Opinion: Trump’s Canada Plan and the Overton Window Strategy Donald Trump has never been one to shy away from bold ideas, and whispers of a plan involving Canada have begun to circulate in political circles. While the notion of Canada joining the United States might sound like a geopolitical fever dream, it’s worth considering how Trump, a master of disruption, could approach such an audacious goal. One plausible strategy? The Overton Window—the concept that defines the range of ideas deemed acceptable in public discourse—and Trump’s knack for shifting it to suit his ends.
The Overton Window isn’t static; it moves with public perception. What’s unthinkable today can become policy tomorrow if the ground is prepared. Trump’s political career thrives on this principle—think of his border wall or trade wars, once dismissed as outlandish, now normalized in Republican rhetoric. Applying this to Canada, Trump could be laying the groundwork to make annexation (or some form of deep integration) not just palatable, but desirable—to Americans, Canadians, or both.
Start with economics. Trump could frame Canada’s inclusion as a natural extension of his “America First” agenda. The U.S. and Canada already share the world’s longest undefended border and a trade relationship worth over $600 billion annually. Why not streamline it? He might pitch a unified North American economic bloc to counter China’s dominance, dangling promises of jobs, energy security (hello, Alberta oil), and a beefed-up military footprint. It’s not annexation—it’s “partnership,” he’d say, with a wink. By normalizing this narrative, he’d nudge the window open just a crack.
Then comes culture. Trump’s a showman—he knows optics matter. Expect him to lean on shared history (forgetting 1812, of course) and play up a “North American identity.” He could host Canadian leaders at Mar-a-Lago, crack jokes about hockey and maple syrup on Truth Social, and push a media blitz framing Canada as America’s wayward cousin, ready to come home. The more he talks it up, the less absurd it sounds. Critics would scoff, but that’s the point—outrage keeps it in the news, inching the idea into the realm of “maybe.”
Policy-wise, he wouldn’t go for a full-court press—not at first. Trump could float trial balloons: a joint customs union, a shared currency (goodbye, loonie), or even a “security merger” to “protect” against Arctic threats (looking at you, Russia). Each step would be small, digestible, and framed as common sense. Canadians, wary of losing sovereignty, might resist—but if economic carrots (or sticks, like tariffs) were dangled, public opinion could shift. The Overton Window thrives on gradualism; Trump’s not above playing the long game when it suits him.
Of course, this assumes Trump has a plan—and that’s a big “if.” He’s just as likely to toss out “Canada should be the 51st state” as a late-night musing, then watch the chaos unfold. But that’s the beauty of his Overton approach: even chaos moves the window. If he normalizes the conversation, others—think tanks, MAGA lawmakers, even Canadian populists—might pick up the thread. Precedent exists: Alaska and Hawaii weren’t always states, and Texas joined by choice. Why not Canada? The counterargument? Canada’s national identity is fierce, its politics lean left, and its people aren’t keen on trading Ottawa for Washington. Trump’s bombast could backfire, galvanizing Canadian resistance. Yet that’s never stopped him before—he thrives on defiance. And with a polarized world, economic uncertainty, and a U.S. eager for wins, the idea might not stay fringe forever.
Trump using the Overton Window isn’t about forcing Canada in; it’s about making the unthinkable thinkable. Step by step, quip by quip, he could shift the frame until “North America United” isn’t a punchline—it’s a platform. Whether it works is another story. But if anyone can sell a wild idea, it’s the man who turned “Build the Wall” into a movement. Canada, take note: the window’s creaking open.
Actually, I think you might be a bit off on this point. As far as I understand it, "the Crown" is actually the embodiment of all historical British Law, aka the sovereignty of law, manifesting through the British government. The Monarchy is not the Crown, per se. The Queen/King is a representative of the Crown, but not the Crown itself. This is why the Monarch has limited powers under the 'British Constitution'.
Putting aside the corruption and unlawful things that both the Monarchy and the government do, the 'Crown' itself is the basis for law and rights in the UK.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8885/
Why is this significant? One reason is because the evolution of common law (which to a large extent the US Constitution is a codification of) involved drawing a distinction between law, derived from Divine Law, and what the King and later the Parliament make into law, via statutes.
That distinction established that law is law not because the King (or parliament) says so, but because it reflects natural law, that pre-exists man-made laws.
Thus, the 'constitutional monarchy' became the stepping stone to the establishment of the US, where the sovereignty (aka the Crown) is actually claimed by the People.
Where the British Monarchy and the government have devolved into corruption (just as the US government itself has done), this does not negate the original value or source of the sovereignty.
I would say that the British Monarchy is one player in the corrupt criminal gang that the British Cabal is, including the corrupt government aspects. They are certain due for a cleaning.
But how can this be done while preserving the foundations of the nation, aka the laws, starting from the Magna Carta through the 1689 Bill of Rights, to the modern day?
I think the "constitutional monarchy" is actually a precursor of the Kingdom of God on Earth, where Christ, representing God, and his heirs are King, but where that same sovereignty is invested in each individual and family.
The US is a 'kingdom' without a king. Sovereignty lies with the People, but ultimately, God must be recognized as sovereign.
