Tuesday, March 11, 2025

Through Leftist Speech Control, America’s Terms Of Engagement Have Changed


Most everyone has heard the meme, “He who controls the agenda controls the meeting.” Acknowledging that we can understand ultimate power would be controlling the words and language everyone uses lest they find socially or professionally ostracized.

When it comes to thought control, everyone should read or reread George Orwell’s 1984 as an essential marker of the dangers of an all-powerful state. In 2025, 1984 is no longer required reading in most schools, and you should ask yourself the question why? Even a cursory reading of 1984 would make many uncomfortable with the parallels to everyday life. A friend told me, “They are afraid students would recognize they already live in Orwell’s world.”

Newspeak was the official language of Orwell’s Oceania, the stage upon which Orwell told his story. Newspeak turned our language upside down “to make all other modes of thought impossible” and “to make any thought of diverging from the principles of the government unthinkable.”

False and misleading language is Orwellian Doublespeak, allowing murderous thugs like Adolph Hitler to disguise mass murder behind boring bureaucratic terms. (Example: “Evakuierung” (evacuation) was used as a euphemism for death and deportation to concentration camps.) This same manipulation of language was a key part of how Stalin and other 20th century tyrants used language to control people’s lives and, eventually, life itself.

What too few people realize is that, during the Obama and Biden years, the same thing happened in America, as leftists relentlessly seized control over American language and, through it, American thought. They rejected entirely Confucian wisdom for, when Confucius was asked what he would do if he were a governor, he said he would “rectify the names“ to make words correspond to reality.

When our government removes social media posts that differ from government policy or suppresses speech by arbitrarily deeming it hate speech, we begin to look quite like Orwell’s fictional Oceania. But that’s just a start. All kinds of behavior and thought are being restricted, manipulated, or banned through the left’s terms of engagement; that is, the language they use. Just take a look at a small subset of intentionally manipulative words and metaphors here:

  • Undocumented Migrants—hides that these people are here illegally, and implies they are entitled to equality with legal citizens, devaluing the importance of and responsibilities of citizenship.
  • Unhoused Person—homogenizes the causes of homelessness, which are mostly antisocial behaviors (drug addiction, criminality, and unaddressed mental illness caused or exacerbated by drugs) and implies that the fault is society’s, requiring ever more government money and control.
  • Trans Woman—the normalization of deviancy instead of the truth of a mentally ill man
  • Fair Share—the pretense that people who have acquired wealth (usually via hard work or exceptionally innovation) owe it to everyone else.
  • Entitlements—another Democratic construct, as if God himself guarantees someone the right to your money
  • Dreamers—take an illegal alien, give birth, or walk a child across the border, and voila, you produce a Dreamer!
  • Fake News—life is like a TV; if you don’t like the show, change the channel. TV and life have merged into highly produced news curated for particular audiences, facts be damned.
  • Death of Democracy—In his farewell Address, George Washingtoncautioned against the divisive influence of political parties, asserting that they could lead to the “Subversion of the power of the people.” We’re still standing, notwithstanding all those that parrot this tired lie.

A common thread runs through all attempts to control speech: de facto control of your freedom of choice. How patently absurd for someone else to insist you use their language, phrases, and false metaphors. The epitome of hubris is the assumption that what someone manifests out of thin air should become the law of the land, if not in fact, then in practice.

Is what is happening today a fad? Fads usually don’t last. Beatnicks come to mind, and so do various cults like the Manson Family, the People’s Temple, Heaven’s Gate, and the Branch Davidians, which garnered small but devoted followings; certainly not the mass hysteria that ripped us apart recently. While some charlatans took in a few people, reason prevailed for most.

The correct and proper usage of words and phrases is not trivial. In the wrong hands, and given enough time, you can make something as life-affirming as creating new life turn into an optional “choice.”

Trump implicitly agrees as he has commenced the Herculean task of undoing the massive societal and economic damage wrought. Simply insisting that there are only two sexes (male and female) is a blow at the very heart of the Democrat effort forcibly to replace facts with fantasies. His stalwart support for Israel, a historic nation, and a free, pluralist society, is also a blow against the enforced fantasy that Gaza, a militarily controlled stretch of land in which Jews are executed and Christians banned, is an actual nation entitled to respect and a right to ownership of land from “the river to the sea”—a phrase that erases Israel entirely.

The very nature of words and phrases is the sly and insidious way that progressives intentionally enacted the slow and progressive destruction of our culture and, tellingly, that of Western culture everywhere.

