Economics 101: with Buffalo Rookie Tight End / Rising Star – Jackson Hawes🔵🔴

WASHINGTON — Greenland’s the talk of the town, which even has many Republicans nervous.

“The rhetoric going on now is irresponsible,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told Raw Story.

The rhetoric — including the White House declaring “all options” are on the table when it comes to obtaining the Danish-governed territory — has only been ratcheting up since last weekend, when President Donald Trump deployed the U.S. military to invade Venezuela and capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

“You have to take it more seriously than we did six months ago,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told Raw Story.

“Did you see this coming with Maduro?” Raw Story pressed.

“I'm still so naive that I took them at their word during their classified briefing in December when they told us they weren't interested in regime change,” Murphy said. “Yeah, it's hard to take any of this seriously, given that they have had very little compunction misleading us in the past.”

Murphy was speaking as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth went to Capitol Hill to give confidential briefings about the Venezuela operation.

With Rubio now slated to meet with Danish officials to discuss Greenland, an autonomous territory of the European nation, many on Capitol Hill are reassessing previous political complacency.

“I said all last year, ‘Ah, you know, nothing will come of it,’” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told Raw Story. “Obviously, it's at the head of my priority list now.”

Even many of President Trump’s GOP allies fear Congress will once again be left in the dark.

“It's hard to say what he's inching towards,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) told Raw Story. “They've kind of been a little bit all over the board.”

‘Wouldn't want to do it by force’

“In the New Year, where’s Greenland on your priority list?” Raw Story asked Sen. James Lankford (R-OK).

“Greenland was not on my bingo card two years ago,” Lankford said. “I don't even know how to answer that question.”

“Are you worried that this could be a distraction?” Raw Story pressed. “Or do you think it is key strategically?”

“No. There's some key strategic aspects there dealing with their own coast and dealing with the Arctic, there's no question about that, so that's a key relationship,” Lankford said. “It’s why we have a base there and have had a base there for years.”

To many Republicans, that relationship’s worked — so they don’t see any need to alter it.

“I wouldn't say it's a top priority for me, no,” Sen. Capito said.

While most Republicans on Capitol Hill don’t want to even entertain the thought of using the U.S. military to capture Greenland, they’re open to reassessing the relationship.

“It’s in our strategic interest to enhance our presence there,” Capito said. “I don't think that it's something that is a top priority for us, and I don't think it's something that needs to be grasped.

“Some kind of mutually agreed enhancement of our presence there would probably be a good start.”

Even so-called foreign policy doves — or isolationists — in the GOP are now openly courting the island country.

“It’d be nice if Greenland would decide they'd like to join the U.S.,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Raw Story.

“But I wouldn't want to do it by force. The only way that you'd convince Greenland to be part of the United States is by offering them things that would be to their benefit, not telling them we're going to invade them.”

‘Talk to the President’

With Russia’s war against Ukraine already straining NATO, bellicose chatter from the White House has U.S. allies nervous.

“Any type of move on Greenland, it'll threaten the existence of NATO, which will be inviting the end of the post-World War II international system,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) — the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee — told Raw Story.

“They'll be conceding, I think, to the Russians influence in Europe that they don't have now — and China.”

But few doubt that President Trump seriously wants the U.S. to take over Greenland — a reality which means many lawmakers are now fielding calls from their NATO counterparts.

“I'm worried that even these threats, even this rhetoric has stirred our NATO allies up so much,” Murkowski said.

“I've talked to the Danish ambassador, talking to my friends, the parliamentarians in other Arctic countries — the Nordic countries — and, yeah, there's a lot of anxiety.”

Still, even with Greenland the talk of this town, many Republicans still just shrug when talk turns that way.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) is chair of the nominally powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee but when Raw Story asked him about Greenland, he simply responded: “I don’t know.”

“Talk to the President,” Risch said.

Jim Cramer and his colleagues had to awkwardly navigate a discussion about the stock market as their network's parent company had a brutal start to the day.

The post WATCH: Jim Cramer and Colleagues Tip-Toe Through Segment On CNBC Parent Company’s IPO — As Ticker Shows Stock Getting Crushed first appeared on Mediaite.

By Alexander Lowie, Postdoctoral associate in Classical and Civic Education, University of Florida

Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia, announced in November 2025 that he will relaunch the group after it disbanded following his prison sentence in 2023.

Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other crimes committed during the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump granted clemency to the over 1,500 defendants convicted of crimes connected to the storming of the Capitol.

Trump did not pardon Rhodes — or some others found guilty of the most serious crimes on Jan. 6. He instead commuted Rhodes’ sentence to time served. Commutation only reduces the punishment for a crime, whereas a full pardon erases a conviction.

As a political anthropologist I study the Patriot movement, a collection of anti-government right-wing groups that include the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Moms for Liberty. I specialize in alt-right beliefs, and I have interviewed people active in groups that participated in the Capitol riot.

