Part 1: US Oligarchs Caught in Machiavelli’s Trap

Part 2: When an Oligarch Works Against Society

Cecilia Farell left the following comment on Part 2:

Quote from my post:

Great post, Sarah, but I disagree with you on the above. Why is ICE going out on the streets and murdering and gunning people down, no matter if they are citizens or lawful permanent residents? Why is JD Vance saying America is white Cristians? Why are women bleeding to death in hospital parking lots because doctors are too afraid to treat them because they might be charged with providing an abortion? Why are some states charging women with murder when they have a miscarriage? Why does Trump support policies and legislation that ensure the top 0.1% of the US population keeps its $25 trillion while the bottom 50% has only $4.27 trillion? And so on, and so on. If this isn’t aggressive extraction and an adversarial stance, I don’t know what is.

I had not known about this absolutely insane assault on women’s most devastating experience—of losing a pregnancy. I have never had that experience but I’ve heard from those who have. The grief can be overwhelming. To then being charged for murdering their own child is enough to cause suicide, a broken mind, or other ultimately desperate responses.

Dana Sussman, the senior vice-president at Pregnancy Justice, searched court and police records to find cases of “pregnancy crimes.” Susman says the goal of the anti-abortion movement is “to establish full personhood, full rights for embryos and fetuses,” and that this is “sometimes at the cost of the rights of the woman carrying them. Alabama and Oklahoma are both hubs for the growing fetal personhood movement.”

Then, on top of everything else, Donald Trump as president of the United States spooks pregnant mothers by claiming that pregnant women who take Tylenol “may give their children autism.”

This behaviour of the United States President is none other than aggressive. But how is it extraction? What does he get out of it?

BIOPOLITICAL EXTRACTION or the
EXTRACTION OF REPRODUCTIVE LABOUR

This title is taken from Google’s Answer to: How does Trump consolidate political power by this aggression toward low-income pregnant women?

To satisfy my very literal brain, I have to understand how it is extraction to establish personhood of fetus and to criminalize abortion, miscarriage, and still birth. Please note, I think it’s evil to do this but in order to agree that the correct term for this behaviour is “aggressive extraction,” I need to understand the legal and/or political meaning of the word.

Trump Overreach & Penalization of Low-income Pregnant Women

Key Points

• absolute loyalty of white evangelical Christian voting block who count it as victory

• protect against access to abortion via pulling funding and surveillance

• vulnerable population forced into survival mode has no resources or energy to fight back

The Trump administration leverages aggressive state overreach and the penalization of low-income pregnant women to consolidate political power through three primary mechanisms: [1, 2]

1. Consolidating the Electoral Coalition

A cornerstone of Donald Trump’s political strategy relies on maintaining the absolute loyalty of white evangelical and socially conservative voting blocs. By championing “fetal personhood” frameworks, pardoning anti-abortion activists, and actively penalizing reproductive autonomy, the administration delivers high-value symbolic and tangible victories to these key constituencies. [1, 2, 3]

This guarantees voter turnout and massive financial support from conservative organizations, ensuring his political base remains locked down and highly motivated.

2. Institutional Capture and Reshaping the Federal Bureaucracy

The administration utilizes policy frameworks—frequently mirroring recommendations found in blueprints like Project 2025—to reshape federal agencies into tools of political enforcement. [1, 2]

• Funding as a Weapon: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has frozen or withheld tens of millions of dollars in Title X family planning funds from organizations like Planned Parenthood over compliance with conservative administrative priorities. [1, 2]

• Coercive Interventions: The administration has wielded threats to pull entire federal health budgets from states (like Illinois) that attempt to protect abortion access or require comprehensive patient referrals. [1]

By installing partisan loyalists to oversee these shifts, the executive branch bypasses legislative gridlock and expands its direct control over local healthcare and legal apparatuses. [1, 2]

3. Exploiting Vulnerability to Prevent Political Mobilization

Low-income women and marginalized groups lack the financial capital, legal representation, or resource networks required to navigate state surveillance or fight criminal charges. When a state introduces surveillance or prosecutes individuals for pregnancy loss, it introduces a severe chilling effect. [1, 2, 3, 4]

From a structural perspective, a population forced into survival mode—consuming its limited time and resources on avoiding criminalization or managing forced pregnancies—lacks the bandwidth, economic freedom, and collective agency required to organize politically, protest, or challenge the ruling elite.

Definition of “Aggressive Extraction”

Key Points:

• Government sees population as a source of wealth

Google’s Answer to: What is the official or legal definition of "aggressive extraction" with regards to the way a government relates to the people?

There is no official or legal definition for the phrase “aggressive extraction” regarding how a government relates to its people. It is not a codified legal term in constitutional, international, or statutory law. [1]

Instead, “aggressive extraction” is an analytical and descriptive concept used in political economy, sociology, and political science. Depending on the context, the concept generally maps to three distinct frameworks of governance: [1, 2, 3]

Definition of “Extraction” in “Personhood of Fetus” Frameworks

Key Points:

• The state uses coercion to repurpose a person’s biological and physical capacities for the state.

• The state forces years of unpaid labour on the individual to produce another asset for the state.

• By criminalizing miscarriages and stillbirths the state extracts individuals from their communities to incarcerate them.

• every pregnancy becomes a potential crime scene requiring legal oversight, giving the state the right to extract medical histories that were previously private.

• the state extracts financial capital through court fees, legal defense costs, bail, and criminal fines, further impoverishing vulnerable families

MY QUESTION: I am looking to understand how it is extraction to establish personhood of fetus and to criminalize abortion, miscarriage, and still birth.

GOOGLE AI Answers at same link:

In political economy, reproductive justice, and critical legal theory, scholars and activists frame fetal personhood and the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes as a form of “biopolitical extraction” or the “extraction of reproductive labor.” [1]

Under this framework, the process is viewed as a mechanism where the state uses legal coercion to claim ownership over a person’s biological and physical capacities, repurposing them for state or societal objectives.

1. The Legal Framework: “Bodily Extraction”

In mainstream legal theory, individuals possess a right to bodily integrity, meaning the state cannot force a person to use their physical organs to sustain another life. [1, 2, 3]

• The Claim: Establishing fetal personhood legally overrides the pregnant individual’s right to self-ownership.

• The Extraction: Scholars argue that the state effectively “extracts” the continuous use of the pregnant person’s internal organs (such as the uterus, heart, and lungs), their physical health, and the inherent medical risks of childbirth. Because this use is mandated under threat of criminal prosecution, critics categorize it as forced biological labor or bodily expropriation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. The Capitalist Framework: “Extraction of Reproductive Labor”

In feminist economics and sociology, pregnancy and child-rearing are classified as social reproduction—the essential, unpaid labor required to produce and maintain the human workforce. [1]

• The Claim: By criminalizing abortion, the state mandates the production of new individuals to serve future economic, demographic, or military needs. [1]

• The Extraction: The state extracts months of uncompensated physical labor, followed by years of unpaid caretaking labor. By legally enforcing pregnancy, the state guarantees a future labor supply and tax base without paying for the biological production of those individuals, effectively shifting 100% of the cost, physical toll, and economic risk onto the citizen. [1]

3. The Surveillance Framework: “The Extraction of Data and Autonomy”

When miscarriages and stillbirths are criminalized, every pregnancy becomes a potential crime scene requiring legal oversight. [1, 2]

• The Claim: To enforce these laws, the state must monitor biological processes that were previously private.

• The Extraction: The state extracts private medical data, digital search histories, and personal autonomy. To prove a miscarriage wasn’t an induced abortion, citizens must surrender their medical privacy to state surveillance, transforming a health event into a public asset subject to police investigation. [1, 2]

4. The Punitive Framework: “Extraction of Liberty and Capital”

The criminalization of pregnancy outcomes often disproportionately affects marginalized and low-income populations, leading to direct material extraction. [1, 2]

• The Claim: Miscarriages and stillbirths are treated as outcomes of criminal negligence or fetal abuse.

• The Extraction: The state physically extracts individuals from their communities via incarceration, removing their freedom. Concurrently, it extracts financial capital through court fees, legal defense costs, bail, and criminal fines, further impoverishing vulnerable families. [1]

TO RECAP AND CONCLUDE

Having now analyzed the meaning of “aggressive extraction,” I can no longer agree at all with the quote from my previous post stating that:

The adversarial treatment Donald Trump imposes on low-income pregnant women is none other than “aggressive extraction.” The same definitions applied to pregnant women also apply in large part to other American citizens whom Donald Trump abuses, shoots, and deports without due process, usually via ICE. I have seen so many Americans on Quora state their agreement with Trump’s clamping down on the “open borders.” They believed him when he posted on Truth Social:

Thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada bringing crime and drugs at levels never seen before. Right now a caravan coming from Mexico composed of thousands of people seems to be unstoppable in its quest to come through a currently open border (reposted at Lest We Forget the Resilience of 2025).

That claim was simply not true. If it were, we would have heard about it up here in Canada. We never heard. Presenting many thousands, entire caravans, of Americans as aliens certainly jibes with “seeing the populace as adversary.”

The Donald Trump Administration is most certainly practicing “aggressive extraction” and viewing the general public as an adversary. Thank you, Cecilia Farell | Substack, for drawing my attention to this. It fills out the picture in ways my previous analysis failed and I did not understand why.

That’s me paraphrasing. I call it “Divine Right of Presidents.”

But the Western Hemisphere includes the Spanish Empire of Latin America. It includes New France, and what eventually became the British Empire in North America.

Whereas Monroe had said only that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to European colonialism, Polk now stated that European nations should not interfere with projected territorial expansion by the United States (Monroe Doctrine - US Foreign Policy, Latin America, Expansion | Britannica).

I want to know who gave Presidents James Monroe (1758-1831) and James Knox Polk (1795-1849) the right to act so uppity. But of course it’s obvious. These are the same people—or their children—who thought themselves such pure Christians that revolting against the king seemed right.

That’s not something I, who grew up as a Mennonite under the authority of the Martin Luther and King James Bibles, understand.

And this revolt was rooted in the Puritan version of the Protestant Christian religion, summarized thus:

The New England colonists—with the exception of Rhode Island—were predominantly Puritans, who, by and large, led strict religious lives. The clergy was highly educated and devoted to the study and teaching of both Scripture and the natural sciences. The Puritan leadership and gentry, especially in Massachusetts and Connecticut, integrated their version of Protestantism into their political structure. Government in these colonies contained elements of theocracy, asserting that leaders and officials derived that authority from divine guidance and that civil authority ought to be used to enforce religious conformity. Their laws assumed that citizens who strayed away from conventional religious customs were a threat to civil order and should be punished for their nonconformity (Religion in Colonial America: Trends, Regulations, and Beliefs | Facing History & Ourselves).

So what does it mean to “integrate [their religion] into their political structure”? The answer is given in the last line of the quote: Their laws assumed that citizens who strayed away from conventional religious customs were a threat to civil order and should be punished for their nonconformity.

That is theocracy. It is the collapsing of religious law into secular law. And that practice continued in Western Civilization well into the twentieth century for issues like homosexual activity. In Canada, homosexuality was partially decriminalized in 1969. See LGBTQ rights in Canada - Wikipedia for the full story. The teaching of evolution in public schools is another such issue.

In the eighteenth century, the Holy Bible of the Puritans said very clearly for them to obey the authorities. They used the Authorized King James Bible by the mid-1600s. I will quote from the New King James Version for ease of reading.

Matthew 22:21 (NKJV) And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

That, I was taught, means to pay taxes to the civil authorities and obey them so far as possible, because God’s Law supersedes civil law.

Romans 13:1–2 (NKJV) “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.”

This passage, I was taught to understand, means that the government of the land is ordained of God and must be obeyed. All the same, we as Mennonites had learned through the 20th century World Wars that at times the government violates God’s Law as we understood it. God’s Law is superior and we were ready to suffer persecution if necessary. The government drafted men to fight in the war. Jesus said to “Put up your sword. He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” Mennonites went to prison and accepted other harsh settlements in lieu of breaking what they understood as God’s Law. That is what we understood as “rendering to God the things that are God’s.” The Puritans of the Thirteen Colonies did not.

They did not believe Jesus’ command to “put up your sword” meant “do not to go to war.” The British Monarch, King George III who reigned from 1760 to 1820, was their God-ordained authority to whom they owed taxes. That is what the Puritans’ Bible said. Yet in the 1770’s the Thirteen Colonies would not pay the taxes to King George III. They refused to “give unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar,” like Jesus commanded. Instead, they revolted against their God-ordained authority King George III.

Fifty years later, in 1823, President James Monroe declared in his Annual Message to Congress that “any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States” (Monroe Doctrine | History, Summary, & Significance | Britannica).

That was James Monroe in 1823. Two decades later, in the 1845 and again in 1848:

U.S. Pres. James K. Polk reiterated Monroe’s principles in warning Britain and Spain not to establish footholds in Oregon, California, or Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula (Monroe Doctrine - US Foreign Policy, Latin America, Expansion | Britannica).

Unlike Monroe, Polk brought in “Manifest Destiny,” which is:

• The assumption of the unique moral virtue of the United States,

• the assertion of its mission to redeem the world by the spread of republican government and

• more generally the "American way of life", and the faith in

• the nation's divinely ordained destiny to succeed in this mission (Manifest destiny - Wikipedia).

The word “divine” keeps appearing and reappearing. Thus, I conclude I am not mistaken in applying it myself as “Divine Right of Presidents.” To continue with the above quote from Britannica:

Polk reinterpreted the doctrine in terms of the prevailing spirit of Manifest Destiny. Whereas Monroe had said only that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to European colonialism, Polk now stated that European nations should not interfere with projected territorial expansion by the United States (Monroe Doctrine - US Foreign Policy, Latin America, Expansion | Britannica).

This is so—to use a truism of my mother’s—dog-in-the-manger-ish.

Then along came a brand new century and a brand new president—Theodor Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt, loved and admired by many. But he got even greedier. He added the Big Stick or Roosevelt Corollary to the already nasty Monroe Doctrine with its Manifest Destiny. The Roosevelt Corollary is what made the United States the police of the world, or for the time being, of Latin America. It stated that:

in cases of flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American country, the United States could intervene in that country’s internal affairs (Britannica article above).

This makes my blood boil. Who do these presidents think they are to dictate what happens outside their own borders? No president in his right mind—they are all men—has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another sovereign country.

Did their mothers not teach them to mind their own business? Did their mothers not teach them not take their sibling’s toys? Did their Puritan preachers not teach the Ten Commandments that say not to lust after that which belongs to another? Not to steal?

I think perhaps the misunderstanding comes from the pseudo-name they chose for their country—America—or perhaps that choice was deliberate. Because “United States” is not an actual name; other countries also call themselves united states of this or that, e.g. Mexico. Perhaps these people imagine they united the entire Western Hemisphere. They didn’t.

No one outside themselves recognizes such outrageous presumptions. Here is how the rest of the world sees their country versus the two large continents. NOTE: Some may disagree with my naming method but not with the international boundaries.

That’s my thinking in 2026 after fifty years of watching the US interfere in other countries, start wars they couldn’t finish or win, and occupy countries for decades and being forced to pull out after thousands have died because of their pointless occupation. Then I read some of the fine print.

Stepping Back; Looking At The History

Apparently, two centuries ago in 1823 when the Monroe Doctrine was drafted, that was not the foreign policy.

The origin and framing of the Monroe Doctrine

Two hundred years ago, the European powers were in the habit of colonizing any piece of land they could lay their hands on. Many of the colonies in Latin America, the first part of the New World to be colonized, had gained their independence and established themselves as new countries. The concern in both Great Britain and in the United States was that European countries might interfere in these fledgling countries and recolonize them (Monroe Doctrine | History, Summary, & Significance | Britannica).

A formal declaration or statement was needed, it was felt by both Great Britain and the United States, to prevent this.

The Result

In the end, the United States took full responsibility for this formal statement and for the entire Western Hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine, known for the first thirty years as Monroe’s policy statement, came into being. James Monroe was president of the United States at the time. Good or bad? I don’t know. As they say, surely so many people couldn’t all be wrong.

But, with successive presidents this formal statement expanded until under Roosevelt in 1904, they—the United States—would police delinquent Latin American countries if necessary; Europe should take its troops, go home, and stay there. Forty years later, the United States planted its own troops on hundreds of bases around the world. The United States had made itself the police of the world, or stated more politically correct, stepped into the power vacuum left after the end of the Second World War (How America Became the World’s Policeman: News Article - Independent Institute).

Diplomatic Ideals Underlying Monroe Doctrine

• disentanglement from European affairs

• defense of neutral rights as expressed in Washington’s Farewell Address

• Madison’s stated rationale for waging the War of 1812

  • reluctance of the British to withdraw entirely from American territory

  • British support of the Indians on America's frontiers

  • Great Britain imposed a blockade on the European continent and in enforcing it seized several American ships and "impressed," or forced into service against their will, a number of American and British sailors. (these three bullets come from: Madison's War Message (1 June 1812) | Encyclopedia.com)

The three main concepts of the doctrine designed to signify a clear break between the New World and the autocratic realm of Europe

1. separate spheres of influence for the Americas and Europe

2. non-colonization

3. non-intervention

I suppose the original intention was reasonable, but it was not decent of one little country to take over the entire hemisphere of sovereign countries. That was and remains unacceptable. It is unfair and unreasonable. Donald Trump in 2025 and following years is but a symptom. He exaggerates the attitude of his forebears. This attitude of the past 200 years is a major reason for so many people in the world to resent the United States.

Americans say they don’t want a king but their presidents treat the world as though they were emperors who had already won all the wars.

After 1689, imperial rivalries between France and England began exerting an increasingly significant influence on North American politics.

They list the wars:

• King William’s War (1689-1697),

• the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1713),

• the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) and

• the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)

All of that happened well before either the United States or Canada was a country. The United States became a country on July 4 1776, and Canada became a country ninety-one years later on July 1 1867. I will start with what was known in the colonies as King William’s War, and the position of the Thirteen Colonies in the New World.

This was King William III, who was also William of Orange the Second and the William of the William and Mary monarchy. The war that erupted when William and Mary ascended the throne in 1689 is also known as the Nine Years War. In England it was called the Glorious Revolution because it gave England a Protestant king without a shot being fired.

This being a time in Europe’s history when wars were fought regarding which religion should rule a jurisdiction—Roman Catholic or Protestant—it was indeed glorious. The people of England wanted a Protestant king. European heads of state determined what religion could be practiced in their realm. French King Louis XIV, a Roman Catholic, was in the process of cleansing the great country of France of all Protestantism. The Huguenots, for example, were killed by the hundred thousands, and additional hundreds of thousands fled the country.

Highly relevant to the English colonies was the fact that England and France had been at war off and on since time immemorial. William and Mary’s predecessor, King James II, was Roman Catholic and a close ally of the French King Louis XIV. As shown on the map below, the Thirteen Colonies, or the English Colonies as they are labeled on the map, were a narrow strip along the East Coast surrounded by the French and Spanish, ruled by whichever king was in power in England. So long as that king was James II, a Catholic and close ally of Louis XIV, the English colonists did not fear being caught in a war between England and France because France—both old and new—was Catholic.

But William and Mary were Protestants. In Europe, King William and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Leopold I were seen as the only two statesmen who could possibly oppose Louis XIV and stop his expansionist policies (Nine Years' War - Wikipedia). The English colonists were not encouraged to learn that William and Leopold had, on December 20 1689, signed a Grand Alliance in the age-old European tradition of Europe’s many peoples uniting to oppose greater powers.

The primary purpose the the Great Alliance was for King William who ruled them, the English Colonists, to oppose the king of New France Louis XIV’s expansionist policies (Grand Alliance (League of Augsburg) - Wikipedia).

In other words, England and France were at war again.

This was not good for the Thirteen Colonies.

TRACING THE ROOTS OF HOSTILITY

All of this mattered in the New World. It impacted loyalties with Europe and inter-colonial relationships. Europeans in the New World had to deal not only with each other but also with the people who already lived in the land, the Indigenous Peoples.

Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Indians

NOTE: The term “Indian” is hardly politically correct when referencing the Indigenous Peoples of North America but it is the name used in formal documents of the time and the Indigenous People themselves used it when speaking in English.

Religious Prejudice

There were many tribes and clans. They had mature relationships developed across centuries of trade and rivalries, hardship and prosperity. The Europeans were an intrusion that seriously complicated things. To the European Christians, the Indigenous Peoples came across as devil worshippers and in dire need of conversion. Nothing expresses this view better with regards to “heathens” around the world than these lyrics written by Reginald Heber in the nineteenth century:

From Greenland’s icy mountains,
From India’s coral strand;
Where Afric’s sunny fountains
Roll down their golden sand:
From many an ancient river,
From many a palmy plain,
They call us to deliver
Their land from error’s chain.

Can men, whose souls are lighted
With wisdom from on high,
Can they to men benighted
The lamp of life deny?
Salvation! O salvation!
The joyful sound proclaim,
Till earth’s remotest nation
Has learned Messiah’s Name.

(From Greenland's Icy Mountain | Hymnary.org)

He calls them “men benighted” and he claims they are “calling to have their land delivered” from something Christians call “error’s chain” while at the same time referring to Europeans as “men whose souls are lighted with wisdom from on high.” As though there is only one correct worldview or belief system and that is the Christian. Thoroughly arrogant. They could not have been more wrong. The 20th century anthropologist A. Irving Hallowell in Culture and Experience tells of an Ojibway man, if I remember correctly, who had converted to the Christian religion. But he got deathly ill. In his delirium he had a vision in which he was in heaven and saw boot prints of Europeans, but no moccasin prints of his own people. Not wanting to be stranded for eternity with Europeans, understandably he returned to the beliefs or religion of his childhood. This missionizing to the “white man’s God” was an age-old grievance. Centuries earlier:

Wampanoag leaders possessed a great fear that any of their people "should be called or forced to be Christian Indians" (King Philip's War - Wikipedia).

I share this to highlight the massive and basically insurmountable culture clash created by this condescending European Christian view, a culture clash that descendants of both cultures are still to this day struggling to resolve many centuries later, in 2026. In the seventeenth century, there were language barriers and culture clashes. Relationships were very complex and complicated. Despite all this, relationships developed, some Indigenous Peoples sided with the French and some sided with the English.

I’m less familiar with the Spanish; my focus is on the French and English, on the roots of American exceptionalism and the Divine Right of Presidents or the various terms by which these were known over the centuries. In fact, I think we have already found the root of exceptionalism, or part of it: The Christian religion. However, we can’t exactly extrapolate from this arrogant Christian attitude to American exceptionalism because missionaries were equally zealous in Canada and around the world. There’s more to it than that, which I can’t go into here.

American Isolationist Policy

I think it is important to consider that the American isolationist foreign policy was rooted in their observation of the everlasting wars in Europe that resulted in the Circles of Alliance mentioned above, alliances like the League of Augsburg vs the Grand Alliance, whose membership was very complex and confusing. Grand Alliance (League of Augsburg) - Wikipedia .

From the American point of view, which is understandable through these lens, it was better not to get involved in Europe’s wars. However, through the lens of the rest of the post-World War world, it would be very decent of the United States to humbly admit their very limited contributions to the war effort. The US sat out nearly five of the more than ten war years and only joined each time—the First and the Second World Wars—when their own assets were attacked. In WW1, Germany attacked US shipping lanes and lives, and proposed military alliance to Mexico in return for helping Mexico get back its possessions from the US. In WW2, Japan attacked US assets in Pearl Harbour. Ignoring this historical fact, the United States boasts of having won the war for the rest of the world.

“If it weren’t for us,” they tell the rest of the world, including Germans, “we would all be speaking German.” I grew up speaking a German dialect—and still speak it. It’s a perfectly good language. No shame in that, U S A! The shame is in taking credit for things you didn’t do, and bragging about it a century later to the people who actually did the hard work. Were it not for the bragging and boasting, we might be able to sympathize with the isolationist policy in light of the complicated historical European Circles of Allegiance in which the US psyche was forged.

Direct Link: From Apathy re the Indian to Hostility for Canada

But humility has never been the forte of the people who became what is now the United States of America. Nor has compassion and sympathy. As I trace the hostilities between our two countries to their roots, I note a direct link between lack of compassion, sympathy, and understanding of Indigenous People in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Bay Colony hostilities with New France. Apathy.

One example of colonists’ negative treatment of their Indigenous neighbours. The colonists let their pigs and cattle, farm animals imported from Europe, roam free. These animals got into the farm crops of their Indigenous neighbours who lodged many complaints. The colonists never really addressed the issue so the Indigenous farmers set traps to catch them, hunted and killed them. This obviously angered the colonists who then punished their neighbours (King Philip's War - Wikipedia).

Another example: The Puritans did not respect the matriarchal rule of the Indigenous Peoples, which resulted in cross-cultural conflict. An adult son did not consult his ruler-mother before acting as ruler himself and giving land rights to the colonists. As we all know, underlings seldom know all the pertinent issues. In any case, the consequences were serious—all because the Puritan men disrespected these powerful women (King Philip's War - Wikipedia).

This, and much more, negative treatment of the Indigenous People made them turn on the colonists. There were raids, full-blown wars in the 1670s, in which entire tribes were almost destroyed. Survivors were rounded up and either killed or sold off as slaves. A solution the colonists tried that was somewhat less drastic was to confiscate all the guns of the Indigenous Peoples north of them, demand they hand them over.

But they had come to depend on their guns for hunting, for survival. “How can we hunt without guns?” they asked the English. “How can we survive?” The English didn’t care. To this day, “Americans don’t care.” From Sarah Bowman's answer to What aspects of Canadian society reflect the idea of 'we look after each other,' and how does this compare to the US ethos? - Quora:

Americans, on the other hand, serve top dollar for top CEO and CFO and Oligarchs. Among regular Americans there is an attitude of, “I don’t want my hard-earned dollars to help a stranger.” This service to the top dollar is carried over into life and death issues of healthcare. Healthcare is big business in the United States where those with money get to be treated and live longer, while those with less money have to pay massive insurance—if they can get it—and get treated only for what the insurance chooses to cover. If you have money to renew your insurance but you have a pre-existing condition like cancer, the insurance won’t allow you to renew and you’re just going to have to die.

For the English colonists, to quote an old saying, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Likewise, their descendants care for nothing but Top Dollar, even if lives are lost. Obviously, the Indians saw things very differently and did not hand over all their guns.

So that was the situation in Massachusetts Bay Colony when news crossed the Atlantic in 1689 that William and Mary had ascended the throne of England, Scotland, and Ireland. William and Mary, Protestants, fighting French King Louis XIV, a Catholic, who was cleansing his empire of Protestants. The English called it the Glorious Revolution because it got rid of the hated Catholic James II, ally of Louis XIV. In Massachusetts Bay, it was believed the Governor of New France had urged the Indians to attack them in recent times. Now that the English in the Old World were again fighting the French in the Old World, it would only be a matter of time till New France sent the Indians again from the north.

So believed Sir William Phips of Massachusetts Bay. However, I do not see any support in the online literature for the belief that the Governor of New France sent the Indians to attack the English. I do see a lot of incentive for the Indians to turn on the English of their own initiative. To reiterate, the colonists didn’t care when their own farm animals ravaged the Indian food stores and crops. Instead, they punished the Indians when they trapped, hunted, and killed the offending animals. They tried to force their religion on the Indigenous Peoples, disrespected their female leaders, took away their guns on which they depended for sustenance. And much more.

Anyone treated like that would have major incentive to strike back. Just because the English did not respect them as fully human and intelligent people does not mean they were not fully human intelligent people with normal human emotions and motivations and ability to strategize. They most certainly were and did.

With the insensitivity and arrogance typical of American leaders today, Sir William Phips did not wait for fate to strike, but instead got permission from his government to make an expedition to Port Royal. Catching the French community completely by surprise, they were totally unprepared and forced to surrender. The same happened in Montreal. Then Phips went for the capital, Quebec City. But he had been seen and the city was well-fortified by the time he got there.

Summary

In summary, this is how it looks to me.

1. The colonists of Massachusetts Bay disrespected and mistreated their Indigenous neighbours.

2. The Indigenous People of their own incentive and motivation attacked the colonists.

The colonists did not credit the Indigenous People with the intelligence and emotional ability to strike back so they blamed the Governor of New France for sending them to ransack the colony.

I count Sir William Phips as the first claiming the “divine right of presidents.” Not that he was a president; he was an army captain in 1690, and two years later in May 1692 he took office as the first royally appointed Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay and made important decisions for the state such as existed at the time. Unless I find a better candidate, my next story will be about President Theodore Roosevelt. But I looked just now and I might find an earlier story, since the Monroe Doctrine with its claim of right to the entire Western Hemisphere predates his presidency by nearly a century.

My inspiration for this post comes from the story of the Wabanaki Confederacy, posted below. Both the French and English colonies were established on Wabanaki land and in my city there’s a street called Wabanaki Drive. The story told from the perspective of the Natives makes more sense and hangs together better than when told from the European perspective. That is because the Natives were here for the entire ordeal so that their story ties it all together, while the European story is very spotty since they came and went from different countries.

The land was full of people and then the immigrants came. The strangers arrived by the shipload year after year after year and never stopped coming. Where they came from was unclear but they were poorly equipped for life in the real world. Being decent human beings, they helped them with food and other stuff so the strangers wouldn’t freeze and starve in their first winter. But then the bad times came. Their own people started dying from using blankets the strangers gave them. Hard lessons were learned about not trusting these strangers. The strangers took their land, their game and did not obey the rules of hunting. The strangers made them pray to their Jesus and killed their people. Then they fought and killed each other.

Part 1 is about the times before all these bad things happened.

Someone’s personal story from Facebook.

PRECONTACT PERIOD

Indigenous Peoples of the Eastern Woodlands

The Green Area shows the Eastern Woodlands.

Adena & Hopewell Cultures

First there was the Adena Culture (500 BC to 100 AD), about which our knowledge is limited mostly to burial mounds, then there was the Hopewell Culture (100 BCE to 500 CE), which shows human society operating at a similar level of sophistication as today’s North Americans.

Adena

The Adena were notable for their agricultural practices, pottery, artistic works, and extensive trading network, which supplied them with a variety of raw materials, ranging from copper from the Great Lakes to shells from the Gulf Coast (Adena culture - Wikipedia).

Hopewell

The Hopewell settlements were linked by extensive and complex trading routes; these operated also as communication networks, and were a means to bring people together for important ceremonies.

Goods and ideas were exchanged, manufactured products, exotic materials.

they were delivered to peoples living in the major trading and manufacturing areas. These people converted raw materials into products and exported them through local and regional exchange networks.

Found in burial sites throughout the area are steatite (soapstone) platform pipes used for ceremonial smoking.1

Big Men & Social Structure/Politics

While leaders of Hopewell peoples did not have centralized power of the type that commanded armies of slaves or soldiers, they did have big men as in Melanesia and Polynesia, men skilled to influence with persuasion and wisdom. Such charisma tends to garner large followings both from within his own tribe and from other tribes, and may have led to the stratification (hierarchical levels) of society (Big man (anthropology) - Wikipedia; Hopewell tradition - Wikipedia). This is similar to the Maya and Aztec Peoples.

Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands - Wikipedia

This is a later period, still precontact. Some scholars categorize indigenous peoples and/or cultures along linguistic lines. This follows the logic that people in close contact with each other speak the same language and practice the same cultural traditions. For information on how scholars study ancient times in North America, see Archaic period (North America) - Wikipedia.

By around 1100, the distinct Iroquoian-speaking and Algonquian-speaking cultures had developed in what would become New York State and New England.

Here they list the Algonquian-speaking tribes. Note that the Abenakis are listed but not the Wabanakis.

Prominent Algonquian tribes included the Abenakis, Mi'kmaq, Penobscot, Pequots, Mohegans, Narragansetts, Pocumtucks, and Wampanoag.

Only in the 17th century, or during the Contact Period, did a number of tribes organize to form the Wabanaki Confederacy.

The Mi'kmaq, Wolastoqiyik, Passamaquoddy, Abenaki, and Penobscot tribes formed the Wabanaki Confederacy in the seventeenth century. The Confederacy covered roughly most of present-day Maine in the United States, and New Brunswick, mainland Nova Scotia, Cape Breton Island, Prince Edward Island and some of Quebec south of the St. Lawrence River in Canada.

The above are the Eastern Abenaki (I think), since the Abenaki are divided into Eastern and Western Abenaki (Abenaki | The Canadian Encyclopedia).

The Western Abenaki live on lands in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts of the United States.

The Canadian Encyclopedia’s account of the Abenaki resonates with what my Grade 2 teacher taught me about the “Indians,” presumably because the indigenous peoples of this part of the continent were primarily Abenaki.

During much of the 17th century, the Abenaki were hunters, fishers and gatherers. Additionally, the Abenaki grew crops including corn, beans and squash. …Attempts to adopt agriculture did not succeed until after the fur trade developed because farming alone was too risky as a full-time occupation. The Abenaki adapted quickly to the fur trade and a world economy.

1. Homeland Invaded | Part 1 Precontact Canada & US

2. Homeland Invaded | Part 2: Contact Period

The intimate interaction of Europeans and indigenous peoples during the early contact era, including adoption and intermarriage, is exemplified in this man.

Jean-Vincent d’Abbadie de Saint-Castin (1652–1707), born in France and adopted by the Abenaki, was a French military commander and Abenaki chief in Acadia (Jean-Vincent d’Abbadie de Saint-Castin - Wikipedia). All Abenaki people are Wabanaki but not all Wabanaki people are Abenaki because the Wabanaki Confederacy included a large number of tribes (Wabanaki Confederacy - Wikipedia).

Another confederacy in the Eastern Woodlands during the early Contact Period was the Haudenosaunee, which included the Iroquois and Mohawk tribes. These two Confederacies took opposite sides in the American Revolutionary War, with the Haudenosaunee mostly fighting with the British and the Wabanaki making a treaty with George Washington (Haudenosaunee Confederacy - French-British Rivalry, Native American Politics, Diplomacy | Britannica; Native Nations and the Revolutionary War - Custom House Maritime Museum).

The Immigrants

How must all these people have felt when the immigrants invaded their homeland? Never have people been more resilient than the indigenous peoples of what is now known as Canada and United States. To this day the survivors are fighting for their rights, for their land, for their culture and their language. In Canada we have at least three individuals of indigenous ancestry in political leadership positions:

• Governor General Mary Simons

• Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew

• Nunavut Premier P.J. Akeeagok

The rest are immigrants, mostly of European descent like the dominant population Canada and the United States.

QUORA QUESTION

Posted by Anonymous, Oct. 6 2025

I truly believe Donald Trump will go after Canada, either by sending the National Guard to Canadian cities (as he did with Washington DC and Los Angeles) or expanding ICE raids and building concentration camps in the country. What will he do first?

Neither. It won’t happen. Let me explain.

I’m trying to make it really easy for you. I made a map so you don’t have to do your own homework this time. See those dark green lines basically surrounding a patch of green, plus a batch of broken-up grey-and-white bits near the top? You will note that it’s full of little red dots and place names. Canadians live in all those places. That entire part of the map is called Canada. Now skip to the text below the map.

See that patch of green between the dark green and dark red lines. That’s called the United States of America or USA. Ignore Mexico for now. Look at the top left corner of the map and see that green patch that’s outside the dark green line. That’s Alaska and it also belongs to the United States of America or USA. The USA has other states and territories not on this map, but that’s okay.

You will notice that Canada is so full of cities that some of the names had to go onto the map of the USA. For example, Toronto, Kingston, and White Horse. My own city isn’t even on there because there’s simply no room. A LOT of other cities are missing, too, because the map simply got too full. For example, Moose Jaw and Medicine Hat and St. Pierre and Miquelon and Thunder Bay are missing. So is the Ring of Fire. And countless other place, just as Kansas City, Anchorage, Palm Beach and Portland are missing from the map of the USA.

Palm Beach is where Donald Trump’s home is, Mar-a-loga. Anchorage is the capital of Alaska. Kansas City is famous for some story or other. And Portland is just a city I found on the map; I think it’s the capital of Oregon.

Now we understand maps. You see how many cities are in Canada—and many more than I could possibly mark. Which ones do you think Trump will dare to set up concentration camps in? Pond Inlet or Pangnirtung? Those two places are on Baffin Island right near the US Pituffik Space Base on Greenland. He’d be awfully far from home and very close to the North Pole. It’s freezing cold even in the middle of summer. Like Siberia. Putin might like to visit.

So here’s the problem. To get to the cities in Canada, Trump will automatically trigger Canada’s alarm system. And that alarm system will bring out all the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. You know, the ones who did the worst of the worst jobs in WW2 that not even the US military would do. They cut down the Atlantic Wall that was considered impenetrable.

[NOTE for Substack readers: For more of the transcript see my post German Generals on Canadian Performance vs British & US in WW2, Nov. 22 2025.]

Reported by German Officers

Why Germans Feared Canadian Infantry — But Not American or British Troops

Narrator, Minute 0:00:

The Canadians fight like wild men. They attack in the dark. They attack in the rain. They do not stop for casualties.

0:18 These were the cold, calculated observations found in the field reports of veteran German officers during the height of the Second World War.

• 17:52 In the meat grinder battles…the Canadians were the anvil upon which the German army was smashed.

• 28:08 When the Americans attack, we call for artillery. When the British attack, we call for reserves. But when the Canadians arrived, we knew the battle was over.

So will Trump first send the US National Guard to all those Canadian cities on that map—PLUS the ones I couldn’t get on the map—or will he just expand ICE raids and build concentration camps in Canada?

The question is moot. He won’t get into Canada far enough to do either. If he did, he would risk the tanks and bombs and submarines of 32 NATO countries PLUS the Canadian Armed Forces. And, if NATO chooses to use Trump’s example as the New Normal for International Relations, the US president might be kidnapped and stuck into the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be court-marshalled, like he did with the Venezuelan president and wife. Melania Trump and Barron are probably smart enough to be in hiding.

UNPRECEDENTED: It’s Never Happened Before

US Ambassador’s Pete Hoekstra’s strongest argument against Doug Ford’s airing of that ad is that: It’s never happened before. Watch the video below. He emphasizes over and over how that ad is political interference on so many levels. As though Canadian politicians would be aware of all those political nuances inside the US.

US envoy warns Canada to ‘seriously consider’ avoiding anti-tariff ads, Nov. 19 2025

Pete Hoekstra pulling out his own credentials, Min. 0:53:

Well, I’ve been in this business for a while and I know people who’ve been in it longer than I have. And I asked them, okay, the ad that was run by the government of Canada.

He cuts in on himself to mimic people correcting him that it’s not the government of Canada but Ontario.

Back in his own persona, Hoekstra speaking, Min. 1:04:

I’m sorry, we don’t go through that…slicing and dicing.

Having thus exonerated himself (in his own eyes) for not knowing the difference between federal and provincial governments of Canada, he finally cuts to the chase.

Hoekstra speaking, Min. 1:11:

No one can ever remember a like circumstance where a foreign government came into the United States and…

Veering off into the amount of serious money put into the ad he proves the sinister intents of the ad (in his own mind), and mentions interference, which I’m sure was not the intent. If the US can’t be bothered to differentiate between federal and provincial governments, then busy Canadian politicians can’t be expected to know trivialities about by-elections and Court Cases in foreign countries. It’s not as though the US is the only country Canada deals with. Hoekstra does not extend understanding of that calibre to Canada. He calls it election and political interference.

If Canada Wants to Insert Itself and Create a New Precedent…

Pete Hoekstra speaking, Min. 2:03

I’m sorry. That does not happen in the United States of America. You do not come into America and start political ads, government political ads…and expect that there will be no consequences or reaction from the United States of America in the Trump administration.

2:33 It has, as far as we can tell, it has never happened in America before. And if Canada wants to insert itself and create a new precedent that you’re going to participate in our electoral politics through advertising targeting the president of the United States and his policies, I would suggest that you seriously consider whether that is the best way to try to achieve your objectives in the United States of America.

It has never happened before that a foreign government came into the United States and targeted the president and his policies.

That’s Petie Hoekstra’s strongest argument. He also piddles about regarding election interference and stuff but the thing he keeps coming back to over and over and over is the unprecedented event—it’s never happened before. No one can remember that it ever happened before.

Okay. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t. I don’t know my history that well. But the US itself was about to set a new precedent.

NEW PRECEDENT ON PRESIDENT’S DESK

What Hoekstra does not say is that at that very moment there was on the desk of the American president a plan to unilaterally extract the Venezuelan president and for the USA to insert itself as governing authority to “run the country.” See GREENLAND: Is War with NATO coming? W/ Dean Blundell& Jacob Karsbo.

We don’t know for sure what else is currently on that desk but we have strong reason to believe Greenland is there, as well as Panama and Canada.

THAT, my friends, has never ever happened before and it should not be happening now. I think most of the world’s democracies agree that a regime change was necessary in Venezuela but they also agree that it should occur by the will of the Venezuelan people. For a foreign country to unilaterally insert itself as the US administration did and interfere with the governance of a sovereign country, as Pete Hoekstra admonished Canada, is not okay.

Context & Conclusion: Canada Beats the US At Its Own Game

Except, I’m sure, he did not mean to criticize his own boss. He clearly elevates the United States of America above all other nations in the Western Hemisphere. That being the case, Pete Hoekstra couldn’t stand having anyone—least of all one of Trump’s own targets—challenge this morally corrupt US president. HE wanted to be the one challenging sovereignty. And here was Canada beating him on his own game. NOT ALLOWED!

This, however, would be glossed over as the story moved quickly on to other drama, always exciting, with the hope—the desperate hope yet the reader’s skepticism that it actually works—that he really will be the exception and receive the prize because he is so famous and naturally will get it.

But then it goes to an unknown entity whom he despises, he goes out and starts bombing fishing boats belonging to that woman’s country, kind of surprised that King Charles doesn’t stop him, so he moves things along, shows “real muscle,” and one night kidnaps the president and his wife.

Imagine reading that in a novel and thinking, “This can’t happen in real life.” But it did. And it has real life consequences for the country, since now another leader has to be installed. Many call for the Peace Prize Lady. Imagine what would happen in a thriller.

Carney’s response to Venezuela sends ‘important signal’ to U.S.: former ambassador, Jan. 5 2026

City News Reporter speaking, Min. 2:39:

Everything we’ve heard from Donald Trump since the arrest suggests that No! he does not support her. And one of the reasons why he doesn’t support her, according to reporting in the Washington Post today…is that she did not turn down the Nobel Peace Prize when she was awarded it last year and insist that it be given to Donald Trump.

2:59 Apparently, I mean, it’s unbelievable to hear this, but according to the Washington Post’s reporting, citing multiple sources, that was Trump’s response, so that he does not see a role for her in the future of Venezuela even though she is having these meetings with other world leaders including Mark Carney.

Of course not! Making her eat her rejection is his real revenge. But if this were an actual thriller, we’d see more of her side of the story, it would draw out the suspense. The people want her to be their leader.

Millions are celebrating Maduro’s removal from power, and they are cautiously optimistic that freedom is within reach. But those sentiments could turn if they begin to perceive that the U.S. is keeping the remnants of the authoritarian Maduro regime in place while extracting the country’s oil wealth for its own benefit Opinion | The Trump administration’s plan in Venezuela needs a reality check - The Washington Post.

Maybe she—the true heroine—will yet gain ascendency. The fact that Trump has no real plan for the country leaves open the possibility that this will yet happen.

Except for the interview Marco Rubio gave in which he emphasized the supremacy of the interests of the United States in the Western Hemisphere. And for Trump’s own words on Airforce 1 when he said, “No, I just want the oil.” No concern, care, or interest for welfare of the Venezuelan people.

But this wouldn’t be the first time in history that a strong woman wins against a weak bully. After all, the people want her.

This post may feel somewhat dated, since it was written nearly a year ago over the course of several days in early February 2025 at a time when Trump’s threats were just starting to settle in, but I did some in-depth research for it that is still relevant. For example, the question came up just now about the problem of illegal firearms pouring out of the US into Mexico and Canada. This post contains stats. It also contains nostalgic news of the day that reminds us what we’ve survived, and may give us courage to hang in there for what is yet to come.

Donald Trump turned a molehill into a mountain.

Source

People said it’s a joke. Canada does not take it as a joke. [The clip from Green Party Leader Elizabeth May’s Response to Trump has been removed.]

Elizabeth May of Canada’s Green Party responds to Donald Trump wanting Canada to become part of America

Elizabeth May speaking, Min: 3:43–4:02:

We do not aspire to be a 51st state so let’s not hear that anymore. If it was a joke it was never funny and it ends now.

THE MOLEHILL THAT WAS TURNED INTO A MOUNTAIN

Fentanyl

It’s true. More fentanyl went south from Canada to the US in 2024 than the other way around. A lot more. In fact, about three times as much. And people are dying. But there were many fewer illegal human crossings.

Sources:

• (CBSA) 2024 Year in review: CBSA protecting Canadians and supporting our economy

• (USBP) Drug Seizure Statistics

• (CBC) Sixteen caught crossing illegally into U.S. from Quebec in days before Trump tariff threat | CBC News

Illegal Crossings

As for illegal crossings. It’s true. Canada’s border is wide open. In many places it’s an open field, a dense forest, the middle of a river or lake. The US has not yet built a wall to keep Canada’s illegals out. And its own illegals in. And, rather weirdly, in my opinion, Donald Trump does not see it as his responsibility to guard his side of the border; he thinks it’s his neighbours’ duty to keep people out that he—Donald Trump—doesn’t like. See Canada’s perspective on that below.

Wide Open Borders

Lake Ontario, seen from Burlington, Ontario, Sept. 27 2015. The United States is on the other side.

Haskell Library built on the border between Quebec, Canada and Vermont, USA. Black line on floor is the international border. Source [NOTE: This is where Kristi Noem appeared without notice and made fun of Canada. She is reported to have jumped from the US to the Canadian side three times chanting USA on one side, and Fifty-first state on the other. This is also the library for which Trump blocked entry for Canadians because the main entrance was off the US side, meaning that Canadians had to enter the US to enter the library. Trump blocked this sidewalk. Warning and time were given, which allowed Canada to build a door on its side of the building but it was a major costly renovation project.]

A 7.6 metre swath cut through the forest marks the international border between Alberta and Montana. No wall. Source.

Canada Responds to Trump’s Expectation About Guarding His Border

Below, Janine Plomondon, a prosecutor with the public prosecution service of Canada who has handled a number of human smuggling cases speaks about her work. Video posted in November 2024. Please note that the Canadian government has updated its border security and immigration policy since then. More on this below.

Min. 1:20–1:30, 1:39–1:55: It’s technically not an offence in Canada to enter another country, so it’s charged and prosecuted as a conspiracy to violate US law….They’re often complex cases. It takes a lot of work to put one of these prosecutions together….There’s going to be evidence on both sides of the border because it’s an offense that affects both of our countries.

So that—a bit of fentanyl leading to a few deaths and several unwelcome visitors that he didn’t stop—is Donald Trump’s Molehill of Minor Annoyances that he turned into a Mountain of Major Proportions.

The Mountain, July 21 2012

TRUMP’S SOLUTION

Trump is a narcissist and bully. Narcissistic bullies love attention. They love to show their strength, especially against smaller and weaker people.

Trump’s Foreign Policy Threats

Trump decided the best solution is one that failed abysmally in his first term: The imposition of tariffs.

He imposed 25% tariffs on all products from Canada and Mexico to the United States as punishment for the influx of fentanyl and illegal immigrants from those countries. He said the tariffs would remain in place until Canada and Mexico stopped the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the United States.

Trump’s “Offer”

He also threatened to annex Canada as a 51rst state of his own country. When speaking to the American public, he phrased it as an offer. Canada could accept the protection, rights, and freedoms of the United States by becoming a 51rst states, thereby avoiding the tariffs.

Trump’s Unfounded Complaints

Trump also claimed the tariffs—or alternatively Canada’s acceptance of his offer—would level an unfair trade deal and end a subsidy of 250 billion dollars the US paid Canada. NOTE: The United States does not subsidize Canada. The so-called unfair trade deal is actually a trade deficit caused by his country buying more—and getting good quality for the money—from Canada than Canada buys from the United States.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN

The Other Side, March 16 2022

Here’s stuff I found on the other side of that mountain.

1. US Central Intelligence Agency supporting drug cartels.

2. US airport LAX is world distribution centre for Mexican drug cartel products.

3. US mass-produced guns smuggled out of country by the hundreds of thousands per year.

American Government Supports Illegal Drug Trade

What Donald Trump is not saying, what neither Joe Biden nor Barack Obama said, and what I cannot find on any official website—but what certain people know—is that the United States Government has from the middle of the 20th century supported the entry of illegal drugs by the cartels. I was made aware of this when Quora user Michelle Dikes commented on my answer:1

The US Government has supported illegal drug entry into the USA since the Vietnam Conflict/War. They outwardly scream “No” to drugs, but it’s been a lucrative business for the Government, why would they stop now.

After searching long as hard, I found Wikipedia articles substantiating this. Books and media articles have been written. This started before the Vietnam war, in the name of fighting communism. The drug cartel was not in Mexico; it was in France and used CIA planes and ships to get product to the USA.

Illegal labs producing heroin were first discovered near Marseille, France, in 1937. These labs were run by Corsican gang leader Paul Carbone. For years, the Corsican underworld had been involved in the manufacturing and trafficking of heroin, primarily to the United States. It was this heroin network that eventually became known as “the French Connection”. The Corsican Gang was protected by the CIA and [France’s External Intelligence Agency] after World War II in exchange for working to prevent French Communists from bringing the Old Port of Marseille under their control.2

Today, communism is pretty much dead but the illegal drug trade is thriving with the world distribution centre being the Los Angeles Airport (LAX) in California, USA.

Evidence for LAX Drug Trade

ABC investigated to see where the drugs came from. It all traced back to LAX. See also chart below on USA: Source of Drugs and Guns.

LAX may be drug-smuggling gateway of the world: ABC7 investigation explains why

Lots of agencies cooperate to run and protect LAX, but no one actually checks all the baggage for drugs. The cartels know this. They ship drugs via the airplanes by the suitcase full with immunity. But one diligent sheriff in Polk County, Florida (a county with only one sheriff) broke a major drug ring over a four-year period. On one jet came six suitcases packed with drugs. “It’s an every day occurrence,” he says, “Drugs are just pouring out of LAX.”3

Consider that with all that lucrative fentanyl and other drug trade happening on his own turf, Donald Trump is penalizing Canada and Mexico. He can’t not know about it if he knows the miniscule amount of fentanyl that comes into the US out of Canada.

Guns: Firearms and Weapons—the US is guilty as hell

Exit Wounds: How America’s Guns Fuel Violence Across the Border | Watson Institute, Nov. 27 2023

Min: 1:21–1:41 Between 2017 and 2021, over 14 thousand (14,000) firearms or 43% of all guns recovered in crime scenes in Mexico were sold in Texas, followed by Arizona and California.

Sources:

• Exit Wounds: How America’s Guns Fuel Violence Across the Border, New Book by Ieva Jusionyte

• LAX may be drug smuggling gateway of the world, law enforcement sources say

Number of Guns Made in Mexico, Canada, & United States

Both Canada and Mexico have strict gun laws. Mexico’s single gun shop is located on a military base to provide weapons for police and the military. As posted here, thousands of police officers combat the drug cartels every day of the year at great personal peril. There are not enough guns to go around.

Canada has a looser manufacturing policy in that its government strongly supports the manufacture of guns for export. The only statistics I could find for Canadian manufacture, sale, and use of guns came from a Canadian gun blog.

Source

That does not represent Canada’s export of guns, which is a controversial matter for Canadians.4

I’m still digging. Canada sells a whole range of military equipment all over the world, from computers and ground vehicles to firearms. Mostly I find records of monetary income for specific items to specific countries, rather than number of items.5 6

Thus it is difficult to compare the manufacture of guns in Canada with the manufacture of guns in the US. In the United States. in 2022, more than thirteen million guns were manufactured: 13,393,009.7

GUN SMUGGLING

Americans have a hard time holding onto their guns. At least two hundred thousand are smuggled into Mexico each year. The drug cartels use them. Around 70% of guns retrieved from crime scenes come from gun shops in the US. (Damming the Iron River: Solutions to Stop the U.S. Gun Industry from Fueling Mexico’s Violence, May 21 2024). Yet border controls pick up hardly any.

From Min. 2:15 of the video above.

After the attack “left residents traumatized and fearing for their lives,” police recovered 27 large-caliber firearms, including six .50-caliber Barrett rifles. Many of these guns were later traced back to a gun shop near Houston, Texas.8

Min. 1:33 of the above video.

But Donald Trump punishes Canada and Mexico for loose borders.

TREMORS IN MOUNTAIN MOLEHILL

Donald Trump knows the game well. He’s been playing it ever since Daddy gave him a million dollars for his sixth birthday. He used it to get his sister to do his homework for him. He used it to build his empire—and deceive people into think he actually had an empire and was a great businessman. He had lacked judgment in his first term when imposing tariff but this time he made 100% sure that no one—absolutely no one—would dare challenge him.

His trusty lawyers inserted into the Executive Order for tariffs on Canadian products in 2025 a clause that no one in their right mind would challenge—that he would increase duties (tariffs) or similar measures if Canada dared defy him. Canada was already crying and begging for mercy. Why, that wimp Trudeau or whatever his name came flying directly to Mar-a-lago. He kept calling. Of course, a man of Trump’s stature couldn’t take his calls. But it went to prove that Canada would buckle under words like this:

Section 2(d) Should Canada retaliate against the United States in response to this action through import duties on United States exports to Canada or similar measures, the President may increase or expand in scope the duties imposed under this order to ensure the efficacy of this action.9

CANADA RESPONDS

When Trump first voiced his concerns of Canada’s loose border, Canada immediately sat down made a comprehensive revamp of its border control policy. Posted on December 17 2024, Government of Canada announces its plan to strengthen border security and our immigration system. Twenty-four/seven surveillance by drones was part of the plan.

In addition, the Government will invest to expand the RCMP and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE)’s intelligence collection capacity, enabling these agencies to target transnational organized crime and fentanyl trafficking more effectively.10

That willingness to work with “transnational organized crime and fentanyl trafficking” would seem to address Mr. Trump’s central concerns.

Finance was in the budget. Only the logistics and material elements had to be ironed out but Trump should understand that this could not be done overnight.

On October 24 2024, Government of Canada reduces immigration. The issue was addressed before Trump’s meltdown, before he was elected.

Source: #ImmigrationMatters: Canada’s immigration system

Trump et al probably didn’t know or care. Most likely Trump got his jollies by seeing the top officials of Canada and Mexico hurry and scurry about to all these emergency meetings caused by his threats. He felt gratified with all the attention. But of course, as the Most Powerful Man In The World, he Donald Trump could not return calls or listen to pleas. Because that’s clearly what it was in his view, I’m thinking, even if they called it by some fancy name like negotiation. For Trump it all boiled down to silly boy Trudeau begging for mercy.

Donald Trump saw himself as a strong man. His entourage expected him to be. He didn’t cater to silly little boys.

CONCLUSION

It must be quite a challenge to be so stupid yet so narcissistic and such a bully that all you can do is bulldoze your way every-which way, sometimes it works and other times it doesn’t. And you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it doesn’t work it’s everyone else’s fault. It just makes you bulldoze so much the harder. It could not possibly be your fault because your daddy gave you a million dollars on your sixth birthday!

You won’t admit it even to yourself, but it does get rather scary when your Molehill Mountain starts shaking.

Source

CANADA PREPARES FOR THE WORST, HOPES FOR THE BEST

Originally posted on Quora.

This part was written on Friday Feb. 7. I was feeling somewhat optimistic. That has changed by this afternoon’s breaking news. See below. I will post parts of Friday’s post, summarize some of it.

Trump paused the tariffs on Monday afternoon, Feb. 3, mere hours before they were scheduled to kick in at midnight. The pause is for thirty days but the threat of tariffs remains, along with Trump’s threat to make our country his fifty-first state.

It’s Not a Joke

So many people have said Trump is joking. Trudeau now knows that is not true. Speaking in Ottawa to a large meeting of business people on how to prepare for the end of the thirty-day pause when tariff talks reopen, on Friday February 7, Trudeau said:

“[The Trump Administration] are very aware of our resources, of what we have and they very much want to be able to benefit from those,” Trudeau said. “…Mr. Trump has it in mind that one of the easiest ways of doing that is absorbing our country. And it is a real thing.”

In other words, “Trump’s statements about annexing Canada are not a joke, and are driven in part by his desire to benefit from Canada’s critical minerals.”1

There is no legal way for Canada to join the US. I’ve heard the law explained. But Canadians are keenly aware that the tariffs are only paused for thirty days. On Thursday, Canada’s Big City Mayors and others had met with Trudeau to discuss this. Likewise, in City Halls and Council Boardrooms across the country, Mayors and City Managers and other community leaders meet for the same. I illustrate with a few examples from the local news.

City Mayors & Managers: Buy Local, Buy Canadian

Council meetings are in process to figure out “procurement methods.”

Ontario’s Capital City

Toronto, City Council Meeting, Feb. 5.2

Mayor Chow and Councilor Colle, along with other immigrants:

“We all owe Canada so much. So in this time of economic peril we have to stand together for Canada, that’s what we’re trying to do here in our small way.”

Motions:

• Buy Local: response to “Trump’s ‘senseless’ trade war”

• Approved with unanimous vote:

a motion affirming Canadian independence and declaring Toronto’s opposition to Trump’s suggestion that Canada become the 51st American state.

As the capital city of Canada’s largest province and the third largest trade partner of the US, this was no small statement. Toronto stands with Team Canada: CANADA DOES NOT ACCEPT TRUMP’S SUGGESTION TO BECOME THE 51ST STATE.

Managing the City: Paul Johnson

• operating Plan

• Ten-year Capital Plan

Johnson said that while the intent… was to prioritize Canadian products “wherever possible,” a blanket ban on American suppliers “would not be prudent” for the city.

Big City Mayors

Canada’s Big City Mayors and their local governments are part of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or FCM and represent 92% of Canadians. FCM also meets in Washington with U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities.

Ottawa, Big City Mayors Meeting with Prime Minister, Thurs. Feb. 6

Other issues discussed at that meeting:

• how to get “to a point 30 days from now where we don’t see the introduction of tariffs”

• how municipalities can support their local businesses and economies.

• other trade options

“We can’t have as much reliance on one country,” said Vrbanovic. “We have existing trade agreements, like CETA, the Canada-Europe trade agreement, which is already in place. There’s hundreds of millions of people in Europe, and companies, cultural connections. We can actually further build our trade there, as well as with Asia, Latin America, Africa and so on.”3

Merchants and Citizens

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Entrepreneurs network to ‘rise up’ and face U.S. protectionism, Feb. 7

On Monday, a business woman in Vancouver put out a call for a roundtable “on how entrepreneurs could survive the potential hit of 25 per cent U.S. tariffs.” By Friday (today, Feb. 7), the webinar of about a thousand heard experts make suggestions.

• diversify supply chains as much as possible

• pivot to new markets, away from the US

• create fresh products from resources found locally

Challenge: No local suppliers.

“We need more farmers, we need more processors and we need them now,” Best said in an interview Thursday. “…Yes [in Nova Scotia], we export fish, blueberries and cranberries .... I can think of all kinds of people in Nova Scotia who could be making great products.”4

Customer and Grocery Store Employees, Feb. 6

Canadians unite around our food supply chain

Thanks, America, but no bullies welcome on our playground5

Thanking Donald Trump for his ability to unite Canadians, this author examines a large number of grocery items in stores to see where they come from. Like everyone else, he wants to “buy Canadian.” But there’s a problem. He’s looking at a tub of yogurt and he can’t find country of origin on the label. Along comes a store worker and tells him that an an email had come saying head office was sending labels to help customers better identify the country of origin.

The employee was clearly proud and excited to be offering this service to their customers. I shared their smile as I glanced south for just a second.

That “glance south” was in triumph over Donald Trump “south of the border.”

I personally have no idea if anything we Canadians can do will hurt the tyrannical bully south of the border. All I can do is what I can do. Like so many other Canadians, I don’t hate most Americans, but in this trade war I have to take sides, and:

While U.S. citizens are watching the price of their precious eggs skyrocket, I will feel good knowing that even egg cartons were invented in Canada.

As was the garbage bag with which I will toss out American trash.6

[NOTE JAN. 5 2026: Reports prove that the boycott is having an impact. Border states and Jack Beam have seen businesses close down due to liquor and travel boycotts, traditional Snowbird and vacation states have begged Canadians to return. The threats from Trump intensify exponentially, especially since his takeover of Venezuela last week, so that I no longer feel neutral about Americans who allow these atrocities to take place and do nothing about it. In fact, Quora with its swamp of Americans turns my stomach. ]

BREAKING NEWS: TRUMP THE TYRANT IS ENRAGED

That’s not what the news article was entitled. Here’s the title that arrived in my inbox at 5:25 PM EST:

BREAKING NEWS: Trump says he will announce 25% steel and aluminum tariffs Monday7

But…but…only seven of the thirty days have expired! I can only conclude that the tyrant is enraged that Canadians are so brazenly defying his warning. This child-man cannot possibly wait three more weeks to express his extreme displeasure.

He’s in Airforce 1 on his way to watch the Super Bowl when he tells the people around him. But there was more:

“If they are charging us 130% and we’re charging them nothing, it’s not going to stay that way,” he told reporters.

I think he’s talking about dairy from the US. The American government heavily subsidizes dairy farmers, then tries selling its dairy products cheap. Canada will not sell American dairy so much cheaper than Canadian dairy; that would hurt Canadian dairy farmers. Canada uses what is called Tariff Rate Quota or TRQ.

A TRQ is a quota that establishes a limit on the quantity of a product that may be imported at a lower (within access) rate of duty [US dairy can be imported tariff free at the lower limit], but places no limit on the amount of product that may be imported at a higher (over access) rate of duty [the over access rate for US dairy is about 270%].

Because of the American government’s heavy subsidy for its dairy farmers, US dairy is sold far below market price. If Canada did not impose TRQ, Canadian dairy farmers could not sell their product and would go out of business. Therefore, according to the rules of the WTO (World Trade Organization), Canada is allowed to tariff US dairy products that are over access by about 270%. But the US has never reached the lower limit, which makes the argument moot.

