Is Canada Corporation In Probate?

Cause Before Symptom - With Your Host James Carner

Is Canada Corporation In Probate?

Is Canada being liquidated? According to Dr. Sidney Brewer, Trump and the state administration has been appointed as the executor on behalf of the Crown to liquidate and probate the Crown’s estate so Canada can become the 51st state of The United States. According to Sidney, Canadian economist and politician Mark Carney who was the 8th governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 to 2013 and the 120th governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020 is going to become the executor. Additionally, he was the chair of the Financial Stability Board from 2011 to 2018. When Mark Carney stepped down from the position of Governor of the Bank of Canada in 2013 to become the first non-British Governor of the Bank of England since the private central bank was created in 1694, it was made clearly known that this Oxford-trained Canadian technocrat had been vetted by some very high level powers. Dr. Sidney Brewer specializes in international monetary systems through the UCC - Uniform Commercial Code.

What is probate? When a person dies, they usually leave behind property, money, and other belongings. If they have left a will, the person(s) named as the estate executor(s) or trustee(s) have the authority to deal with the deceased’s assets in accordance with the terms of the will. The executor(s) or trustee(s) will need to determine whether probate is required. The Queen of Canada was a constitutional monarch who acted on the advice of Canadian government ministers. The Queen's role in Canada was to separate from her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. The government acts in the name of the Crown but derives its authority from the Canadian people. King Charles III is Canada's Head of State. Since the Queen died, the terms of the estate and ownership all comes to her will and who she gives it to.

On August 10th of last year, it was first announced that Mark Carney (aka: the eco warrior of bankers) was running a task force to restart the economy (titled the “Canadian Pandemic Recovery Plan”) which aimed at putting into motion those Green New Deal reforms laid out during the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” summit of July 14, 2020. After 7 years in the City of London, Carney returned back to Canada to shape the Build Back Better program which essentially laid out a policy for decarbonization in a post-COVID era. Mark Carney is the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. He is also Chair of the Group of Thirty and Bloomberg LP’s Board of Directors, as well as an external member of the Board of Stripe, a member of the Global Advisory Board of PIMCO, Harvard University, Rideau Hall Foundation, Bilderberg, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Blavatnik School at Oxford, and the Hoffman Institute for Global Business. Justin Trudeau had to step down because he had to step in as an unelected PM to get an administration bond in order to liquidate the affairs. Mark Carney is the foremost authority on asset backed securities for Canada.

Queen Elizebeth’s “supposed” probate orders just got released per her assets. The legal agreement is as follows, “In order to release funds from deceased accounts, a financial institution or a broker according to internal policy will require the will to probate unless the value of the accounts is below the threshold title of assets. When transferring assets, the ownership in which is recorded in registrars, the record keeping authority must be satisfied that the executor has the power to deal with such assets. Examples of this class of property are land, bonds, public corporate shares and valuable arts, which can be donated to charity property outside of jurisdiction. If some of the estate assets are situated outside province, it is necessary that an application be made to the court in that jurisdiction that the property be dealt with. Probate will have to be issued in the province where the assets are situated so that the application of re-sealing or ancillary grant can be made involved in litigation. If the estate is involved in litigation, obtaining probate will be necessary. If the testators nominated executor to illustrate the court’s reluctance to set aside the testator’s nominated executor, even a person in prison or a non resident individual may be appointed. This direction is allowed if the will does not state who the executor is to be but delegates the right to another person or a group of persons to name the executor such as the following: By permitting the testator to allow the person to nominate the executor , the court is recognizing the testator’s right to choose whomever he or she wishes to administer the estate. It is felt that the testator’s choice will be one better than that would result from the following arbitrary rules made for that purpose. A person need not be a resident in the province or in Canada to be an executor, however, if the person resides in a jurisdiction other than another province of Canada or the British Commonwealth countries, it is necessary for the non resident to post an administration bond unless: 1. the will specifically waives the bond or 2. The beneficiaries consent to a waiver of the bond or 3. a judge agrees to make an order allowing the bond to be waived.”

Mark Carney is going to become the Prime Minister to act as the testator to liquidate the affairs of Canada over to the United States as the 51st state. He’s not liked by many conservatives. For example, the Conservative MP for Calgary-Nose Hill doesn’t think much of the Carney appointment: “There should be no way in hell that Mr. Carney — who, as Chair of Brookfield, would have a direct personal interest in a new Brookfield run multi-billion dollar fund — should be acting as the prime minister’s key economic adviser while his company is reportedly trying to get its grubby hands on the pension savings of Canadian families and seniors or $10 billion out of their wallets.” “That the Liberals didn’t think, at the very least, about the optics of this situation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they care more about securing the interests of globally well-connected corporate executives than fixing the budget to bring down inflation.”

Canada’s Government debt accounted for 69.4 % of the country's Nominal GDP in Mar 2024, compared with the ratio of 66.9 % in the previous year. Households Debt in Canada increased to 101.89 percent of GDP in the second quarter of 2024 from 101.56 percent of GDP in the first quarter of 2024. Households Debt to GDP in Canada averaged 80.86 percent of GDP from 1990 until 2024, reaching an all time high of 112.61 percent of GDP in the fourth quarter of 2020 and a record low of 54.02 percent of GDP in the first quarter of 1990. What does this mean? Canada is 30% away from hitting the debt ceiling or what is called the fiscal cliff. America is 130% over GDP and it needs to get back down to even in order for them to get loans from the federal reserve. At Canadian’s expense, Trudeau has destroyed their economy enough to where each household now over their own fiscal cliff. For example, one single Canadian household owes more money than they have and are using credit cards to pay for the 13% of funds they do not have. Another example, after all bills are paid for each Canadian, they have -13% in their accounts. Meaning most are over-drafting. Before Trudeau, they had 20% left for entertainment after paying all bills. Now they are barely scraping by.

Canada does have a central bank. It’s called the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada is the official central bank of the sovereign of Canada. It is a key player in determining the direction of Canada’s economy in both the short and long terms. It is also the bank through which Canada’s government maintains its finances. It is not privately owned. Also known unofficially as the central Bank of Canada (CBC), the Bank of Canada is what is known as a crown corporation. Such corporations are owned and operated by the federal government. They can only be established by an act of Parliament or provincial legislation. Mark Carney is the governor of the central bank. This is definitely a conflict of interest to elect a central bank governor to prime minister. That would be like Jerome Powell running for President.

Somehow, Canada merging with The United States is part of Agenda 2030 and its sustainability goals. Canada ranks in at number 25 while America ranks at 46 according to the SDG Index out of 193 UN members. If you look at the 2019 sustainability goals, America and Canada are together including Greenland. They are all divided into 8 annex regions. According to the report, with just six years remaining, current progress for Agenda 2030 falls far short of what is required to meet the SDGs. Without massive investment and scaled up action, the achievement of the SDGs — the blueprint for a more resilient and prosperous world and the roadmap out of current global crises — will remain elusive. The lingering impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, escalating conflicts, geopolitical tensions and growing climate chaos have severely hindered progress. The report details the urgent priorities and areas needed for stronger and more effective action to ensure the 2030 promise to end poverty, protect the planet and leave no one behind.

Now, the powers that be will not report to the news or the people that the queen gave Canada to America in her will. They need to make it look like the people wanted this.
President Trump proposed that Canadians join the United States as equal citizens, enjoying all the rights and benefits that come with full citizenship. This would grant Canadian businesses tariff-free access to the world’s largest market, while individual Canadians would benefit from replacing the weaker Canadian dollar with the U.S. dollar, along with lower taxes, reduced gas prices, and more affordable housing costs.
This offer, unprecedented in its generosity, was met with resistance rather than gratitude by most Canadians, who reacted with irritation and defiance. Despite the impracticality of Canada joining the U.S. outright due to its complex constitution, Trump could pursue a piecemeal approach by negotiating with specific provinces, potentially achieving this goal faster than anticipated.

Two provinces stand out as prime candidates: Alberta, a wealthy conservative region, and Newfoundland & Labrador, a poorer liberal province. Given the Canadian Supreme Court’s ruling that provinces can secede through a clear referendum, residents of these provinces might eagerly accept Trump’s offer, particularly given their historical grievances with Canada’s central provinces and their affinity for the U.S.
Newfoundland, with its vast natural resources and strategic Atlantic location near Greenland, would become the fourth-largest U.S. state by land area, trailing only Alaska, California, and Texas. The province has a history of close ties with the U.S., including hosting thousands of Americans during the 9/11 crisis and housing U.S. military bases during World War II, which fostered trade and personal relationships. Despite these connections, fears of U.S. economic dominance led to anti-American sentiment, and Newfoundland only joined Canada in 1949 after two referendums and pressure from the U.K. and Canada.

In contrast, Alberta, home to the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, would become a wealthy conservative state. Despite its economic contributions to Canada, Alberta faces resentment and restrictions from the federal government, particularly regarding pipeline construction and resource development. Recent pressure to halt energy exports in response to U.S. tariffs has reignited Alberta’s independence movement, making it receptive to Trump’s proposal.

By inviting both a conservative and a liberal province to join the U.S., Trump could mirror President Eisenhower’s strategy of admitting Alaska and Hawaii simultaneously, balancing political representation. Once Alberta’s departure becomes imminent, opposition in other provinces would likely crumble. Quebec, which narrowly voted against independence in 1995 and relies heavily on Alberta’s subsidies, would face a choice between independence and joining the U.S. Other provinces, geographically isolated by the new U.S. states, would soon recognize the benefits of aligning with the U.S.

This process could unfold rapidly, with Alberta potentially deciding to leave by the end of the year. By July 4, 2026—the 250th anniversary of American independence—the remaining provinces might acknowledge the futility of maintaining a fragmented Canadian state. Trump could then fulfill the long-standing vision of a U.S. spanning from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean, significantly expanding the nation’s landmass and solidifying his legacy. In a recent interview ahead of the Super Bowl, Trump confirmed his seriousness about making Canada the 51st state. When asked by Fox News host Bret Baier if this was a genuine goal, Trump replied, “Yeah, it is.” He argued that Canada would benefit from joining the U.S., citing a perceived 200 billion trade deficit, though official figures show a much smaller deficit of 200 billion in 2023. Excluding oil and gas, the U.S. actually ran a $30 billion surplus with Canada in 2024.
While some Canadian officials initially dismissed Trump’s comments as jokes, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned that the president views annexation as a means to access Canada’s vast resources. Jagmeet Singh, leader of the New Democratic Party, suggested Trump’s interest lies in securing critical minerals for industries like Tesla, which relies on resource mining for its vehicles.

Trump’s rhetoric has escalated in recent months, with threats of using “economic force” to acquire Canada, though his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, denied any plans for military action. However, Trump’s announcement of 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, including from Canada and Mexico, has heightened tensions. Canadian leaders, such as Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Québec Premier François Legault, have criticized these measures as destabilizing and called for renegotiating trade agreements.

Trump’s remarks on Air Force One underscored his belief in Canada’s dependence on the U.S., stating, “Without the U.S., Canada really doesn’t have a country.” He emphasized the leverage the U.S. holds over Canada’s economy, suggesting he could redirect trade with a single decision. As tensions rise, the prospect of Canada joining the U.S. remains a contentious and complex issue, with significant implications for both nations. Why has King Charles been quiet about this? In recent weeks, Canada’s political leaders have shown unusual agreement on one issue: none support the idea of the country becoming the “51st state,” a notion U.S. President Donald Trump has frequently floated. While leaders of all major political parties have firmly rejected the proposal, Canada’s head of state, King Charles III, has remained silent on the matter.

A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace stated that Trump’s suggestion of annexing Canada is “not something we would comment on.” Trump initially raised the idea during a dinner with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at his Mar-a-Lago estate shortly after winning the U.S. election. At the time, Canadian officials dismissed it as a joke. However, the tone of Trump’s remarks has shifted in recent weeks. He has referred to the Canada-U.S. border as an “artificially drawn line” and suggested using economic pressure to absorb Canada. He linked the idea to his threat to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, claiming the tariff could be avoided if Canada joined the U.S. as a state.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump argued that Canada has been “taking advantage” of the U.S. for years. He claimed that as a state, Canada would benefit from enhanced security, lower taxes, and better treatment. “I view it as, honestly, a country that should be a state,” he said. “They’ll get much better care, much lower taxes, and they’ll be much more secure.” Trudeau dismissed the idea outright, stating there is “not a snowball’s chance in hell” of it happening. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre echoed this sentiment, declaring, “Canada will never be the 51st state.” NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh warned Trump on social media that “there will be a price to pay” for provoking Canada.

As a constitutional monarchy, Canada’s head of state is King Charles III, who holds a ceremonial and non-political role. Philippe Lagassé, an expert on parliamentary and Crown roles, noted that it would be highly unusual for the King to intervene in such matters. “He won’t comment on issues facing Canada of his own accord, nor should we want him to do so,” said Lagassé, an associate professor at Carleton University. He added that if the King were to respond independently, it could set a problematic precedent by involving the Crown in governmental affairs.

King Charles’s representative in Canada, Governor General Mary Simon, also refrained from commenting, with her office citing her non-partisan position. Lagassé suggested that the Canadian government could request limited involvement from the King, such as a Royal tour or a statement emphasizing the Crown’s ties to Canada. Trump’s comments have sparked global attention. He has also expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark, which has firmly stated the territory is not for sale. Canada, Denmark, and the U.S. are NATO allies.

Canada’s international allies, including fellow Commonwealth nations, have largely avoided public commentary on Trump’s unprecedented proposal. The British government declined to address hypothetical scenarios, with a spokesperson for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office instead emphasizing the strong relationship between the U.K. and Canada. “Canada is an independent, sovereign nation, a member of the Commonwealth, the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership, and a NATO ally,” the statement read. “The U.K. and Canada are the closest of allies, partners, and friends, united by shared history, values, and a commitment to global good.”

The idea of Canada joining the U.S. is deeply unpopular among Canadians. A mid-January poll by Leger found only 11% support for becoming the 51st state. Right-leaning voters were more inclined to back the idea, with 18% of Conservative supporters and 39% of People’s Party of Canada supporters expressing approval. In contrast, 96% of Bloc Québécois voters and over 90% of Liberal, NDP, and Green supporters rejected the proposal. The poll’s margin of error cannot be calculated, as online surveys are not considered truly random samples.

The idea of Canada and the United States merging into a single nation has long been a topic of speculation and debate. While the notion may seem far-fetched to some, there are compelling reasons why such a union could be considered inevitable. Geopolitical, economic, and cultural ties between the two countries have grown increasingly intertwined over the years, leading some to argue that a formal merger might be the next logical step.

From a geopolitical perspective, Canada and the U.S. already share one of the world’s longest and most peaceful borders. Both nations are members of NATO and have historically aligned on key global issues, from defense to trade. A merger could streamline decision-making processes and create a more unified front on the international stage. Additionally, combining resources could enhance their collective security, particularly in an era of rising global tensions and competition with powers like China and Russia.

Economically, the two countries are deeply interconnected. The U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner, and Canada is the top export market for more than 30 U.S. states. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), now updated as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), has further solidified this relationship. A merger could eliminate trade barriers entirely, creating a seamless economic powerhouse capable of rivaling the European Union in terms of GDP and influence.

Culturally, Canadians and Americans share many similarities, from language to popular media. While Canadians often pride themselves on their distinct identity, the cultural overlap is undeniable. Both nations value democracy, freedom, and diversity, which could serve as a foundation for a unified society. Of course, challenges would arise, particularly in reconciling differences in healthcare systems, governance, and national identity. However, these obstacles might be outweighed by the potential benefits of a combined population and shared resources.

Critics of the idea argue that such a merger would undermine Canada’s sovereignty and unique cultural heritage. Yet, proponents counter that the two nations are already so closely linked that a formal union would simply reflect the reality of their relationship. In an increasingly interconnected world, the concept of merging Canada and the U.S. may not be as radical as it seems. Whether or not it happens, the deep bonds between the two countries suggest that their futures will remain closely tied, for better or worse.

While the idea of Canada and America merging remains speculative, the factors driving this possibility are rooted in real and growing connections. Geopolitical alignment, economic interdependence, and cultural similarities all point to a future where the two nations could become one. Whether this happens through formal integration or continued collaboration, the relationship between Canada and the U.S. is destined to remain a defining feature of North America’s future.

The relationship between Canada and the United States has always been complex, and history offers valuable lessons on how Canada might navigate a potentially hostile administration under Donald Trump, should he return to the White House. While the two nations share deep economic, cultural, and geopolitical ties, past experiences demonstrate that Canada must remain pragmatic, adaptable, and prepared to assert its interests in the face of uncertainty.

One key lesson from history is the importance of diplomacy. During Trump’s first presidency, his "America First" policies often put Canada in a difficult position, particularly regarding trade. The renegotiation of NAFTA, which resulted in the USMCA, was a tense process that required Canadian officials to engage in careful, strategic negotiations. By maintaining open lines of communication and emphasizing mutual benefits, Canada was able to secure a deal that, while not perfect, protected its key interests. This approach would remain critical in any future dealings with a Trump administration.

Another lesson is the need for diversification. Historically, Canada has relied heavily on the U.S. as its primary trading partner, but this dependence can leave the country vulnerable to shifts in American policy. In response to past tensions, Canada has sought to expand its trade relationships with other nations, such as through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Strengthening ties with Europe, Asia, and other regions could provide Canada with greater leverage and reduce its reliance on the U.S. market.

Domestic preparedness is also crucial. A hostile U.S. administration could bring unpredictable challenges, from tariffs to border disputes. Canada must ensure its own economic resilience by investing in key industries, supporting innovation, and fostering self-sufficiency where possible. Additionally, maintaining a strong, unified domestic front can help the country present a cohesive stance in negotiations.

Finally, history shows that Canada must be willing to stand firm on its values and priorities. While maintaining a respectful relationship with the U.S. is essential, Canada cannot afford to compromise on issues like environmental protection, healthcare, or sovereignty. By clearly articulating its positions and seeking alliances with like-minded partners, Canada can navigate a challenging relationship without sacrificing its principles.

While a second Trump presidency could pose significant challenges for Canada, history provides a roadmap for managing such a scenario. Through skilled diplomacy, economic diversification, domestic resilience, and a commitment to its values, Canada can effectively deal with a hostile U.S. administration while safeguarding its interests and maintaining its unique identity.

As the United States prepares for the 2025 presidential election, the possibility of Donald Trump returning to power raises significant questions for Canada. How should our nation navigate a potential second Trump administration, and what strategies can we employ to protect our interests while maintaining a strong bilateral relationship?

Trump’s first presidency was marked by unpredictability, protectionist policies, and a transactional approach to diplomacy. His "America First" agenda often placed strain on international alliances, including Canada. If re-elected, his policies could once again challenge the foundations of the Canada-U.S. relationship, particularly in areas like trade, climate change, and defense.

Canada must adopt a proactive and strategic approach to safeguard its economic and political interests. This includes reinforcing trade partnerships beyond the U.S., such as deepening ties with the European Union and Asia, to reduce dependency on our southern neighbor. Additionally, Canada should continue to advocate for multilateralism and global cooperation, positioning itself as a reliable partner on the world stage.

Domestically, Canada must strengthen its own economic resilience. Investing in innovation, green energy, and infrastructure will not only create jobs but also ensure that Canada remains competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. By diversifying trade and fostering self-sufficiency, Canada can mitigate the risks posed by a potentially volatile U.S. administration.

At the same time, maintaining a constructive relationship with the U.S. will remain crucial. Engaging in open dialogue, finding common ground on shared priorities, and demonstrating the mutual benefits of cooperation can help preserve the partnership, even in the face of political differences.

In conclusion, while a Trump presidency may present challenges, it also offers Canada an opportunity to reassess its priorities and strengthen its position on the global stage. By pursuing a balanced strategy of independence and collaboration, Canada can navigate the uncertainties of 2025 and beyond.

If Canada were to become America's 51st state, the financial implications would be complex and multifaceted. While it's a hypothetical scenario, several key factors would come into play. First, Canada’s addition to the U.S. would not automatically absolve America's $36 trillion debt. The U.S. national debt is largely based on federal spending, deficit spending, and the total amount borrowed. While Canada’s economy is substantial, with a GDP around $2 trillion, its integration would contribute to U.S. GDP, which could potentially strengthen America's fiscal standing. However, this wouldn't erase the national debt, as the U.S. would still need to manage its spending and borrowing. Canada’s economy and assets, such as oil, minerals, and natural resources, would generate additional revenue for the U.S. government, but they wouldn't resolve the issue of national debt directly.

In terms of borrowing, Canada’s integration could improve the U.S.'s creditworthiness in the short term. The U.S. government might find it easier to secure loans at more favorable interest rates, thanks to Canada’s wealth and relatively low debt. However, this wouldn't eliminate the U.S.'s existing debt or fix the underlying issues with fiscal policy. The fundamental problem of overspending and the growing deficit would still exist. Additionally, Canada’s banking system and financial stability would likely provide some stability to the U.S. economy, but the overall impact on borrowing would be limited to improving the country's economic standing rather than solving its debt crisis.

Canada’s integration would also have a significant impact on the U.S. monetary system. The Canadian dollar could be phased out in favor of the U.S. dollar, leading to changes in monetary policy, including the way the Federal Reserve manages inflation and interest rates. This could create more stability in some areas, but it wouldn’t necessarily solve the fiscal problems facing the U.S. government. The national debt, for instance, would remain a major issue if the U.S. continues to run significant budget deficits.

In the long term, the integration of Canada would increase the U.S. GDP, possibly boosting the country’s global economic standing. However, this could also mean that the national debt would grow as a percentage of GDP if spending levels remain high. The debt-to-GDP ratio, an important metric for assessing a country’s financial health, would likely remain a challenge. While the increased GDP from Canada's economy could help slow the growth of the national debt, it wouldn't necessarily reduce it in a meaningful way.

Finally, integrating Canada would involve substantial costs, such as restructuring social programs, healthcare systems, and infrastructure investments. Canada’s universal healthcare system would need to be incorporated into the U.S. system, which could incur significant costs. Additionally, tax systems would need to be merged, and these changes could have both positive and negative financial consequences. While the U.S. might increase government revenue through these changes, the additional responsibilities could offset some of the immediate financial benefits.

Canada’s addition as the 51st state would likely provide economic benefits, such as increased revenue and resources, but it would not immediately solve the U.S.'s $36 trillion debt issue. The U.S. would still need to address long-term structural fiscal challenges. While the financial contributions from Canada might improve the country’s borrowing capacity, they wouldn’t eliminate the need for significant fiscal reforms. The U.S. would need to make larger adjustments to its fiscal policies to address the national debt effectively, not just rely on the addition of Canada as a state.

The combination of government spending cuts under Trump (or any future administration) along with the hypothetical addition of Canada and Greenland to U.S. assets could, in theory, have some positive effects on the American economy. However, it’s unlikely to fully “fix” the economy without broader, more fundamental reforms. Let’s break it down.

First, spending cuts could potentially reduce the U.S. federal deficit and slow the growth of national debt. By cutting unnecessary or inefficient government programs, the administration could free up resources and focus spending on areas that might yield higher returns, such as infrastructure or defense. However, while reducing government spending might help balance the budget in the short term, it could also have significant negative effects on the economy if not done strategically. Cutting social programs, healthcare, education, or research funding could harm long-term growth and lead to increased inequality. These trade-offs make spending cuts a delicate issue, and they may not provide an immediate or sufficient solution to America's larger fiscal challenges.