Mark Twain once said, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” Let me substitute: “The reports of the death of Western culture are greatly exaggerated.”

I sure hope I’m right!



On the Fringe and Badlands Media

 



0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

Democrats Are Just the Worst People


I know, I know – Donald Trump has been no saint in his personal life. I’ve never really cared – as I’ve repeated for years, I was voting for president, not Pope (though, given how this Pope is on the border, I’d vote for Trump there too). But Democrats would not let it go. “He’s a cheater!” The party of every Kennedy until 5 months ago screamed as though no one remembered anything about history. “He’s been accused of rape!” voices screamed from the wagons still circled around Bill Clinton and his enabler Hillary. One thing is certain: the old adage is true: Democrats are always guilty of what they accuse Republicans of doing.

You’d think Bernie Sanders used to wake up in cold sweat, screaming “Millionaires and billionaires” at the top of his lungs. I put that in the past tense because the socialist I’ve ever heard of being kicked out of a hippie commune for laziness is now a multi-millionaire, thanks to capitalism. 

He became rich while working as a “public servant.” How? He used his position and the fame of being a radical, anti-American left-winger who wanted to destroy the capitalist system to sell a lot of books. There’s really nothing he’s done to get rich he wouldn’t like to eliminate. He’d still be rich if he got his way, but he’d be rich in the way totalitarian dictators always get rich: by directly ripping off the people, not through ripping them off with poor-quality books. 

But Bernie isn’t unique. Sandy Cortez became Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez late in life because she needed to show more of her ethnicity to distract from her stupidity. She went to Boston University and allegedly graduated with honors with a degree in economics, which is a brochure in and of itself to make sure your kid never even considers BU. 

The genius spends her time making a fool of herself on social media, doing literally nothing to help any of her constituents attain independence from government. They vote for it, so if someone wants to be a serf, let them. The world needs ditch-diggers too.

But you don’t elect the people forcing you down that path to office.

Another “poor” anti-capitalist, AOC, lives in a very expensive and exclusive building in DC and bought herself a Tesla back when they were expensive. Now, she hates Elon Musk and regrets the purchase. The pro-union doofus didn’t care that non-union workers made the car; she’s mad Musk is trying to root out government waste. Given all of this, she regularly whines that Musk is dumb. Her fancy apartment must not have any reflective surfaces.

Democrats call Trump corrupt – getting rich off the government, even though he was rich long before going into government and wanted for nothing – even though they’ve gotten rich off the government. Bernie aside, do you really think Nancy Pelosi and her husband are THAT GOOD at playing the stock market? They call him every name in the book, while people like AOC need help reading a coloring book and finding ways to rake in the cash and hobnob with the world’s richest people at places like the Met Gala. 

Now we have Connecticut’s Chris Murphy. The bowl-hairdo-wearing moral preacher just left his wife for another woman. His wife was his age – in their 50s – and his new woman was in her 30s. I have nothing against that, but what happened to all the moralizing about everything? If Donald Trump is immoral because he’s been married a couple of times, what is a Senator who leaves his family for a wealthy, much younger activist upgrade

Tell me again about how Donald Trump’s marital issues bother you to the point that you couldn’t bring yourself ever to support him.

Yeah, that’s what I thought. 

Are all Republicans the most moral people you’d love to date your sister or daughter? Of course not. Are there any Democrats? Hell no. The difference is Democrats insist that Republicans not being perfect is a reason to vote against them and ignore their own shortcomings. It’s not hypocrisy – having one set of standards for everyone else and another for yourself – this is beyond that. Democrats have floating standards for other people and literally zero standards for themselves. They can’t be hypocrites when you aren’t subject to standards to contradict. 

Of course, this is only an issue if you’re an awful person, and awful people are the very core of who Democrats are.



The Folly in Aggressive NATO Expansion in the Post-Soviet Era


The White House meeting between President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky certainly went off the rails, and it yielded a lot more than just “great television,” as President Trump suggestedat the end of the fiery exchange. 

The practical result was that the United States has paused all military aid to Ukraine as of this writing, which is an outcome that could have been avoided if Zelensky had a better grasp of the situation.

Trump offered something that he thought Zelensky would understand -- national security that might be less iron-clad than NATO membership, but it was national security that was nonetheless being offered, in the form of American economic interest in the region.  

Any future attack on Ukraine by Russia would be an attack against America’s economic and national security interests.  Certainly, the Russians could choose to attack while knowing that America will potentially retaliate militarily, but the risk calculation is certainly different than if America had no vested interest in Ukraine’s defense.