Trump is too stupid to understand. He’s enraged about it.

This is also the day he officially recognizes the name change he made for the Gulf of Mexico.

Listen to former Mexican negotiator.

Canadian, Mexican plan to undo tariffs should focus on Americans, not Trump: ex-trade negotiator, Feb. 2 2025

Minute: 4:49–5:46 The irony of all this is that of course fentanyl and migration are important issues that we have to address. I mean there is no question about that.

But in punishing legal trade…I mean looking from…Mexico…we are struggling to be to build a more modern country and we have significant challenges. We need to promote the legal trade, the law-abiding companies, the companies that have invested to integrate themselves better to the North American economy.

By punishing those people that have done things correctly…you encourage the people that do illegal things like criminal group that we have to fight.

But we have to fight together! We cannot do it on our own. The drug trafficking is a regional issue that has to do with all three of us but more with the US in my view. And we need their cooperation.

Drug Cartels Murder Mexican Police by the Hundred Each Year

This Quora user made me aware of the Mexican side of the story with Flower Loving Gal’s answer to Do you think USA needs to wash there hands Of Mexico? The cartels flood America with drugs and Mexico does nothing! Don’t you think it’s time to say enough is enough? Illegals and drugs are ruining are country:

Anyway, don’t tell me the US Government has any interest in actually stopping the scourge. Not so fun fact? Statistically, per every fentanyl related death in the US, there are 4 fentanyl violence related deaths in Mexico. The cartels continue using military grade arsenals sold by US weapons manufacturers at great profits without any US regulatory action.

NOTE: The United States of America is making a legal profit off the Mexican drug cartels. That’s not just Donald Trump—my guess is it went on during Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Another not so fun fact? The number of Mexican anti-narcotics military and police officers who have died fighting these cartels already exceeds 2000 just since the start of the New park’s administrations. These men and women are not dying because “Mexico is doing nothing about these cartels”

This agrees with news articles. Via Google Translate, I read this Spanish news article in La Prensa | Police news, local, national on the topic, posted Sep. 3 2024, linked by Flower Loving Girl: How many police officers were killed in this six-year period 2018-2024?

at least 7 police officers were killed from August 16 to 31; one in Sinaloa, 1 in Zacatecas, 1 in Michoacán, 3 in Guerrero and 1 in Tamaulipas. Although previously, from August 9 to 15, 2024, there were at least 3 cases of murdered police officers: one in Baja California, one in Hidalgo and the same number in Veracruz.1

If seven police officers were killed in a year here in Canada, it would make headlines all over.

American Insatiable Demand for Drugs

From Violence against police in Mexico - Trends & Insights (probably posted in 2024; I can’t find a date but it uses data from the above site for the same time period):

In the past several years, Zacatecas has been a key battleground in the bloody multi-state conflict between the CJNG, the Sinaloa Cartel, and their respective allies. With the state’s highways being of particular importance for the transportation of drugs northward to the United States. Across Mexico, these groups have repeatedly shown themselves willing to target government security forces in pursuit of heightened influence.

NOTE: transportation of drugs northward to the United States.

So strong is American demand for drugs, so profitable the business because of this demand, that these cartels will do whatever it takes to get their merchandise to its destination: The United States of America.

Flower Loving Girl continues:

Tell me again how Mexico needs to do what? Want to wash your hands off the largest commercial partner and low cost work force provider over fentanyl? Great, that would greatly damage the Mexican economy creating more incentives for more cartel operations to satisfy the inelastic and consistent US demand for substance.

In other words, you want to kill Mexico’s legal economy so more will turn to the fentanyl trade? Fine, go ahead! So long as you Americans demand fentanyl you’re going to get it.

As long as there’s demand there will be supply! you know that as a free market proponent, right?

Way to combat the fire by throwing gasoline on it!

CONCLUSION

Donald Trump is encouraging the drug trade. He is killing legal business.

Amy Renfrew Hons B.A. in Ethics & B.S. Biochemistry, Saint Paul University (Graduated 2007), Jan. 4 2026

No I do not think nuclear war is imminent. I sure as hell hope not. I am in the Canadian Army and so I literally have skin in the game.

I am not even convinced a world war is imminent, though we are moving quickly towards that outcome, but it is not a foregone conclusion … yet. I suppose it never is until it actually starts. Humanity has been on the brink of other potential global wars and pulled back before the missiles started flying and the invasions started. Will we manage to come down off the ledge as a species? I am really not sure … I would wager there will be a world war in the next few years. That is what all the large economies/militaries are clearly preparing for, very much out in the open, so their people know this is a real possibility.

As disgusting the concept of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ is (MAD - never a more aptly given acronym) it works. It will continue to work, unless it doesn’t in which case I do shudder to imagine what happens next. Anyone with the slightest lick of sense will also shudder at such a prospect and that is what protects us. I too find that highly unsettling and always have. I suppose in a way that is the very point of it.

I do believe that humanity’s instinct towards survival will outweigh our shortsighted and capricious nature. I am admittedly less sure of that statement today than I have ever been in my life.

COMMENTS:

Alex Johnston ·Jan. 4 2026

I think we’re in a world war now.

I think that this is what a world war, in the 21st century, looks like.

Not massive clashes of ground troops and air attacks in a few large theatres, but constant digital wars of misinformation and subversion and DOS attacks, and local conflicts, and everyone fighting proxy wars, and nobody quite wanting to escalate it to WW1/2 level, just fragile regimes clinging onto power by constantly attacking people and claiming loyalty because We’re at war, how dare you be disloyal, and the victims always being the most powerless.

This of course assumes that the US federal government is still staffed by enough people who are intelligent enough to think that it’s a good idea to not escalate it. Which, I admit, is a very shaky assumption, given the mouth-breathing cretins and scum who are the current US federal government.

Amy Renfrew ·Jan. 4 2026

We will see….we haven’t seen two large peer nation militaries face off against each other and I am hoping we don’t….but we might. That will be a world war.

Yes cyber warfare is and will likely always be a constant moving forward…but that is cold war stuff, just as are the proxy wars. Those proxy wars are coming to an end as the US and Russia and likely China soon enough are or will be directly attacking smaller nations without any intermediaries. We are not IMO in a world war yet….but we are right on the brink. The international rules based order is breaking down and once that happens it will be war after war on top of other wars. If and when ‘The Coalition of the Willing’ face off against Russia or BRICS intervenes on behalf of Venezuela or some other nation against the Americans it is on….

If the Americans start a war with BRICS we could possibly avoid direct involvement but I doubt it.

That really is the problem, the US and a handful of other pivotal regimes are unpredictable right now so no one, not even the Americans seem to have any idea what they are doing.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA/GLOBAL AFFAIRS, January 3 2026

Statement

January 3, 2026 - Ottawa, Canada - Global Affairs Canada

Today, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs, issued the following statement:

“Since 2019, when Canada closed its embassy in Venezuela, we have refused to recognize any legitimacy of the Maduro regime and opposed its repression of the Venezuelan people, including the persecution of dissenters and particularly political leaders opposed to the regime.

“In keeping with our long-standing commitment to uphold the rule of law and to democracy, Canada stands by the people of Venezuela and their desire to live in a peaceful and democratic society. Canada also calls on all parties to exercise restraint and uphold international law.

“Canada is engaging with its international partners and monitoring developments closely.

“Canada stands ready to assist Canadians in Venezuela in need through our consular officials and embassy in Bogotá, Colombia.”

Prime Minister Carney speaks with María Corina Machado

NOTE: Maria Corina Machado is the Leader of the Opposition in Venezuela and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025 “for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy” (Maria Corina Machado – Facts – 2025 - NobelPrize.org). She is an obvious new potential president for Venezuela. However, Donald Trump, who had self-nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and was rejected, says (falsely) that "doesn't have the support or the respect" to run Venezuela” (Sky News on X). Marco Rubio has little to say about her in the video below. Here, Mark Carney speaks well of her.

January 4, 2026
Ottawa, Ontario
Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, spoke with Nobel Peace Prize laureate María Corina Machado.

The Prime Minister and Ms. Machado condemned Nicolás Maduro’s brutally oppressive, criminal, and illegitimate regime, which repressed the Venezuelan people and persecuted dissenters. Prime Minister Carney thanked Ms. Machado for her resolute voice on behalf of the Venezuelan people. They underscored the importance of seizing this opportunity for freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity in Venezuela.

[NOTE: I wonder if they meant for her to take control of the country.]

Prime Minister Carney affirmed Canada’s steadfast support for a peaceful, negotiated, and Venezuelan-led transition process that promotes stability and respects the democratic will of the Venezuelan people. He emphasised that such a process must be anchored in the Venezuelan people’s sovereign right to decide and build their own future in a peaceful and democratic society.

Prime Minister Carney agreed to remain in contact with Ms. Machado and international partners.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is Interviewed by NBC News

His answers are scripted on the text of the National Security Strategy released a month ago.

Marco Rubio says Maduro’s capture ‘not a war against Venezuela’: Full interview, Jan. 4 2026

NBC speaking, Min. 0:00:

Congress was not briefed before the military operation and is now demanding answers. Is the United States now at war with Venezuela?

Rubio speaking, Min. 0:25:

There’s not a war. I mean, we are at war against drug trafficking organizations and not a war against Venezuela. We are enforcing American laws with regards to oil sanctions.

0:37 We have sanction entities. We go to court, we get a warrant and seize those boats with oil and that will continue, and we will continue to reserve the rights to take strikes against the drug boats that are bringing drugs toward the United States that are being operated by transnational criminal organizations including the cartel, of course.

0:56 The leader of that cartel is now in U.S. custody and facing U.S. justice in the Southern District of New York and that’s Nicholas Maduro. We made big progress in that regard.

NBC speaking, Min. 1:08:

Mr. Secretary, who is in charge? Are you running Venezuela right now?

Rubio speaking, Min. 1:28:

We expect to see all kinds of changes and the most immediate changes are those in the interest of the United States. And that’s why we’re involved here, because of how it applies and has a direct impact on the United States.

1:37 We will not be able to allow in our hemisphere a country that becomes a crossroads for the activities of all of our adversaries around the world. We can’t allow it. We can’t have a country where the people in charge of its military and of its police department are openly cooperating with drug trafficking organizations. We’re not going to allow that.

1:57 These are direct threats with the United States. We intend to use every element of leverage we have to ensure that changes. The one I would point to is our military is helping the Coast Guard conduct the law enforcement function, which is not just the capture of Maduro and the enforcement of our sanctions.

2:14 We go to court, get a warrant and seize the boats. We think this is tremendous leverage, crippling leverage, which we intend to continue to use until we see the changes we need to see that are of benefit to the American people and to the people of Venezuela, as well.

NBC speaking, Min. 2:29:

Mr. Secretary, I think there are questions about who the point people are during the transition. Mr. Trump said we’re going to run the country so it is you?

Rubio speaking, Min. 2:51:

Well, it’s running policy with regard to this. We want Venezuela to move in a certain direction because not only do we think it’s good for the people of Venezuela. It’s in our national interest. It either touches on something that’s a threat to our national security or touches on something that’s either beneficial or harmful…

3:07 I think everyone knows I’m pretty involved in the politics of this hemisphere. Obviously the Secretary of State and National Security Adviser are very involved in all these elements and the Department of War plays an important role here along with the Department of Justice because they’re the ones that have to go to court. This is a team effort by the entire apparatus of the country.

3:27 But it’s running this policy and the goal of this policy is to see changes in Venezuela that are beneficial to the United States, first and foremost, because that’s who we work for. But also, we believe, to the people of Venezuela, because they have suffered tremendously. We want a better future for Venezuela and the people of Venezuela and also stabilizing for the region, and makes the neighbourhood we live in a much better and safer place.

NBC speaking, Min. 3:52:

President Trump said the administration is working with the Vice President Delcy Rodriguez. Why does the administration oppose working with the Opposition Leader Maria Corina Machado? She’s a Nobel Peace Prize winner. her coalition has the support of 70% of Venezuelans. Why not work with her?

Marco Rubio speaking, Min. 4:15:

A couple of things. Maria Corina Machado is fantastic and someone I’ve known for a long time and she, she, the whole movement is, we are dealing with the immediate reality. The immediate reality is that unfortunately—and sadly, but unfortunately—the vast majority of the Opposition is no longer present inside of Venezuela.

4:33 We have short-term things that have to be addressed right away….We’re talking about what happens over the next two three weeks, two three months. And how that ties to the national interests of the United States.

4:57 So we expect to see more compliance and cooperation than we were previously receiving. With Nicholas Maduro you could not make a deal and arrangement. Although he was given very generous offers. He could have left Venezuela a week and a half ago. There were opportunities for him to avoid all of this because he’s not someone we can work with.

5:12 He suckered the Biden Administration into stupid deals. He’s made a career out of not keeping deals and figuring out how to save himself by buying time.

“Made a career out of not keeping deals.” Talk about pot calling kettle black”! There’s much more in that video but you get the gist of it. One narcistic bully describing another. What hits me is the never-ending reference to “the interests of the United States” and the justification for invading—because they, a foreign country, couldn’t work with him. Who, exactly, do these people think they are?

CONCLUSION

Oh yes, that’s who. They think they are King of the Hemisphere. And they think it’s their right and responsibility to do what has to be done to force the Hemisphere to conform to the best interests of the United States, untied though they be.

But no, there’s no war so long as everyone just goes along with The King and his Wishes. What I’m waiting to find out is exactly what the King’s Wishes are going to be regarding Canada’s natural resources and what it is going to cost Canada to retain its sovereignty.

The evidence is sickening but to prove my point I have to present video evidence of presidential claims:

• that the US military is the biggest and best in the world

• that massive amounts of fentanyl are entering the US from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela

• that poisonous drugs from the above countries is killing millions of Americans.

NOTE: The US military is also the most powerful by world standards as described by many outside the US, so I take that as objective fact.

I conclude that this most powerful military, i.e. the branch called US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is too weak and incompetent to protect its own borders against fentanyl and illegal aliens because Trump claims so much illegal contraband substance and alien humans enters his country.

PRESIDENTIAL CLAIMS

Fentanyl and Aliens From Canada and Mexico

The following video comes immediately after Canada spent billions to tighten its border with the US, hired a Fentanyl Czar to work on the border with US Customs and Border Protection, and reduced fentanyl influx into the US to almost zero.

Trump Warns Canada via Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

The President did just put out a statement on his call with the governor Justin Trudeau, as he calls him, of Canada and he said he was not pleased, he said it’s not good enough. He told Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that directly….He’s not going to stop standing up for the American people.

When it comes to fentanyl, for the last four years unfortunately our neighbours to the north and the south, Canada and Mexico respectively, have allowed America to be a dumping ground—not just for illegal aliens but for illegal deadly poisonous fentanyl, which is now the Number 1 killer of young people in this country aged 18 to 34. (Emphasis mine to show my reasoning that US CBP isn’t able to do its job.)

Through the northern border and Canada in this last fiscal year alone, there was enough fentanyl seized to kill four-point-eight billion people. And that number is up two thousand and fifty percent from 2023 the year before.

So there’s been more than a two thousand percent increase, and a legal seizure of fentanyl at the northern border. Why? Because Canada is allowing that fentanyl to come to the United States.

The President sees these numbers. He thinks about the lives that are lost. And everybody in this room, I’m sure, everybody watching at home, everybody across the country, knows someone in our lives who has been killed at the hands of this deadly poison. There needs to be repercussions for that. The president feels very strongly about it. (Emphasis mine to show Trump’s justification for tariffs.)

Trump says fentanyl coming from Canada is massive

Canada very much so. They’ve allowed millions and millions of people to come into our country that shouldn’t be here. They could have stopped them and they didn’t. (Emphasis mine to show Incompetent CBP) And they’ve killed three hundred thousand people. Last year, my opinion, have been destroyed by drugs by fentanyl.

The fentanyl coming through Canada is massive. The fentanyl coming through Mexico is massive. ( Emphasis mine to show incompetent CBP.) And people are getting killed and families are being destroyed.

US Has Best Military, Fentanyl From Venezuela

President Trump speaks following the U.S. attack on Venezuela — 1/3/2026, Jan. 3 2026

Donald Trump bragging up the World’s Greatest Military, Min. 0:20:

Late last night and early today at my direction, the United States armed forces conducted an extraordinary military operation in the capital of Venezuela. Overwhelming American military power, air, land, and sea was used to launch a spectacular assault. It was a an assault like people have not seen since World War II…. No nation in the world could achieve what America achieved yesterday or frankly in just a short period of time.

4:30 The United States military is the strongest and most fierce military on the planet by far with capabilities and skills our enemies can scarcely begin to imagine. We have the best equipment anywhere in the world. (Emphasis mine to show Trump believes he has the best trained and best-equipped military in the world.)

Fentanyl: CBP Incompetent; US Invades, Arrests Foreign President & Wife

2:00 The men and women of our military working with US law enforcement successfully captured Maduro…along with his wife Celia Flores, both of whom now face American justice. Maduro and Flores have been indicted in the Southern District of New York. It’s Jay Clayton for their campaign of deadly narcoterrorism against the United States and its citizens. (Emphasis mine, this campaign was possible because of incompetent CBP; also incompetent healthcare & education system re handling overdoses as per Mexico’s solution.)

4:45 We’ve knocked out 97% of the drugs coming in by sea. Each boat kills on average 25,000 people. We knocked out 97%. And those drugs mostly come from place called Venezuela. (Emphasis mine to show that this was necessary due to incompetent CBP; also incompetent healthcare & education system re handling overdoses as per Mexico’s solution)

Overstating the Obvious

Obviously these complaints/accusations are false, outrageous, ridiculous. But sometimes the best way to handle such outrageously false and ridiculous content is to accept it at face value as though it were true, and go from there. That’s what I’m doing here.

Massive Amounts Seized by CBP or Epidemic Level Death Tolls?

Which is it? If it really is true, as Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claims, that the American Customs and Border Protection seized enough fentanyl to kill 2 billion people—a quarter of earth’s human population—then we can assume their border protection is extremely competent, most likely using dogs and other protocol. None should be getting through to the American public.

But if it really is true, as the Press Secretary also says, that fentanyl is the Number 1 killer of people age 18 to 34 and as the President say, putting the death toll from fentanyl at three hundred thousand (300,000) people, then we must conclude a very incompetent Customs and Border Protection. Very full of holes under the Trump administration.

NOTE: Mexico says this high death toll is due to the Americans’ lack of substance abuse education in schools PLUS lack of accessible healthcare for overdoses.

World’s Best-Trained/Best-Equipped Military or US Inability to Curb Drug Campaigns?

Having the world’s best in military equipment and training surely includes having the best in border protection. This is especially the case under a president who is so deeply concerned about national security as Donald Trump claims to be. Stopping poison at the border must absolutely be Priority Number 1. The President says he has the absolute best in all things military, so much so that they are able to “knock out 97%” of the drugs on sea. He’s very proud and happy with that number. He keeps repeating it as though it were top performance so we’ll accept it as acceptable beyond a shadow of a doubt and extend it to his CBP.

With such competent border protection, no drug campaign can possibly get through, only tiny bits but not enough to kill people. That being the case, there was no need at all for Trump to send the US military to Venezuela and bomb Karakas, zero need to kidnap the president and his wife, and no need whatsoever to steal American taxpayer money to administer jurisprudence to a foreign world leader and his wife.

Yet the American president takes great pride in bragging up his military’s performance in the dead of night to “capture” President Nicholas Maduro and Celia Flores as though it had been necessary for the welfare and national security of his country the United States.

COMPETENT BORDER SERVICES AGENCY

Canada Border Services Agency competently seizes thousands of contraband items flowing up through the US without requiring aid from the United States.

Last year Canadian border officials seized almost a thousand illegal firearms, 90% of which came from the US. But you know what you aren’t hearing from Canadian leaders? Demands that the Americans look after our border for us.

We recognize that having guns coming into our country, it’s OUR border guards’ job to catch them. That’s how borders work! Things coming into Canada are screened by Canadians. Things going into America are screened by Americans. (Emphasis mine because this is what I mean when I say CBP is too incompetent and weak to stop the bad stuff. If this were not the case, the president would have no need to complain and punish Canada and Mexico.)

That’s why this whole Canadians need to stop the fentanyl coming into the US argument is just so transparently phony.

AI GENERATED QUESTION QUORA QUESTION

What would really happen if a US president demanded a referendum on Canada being annexed by America? How would Canadians react?

Preparation for military self-defense.

It is unclear:

A. Whether you mean for the US president to demand a referendum inside his own country asking his own citizens whether or not they want to annex Canada.

Or

B. If you mean for the US president to demand that the Canadian government impose a referendum on Canadian citizens asking if they want for Canada to be annexed to the US.

If you mean A, go ahead and do whatever you want. You will anyway. Canada, however, won’t cooperate even if 90% of Americans vote for annexation. Given all of Trump’s rhetoric, they will prepare for military self-defense.

If you mean B, that is political interference, pure and simple. No American president can tell Canada how to operate in-house business. If Canadians and their government want a referendum on this or that, then Canadians and their government can have a referendum and the US president has no say in the matter.

However, Canadians will never forget that American presidents get angry enough to kill trade talks when Canadian politicians air TV ads in the US touching US politics. Given this bit of knowledge, Canadians will know to prepare for military self-defense if the US president interferes in our politics and orders a referendum.

JUST IN: Hoekstra Says Canada Will Never Be Never Be A Global Power, Carney Responds, Dec. 14 2025

Pete Hoekstra speaking about the ad that Doug Ford aired in the United States, Min. 6:04:

Americans saw an ad that at the bottom of it says…paid for by maybe the…the province of Ontario or whatever.

Narrator speaking, Min. 6:16:

Then the conversation shifts and the mask slips. Asked about Canada’s place in the world, Hoekstra stops speaking as a diplomat and starts speaking as a gatekeeper. This statement isn’t about capacity. It’s about permission. At a time when Canada is attracting global investment, diversifying trade, strengthening its technology sector, and asserting more independence on the world stage, the ambassador’s message is clear.

6:48 Canada may succeed, but only within limits defined by Washington.

6:54 That’s not partnership. That’s hierarchy. And it explains the discomfort we’re hearing in Hoekstra’s voice. Hoekstra tries to soften his remarks by speaking about alliance and cooperation, but the condition remains unchanged.

7:10 US preeminence is non-negotiable.

7:14 And this is where Mark Carney’s leadership comes into focus. Not through the ads themselves, but through the environment in which they landed. Carney did not inflame. He did not grandstand. He did not retreat. He held the line. By maintaining credibility, stability and international respect while Canada’s message circulated inside the US, he ensured that pressure translated into influence, not backlash.

7:42 Trump reacted emotionally. Canada did not.

7:49 That asymmetry is the difference between noise and power.

Michael Serapio speaking, Min. 7:54:

So where does Canada fit in that? If there is the preeminence of the United States, does that necessarily relegate Canada to a secondary role?

Pete Hoekstra speaking, Min. 8:03:

Well…I think it would be difficult for Canada to become the preeminent military power…economic power in the world. Okay….We have no closer economic ally or a military ally than Canada. And so for us to achieve our objective in terms of being preeminent, I think what you’ve seen and what we’ve demonstrated over the last number of decades is that happens when we have a great relationship with Canada on those issues and then it’s Canada’s responsibility to say, “Yeah, we see that same future going forward.”

In other words, Hoekstra wants a submissive subservient Canada. He sees no other way of being great than having the world’s most powerful military or largest economy—which includes the world’s largest debt held by the very people he is denigrating and debasing and commanding to step down and to agree to a secondary role because it serves the best interests of the United States. He is too dense to recognise the enormous strength of a nation that has been able for over three hundred years—ever since 1690—to hold back a much larger and much stronger people and to defend its own territory so decisively that a five-thousand km long international boundary has been successfully established and maintained over all that time.

Narrator speaking, Min. 8:56:

Up to this point, the ambassador is clearly frustrated. But here is where the language shifts from irritation to something far more revealing. In an effort to criticize Canadian messaging in the United States, Pete Hoekstra makes an extraordinary comparison, one that no ambassador to a close ally should ever make lightly.

9:20 He suggests that Canada, by allowing government-funded messaging to air in the US, has somehow opened the door for countries like China to interfere in American elections.

9:32 This is not a neutral analogy. It is a deliberate escalation.

9:37 Canada, a democratic ally, NATO partner, and closest US trading partner, is being rhetorically placed in the same sentence as an authoritarian state accused of election interference. That comparison does two things at once.

9:55 First, it exaggerates what actually happened. No votes were influenced. No candidates were endorsed. No election infrastructure was touched. The messaging in question explained tariff policy, nothing more.

10:08 Second, it reveals a deeper discomfort. The idea that Canada spoke directly to the American public and was heard by invoking China. Hoekstra isn’t describing reality. He’s trying to redraw the boundaries of what Canada is allowed to do.

Narrator speaking, Min. 10:31:

Because if Canada can speak to American voters about trade, if Canada can explain consequences plainly, then Canada is no longer silent. And silence has always been Washington’s preference.

10:45 This moment matters because it shows how far the ambassador is willing to go rhetorically to reassert control of the narrative. Not by disproving Canada’s message, not by denying its impact, but by trying to delegitimize it through comparison. And in doing so, he says far more about Washington’s anxiety than about Canada’s conduct.

Larry Heald’s answer to Why is Trump so hell bent on ending our relationship with Canada? Is it because of his obvious jealousy for any successful country or he wants exclusive power over all nations?

Trump Towers in Canada Renamed, Earned Trump’s Ire

Larry’s Answer

His whole issue with Canada is VERY PERSONAL. He has failed TWICE with Trump Tower projects… in Toronto and Vancouver. His attempt in Toronto turned into a financial disaster and his attempt get his brand into Vancouver was also a failure. Both hotels were completed under different owners once the stain of his name disappeared but Trump ended the up with egg on his face in both cases.

As everyone knows, he carries a serious grudge.

Trump International Hotel & Tower Toronto, Permanently Closed

Replaced by The St. Regis Toronto

This really is the kind of place Donald Trump wants to his name. But see all the red-inked “permanently closed” labels on Google Maps.

The day before, on December 7 2015, Trump

proposed a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

…

“I recognize of course that [Talon] never would have deliberately used a brand that they thought would represent hate, but today we know who Donald Trump is,” Matlow said. “And as decent people themselves, they can help Toronto disassociate ourselves from Donald Trump by renaming their tower and I hope they hear me out” (Councillor urges Trump Tower to drop ‘fascist’ namesake after anti-Muslim speech | Globalnews.ca).

The Trump International Hotel & Tower in Toronto, a mixed use tower with, among other things, 211 hotel units, 74 residential units and commercial, retail and amenity space, was failing to sell in all those categories. Torontonians wanted no association with the hateful fascist Donald Trump.

On June 29 2017, Global News reported “InnVest Hotels acquires former Trump Tower, to be renamed the St. Regis Toronto.”

Trump International Hotel & Tower Vancouver—This is not the Canada I know

Trump International Vancouver opens amidst protests, March 1 2017

Protester speaking, Min. 0:15:

This building, this name on this building, doesn’t fit in at all with the city of Vancouver.

Protester speaking, Min. 0:21:

Everything that this man stands for is everything that we are against as Canadians. This is not the Canada that I know.

Trump’s campaign call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States turned two-thirds of Canadians against him; protests ensued, aimed at the removal of his name from buildings in Canada.

Trump Tower Vancouver opens, March 1 2017

Host speaking, Min. 1:38:

We have at Trump Vancouver dozens of Vancouverites protesting against the Trump brand on the tower while under the watchful eye of Vancouver Police, RCMP, the United States Secret Service, and private security guards a handful of pro-Trump supporters also showed up. The anti-Trump protest was organized by Occupy Vancouver.

Matthew Kagis of Occupy Vancouver speaking, Min. 1:57:

You know, Marmalade Mussolini having become president of the United States— there’s a lot of people who have become emboldened racists, xenophobes, misogynists—they think they have a buddy in the White House and they’re getting bolder and bolder so we felt we needed to boldly push back and tell them that those messages weren’t welcome here.

But there seem to be “Trump” messages right there in the crowd with him.

Bystander speaking, Min. 2:17:

Is she a Canadian citizen—is she allowed to walk on the sidewalk?

Bystander answering, Min. 2:21:

No she looks Afghani to me…

Woman with Purple Hat with White Trump Lettering, holds sign that says, Love Trump, Min. 2:26-3:02

For those of us familiar with the political violence south of the border, especially in 2025, this event of the Trump supporter calmly displaying her sign in the midst of anti-Trumpers in Vancouver in 2016 stands in stark contrast….But I’m looking at the crowd. I hear this man saying, in response to the “Love Trump” sign, “I love everybody.” Then I notice something on his shirt about prison, and the BC premier of the time. That shirt is reminiscent of Trump insisting about Hillary Clinton, “Lock her up.”

August 28 2020: Trump Vancouver Shut Down Permanently

Trump hotel in Vancouver permanently shuts down, Aug. 28 2020

City News Anchor Travis Prasad speaking, Min. 0:43:

Documents obtained by City News confirmed the Trump hotel operator TA Hotel Management declared bankruptcy on Thursday, the same day Trump accepted the nomination for a second term as president.

I guess they realized that with Trump heading for a second term in the White House, it would not bode well for Trump Vancouver.

Trump name officially removed from Vancouver hotel building - BC | Globalnews.ca

Watch the video at the article. I can’t find it on YouTube, so I can’t post it here. I will transcribe some of the audio.

Narrator speaking, Min. 0:00:

June 2013, the only time the Donald ever attended an event at the tower bearing his name in Vancouver.

Donald Trump speaking, Min. 0:09:

I’m probably a much nicer person than people would think. I’m actually a nice person. I really pride myself on that.

Narrator speaking, Min. 0:15:

Back then he was known as the billionaire developer and gameshow host. Fast-forward to February 2017 and Trump was a polarizing president and the Vancouver grand opening was marred by protests.

Architect and Real Estate Consultant Michael Geller speaking, Min. 0:33:

The deal had been done. They were not in a position to change the branding. I suspect many people watching tonight’s news will say, ‘I never stepped foot inside that hotel because his name is on the front door.

Narrator speaking, Min. 0:51:

It is bad news for the hotel’s staff who were told Thursday that their jobs are gone.

Narrator speaking, Min. 0:57:

Donald Trump doesn’t run the hotel. The building’s owner pays his company to license the Trump name. In Bankruptcy documents, T.A. Hotel Management Limited lists 1.1 million in assets and nearly 4.8 million in liabilities.

Narrator speaking, Min. 1:34:

Way back in 2007, contractors signed for the tower to include a Ritz Carlton Hotel. A decade later it opened under the Trump name. Now Trump is checked out. But Geller predicts it won’t be long before a new brand checks in.

Trump’s name does not sell in Canada. At least, it didn’t in 2017. I sincerely hope we can keep it that way. Canadians and Americans all want the same thing: Affordability.

But how to get there is what we disagree on.

Throughout their history, Americans have been outspoken and aggressive, eager to go get whatever it is they want. To me, this was overtly evident when researching U.S. Manifest Destiny and how it drove Americans to conquer by whatever means necessary large swaths of the continent. See my post Canada: The Holdout Against US Manifest Destiny. For me, that raised the question: How could Canada hold out when everyone else succumbed?

