obama et al will be charged and we will see the evidence in court?
  
  5 0
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 5:21pm
  - Mike
    
    Hey, hasn’t Obama got immunity?
    
    2 0
    Log in to Reply
    Report
    January 8, 2026 6:06pm
    - CrazyIvan
      
      According to the Supreme Court he has
      
      2 0
      Log in to Reply
      Report
      January 8, 2026 7:54pm
      - Mike
        
        Exactly
        
        0 0
        Report
        January 8, 2026 9:26pm
Chuck Bird

A recent podcast by Dr Curry. It is 32 minutes
long.

Judith Curry on Climate Policy: Why Net Zero Doesn’t Add Up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbTV0Zbwa8g
5 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 1:15pm
- NZer In Exile
  
  You know, for the last 25 years I’ve looked into all this extensively. At the outset I was genuinely a true believer (in the greenhouse climate cult). Now my view is that one really has to be an obtuse and willfully ignorant cult member if after listening to all this stuff since it’s inception approx 35 years ago one still believes there is a “climate emergency”. I have no respect for such people.
  
  4 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 8:58pm
JJ56

Plug pull by Trump on US involvement in a reasonable list of UN agencies https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-international-organizations-conventions-and-treaties-that-are-contrary-to-the-interests-of-the-united-states

Wait for the outcry as the IPCC, International Renewable Energy Agency, International Law Commission, UN Energy, to name just a few have to go begging.

Perhaps the Helen Clark Foundation could step up.
8 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 6:35pm
- NZer In Exile
  
  The house of cards is falling apart. Good good.
  
  6 2
  Log in to Reply
  Report
  January 8, 2026 9:00pm
Fender

Nothing that can’t be rebuilt though, tis bit a minor setback in reality, unfortunately and oeople will vote them back in which is even worse
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 8, 2026 10:30pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Reserve Bank sees sense

A boost for gold and silver exports »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Links

Turning point in identity politics
Utopia
They all do it…
The Standard
The beat up about so called NZ freeloading
Point of Order
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Saturday’s Quick Hits
No Minister
Parliament fails to defend transparency
No Right Turn
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d

Share this:

Like this: