Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/18/2025 12:51:34 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
I often read on Free Republic that Canada's new prime minister, Mark Carney, is using a false narrative of an American desire to annex Canada as a method for gaining support in Canada against what was before Justin Trudeau's departure a near-certain change of government.
My opinion is that there is indeed a real desire in corridors of power in Washington DC, a plan to annex Canada or force Canadian provinces one by one to choose the option of seeking statehood as their citizens come to the conclusion that Canada is incapable of meeting their economic basic needs.
To some extent this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Trump administration places enough economic pressure on Canada to weaken the national economy, one by one (starting with Alberta and Saskatchewan) longer-term grievances come to a critical mass and their residents decide through already-extant political processes to seek either independence or U.S. statehood.
President Trump gave the game away with his comments about Canada being potentially a cherished 51st state, with Justin Trudeau its governor. Combined with insulting narratives about Canada having nothing that the U.S. wants or needs, and the whipping up through color-revolution strategies (directed most likely from parallel non-governmental offices in the Washington DC area) of anti-Canadian sentiments, two objectives are met. First, predictably, there will be massive Canadian dislike for Trump and his administration. This will induce a political reaction, as it did in the April election, to stay with the doomed globalist experiment under the Liberals, avoiding a more skilled and nuanced response that would likely come from the Conservatives.
It has further weakened Canada politically that the Conservative leader, unable to hold back the Liberal tide in April, lost his own seat and is thereby distracted by concerns about winning a by-election in what was supposed to be a safe seat in Alberta (in coming weeks). This byelection is giving Albertans a chance to register a third option vote and also to give an updated opinion on how Carney is responding to the threat.
Make no mistake, fellow FR members, your reporter here is certainly a pro-Trump, pro-MAGA individual personally and would probably be delighted (unlike 95% of my fellow citizens) if there were to be political union in the future between the USA and Canada. If it were within my power to do so, I would lead a political movement in that direction (nobody active in politics in Canada today has a good word to say about it). But as I say, make no mistake ... 95% or perhaps closer to 99% of Canadians want nothing to do with political union. There are three reasons for this:
1. Anyone who might be in favor of political union would likely be, like myself, a libertarian conservative with favorable views of Trump and MAGA. But they realistically understand that for Canada to enter union with the United States would further enhance the prospects of Democrat return to power, and in any case, we would be further behind to be swept up into a globalist America than we are in a globalist Canada. At the very best, it would be a no-win situation. Where such people exist, mainly in western Canada, independence is therefore seen as a better option, figuring that an independent western Canada would have a better chance of remaining anti-globalist.
2. More widely, Canadians figure that as citizens of the United States, they would continue to be looked down upon South Park style, and nobody wants to give up their sovereignty to become a regional have-not minority. Related to this, there would be questions about what rights Canadians would actually have as American citizens, would they gain full rights or would there be a period of partial second-class treatment? Canadians generally expect that they would be treated like dirt (not cherished as Trump stated) and exposed to all sorts of baseless prejudices of which there has been no shortage of examples here on FR (Canadians are retarded, Canadians do not tip, Canadians are stupid, Canadians are grifters, etc etc). None of these prejudices have any basis in fact and can be easily disproved. But unfortunately there is a triumphalist element to MAGA and it has whipped up the lowest common denominator of what people used to call the ugly American syndrome.
(and that introduces a paradox, Trump made political gains by promising to be less involved in imperial neo-con militaristic movements, yet here is an obvious attempt to annex a neighbor country and I often read statements here about how Canada must follow the orders of their superiors in Washington DC. Can you imagine how that plays here? In 1776, or 1814, if I were to post on a hypothetical internet, the Colonies should listen to their natural masters in London, how would you view that? This is how we view your pronouncements)
3. It is widely believed in Canada that political union would result in a shift in economic control from our own centres of power to American centres of power such as New York City, Houston, Dallas, California, etc, and Canadians would be gradually reduced to second-class status in all aspects of daily life -- all we need to do to assess this is to look at how things unfold in border states relative to centres of power. There is a noticeable reduction in standard of living on the U.S. side of our common border, you may not realize it, but it's obvious driving south into the U.S.A. that the standard of living is 25% or more lower than we have on our side of the border. That would of course quickly become similar once the border meant nothing.
-----
Now, where is this annexation strategy coming from? Is it something Donald Trump always wanted to do. I believe not. I don't think Canada was ever on Donald Trump's personal radar at all. There are political forces in the conservative portion of American politics that existed before Trump came down the escalator in 2015 to enter politics. Those forces are triumphalist (America is wonderful, Canada is terrible), and vengeful (Canada participated in the pro-Obama globalist campaign to weaken America). I get that part. I didn't like it myself and frankly, I am no great defender of Canada, the country has treated me personally like a leper on the basis of my own non-Canadian origins (born in England, not a good thing) and my Christian beliefs (stated in public, not a good thing). Parts of me would be delighted to see Canada humiliated on the world stage, I fully agree with sentiments I read about Canadians thinking they are special. Of course special just means different for a good reason. So it's half true, because Canadians are different for a bad reason (to advance socialism).
Trust me on this, you would not get the result the think tank triumphalists think they will get, if you absorb Canada. Canadians are very cunning people and very skilled at fitting into difficult situations (note our national sport, an obvious example). My prediction is that a merged USA-Canada would look more like Canada than they (or you) might expect, after a generation or two. And this is because Canadians would infiltrate your power structures and without changing their own values would begin to project those values out. It would not be a perfect victory, but ironically, if America thinks it can take over Canada, the only way for Canada to take over America is for America to do just that.
Comprende amigos? I hope so.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“No one wants Canada’s problems.”
Probably not, but I am convinced powerful forces in Washington DC want Canada’s resources, and have already launched a Soros-imitating color revolution of the alt right to achieve that goal. They are not stating it openly, but in code, just as Putin stated in code what he wanted — under a ridiculous pretext that Nazis were in power — but really he wanted the resources of eastern Ukraine. And now he has them. On FR there is quite a strong contingent of people who state Putin has every right to annex not just eastern Ukraine but all of Ukraine. This speaks to a new reality, a “big power” complex that says, big powers have rights to lord it over smaller countries, taking them over if they wish. The extension of this attitude is disturbing. Why should China therefore not have the right to take over Taiwan, or other Asian territory if they so wish? What are the limits on Russian expansion? Who else gets into the big power club? Would Brazil have carte blanche to invade its neighbors? If the UK play nice with DC, can they get back in (they were of course of this mind-set before 1939). Or France? Israel? Saudi Arabia?
And where do Americans stand on this, is it a natural part of the MAGA movement, is it opposed in principle to it and a return to a neo-con agenda, what is it really? What prevents a different emphasis and a planned ignoring of the think tanks and power centers of which I speak (and make no mistake, almost nobody in the mainstream of MAGA or FR membership has any standing with those people, they are what Paul Simon called a loose coalition of millionaires and billionaires — any billionaires on FR today?)
Dot...
.
Not Pull Start.
The only substantive things we have in common with Canada is the English language and men’s professional ice hockey!
I think a more pragmatic approach would be for each Canadian province to become a state, based upon the residents of the province. By doing so, they would maintain their autonomy to a degree, yet enjoy the benefits of our Constitution.
The Canadians would enjoy the benefit of our Constitution; the United States would enjoy the benefits of the resources.
If the Canadians were liberals, they good govern themselves that way, like Washington or Michigan. If they were conservative, they could govern themselves like Arizona or Texas.
“A crazy idea; the only two provinces worth considering as states are Alberta and Saskatchewan.”
#########################
Agreed. If there IS a plan to annex all of Canada, it’s a straw man offer designed to scare some Canadians and incentivize others, and be used as a negotiation tactic. The Art of the Deal. Shoot for the stars when all you really want is the Moon.
“I just want to make it clear in advance that I will only respond to reasoned and intelligent comments on this subject, and will ignore anyone repeating canards, maintaining the attitude towards them already expressed above. I don’t have time for idiots.”
You can put together all the analysis you want .
But not a chance this would happen.
What does Annexing Canada really mean? Does it mean making Canada a State or multiple states, does it mean making Canada a US territory, etc.
I think it would be impossible to add Canada as a State or multiple states, for example Alberta, it’s conservative and it would add 2 Republican Senators, as soon as the Democrats won back power, they would add Puerto Rico or multiple liberal US territories, etc..
We do not need the Liberal Canadian voters or U.S. Senators and U.S. House reps chosen by them. Together with the U.S. Dims they could be enough to make “single payer” government health insurance a U.S. reality.
Any “populist” U.S. threats about annexing Canada care more about the appearance of their own “success” and less about this Republic.
Alberta and Saskatchewan would be better off as independent countries if the provinces cannot work out a deal with Ottawa for greater sovereignty over energy, agriculture, and other matters. Over 200 years of separate political systems make the Canadian provinces incompatible with the United States.
“The only substantive things we have in common with Canada “ARE” the English language and men’s professional ice hockey!”
Absent the greenies and litigation specialists and such.
Enough possible energy, mining and minerals, food provisioning and such. But then politics and especially geopolitics gets messy.
One can imagine future conflicts will be about all the above, rather like the competition between haves and have-nots within any given frame of reference.
One could add to the four "regional" alliances which could align to provide for one another, though that's another story.
Canada today seems essentially greater Toronto versus everybody else, politically.
Our wonderful "Declaration" reminds us "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Issues of "separation" will rise, because they must. In Canada's case, the Western states are servile to a national government now headed by a Canadian, who holds British and Irish passports as well, not to mention some lingering affiliation with Goldman Sachs and the like.
With the trajectory of Canada politically, some kind of separation politics, quite like Frenc-speaking Canada's also has been, is likely, going forward.
You’ve put a lot of thought into this. Would we be required to learn French ri satisfy the Quebecois?
If we take it over. We could send all the liberals there. That’s where they’ve always wanted to go anyway. They can really expand their Climate Change Tree House Club with both herds of Green Weenies.
Note carefully, I said there was a plan, not that you as FR members were in on it or supported it. Read my tagline.
I agree 100% with the basic premises of the MAGA movement. The problem is, the power structure in Washington DC is free to pursue whatever agenda they wish, and some of it may not be what you voted for. At the very least, we need to be vigilant that MAGA is not used as a premise to enable a different agenda, and its supporters fobbed off by partial returns (5% of illegals deported, tariffs, dissing Canada etc).
What’s really going on? Is the outcome going to be totally better than globalism, or just a sly return to pre-globalist neo-con American imperialism? A lot of people might like that. It’s natural to think one’s country is better than all the rest. In all cases it is not accurate, the only superior nation is the Kingdom of God.
Could we take part of Ontario, say everything west of Thunder Bay. There’s some great fishing in that area.
Mais, ouis! Certainement!
And we sure don’t want their electoral votes.
><
Winner!
“as their citizens come to the conclusion that Canada is incapable of meeting their economic basic needs”
If this is what the people of the western provinces believe, it is their duty to themselves and their families to seek a better deal.
Let the people decide their future.
US Statehood? No effin’ way.
Give ‘em 2 or 3 generations as a Territory and get more Americanized. The same with Greenland.
We don’t want EuroTrash Welfare Thinking.
Well alrighty then. Merde a la puissant treize.
Good post and I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.