Next, adding Canada and Greenland to U.S. assets could offer economic growth and greater access to valuable natural resources, such as oil, minerals, and fresh water. Both countries are rich in resources that could fuel economic expansion and provide additional revenue to the federal government. Canada’s relatively stable economy and access to international markets could also strengthen U.S. trade and investment opportunities. Furthermore, integrating Canada and Greenland could enhance the U.S.’s geopolitical position, improving its influence in the Arctic and its ability to negotiate trade deals with countries in Europe and Asia. However, the costs of integration would be substantial. Beyond logistical and political challenges, the U.S. would need to invest heavily in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and welfare systems in these territories. The integration of Canada’s universal healthcare system into the U.S. system would also be complex and costly. The U.S. would also need to address cultural, political, and social differences, which could take years or even decades to fully integrate.

The addition of Canada and Greenland could potentially improve the U.S.'s debt-to-GDP ratio by increasing the overall size of the economy, but it wouldn’t directly reduce the $36 trillion national debt. The U.S. would still need to make policy decisions regarding federal spending, taxation, and debt management. Without long-term structural changes to how the country finances its debt, the national debt will continue to grow regardless of the GDP size. While the U.S. may gain some short-term benefits by becoming more attractive to investors, potentially improving credit ratings and borrowing capacity, the overall economic health would still depend on fiscal policy and the government’s ability to manage debt responsibly.

In addition to spending cuts and resource acquisition, broader economic reforms would be necessary for sustained growth. Changes in the taxation and regulatory systems would need to be made to ensure that America’s economy grows sustainably. Reforms in corporate taxes, income taxes, and social programs would be crucial for reducing inequality and promoting long-term economic development. Moreover, investing in new industries, particularly in technology and green energy, would be essential for the future of the economy. Simply cutting spending wouldn’t create the long-term growth necessary to ensure prosperity. The country would need to focus on smart investments in innovation, infrastructure, and human capital to spur job creation and economic progress.

While cuts to government spending and the addition of Canada and Greenland as U.S. territories could provide some short-term benefits and help reduce the national debt by increasing resources and GDP, they are unlikely to fully fix the American economy without deeper, systemic reforms. The U.S. would still need to address the underlying fiscal issues that drive its massive debt, such as entitlements, taxation, and long-term spending priorities. Economic growth would need to be driven not only by resource acquisition but also by investments in technology, infrastructure, and human capital. Therefore, while these moves could potentially stabilize certain aspects of the U.S. economy, they would not be a panacea for the broader fiscal challenges the country faces.

A merger between the United States and Canada would have significant geopolitical and economic implications, particularly for Russia. The relationship between Russia and the U.S. is already complex, and adding Canada into the mix would only amplify these dynamics. The combined U.S.-Canada power would significantly increase the global influence of the United States, creating a superpower with enhanced resources, military capabilities, and strategic positioning. Russia, which already views the U.S. as its primary geopolitical rival, would likely see this as an even greater threat to its sphere of influence, particularly in North America and the Arctic region.

One of the main areas of concern for Russia would be the Arctic. Canada controls a significant portion of the Arctic, an area that is becoming increasingly important due to resource exploration and military positioning. A merger would give the U.S. full control over these territories, which Russia has been eyeing for its own strategic and economic interests. Russia has been militarizing its Arctic region, and a stronger U.S. presence there could escalate tensions over territorial claims and control over shipping routes. Furthermore, Canada is already a member of NATO, and its addition to the U.S. would make the alliance even more robust. This would likely increase Russia’s concerns about NATO's encroachment toward its borders, as Russia already perceives NATO’s expansion as a threat. The inclusion of Canada would only heighten that perception, possibly prompting Russia to further strengthen its own military capabilities and alliances, particularly with countries like China and Iran.

