It should also be noted that Mulroney lived (lives?) right beside Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

And of course, the epub version of the book sells for$20. How to make money on shaming those who make money.

It should be noted that Friedman won a Noble prize in economics for his work.

How easy it is to forget that Ukraine was a nuclear power. And I don’t mean just that it had nuclear weapons, but that it was instrumental in Russia’s entry into the nuclear game. Ukrainian physicists in Ukrainian physics institutes independently came up with knowledge that was crucial to the nuclear game. In many ways, Ukraine was the seat of much of the USSR’s advances in physics.

Now, they are devoting that intellectual resource to help Ukraine prosper, not the USSR.

They are a phenomenally intellectually advanced country that Canadian Universities will do well to partner with.

https://kinr.kyiv.ua/total_e.html

It’s time for Canadians to start referring to California’s governor as the President of California, and refer to California itself as the country of California. Even Californians are now doing that.

Congressman Eric Swalwell, a candidate for Governor of California, recently referred to California as “the greatest country in the world.” CalExit.Now concurs with the substance of that claim. CalExit.Now will continue to advance California sovereignty as the governing framework most capable of delivering outcomes that Californians consistently demand.

Also

SACRAMENTO, Calif., March 12, 2026 /PRNewswire/ – CalExit.Now, the movement advocating for California sovereignty, today released a statement marking a historic shift in statewide public opinion. A recent California poll reports that, for the first time since polling on this question began, a majority of Californians now either strongly support, or do not oppose, pursuing California sovereignty. The combined figure stands at 51 percent.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/calexit-now-announces-majority-support-100000068.html

Hey, California – wake up!!! You do not need to be part of Canada to survive. Your economy is already fifth in the entire world, of all other countries, in GDP. Far ahead of Canada. You would 100% survive and prosper. Once you stop sending you’re hard-earned tax dollars to Washington, but instead fund everything Washington funds with your own tax dollars, you are still billions of dollars ahead. By any measure, California is a lot better off as an independent country than as a US state.

You already have a credible National Guard air and land force that would for the basis of a defense force.

The referendum in 2028 can make or break your future.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., March 12, 2026 /PRNewswire/ – CalExit.Now, the movement advocating for California sovereignty, today released a statement marking a historic shift in statewide public opinion. A recent California poll reports that, for the first time since polling on this question began, a majority of Californians now either strongly support, or do not oppose, pursuing California sovereignty. The combined figure stands at 51 percent.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/calexit-now-announces-majority-support-100000068.html

blah blah blahyadda yadda yadda hype hype hype.

They might be serious about WANTING to annex Canada, the same way the Quebec separatists WANTED to separate from Canada, but serious about actually DOING it? When push comes to shove, they never actually get around to DOING it. They always want someone ELSE to do it.

When it comes right down to it, what they REALLY want, is attention.

He ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

They all have the same look-and-feel. Comes right from the Condom Collection. Designed to give you a sense of safety and security, while you are being …

I have actually researched this in depth. The issue at the time was Greenland, not Canada, but the general principle still applies. Denmark is a NATO country. Article 1 clearly states that all disputes between members are to be resolved peacefully through negotiations. Here is an article discusses it in more depth.

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1956/12/11/resolution-on-the-peaceful-settlement-of-disputes-and-differences-between-members-of-the-north-atlantic-treaty-organization

Here is a rigorous legal clarification on the issue, that I am sure the general concept is familiar to all senior officers in the American armed forces.

https://www.court-martial.com/blog/obeying-orders-breaking-the-law-the-limits-of-the-superior-orders-defense/

And here is a legal brief on the principle that a peace treaty is the Law of the Land.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/16-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html

I sincerely doubt that an officer that has achieved his rank, position. and status would not be aware of all of these considerations when he claimed that the scenario was ‘preposterous’. I am sure these issues, given Trump’s emotional statements, have been thoroughly explored by officers in his, and more senior, positions. Their response to such an order would not be a knee jerk off the cuff on the spot response, but a response that has been well planned out and thoroughly vetted ahead of time.

I think he made it very clear as to what the military response would be if Trump ordered an invasion of Canada. The military pledges allegiance to the Constitution, not to the POTUS. He can only grant immunity to offenses against the United States. Murder is prosecuted at the state level. He can not offer blanket immunity in any case,and he cannot grant immunity ‘going forward’. This officer of the American armed forces has obviously done his due diligence, and has made a statement based on sound facts. He chose his wording carefully. Trump can not issue a legal order to attack Canada, and the officers collectively will refuse to follow an order that is not legal. End of discussion, as he made clear. Trump has obviously been made aware of that, given his concerns that the issue has become ‘overly emotional’.

Since he can be imprisoned upon conviction, and conviction is a certainty.

He is obligated by American law to refuse to obey an order that is not legal, subject to imprisonment upon conviction.

I outlined it completely in a separate post to this article. It is extensive. Look through the posts and read it.

I outlined it completely in a separate post to this article. It is extensive. Look through the posts and read it.

No it is not. The Supreme Court of the United States made that perfectly clear. The NATO treaty is the Law of the Land. The POTUS can not ignore it. America can not by law attack a country that has a peace treaty.

He very clearly stated what he would do. He found the scenario ‘preposterous’, meaning ‘not possible’. He could not have stated with any more clarity that he and most of the American military officers above and below him would consider such an order as not legal. Further, he all but came right out and said that Trump, by his statements on the matter, are needlessly emotional.

There can be no doubt that his response was as strong a rebuke of Trump’s posturing as could be allowed.

So stop arguing. It is very clear in American law that the POTUS can not issue a legal order to attack a country that America has a peace pact with, and both countries are members of NATO. Exactly what do you think he meant by the factual statement ‘preposterous’, as in ‘not possible’? For any military officer who follows and repeats such an order, they could be tried and if convicted imprisoned.

He clearly stated that such an order would not be a legal order. What exactly do you think the factual term ‘preposterous’ means? Under American law, it is illegal to attack a country that America has a peace pact with, and both counties are members of NATO. No ‘executive order’ can change that, and every officer in the American military knows that they can be charged and if convicted imprisoned for following an order that is not a legal order, no matter who gives it.

He very clearly stated that such an order is ‘preposterous’. meaning ‘not legal’. How much clearer an answer could you ask for?

It would not be a lawful order The POTUS does not have the authority to issue such an order. That is why he clearly stated 'it is preposterous;. Not an opinion, a statement of fact.