You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Canada’ category.
This is why people call part of the Left “Looney”.
There is no current, direct evidence from official U.S. government channels suggesting an intention to annex Canada. However, there are several historical and contemporary discussions and actions that have fueled speculation on this topic:
Historical Context: Historically, there have been moments when the U.S. considered or discussed annexing parts or all of Canada, notably during the War of 1812 and in various post-war planning scenarios. For instance, the U.S. had plans like “War Plan Red” in the 1930s, which included strategies for dealing with Canada in the event of a conflict with Britain.
Recent Political Rhetoric: More recently, comments from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in 2025 have stirred debate. Trump has suggested using “economic force” to make Canada the 51st state, mentioning this during a press conference and on social media. This rhetoric has been interpreted by some as serious intent, while others see it as negotiation tactics or bluster aimed at influencing trade or other policy negotiations.
Public and Media Reaction: Posts on X and articles from various news outlets have discussed these comments, with some expressing concern over U.S. intentions. However, these are often framed as speculative or as reactions to Trump’s statements rather than evidence of a formal policy.
Legal and Practical Considerations: Legally, annexation would require constitutional amendments and referendums in both countries, processes that are complex and politically unfeasible without mutual consent. The practicalities of annexation, including military and economic implications, are also significant deterrents.
Canadian Response: Canadian leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have strongly rejected these ideas, with statements indicating no possibility of Canada becoming a U.S. state. This reflects a strong national sentiment against such a move.
While there is no concrete evidence of an active plan to annex Canada, the historical interest, coupled with recent provocative political rhetoric, keeps the topic in public discourse. However, without a formal policy or legislative action, these discussions remain speculative or part of political posturing rather than actual policy intent.
This is what people have a problem with, don’t let the activist play word games with you.
The dynamic at play is this: Inclusivity ONLY comes into play when people and the ideas that they share agree with what the activists say. Messages contrary to woke activist ideology therefore are not included under the umbrella of inclusivity.
Thus, be wary when you see the term “inclusive” because it is often used to perform the polar opposite function.
The Liberal Party of Canada’s decision to remove Chandra Arya from the leadership race is a concerning display of undemocratic behavior.
Arya, having met the necessary criteria and raised the required funds, should have been allowed to compete on an equal footing with other candidates. This exclusion smacks of internal manipulation, suggesting that the party leadership might be more interested in controlling the outcome than in fostering a fair and open contest.
Such actions raise serious questions about the integrity of the leadership selection process and whether it truly reflects the will of party members or is instead orchestrated by a select few. This move not only disenfranchises Arya’s supporters but also undermines the democratic ethos that the Liberal Party should champion.
It’s a clear indication that the party might prioritize maintaining a particular narrative or candidate over the democratic ideals it claims to uphold, thereby casting a shadow over the legitimacy of the entire leadership race and, by extension, the future governance of the country.
The decision by the current Liberal Government in Canada to prorogue Parliament is a stark demonstration of political opportunism trumping democratic principles.
By shutting down Parliament, they’ve effectively silenced the legislative body’s ability to hold the government accountable at a crucial juncture, especially with the looming leadership change. This move appears less about a necessary “reset” for government action and more about buying time to manage internal party politics ahead of a potential vote of non-confidence.
It’s particularly egregious given the backdrop of significant national and international issues that demand parliamentary attention, including economic recovery and international relations.
The prorogation not only delays important legislative work but also undermines the democratic process by preventing timely scrutiny of government actions, further eroding public trust in a government that seems more focused on self-preservation than public service. This is not governance; it’s a blatant manipulation of parliamentary procedure for partisan gain.
This is like when you really *really* wanted Santa Claus to be real. You look for information to confirm your beliefs (the exact opposite of you like doing the corresponding to reality thing).
Of course, the non EKOS polls show a rather different story.
The take away for today: The easiest person to fool is yourself.
Here’s a summary of the key points from the transcript of the discussion between Abigail Shrier and Coleman Hughes on Identity, Speech, and Policy, moderated by Mia Hughes:
Recent U.S. Election and Trump’s Victory:
The discussion began with reflections on the surprising decisiveness of Trump’s victory in the recent election, with Abigail Shrier noting she avoids political predictions but was surprised by the clear win. Coleman Hughes mentioned he won a bet by predicting Trump’s win, highlighting a pattern of polls underestimating Trump due to people’s reluctance to admit their support.
Implications of Trump’s Second Term:
Both speakers discussed the potential implications of Trump’s second term. Abigail expressed hope that Trump’s administration would focus on efficiency, reducing government bloat, and addressing critical issues like the economy and border security. Coleman viewed Trump as a high-risk, high-reward candidate, capable of unexpected successes but also erratic.
Woke Culture and Resistance:
The conversation touched on the resistance from the “woke” left. Abigail argued that this group hasn’t faced real resistance, referring to examples like campus protests where no punitive actions were taken. Coleman agreed that while there might be less resistance this time due to Trump’s clear mandate, the “woke” ideology remains deeply entrenched in academia.
Challenges to Free Speech and Gender Ideology:
They discussed the challenges to free speech, particularly around gender ideology. Abigail’s book “Irreversible Damage” was cited as an example of censorship attempts, and she emphasized the need for courage in standing against misinformation in gender ideology. Coleman added the importance of including detransitioners in discussions on gender-affirming care, a perspective often sidelined.
Impact of Therapy on Youth:
Abigail Shrier’s book “Bad Therapy” was referenced, criticizing the over-therapization of children, suggesting it undermines resilience by labeling normal responses to life’s challenges as disorders. She highlighted how this could affect identity formation, with many young people identifying with their mental health issues.
Towards a Colorblind Society:
Coleman Hughes discussed his advocacy for a colorblind society, explaining it as an ideal where race is not a factor in treatment by individuals or government, though acknowledging the presence of racism. He compared this to the pursuit of peace as an unattainable but worthy goal.
Hope for Civil Society:
Both speakers expressed cautious optimism about returning to a civil society. Abigail pointed to a consensus among parents across political lines on key issues, suggesting that rebuilding families could be hopeful. Coleman was more skeptical, citing the increasing polarization due to social media echo chambers.
Message to Well-Meaning Supporters of Harmful Policies:
The speakers addressed well-meaning individuals supporting policies they believe are compassionate but potentially harmful. Coleman encouraged self-challenge and listening to opposing views, while Abigail urged parents to assert traditional values at home to counteract broader cultural shifts.
Role of Institutions in Ideological Shifts:
The discussion concluded with reflections on how institutions have been overtaken by ideologies contrary to traditional values, with a call to reclaim these spaces with sound ideas, as exemplified by the mission of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
The event was framed as an important dialogue on how ideas shape society, with a call for intellectual courage and the reclamation of traditional values in the face of modern ideological challenges.
It is a lose lose situation for both countries. Let’s instead go for negotiations and understand, hopefully, we have shared goals.
Economic Impact:
-
Protection of Domestic Industry: Counter-tariffs could protect Canadian industries from the adverse effects of U.S. tariffs by making American goods more expensive in Canada, potentially boosting demand for Canadian products. However, this could harm businesses that rely on U.S. imports for inputs or components.
-
Reciprocal Damage: Tariffs are essentially taxes on imports, which can lead to higher prices for consumers and businesses in both countries. The highly integrated nature of the Canadian and U.S. economies means that retaliatory tariffs might hurt Canadian sectors like automotive, energy, agriculture, and manufacturing, which are deeply tied to U.S. supply chains.
-
GDP and Employment: Studies and analyses suggest that both countries could see a drop in GDP and job losses if tariffs escalate. For instance, reports indicate that a 25% tariff could shrink Canada’s GDP by significant margins, affecting employment and economic growth.
Political Considerations:
-
Negotiation Leverage: Some see counter-tariffs as a necessary bargaining chip in negotiations to avoid or reduce U.S. tariffs. The threat of retaliatory measures might persuade the U.S. to reconsider its tariff policies to prevent economic harm to itself.
-
Diplomatic Relations: Imposing counter-tariffs could strain already tense Canada-U.S. relations, especially under a U.S. administration that has shown a willingness to use tariffs as a tool for policy enforcement. This could affect broader diplomatic and security cooperation.
Public and Business Sentiment:
-
Public Opinion: There’s significant concern among Canadians about the economic repercussions of a trade war. Public pressure might influence government policy, pushing for either protective measures or diplomatic solutions.
-
Business Response: Many Canadian businesses, particularly those in sectors with high U.S. integration, might prefer negotiations over tariffs due to the potential for supply chain disruptions.
Strategic Considerations:
-
Long-term Strategy: Canada might consider diversifying its trade partners to reduce dependency on the U.S. market, but this is a long-term strategy that doesn’t address immediate threats posed by tariffs.
-
Legal Framework: The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (USMCA) provides mechanisms for dispute resolution which could be utilized instead of immediate tariff impositions, although these processes might be slow.
Conclusion:
-
Given the economic interdependence, the potential for mutual economic harm, and the political dynamics, there’s no straightforward answer. Canada’s response might involve a mix of strategies:
-
Negotiation: First, attempt to negotiate with the U.S. to avoid tariffs or secure exemptions.
-
Targeted Retaliation: If necessary, apply counter-tariffs selectively to protect critical industries without escalating into a full-blown trade war.
-
Diplomatic Channels: Use diplomatic channels to resolve disputes, possibly through the mechanisms provided by the USMCA.
-
In summary, while counter-tariffs could be a tool for negotiation and protection, the decision must weigh the potential economic fallout against the strategic benefits. Canada should proceed with caution, considering both immediate and long-term impacts on its economy, businesses, and relationship with the U.S.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…