Obviously, Putin would also recognize exactly what Trump is doing.  However, these are terms which may be acceptable to him if coupled with an assurance that Ukraine does not enter NATO.

Among the few countries now standing between Russia and the military alliance of 32 Western nations is Ukraine, a large and economically vital country for both Russia and the West.  And most importantly, according to Hope for Ukraine, “the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO is seen by many in Moscow as a red line that cannot be crossed” because it will “bring Western military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders.”

This is the quagmire in which Trump now finds himself, and the circumstances require a creative solution to allow Ukraine to maintain its sovereignty while also staving off the potential for World War III that the aggressive expansion of the unconditional alliance of NATO over the past three decades has arguably edged us closer toward.

To be perfectly clear, Russia is indeed the aggressor in this war that began in 2022, as they were in the invasion of Crimea in 2014.  Russia is also claiming a right to sovereignty based upon ethnic and political proclivities of the populations in disputed territories of eastern Ukraine that parallel arguments made by Hitler as he vied for annexation of the Sudetenland in 1939.

But what is also true is that the expansion of NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union was a thumb in the eye of Russia that increased its paranoia about Western encroachment after its tremendous loss of power and influence in the world.  

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the nations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Slovakia, and Hungary were considered by Henry Kissinger to be “No Man’s Land” in the post-Cold War map, because it was expected that Germany and Russia would both be trying to exert their influence in these countries.  Back then, Russia had no concern over Ukraine or Belarus, because they were, as Russian President Boris Yeltsin described them, “blood brothers” to Russia.  The several former Soviet satellite states, like Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, were considered more ethnically, culturally, and politically aligned with East than West, and though generally neutral, they were effectively a geographic buffer between Russia and the NATO nations to its distant West.

Viewed through the Russian lens, what occurred since 1991 could be understood as Cold War’s domino theory in reverse.  In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia joined the West’s military alliance.  In 2004, seven more former Soviet satellite states joined.  Since then, six more nations have joined, including Finland and Sweden in 2023 and 2024, respectively.  

In 1991, there was a massive geographic buffer between Russia and a 16-nation political military alliance.  Today, a few crucial nations are all that stands between a 32-nation political and military alliance and Russia’s doorstep.

That Kissinger referred to entire nations between East and West as “No Man’s Land” suggests that he still viewed the circumstances in 1994 as an ongoing cold war.  Not everyone viewed the post-Soviet world that way.  

For example, the very idea of Eastern European nations joining NATO is unnecessarily antagonistic, said George Kennan, a top American diplomat who is the original Cold Warrior and the author of the Long Telegram which predicted, with eerie precision, the political ambitions of the Soviet Union in 1945.    

In 1998, after Congress approved the first NATO expansion since Spain’s entry in 1982, Kennan made his final correct prediction, which he wasn’t happy to make.  It marked the “beginning of a new Cold War,” he told Thomas Friedman.  He predicted that the Russians would “gradually react quite adversely,” and that the decision would “make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”

“We have signed up,” he goes on, “to protect a whole series of countries, even though we neither have the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way.”

Our differences in the Cold War were with the communist Soviets, not the Russian people, he argued.  “And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.”  And Russia’s democracy was far more advanced than many of the countries we had just signed up to defend, argued Kennan.  

As he said goodbye to Friedman, one of the greatest architects of the hard-fought defeat of the Soviet Union told him that “this had been [his] life, and it pains [him] to see it so screwed up in the end.”

And here we are, 27 years later.  It would be hard to argue that George Kennan was wrong, and much easier to argue that he has proven to be every bit as correct in his final prediction as he was when he dictated his Long Telegram of 1945.

Trump is correct to offer an alternative to the continued expansion of NATO that arguably led us to this moment, and to seek a path to peace that doesn’t involve American taxpayers funding a perpetual war with money that we don’t have or, God forbid, American troops’ involvement in another European war.    




🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


After Four-Year Nap, New York Times To Start ‘Fact-Checking’ The White House Again


NYT says Trump coverage will be different, with ‘the discipline not to treat everything he says and does as inherently newsworthy.’



The New York Times has decided to take its reporting in a new direction now that President Donald Trump is back in office.

“One way in which this administration is different from its predecessor is that President Trump himself is far more accessible to reporters than was President Joe Biden, who rarely took questions or did sit-down interviews,” The Times explains in a long article written by multiple reporters this week. It answers questions from readers about how The Times is reporting differently on the Trump administration.