Do Canadians have a special way of resisting that Americans cannot overcome, more so than the Mexicans, Spanish, British, and French? That seems rather unlikely but I don’t know the answer to my question. So when I came across these events of the Trump Towers in Canada, I saw it as another opportunity to examine how Canadians stand up to the Americans that is so effective.

What occurs to me as I ponder the Torontonians and Vancouverites is that they:

• did not fight.

• stood their ground

• refused to cooperate (no moving into those cursed towers, no stepping foot inside the front door over which was inscribed that hated name)

And I think about the boycott today on American goods and travel. No one’s fighting. No army invading the US. No vandalizing American companies. Simply refusing to cooperate. Standing our ground. Refusing to engage.

No law is being challenged or violated. No one is making themselves vulnerable to an enemy. No one is even arguing because arguing is a form of fighting and making oneself vulnerable. We say what we mean and we mean what we say and then we stick to it. We stand on it and we don’t move. We don’t bend, we don’t bow, we don’t break.

That’s what Trump finds so “nasty” and “difficult” about us. I wonder if that is why we’ve been able to hold out. Whatever the case, I’m glad we could and I hope whatever we’re doing right continues.

This short video packs one hundred years of American history into one hundred seconds. It skips the War of 1812, presumably because it failed to add Canada—or any other significant property—to its territory. Yet the War of 1812 was a major war involving several nations, spread over the entire eastern half of the continent and lasted nearly three years. It’s an important part of both the USA’s Century of War and Canada’s coming-of-age history.

NOTE: “Century of War” is my term because I notice that the US was at war much of the 19th century to expand its territory. Century of Expansion would be just as good.

Why Is the United States So Big #countries #history #geography #usa

After researching all the dates, I am no longer certain that this video is accurate on all counts. However, it serves as a guide to dates and events.

Dates & Events

The US got most of its land after its independence in 1776.

1776: Independence from United Kingdom

In what is now the United States, anyone can be president, even rebels like George Washington and slavers like Benjamin Franklin. Observation from Canada in the last ten years since 2015 also shows that it helps a great deal if you have, in this order of importance:

• a penis: size doesn’t matter so much so long as you have one but having one is an absolute must if you want to win presidential elections in the United States of America. No woman has ever won the presidential election, but not for lack of trying—Hillary Clinton married to former President Bill Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016, and Kamala Harris lost to former President Donald Trump in 2024. Joe Biden won the interim presidency against Donald Trump, so that the only time Trump wins is when he runs against women.

• a lot of money: hardly anything matters more—except body parts, of course. A man who has large amounts of money, no matter how it was acquired, is able to buy the confidence of voters and convince them that he knows business. Not even a history of bankruptcies matters; having your name on buildings and companies you own is very convincing.

• white skin: this is not absolutely necessary but it is extremely helpful in a nation where half the people still cherish the memory—and even long for the return—of segregation under the Jim Crow laws. Former President Barak Obama, who held office for two terms, had one black parent.

Benjamin Franklin fathered a child with his slave woman he owned while at the same time convinced that “American society remain a white man’s domain” (Thomas Jefferson | Biography, Political Career, Slavery, & Facts | Britannica).

1812-1815: War of 1812

[1812-1815: War of 1812 started on June 18, 1812 when the US declared war on Great Britain and ended on February 17, 1815 when the US Senate ratified the Treaty of Ghent. This is not in the video but clearly belongs in the US Century of War.]

1803: Louisiana Purchase from France $15 million

By the mid-1790’s, American settlements were springing up in the Mississippi River Valley so that the right to use the Mississippi River was necessary. But transactions between European monarchs transferred the River Valley back and forth between the French, English, and Spanish. By the turn of the century, the American government learned that shipping goods on that river or even through the mouth at New Orleans, would come with duty charges. This accelerated into the purchase of the entire River Valley from the Gulf of Mexico to the 49th parallel, from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains.

1819: West Florida Ceded via Adams-Onis Treaty

1819: US signed Adams-Onis Treaty with Spain, in which Spain ceded Florida to the US. The US paid $5 million. Since the boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase were not clearly defined—something the Americans were keenly aware of at the time—the area west of the Mississippi was disputed for years between the French, Spanish, and Americans. When the settlers of Baton Rouge rebelled against Spanish control in 1810, that section was soon added to the Mississippi Territory and in 1819 the Transcontinental Adams-Onis Treaty was signed after which Spain ceded West Florida (West Florida Controversy | Spanish, Louisiana & Annexation | Britannica).

1836: Texan Revolution & 1845 Annexation into US

Texas, part of Mexico at the time, revolted against the Mexican government along with other Mexican states. Supported by the United States, Texas was the only Mexican state that succeeded in breaking away and established the Republic of Texas. The US was not ready to induct Texas as a state. Ten years later, under another government, Texas was annexed as a state of the US (Texas Revolution - Wikipedia; History of Texas (1845–1860) - Wikipedia).

1846: Oregon Treaty with United Kingdom along 49th Parallel

1846: US signed Oregon Treaty with United Kingdom, dividing the Oregon Territory along the 49th parallel, with the northern portion going to the United Kingdom, and the southern portion going to the United States. This was the peaceful solution to “conflicting claims of American settlers and British fur traders” that had by 1846 raised the threat of war (Parks Canada - Oregon Treaty of 1846 National Historic Event.

1846-1848: Mexican War

Motivated by a conviction of Manifest Destiny, in 1846 President James K. Polk badgered the Mexicans until they fired on the Americans. Using that as an excuse, the US fought a war with Mexico and won, then took over half of Mexico’s territory for $15 million (The Mexican American War | American Experience | Official Site | PBS).

1867: Purchase of Alaska—with an Eye on Canada

1867: Russia unexpectedly sold Alaska to the US for $7.2 million, making it one of the most profitable deals in US history. The United States gladly bought it, seeing the potential to add Canada to its possessions and complete the picture.

Why America Really Bought Alaska (It Wasn’t Just for the Land)

13:57-14:09 But whatever rivalry that may have been felt between Russia and the United States, it paled in comparison to their mutual distrust of Great Britain. Tsar Nicholas I underscored this shared apprehension in a statement to the US minister in St. Petersburg, declaring, “Not only are our interests alike, but our enemies are the same.”

16:25 Despite the recent discovery of modest gold deposits in Alaska, Russian authorities were not swayed to maintain their hold on the region. In fact, they were acutely aware of the fervor that had accompanied the California gold rush in the 1840s and 1850s, which saw the arrival of more than 300,000 prospectors from across the globe, and were concerned that a similar influx of foreign gold seekers in Alaska could ultimately lead to the loss of the territory without any financial gain. It seemed like an easy choice to make - sell Alaska or lose it. But who should be the buyer?

17:03 The US was the obvious choice to offer Alaska to, however, the ongoing Civil War left the nation financially strained and reluctant to incur additional expenses.

17:15 More than anything, Russia did not want Alaska to be absorbed into British Canada, as Britain was Russia’s chief rival at the time, but then again, Britain was basically everyone’s chief rival then. Chaos in the United States stoked Canadian movements for confederation, which would mean self-rule while remaining under the protection of Great Britain.

17:36 - 18:04 In 1866, a group of citizens in British Columbia voted to request permission from the British government to join the United States, but the movement never progressed any further than that. That same year, the US House of Representatives introduced an annexation bill that was never voted on. The United States’ expansionist attitude ultimately propelled the Canadian provinces toward confederation, and in March 1867, Queen Victoria gave her assent to the creation of the Dominion of Canada, which remained under British control but possessed a significantly enhanced capacity for self-governance.

19:10 [Secretary of State William Seward] saw no contradiction between his support for emancipation and his desire that the United States expand across the continent into Indian country.

19:19 Annexation of Canada seemed to always be on Seward’s mind, saying in 1853 that, “Canada, although a province of Great Britain, is already half annexed to the United States.” In 1860, Seward sought the Republican nomination for president, and on the campaign trail he made specific references to Alaska, saying, “I see the Russian... and I can say, ‘Go on and build up your outposts all along the coast, up even to the Arctic Ocean—they will yet become the outposts of my own country.’”

20:37 - 21:01 On March 9, 1867, [Tzar Alexander’s Minister Eduard] Stoeckl and Seward met in Washington. Stoeckl was under orders only to bring up the idea of selling Alaska after Seward had broached the subject. The two men talked for a while about fishing rights until, finally, Seward brought up the subject of the United States purchasing Alaska, at which point, Stoeckl revealed that the tsar had authorized him to negotiate just such a sale. The next day, with President [Andrew] Johnson’s approval, negotiations began.

23:09 The New York Herald urged Britain to “withdraw gracefully from a continent where [its] institutions are out of place,” adding that its continued presence in North America, “can only bring trouble upon her colonies and humiliation to her government.”

24:07 More than anything…Americans welcomed the acquisition of Alaska as a crucial step on the way toward annexing Canada. After all, they had been told it was their destiny, and their destiny was manifest.

26:48 The official transfer of power took place on October 18, 1867, a little after 3:00 in the afternoon, in a ceremony attended by about three hundred people….After the flags were exchanged, the Russian commissioner said simply, “By authority from His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, I transfer to the United States, the Territory of Alaska.”

1903: Annexed Hawaii after overthrowing the Hawaiian Kingdom.

From the middle of the 19th century, the Hawai'ian economy became more and more integrated with the United States, what with being a “key spot for American whaling ships, fertile ground for American protestant missionaries, and a new source of sugar cane production.” When Queen Liliuokalani tried to strengthen the monarchy, the Americans deposed her. Hawaii was annexed around the turn of the 20th century. The dates I found range from 1898 to 1903.

How Canadians Have Always Responded, Justin Trudeau, 2018

Trudeau, Freeland speak about new NAFTA deal, now known as USMCA, Oct. 1 2018

Canadians Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaking, Min. 7:28:

A year and a half ago, with rising questions about the future of NAFTA, I was asked how we would respond. My answer was that we’d respond as Canadians always have in uncertain times. We’d be constructive and reasonable but we’d also be firm. We’d protect our interests and promote our values, we’d show determination and also flexibility, and we would remain united and ultimately we’d emerge stronger.

8:03 Well, that’s exactly what we did. Last night Canada reached an agreement in principle with the United States and Mexico on a modernized and updated North American Free Trade Agreement. It will now be called the USMCA, the United States Mexico Canada agreement. It’s an agreement that when enacted will be good for Canadian workers, good for Canadian business, and good for Canadian families.

Carney Ends Old Relationship, March 27 2025

“Canada’s old relationship with the US is over”, says Carney, March 27 2025

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaking, Min. 0:00:

The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperations is over.

0:08 President Trump again imposed unjustified tariffs on our nation in violation of our existing trade agreements. We will respond forcefully. Nothing is off the table to defend our workers and our country. And our response to these latest tariffs is to fight, is to protect, and to build.

0:35 We will fight the US tariffs with retaliatory trade actions of our own that will have maximum impact in the United States and minimum impacts here in Canada. It’s my solemn promise that when President Trump threatens us again, we will fight back. We will fight back with everything we have to get the best deal for Canada.

0:58 We will build an independent future for our country, stronger than ever. The road ahead will be long. There is no silver bullet. There is no quick fix. And I know and I understand that many are feeling anxious and worried about the future.

1:19 Fundamental change is always unsettling. But I have every confidence in our country because I understand what President Trump does not. That we love Canada with every fiber of our being.

QUORA QUESTION

What are the underlying reasons for the differing national identities and pride between Canadians and Americans?

The way I see it, the underlying reason is based on who had the arrogance to rise against the British crown along with the aggression to undertake the venture. That is, the people who stayed in what is now the United States and who agreed with and participated in the Revolution against the British Crown vs the people who were content with British rule. In other words, I believe the underlying reason for the differing national identities and pride between Canadians and Americans is who the Europeans were who first came to North America and their reasons for immigrating.

Two Different Kinds of Europeans in North America

But it goes deeper than that because quite a variety of groups settled in what is now the US. It may be due to the fact that the Puritans of Massachusetts became dominant in leadership roles, especially when it came to establishing social norms, governance, and trade. But one must take it all the way back to England, where they tried reforming the Church of England far beyond what the Church of England wanted. In Massachusetts they established their own religious community, and kept it pure by excluding all undesirables with included people with the wrong beliefs and skin colours. Complaints reached England and England told them they couldn’t do that; England installed its own governor—whom the Massachusettans threw out.

That’s the people who led the American Revolution and founded the United States of America.

Contrast this with the Quebecers, the first permanent and substantial community in what is now Canada. Instead of trying to dominate the trade and governance of their colonies like the people of Massachusetts had done, the Quebecers went about the business of living their own lives and making their own livelihoods. When the British won the French and Indian Wars, Quebec and all other French holdings in North America were transferred to the British. However, via Britain’s Quebec Act, Quebec was allowed to keep its unique culture, Catholic religion, and French language. NOTE: They “were allowed to keep.” Because Quebecers had lived quiet decent lives, there was no need to “reign them in” like there had been for Massachusetts. Permission to continue living their lives was sufficient.

This became the foundation of Canadian society.

Can you see a difference? But that isn’t the end of the story.

Revolution, Quebecers, Loyalists

When the Massachusettans revolted, they took with them the entire Eastern Seaboard south of Massachusetts. During the revolution, they invited Quebec to join them but the Quebec Act had already been passed and the Quebecers believed they were better off under the British than under the mob down south. That mob had entered and desecrated their Catholic Churches. NOTE: Americans often have funny ways of “inviting” outsiders to join them, e.g. by invading their land and desecrating sacred property. Quebecers had been dealing with these people for a long time and they didn’t like them. They drove back the Americans and saved Canada for Canadians.

A lot of their own people didn’t agree with the revolution, either. They were called the Loyalists and eventually escaped to Quebec, Nova Scotia, and environs. A year or two later, the Province of Canada offered free land to Loyalists who were still in what was by then the United States of America. Many thousands arrived in what is now Ontario.

ENDURING VALUES

United States of America

So you see how Puritan aggression, arrogance, and the drive for reform against all odds lay the foundation for American society. In sharp contrast, the foundation of Canadian society was as a refuge for people who just wanted to live their own lives in peace. Those values and attitudes persist across the centuries to the present day. They are obvious in statements like those made by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in his speech at the Reagan National Defence Forum. Starting at Minute 2:10, he said:

President Reagan also believed sincerely in the peace part of peace through strength, as his actions showed….He recognized that fruitful engagements with our adversaries were ONLY possible from a position of strength. Especially military strength. Which is why he focused so much on building up the American military.

For Americans, peace through strength means a strong military. But Canada pays little attention to its military in times of peace.

The American values of aggression and arrogance are also obvious in Washington’s recently released document National Security Strategy with their insistence that the rest of the world must serve the interests of the US. One such part regards the Balance of Power on Page 10:

Balance of Power – The United States cannot allow any nation to become so dominant that it could threaten our interests. We will work with allies and partners to maintain global and regional balances of power to prevent the emergence of dominant adversaries. As the United States rejects the ill-fated concept of global domination for itself, we must prevent the global, and in some cases even regional, domination of others.

Another such part regards Realignment Through Peace on Page 13:

Realignment Through Peace – Seeking peace deals at the President’s direction, even in regions and countries peripheral to our immediate core interests, is an effective way to increase stability, strengthen America’s global influence, realign countries and regions toward our interests, and open new markets.

The message runs throughout.

Canada

Canada, on the other hand, quietly accepts the new reality of a US that no longer wants to trade with us, and who has become an unreliable partner in all ways. We don’t fight the US. We don’t publish ultimatums. We simply stop giving our money to the US. We develop our own trade and defense relationships around the world. As always, that’s Canada minding its own business, attending its own livelihoods.

CONCLUSION

So you see how the values of original European settlers define Canadians and Americans to this day.

