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.
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.
Saved this, looks interesting.
More here:
https://www.justonefocus.org/australia-the-timeline-of-treason-by-dick-yardley/
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
No it has to be a republic similar to the USA, created by specifically invoking the unalienable Rights endowed by the Creator, and with a new constitution similar to USA that clearly specifies the limits of the government.
A republic with a bad constitution is obviously bad, and until now people had no idea what a good constitution looks like. But now the time is getting ripe - people have experienced tyranny first hand, and appreciate how US has stood in front of the world as a first line of defence. We can also learn all the shortfalls of the US constitution (like explicitly banning private central banks) through this exercise and plug in the gaps.
I think that is where we are headed. Commonwealths are defunct whether you believe they are good or not.
Thanks BB. I know we both have a strong interest in this area.
I found a talk by O'Bryan that you can access via Yutub. Take a listen when you have time and interest. I found this area was THE rabbit hole to end all rabbit holes, and O'Bryan came across as the mad hatter who has the tiger by the tail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtSlvh1E0hk
This area: law, constitution, lawful governance, and what has been done to it all by the Cabal is THE rabbit hole to end them all. Because it relates to how the satanic forces both in Spirit World and on the Earth have been waging war on humanity in order to increase and further enslave us, while the Creator has been working likewise to do the exact opposite.
Before I sat in on O'Bryan's talk, I used to be very envious of the US and the US constitution. Not so much anymore. I think maybe I know about 4% about the Australian Constitution, but that's about 99% more than the average Australian knows.
Actually, the patriots in Australia who drafted our constitution did, I think. But because we gained 'independence' from the UK as a sovereign nation and people NOT by revolution and blood, Australians have essentially zero awareness or understanding of how powerful our constitution actually is.
Our constitution is the embodiment of the common law in the UK (plus with content referencing and learning from the US const. and one or two others) up until the time of federation. It's not that its not powerful. It's that it's been undermined and replaced, and Aussies have been blind to it all the while.
The problem is not the constitution. Just as in the US, it's not the constitution that is the real problem. It's that satanic evil does unlawful things but cannot be held to account by a public that is ignorant, asleep and apathetic.
Anyway, that's my view broadly speaking, and learning about this in 2021+ has led to a quantitative leap in my understanding of the problems and the issues, not just in Aus, but around the world.
But I do recommend listening to the O'Brian talk. If you do, I'll be keen to hear what you think about it.