Economically, a U.S.-Canada merger would shift the global balance. Canada is rich in natural resources, including oil, gas, and minerals, and adding these resources to U.S. assets would enhance the combined economy. This could make the U.S.-Canada bloc more competitive in global markets, which might diminish Russia’s economic leverage, especially in the energy sector. Russia’s economy heavily depends on its oil and gas exports, and a stronger North American energy presence could reduce demand for Russian energy. Canada’s vast oil sands and other energy resources would likely put the U.S.-Canada bloc in direct competition with Russia’s energy exports, particularly to Europe. This economic rivalry could put Russia at a disadvantage, prompting it to focus on boosting its energy deals with countries in Asia and other regions.

Diplomatically, Russia would likely push back against the merger. A stronger U.S.-Canada bloc would enhance the influence of Western powers in global affairs, leading Russia to deepen its ties with other countries that oppose Western influence, such as China, Iran, and North Korea. Russia might seek to strengthen strategic alliances with these nations as a counterbalance to the increasing power of the U.S.-Canada bloc. This could lead to a more polarized global political landscape, with countries either aligning with the U.S.-Canada bloc or seeking to form countervailing alliances against it. Russia would likely use its diplomatic channels to rally opposition to the merger, especially among countries wary of U.S. dominance.

From a military perspective, the merger would create a combined military force with an even larger global presence, particularly in the Arctic and North America. This would likely provoke Russia to increase its military spending and focus on countermeasures to maintain its strategic balance. An enhanced U.S.-Canada military presence could lead to an arms race, particularly in areas like nuclear weapons, missile defense, and conventional forces. Russia could also invest more heavily in cyber warfare and intelligence-gathering capabilities to keep a close watch on the new U.S.-Canada bloc. The potential for a more militarized North America could raise tensions and lead to further security concerns in Russia.

In addition, Russia might engage in information warfare and disinformation campaigns to counteract the growing influence of the U.S.-Canada bloc. Russia has used media manipulation and cyber operations to shape narratives in the past, and it could ramp up efforts to influence public opinion within North America and globally. Russian state-controlled media might portray the U.S.-Canada merger as an expansionist move by the West, seeking to create fear and resentment towards the new alliance. The merger could also provoke significant public debates within Russia, particularly from those who view the U.S. as a cultural and political adversary.

A U.S.-Canada merger would likely exacerbate Russia’s strategic concerns, leading to an escalation of military, economic, and diplomatic tensions. Russia would perceive this merger as a direct challenge to its influence, particularly in the Arctic and in global energy markets. In response, Russia would likely increase its military spending, deepen ties with rival powers like China, and seek to counterbalance the growing power of the U.S.-Canada bloc. This geopolitical shift could lead to a more polarized and competitive global landscape, with the U.S.-Canada alliance and Russia at the center of a new phase of rivalry.

From the Crown’s silence, a Canadian common law attorney’s professional view, America’s need for assets to keep the federal reserve in business, Canada’s economic woes and the threat from Russia and China, a merger would be the best strategic move for the United States and the future stability of the west. But for Canadians? They are screwed. Their progressive leader went wild with the credit card trying to solve problems with money and hit his limit. Now, the people have lost their country, constitution and sovereignty but worse, their free healthcare. All of them will have to suffer America’s way of life and have to figure out what to do. Is Canada in probate? We will never see the paperwork because it’s above the facade of a country. The people never learn from history. Nothing is free. No one is free.

Source

deepseek.com
chatgpt.com
https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/08/25/mark-carney-and-the-strategic-reality-of-the-collapsing-trans-atlantic-system/
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT2HHhUCY/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mark-carney-is-not-fit-to-be-canadian-pm/
https://capforcanada.com/marc-carney-10-billion-conflict-of-interest-exposed-by-conservative-mp/
https://sustainiaworld.com/us-and-canada/
https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/rankings
https://www.privateknightsconsulting.com
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/regional-groups/
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/02/if_trump_wants_canada_here_s_how_he_gets_it.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-really-is-planning-to-take-over-canada/
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2025/01/26/trump-says-canada-should-become-part-of-u-s-our-head-of-state-isnt-weighing-in/
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/12/canada-and-america-destined-to-merge/
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2025/01/06/Canada-Join-Trump-US-How-We-Play-It/

https://rumble.com/v6pz9hm-is-canada-in-probate.html