On Page 13 I found this:

Securing Access to Critical Supply Chains and Materials – As Alexander Hamilton argued in our republic’s earliest days, the United States must never be dependent on any outside power for core components—from raw materials to parts to finished products— necessary to the nation’s defense or economy.

Immediately, as I read it, I ask: How can the you Americans prevent being dependent on an outside power when you don’t have the necessary raw materials yourself? I’ve been studying this for the past many months. The US does not have on its own soil enough, or the right kind, or any of:

• critical minerals for computer software technology and defense

• aluminum, steel, and lumber for its auto and construction industries

• potash for fertilizer to grew its own food

I’m sure there are others but these are major. I kept reading. The answer followed immediately:

We must re-secure our own independent and reliable access to the goods we need to defend ourselves and preserve our way of life.

“Re-secure…access.” Does this have something to do with 51t state rhetoric? The next sentence confirms it:

This will require expanding American access to critical minerals and materials while countering predatory economic practices.

This sounds to me like a declaration of war on Canada because we do have all the minerals and other materials listed above. I don’t know what is meant by “predatory economic practices” in that sentence but it sounds ominous, especially in the context of Trump’s accusations throughout the past twelve months, accusations of Canada’s unfair treatment of the US, accusations of accepting subsidies and accusations of freeloading off the US military. It’s all lies. To recap part of his January 7 2025 press conference speech:

Trump calls PM “governor Trudeau” - reiterates that Canada “should be a state,” Jan. 7 2025

This speech is one blue streak of lies.

1. The US is NOT protecting Canada. Canada helps the US fights its enemies. Witness 9/11, after which Canada sent a delegation to help clean up, and when the US activated NATO Article 5 months later (after the enemy had disappeared never to return) Canada responded to many died in the war in Afghanistan—all in the name of fighting to protect the US. In addition, throughout the Cold War, Canada served as a buffer zone for the US by permitting the US to have all these bases and protections in cases the USSR came over the Arctic.

2. Subsidizing Canada. Never happened. Canada “subsidizes” the US as in loaning hundreds of billions to the US. Trump claims the US subsidizes Canada to the tune of $200-plus a year when in fact it’s Canada holds US Treasury bonds to the tune of $350 Billion. Trump lies. And lies. And lies.

3. Icebreakers. On July 11 2024, Canada, US, and Finland formally began trilateral discussions on shared interests, including environmental impacts in the Arctic, as part of the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE Pact). This trilateral agreement aims to enhance icebreaking capabilities by pooling expertise and resources between Canada, the U.S., and Finland.1 A formal Memorandum of Understanding was signed by all three parties on Nov. 13 2024.2 3

   Finland had been speaking to the US about this since at least 2015.4 In this speech, Trump twists all of this to sound like Trudeau interfered in in-house American business of buying icebreakers and lies about not wanting a partner when the US had signed a partnership.

4. “Our military is at their disposal.” I’m thinking if this is true, then Canada will be able to grab the US military for its own use at will, so I asked Google: When has Canada used US military? Google replied (Google Search): Canada has not “used” the U.S. military in the sense of being under its command, but the two countries have collaborated extensively on military matters, which sometimes involves Canada’s military forces operating in support of U.S. forces or jointly. (Examples are given; read the link. Trump downright lied.)

5. “Trudeau said Canada would dissolve if the US did not do all these things.” That’s another outright lie. That conversation never happened. Trump made it up.

6. “Many, many other things we give them in terms of subsidy.” No. The US gives Canada nothing “in terms of subsidy.” It’s all lies. Lies, lies, and more lies.

However, those are his claims and in his world they are reality. He makes laws based on his reality.

Trump, The Puppet on Strings

More accurately, whoever pulls Donald Trump’s strings and rules by proxy through Trump’s rambling mouth and demented brain makes these laws—and most likely wrote this document. I strongly suspect that person to be Steven Witkoff because Witkoff has a good relationship with Putin and this document—as well as Trump’s foreign policy—has a strong Putin element. Continuing from above:

Moreover, the Intelligence Community will monitor key supply chains and technological advances around the world to ensure we understand and mitigate vulnerabilities and threats to American security and prosperity.

Do you read this the way I read it? Words that catch my attention are:

• key supply chains

• around the world

• threats to American security…

I read those words in the context of earlier lines that clearly position the United States and President Donald Trump at the apex of the world, a world in which everything and everyone is obligated by design and default to serve the interests of the United States. Here are selected quotes:

Page 8

President Trump uses unconventional diplomacy, America’s military might, and economic leverage to surgically extinguish embers of division between nuclear-capable nations and violent wars caused by centuries-long hatred.

Focused Definition of the National Interest – … But to focus on everything is to focus on nothing. America’s core national security interests shall be our focus.

Peace Through Strength – Strength is the best deterrent.

Page 10

Balance of Power – The United States cannot allow any nation to become so dominant that it could threaten our interests. [NOTE: “The United States cannot allow…” That speaks of global control or dominance. Read the rest of that paragraph; it speaks unashamedly of global US dominance.]

Page 12

We will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.

Burden-Sharing and Burden-Shifting – the United States will organize a burden-sharing network, with our government as convener and supporter. [NOTE: This clearly sets the US above all other governments.]

Page 13

Realignment Through Peace – Seeking peace deals at the President’s direction…strengthen America’s global influence, realign countries and regions toward our interests, and open new markets. END OF QUOTES

I get the chills just reading this. It’s like reading Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four, except it’s real and it affects our own world. We—Canada—is one of the regions or countries the “President” wishes to realign and “influence” with his global reach.

Not Chairman, not Big Brother. But President.

What’s the difference. It’s an impersonal word imbued with power meant to intimidate or awe as the case may be.

Who Is Steve Witkoff

He has acted as a de facto envoy to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

That’s from Steve Witkoff - Wikipedia:

Steven Charles Witkoff (born March 15, 1957) is an American real estate developer, investor and founder of the Witkoff Group. Since 2025, Witkoff has served as the United States special envoy to the Middle East and special envoy for peace missions. He has also acted as a de facto envoy to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

De facto envoy to Russian President Vladimir Putin. De facto is a live link that leads to this:

practices that exist in reality, regardless of whether they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms

But envoy. I thought that was a batch of ships traveling together for protection from pirates. According to Collins English Dictionary:

An envoy is someone who is sent as a representative from one government or political group to another.

I suppose that can be a group of ships carrying an important person or perhaps the important person himself.

All of this to say that Steve Witkoff has not been officially recognized as the American representative to Russia but he definitely acts like one. He is also a personal friend of Donald Trump, says Wikipedia, and links to Newborn grandson of Steve Witkoff named after Trump – The Forward, by Jacob Kornbluh, which links to Truth Social:

This friendship started in 1986.

The son of a manufacturer of women’s coats, Witkoff became friends with Trump at a New York City deli in 1986 after they worked together on a business deal. Trump had no cash on him so “I ordered him a ham and swiss,” Witkoff said.

Since then, Witkoff has become a confidant, golfing buddy and contributor to Trump’s campaigns (Kornbluh article).

Actions of Witkoff

• In 2018, Witkoff opposed sanctions against Russia for its occupation of Crimea (Wikipedia-Witkoff)

• gave more than $2 million to Trump’s campaign, served as an informal adviser on tax cuts, opioids and reopening businesses during the pandemic5

• called Mr Trump a “true and dear friend for many years, in good times and bad times”.6

• cowed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

The aides explained that it would be Saturday and Netanyahu did not do business on the Sabbath…Witkoff was having none of it and…told them “in salty English that Shabbat was of no interest to him”.

The Israeli leader abandoned his Sabbath observance and received Witkoff in his office, where the envoy told him to agree to the ceasefire he had been ducking for so long….Netanyahu folded immediately7

• Trump envoy Witkoff reportedly advised Kremlin official on Ukraine peace deal | Trump administration | The Guardian, advice that the Guardian suggests may be the source for the “28 point peace deal.”

Takeaways re Witkoff

I conclude that Steve Witkoff has the character traits necessary to operate Donald Trump’s strings like a puppet master.

1. Golf Buddy and Confidant of Trump: This relationship goes back forty years. We know how very few people actually like Trump and how very important relationships are to Donald.

2. Take no prisoners attitude:

   1. Tough-talking strongman whom even the hardcore war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu submitted to.

   2. Walks unperturbed over legitimate officials like Keith Kellogg and Marco Rubio to get close to Vladimir Putin (The Guardian).

   3. Very comfortable interacting with the world’s most powerful war criminals on a personal level

      

      My Conclusion

      The Man Who Advises Vladimir Putin Is Pulling Trump’s Strings

Steve Witkoff is not only a property mogul, he also has a law degree and he writes like a lawyer. He thinks and operates like a very highly educated, very skillful and very talented strategist. I believe that brain-wise, he is Mark Carney’s equal. Morality-wise, he is the bottom ring of hellish evil equal to or exceeding Trump while Carney appears by all counts to be “pure in heart,” to borrow religious terms.

I believe Steven Witkoff is the author of this 33-page document.

Differences Today

Obvious traits today:

Americans:

ignorant, arrogant, uneducated, do not value learning, intelligence, and formal education. Care primarily for self & loved ones, success is seen in terms of dollars and cents, know nothing of other countries but “know” that the USA is best and most free of all countries, and that “everyone is dying to be part of the US.”

Canadians:

helpful, care for each other and humanity in general, which makes them likeable and friendly around the world, value education and knowledge for its own sake and for what it can contribute to the well-being of humanity and improvement of the world. Believe that Canada is one of the great countries in the world, much better than US.

Original Differences

United States:

Europeans moved to the United States for two primary reasons: Gold and commerce, religious freedom. Some communities, like the Puritans of Massachusetts, combined the two. Fiery zeal for religious beliefs separated them from their fellow-Englishmen, made them obnoxious if you listen to the English, brought them persecution if you listen to the Puritans.

In the colony of Massachusetts Bay, they prospered in their own right, kicked out and/or persecuted people who held beliefs or practised they labeled heretical, and ruled their theocracy with great pleasure and success for the elite male class. When England disagreed with their harsh disciplinary practices, royal representatives were sent to govern, but the Puritans threw out some of them.

When I read the history, conflict seems to have been the rule of the day. Eventually, England saw that it was leading to war. The harsher disciplinary measures England imposed in the form of taxes and trade restrictions, the more unruly these so-called zealous Christians became.

Some of the rebellious type called themselves the Sons of Liberty, some took the name Patriot. Benjamin Franklin was a leader. George Washington was a General in service of the Cause. Franklin’s son was jailed for disagreeing with his father’s cause. When he got out, he led the Loyalists.

Canada:

Europeans moved to Canada primarily to for commerce as in fur trade and fishes, and to spread Christianity. Religious freedom may have also played a part for some, and freedom from poverty in Europe.

The very earliest permanent settlements were the French who settled in Acadia and Quebec. To the west were English settlements and the British who owned them. Conflict between the Natives and French and British were common for the first century and a half. In the mid-eighteenth century, the British defeated the French in the French and Indian War, also known as the Seven Years War (because of concurrent conflicts that also changed geopolitics there), and the French ceded their holdings in North America to the British.

Life did not change much for the Canadians. The French were allowed to keep their social structures, both religious, secular, and military. Perhaps the biggest change occurred when the Americans arrived in Acadia and Quebec, sacking undefended towns because they could, trying to get Canadians to support them in their fight against the British in 1775. Instead, the Canadians and British rallied, defended their capital Quebec City, and drove back the invaders.

About 1,600 to 2000 people lived in Canada at the time.

Summarizing Original Differences

The Americans were driven by gold as in precious metals and commerce, and the aggression that comes with religious zeal combined with the above. The Canadians came in search of animals and fish and religious converts, all of which also come with the predation of the hunter. But the hunter must be patient, adaptable, focused, quiet. I do not read of the Canadians encountering the same problems with British authority that the Americans did.

In Come the Loyalists

Loyalists by the tens of thousand, perhaps a hundred thousand, disagreed with the Revolution of the Sons of Liberty and Patriots. An estimated 15 to 20% of the population were willing to suffer vandalism to their property, imprisonment, and even death for their loyalty to the British Crown.

Some loyalists were tarred and feathered, scalped, or even hanged. Many more were ostracized or found their businesses boycotted. Much of their property was confiscated through a series of laws. Tens of thousands went into exile, a large portion of them to Nova Scotia, to other parts of Canada or across the Atlantic Ocean to England. A significant number of Black loyalists emigrated to the British West Indies or, after finding Canada inhospitable, to the West African colony of Sierra Leone. (Meet the Defiant Loyalists Who Paid Dearly for Choosing the Wrong Side in the American Revolution)

By What Principles Did the Loyalists Reject the Revolution?

From Loyalists in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia/What Did the Loyalists Believe?:

• While many shared the rebels’ view that America had suffered wrongs at the hands of Britain, they believed the solution could be worked out within the British Empire.

• Recent immigrants not yet fully integrated into American society, Blacks, and Indigenous Peoples saw themselves as weak or threatened within American society and in need of a defender.

• Some were attracted by the offer of free land and provisions in British North America.

From Loyalist (American Revolution) - Wikipedia

In 1948, Yale historian Leonard Woods Larabee identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative and loyal to the king and to Britain:

• They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.

• They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.

• They felt alienated when the Patriots (seen by them as separatists who rebelled against the Crown) resorted to violence, such as burning down houses and tarring and feathering.

• They had a moderate position but driven to support the Crown by Patriot violence.

• They had business and family links with Britain, and being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations.

• They felt that independence (or at least home rule) would come in due time, but wanted it to be by a consensual process.

• They were wary that chaos, corruption, and mob rule would come about as a result of revolution.

• Some were “pessimists” who did not display the same belief in the future that the Patriots did. Others, believing the Patriot cause doomed, recalled the experiences of the Jacobites after the failure of their 1715 and 1745 rebellions, who often had their lands confiscated by the Hanoverian government.

Other motives of the Loyalists included:

• They believed in Parliamentary sovereignty and the need for a stable legal order.

• In New York, powerful families had assembled colony-wide coalitions of supporters

• They felt weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament.

• Black Loyalists were promised freedom from slavery by the British

NOTE: I shortened some of these listings; to see the entire listing click on the link above.

Summarizing Loyalists’ Reasons For Fleeing North

• Identity, family, business in Britain

• Free land and freedom, especially for Blacks

• fear of mob rule vs stability of British rule and Parliamentary sovereignty

• strong disagreement with the violence of the Patriots

Commonality of Loyalists with Present-day Canadians

We identify as Canadians, not as Americans. We have all this history of building a country, of being a haven for people from all over the world for whatever reason they needed a haven or refuge. We survived, and continue to survive, in a harsh climate because we care for each other and help when help is needed. We recognize that as society grows, more rules and government are required to organize and distribute resources so that all might have their needs met.

Universal healthcare, aid for the needy, those are two fundamental values Canadians cherish in 2025, plus other safety nets and government programs to care for children and build homes for families. But we are a rich country able to share with others in need. We do what we can. And, as has been our tradition since about 1605, we maintain a standing military.

Americans

Their zeal and aggression has not let up over all these centuries. Nor has their love of money and big business. In fact, Americans have submitted their very election process and healthcare to Big Business. This is so much the case that it is frighteningly common for Americans to say that if people don’t have money to pay for their healthcare, they don’t deserve healthcare. In other words, the poor and needy deserve to die.

At the same time, they believe—yea insist—that their land is the most free and best in the entire world, that “people are dying” to move to the United States.

No, Canadians have never ever wanted to be American. Not in 1690, not in 1776, not in 1812, not in 1890, not in 2025. In 2025, we have said No more times than we can count. But Americans still don’t get it. I take that as additional evidence of the absolute willful ignorance and total lack of caring that characterizes the average American, not to mention that most obnoxious of all American traits: arrogance born of ignorance.