I've diverged from the original topic significantly, but these are some musing inspired by the topic of "the Crown" in Britain. Should be noted that the sovereignty of the People in Australia, via the Aus Constitution, also derives from the Crown, as far as I understand it.
It is that entire foundation that has been corrupted and undermined to produce what Australia is today: corrupted, unlawful, where the (corporate) govt has usurped the sovereignty of the people.
Did you see this comment the other day?
https://greatawakening.win/p/19AKmTrKuh/x/c/4ZJ3SZspp25
I’m still trying to figure out common law, of course.
I like this particular discussion
Christian Foundations of the Common Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRzY0p4jDpU
A few comments: The whole area of law, statute law vs common law, British common law vs Roman civil law, law of the land (common law) vs commerce law (law of the sea, law of the admiralty), etc, the foundations of law in the modern world and how it has been corrupted, these are elements of the rabbit hole to end all rabbit holes.
BUT, extremely complex area, and LOTS of different theories, beliefs, etc, regarding all of these. I think this is one reason why the Law of War manual thing has captured so much attachment from a sector of frogdom (aka awakening folk and anons).
Re: LoW manual & Q: I'm not certain that Majic Eyes interpretations are right or wrong. He brings a lot of compelling content to light. However, I also think that a lot of frogs have attached themselves to this and imbued certain ideas with the power of belief, even when the logic or empirical data are debatable.
I believe DJT when he says he is the President of Law and Order. Restoring the law and the authority of the law is critical to the future. But ultimately, humanity needs to understand God's perspective on law and how it works.
From the document you linked:
And THAT is the real problem, because an entity without a single accepted definition is the dead of the state of the commonwealth countries. This allowed the deep state to weaponise the term "Crown" into a corporate entity to control these countries.
"Common law" is the legal term for what forms the basis of of law and rights in UK and by extension (through the declaration of independence) for US as well.
Common law itself is the interpretation of law over the centuries by various courts in the UK, the God given laws based on the Bible and the commandments.
There are different definitions of 'common law', as far as I know, but in the strictly 'legal' sense, it refers to the case law that has developed as you state.
I still think the distinction is worth noting: that in the development of law in the UK and then the US, the fundamental principle is that law transcends. Thus, it is not so much "God given law", but the law that God has established transcendent in Creation. Certainly, the Bible and the Commandments were critical in the development of this mentality, but the idea is that natural law is defined by God and that man-made law must reflect that transcendent law, at a minimum to conform to it.
Outside of the 'legal' realm (a realm that should be understood distinct from the lawful realm), common law is widely understood to be the law of the land, contrasting with mercantile or admiralty law, which is the law of the sea.
I don't know that this is true. Depending on who you listen to, the rightful Crown government in Australia was 'legally' deposed and transformed into a corporate govt system. I don't know that the Cabal has as much weaponized the term as it has undermined and hijacked the authority of the Crown.
Without belabouring the point too much, I think we both agree that countries like Australia and Canada (and any other country for that matter) should be Republics.
Specifically, no matter what the definition of the "Crown" is, we don't want a Governor General appointed by someone (or something) with the ability to dismiss the duly elected government.
Timeline of Treason in Australia
Introduction This document outlines a detailed timeline of alleged acts of treason and constitutional breaches in Australia, focusing on governance shifts, legislative actions, and systemic changes from the Crown Commonwealth to a corporate governance model. It is based on research and analysis by Dick Yardley, highlighting significant events and their implications on Australia’s constitutional integrity.
Key Events and Allegations
1959: Removal of Crown Authority
1965: Creation of the Australian Dollar
1972-1973: Gough Whitlam and Duumvirate Government
1973: Redefinition of Constitutional Terms
1973: Royal Style and Titles Act
1976-1980: Removal of Religious References
1986: Australia Acts
1994: Amendments to the Victorian Constitution
2001-Present: Consolidation of Corporate Governance
Key Themes
Shift from Constitutional to Corporate Governance:
Fraudulent Legislation:
Impact on Citizens:
Call for Accountability:
Conclusion
The timeline highlights alleged acts of treason and governance shifts that have significantly altered Australia’s constitutional framework. It calls for the restoration of the Commonwealth Constitution and accountability for those involved in the alleged breaches. This document serves as a foundation for further discussion and investigation into Australia’s governance structure and constitutional integrity.
I'm not so sure.
Starting in 2021, I began getting educated (to a small extent) on law, the Australian constitution, and other stuff.
A republic in Australia like the French Republic would remove a LOT of our fundamental rights that should be secured under the Constitution (but which have been undermined and stolen via the corrupted govt system).
If you listen to Darryl O'Bryan, one gets the impression that the Constitution in Australia is actually a very powerful and effective document, BUT that it has been undermined and corrupted.
I've sat in on a few talks by this man addressing issues about the govt, law and constitution, and this opened my mind up massively. he changed my mind on the constitution and the Crown in a big way. There is a reason by the Globalist / Marxists want to get in a 'republic' in Australia and abolish the constitution.
Sadly, his content is very hard to find on the tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8GKasXJTaA