Rhodes’ plans to relaunch the Oath Keepers, largely composed of current and former military veterans and law enforcement officers, is important because it will serve as an outlet for those who have felt lost since his imprisonment. The group claimed it had more than 40,000 dues-paying members at the height of its membership during Barack Obama’s presidency. I believe that many of these people will return to the group, empowered by the lack of any substantial punishment resulting from the pardons for crimes committed on Jan. 6.

In my interviews, I’ve found that military veterans are treated as privileged members of the Patriot movement. They are honored for their service and military training. And that’s why I believe many former Oath Keepers will rejoin the group – they are considered integral members.

Their oaths to serving the Constitution and the people of the United States are treated as sacred, binding members to an ideology that leads to action. This action includes supporting people in conflicts against federal agencies, organizing citizen-led disaster relief efforts, and protesting election results like on Jan. 6. The members’ strength results from their shared oath and the reverence they feel toward keeping it.

Who are the Oath Keepers?

Rhodes joined the Army after high school and served for three years before being honorably discharged after a parachuting accident in 1986. He then attended the University of Nevada and later graduated from Yale Law School in 2004. He founded the Oath Keepers in 2009.

Oath Keepers takes its name from the U.S military Oath of Enlistment, which states:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States …”

Informed by his law background, Rhodes places a particular emphasis on the part of the oath that states they will defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

He developed a legal theory that justifies ignoring what he refers to as “unlawful orders” after witnessing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Following the natural disaster, local law enforcement was assigned the task of confiscating guns, many of which officers say were stolen or found in abandoned homes.

Rhodes was alarmed, believing that the Second Amendment rights of citizens were being violated. Because of this, he argued that people who had military or law enforcement backgrounds had a legal duty to refuse what the group considers unlawful orders, including any that violated constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to bear arms.

In the Oath Keepers’ philosophy, anyone who violates these rights are domestic enemies to the Constitution. And if you follow the orders, you’ve violated your oath.

Explaining the origin of the group on the right-wing website The Gateway Pundit in November 2025, Rhodes said: “We were attacked out of the gate, labeled anti-government, which is absurd because we’re defending the Constitution that established the federal government. We were labeled anti-government extremists, all kinds of nonsense because the elites want blind obedience in the police and military.”

Rebuilding and restructuring

In 2022, the nonprofit whistleblower site Distributed Denial of Secrets leaked more than 38,000 names on the Oath Keepers’ membership list.

The Anti-Defamation League estimated that nearly 400 were active law enforcement officers, and that more than 100 were serving in the military. Some of these members were investigated by their workplaces but never disciplined for their involvement with the group.

Some members who were not military or law enforcement did lose their jobs over their affiliation. But they held government-related positions, such as a Wisconsin alderman who resigned after he was identified as a member.

This breach of privacy, paired with the dissolution of the organization after Rhodes’ sentencing, will help shape the group going forward.

In his interview with The Gateway Pundit, where he announced the group’s relaunch, Rhodes said: “I want to make it clear, like I said, my goal would be to make it more cancel-proof than before. We’ll have resilient, redundant IT that makes it really difficult to take down … And I want to make sure I get – put people in charge and leadership everywhere in the country so that, you know, down the road, if I’m taken out again, that it can still live on under good leadership without me being there.”

There was a similar shift in organizational structure with the Proud Boys in 2018. That’s when their founder, Gavin McInnes, stepped away from the organization. His departure came after a group of Proud Boys members were involved in a fight with anti-fascists in New York.

Prosecutors wanted to try the group as a gang. McInnes, therefore, distanced himself to support their defense that they weren’t in a gang or criminal organization. Ultimately, two of the members were sentenced to four years in prison for attempted gang assault charges.

Some Proud Boys members have told me they have since focused on creating local chapters, with in-person recruitment, that communicate on private messaging apps. They aim to protect themselves from legal classification as a gang. It also makes it harder for investigators or activist journalists to monitor them.

This is referred to as a cell style of organization, which is popular with insurgency groups. These groups are organized to rebel against authority and overthrow government structures. The cell organizational style does not have a robust hierarchy but instead produces smaller groups. They all adhere to the same ideology but may not be directly associated.

They may have a leader, but it’s often acknowledged that they are merely a figurehead, not someone giving direct orders. For the Proud Boys, this would be former leader Enrique Tarrio. Proud Boys members I’ve spoken to have referred to him as a “mascot” and not their leader.

Looking ahead

So what does the Rhodes interview indicate about the future of Oath Keepers?

Members will continue supporting Trump while also recruiting more retired military and law enforcement officers. They will create an organizational structure designed to outlive Rhodes. And based on my interactions with the far-right, I believe it’s likely they will create an organizational structure similar to that of the cell style for organizing.

Beyond that, they are going to try to own their IT, which includes hosting their websites and also using trusted online revenue generators.

This will likely provide added security, protecting their membership rolls while making it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to investigate them in the future.