Apparently, Trump-era reporting is such a departure from usual reporting that it requires an explanation: “Mr. Trump, of course, presents a different set of challenges, starting with the need to fact-check nearly everything he says.”

The implication is that the infamously truth-stretching Biden didn’t need fact-checking, but Trump does, so now The New York Times is going to start fact-checking, for real.

An old journalism adage says, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” It means every fact an outlet reports should be confirmed independently. They used to say this in newsrooms.

But The Times has a long history of not carefully fact checking when the target is an opponent of Democrats. It makes implications, hints, quotes unnamed sources, and sometimes uses bogus documents like the Steele dossier that prompted the debunked Trump-Russia scandal.      

The Times did gently “fact check” Biden a few times, but staged its telling to make him look like a sweet old man of the people. In “Biden, Storyteller in Chief, Spins Yarns That Often Unravel,” Michael D. Shear and Linda Qiu write, “For more than four decades, Mr. Biden has embraced storytelling as a way of connecting with his audience…But Mr. Biden’s folksiness can veer into folklore, with dates that don’t quite add up and details that are exaggerated or wrong, the factual edges shaved off to make them more powerful for audiences.”

Isn’t that cute? Biden wasn’t lying; he was connecting with an audience.

Same article, two paragraphs later: “Former President Donald J. Trump lied constantly, not only about trivial details (like insisting it hadn’t rained during his inauguration when it clearly had) but also about consequential moments — misleading about the pandemic, perpetrating the ‘big lie’ that Mr. Biden stole the 2020 election…” The story ostensibly about Biden’s lying habit became a vehicle for more Trump-bashing, one of The New York Times’ favorite postures.

Based on this week’s explainer, the Times is eager to start “fact checking” again after a four-year hiatus while Democrats controlled the White House.

“Since the election we have brought on new reporters and editors who give us additional capability. They include an expanded corps of White House reporters and a new investigative team focused on how President Trump (and Elon Musk) are upending the federal government and driving policy in new directions,” the paper says.

Note the word choice, “upending.” It builds that subtle negative tone The Times loves to use on Trump. They paint Trump’s actions as if he is doing something wrong, when he is actually delivering on campaign promises most people voted for.

“This White House makes news almost constantly, seven days a week,” The Times complains. Most Americans want a working president. Biden mostly vacationed and gave other people’s money away. The Times says it has “enough reporters and editors to keep track of it all.”

The Times says its coverage of Trump will be different from that of his last term. This time the Times will have “the discipline not to treat everything he says and does as inherently newsworthy.”  In other words, the Times will decide what you need to hear through its propaganda filter.

The reader questions in this article are a fascinating study of who reads the Gray Lady.

“Will The Times be censoring its work to avoid lawsuits and/or imprisonment of their journalists?” a reader asks. Last time we checked, it was the Biden Department of Justice that was unjustly throwing people in prison, and before that the Obama administration spying on journalists.

The brave New York Times is prepared, and assures this reader, “We will not be intimidated in this climate and will continue to do what our readers most rely on us for — report, without fear or favor.” There is another negative nugget: “this climate” implies Trump has brought about a sinister new climate change. Again, NYT, most Americans voted for this change. Check those facts.  

Here are a few more unhinged Times reader questions.

“Do reporters have a plan if Trump changes press briefings to limit sharing info on what he’s doing? Are the Times folks picked to ask questions as much as other big papers that are Trump fans?”

“Please find a way to isolate Trump news to its own category or page so us subscribers don’t have to be exposed as much as he would like.”

“How do journalists handle death threats, and how often have they received them for specifically writing about Trump?”

It’s great that The Times says it is bringing back “fact checking,” but it would be more impressive if it would just report the truth, without the digs and hollow analysis. Maybe then its readers would not be so afraid.



Tulsi Gabbard Rips Security Clearances From 51 Spies Who Lied, Hits Biden With Some Bad News Too


Rusty Weiss reporting for RedState 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced Monday that the security clearances of 51 intelligence officers who signed a letter portraying Hunter Biden’s laptop as ‘Russian disinformation’ have been officially revoked.

Gabbard, one of several strong, intelligent women with a significant role in President Trump's cabinet, delivered the bad news to some high-profile members of the intelligence community. 

Names such as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Directors Mike Hayden, John Brennan, and Leon Panetta, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton signed on to the letter. And by doing so, they eventually signed onto their own security clearance revocation.

Gabbard further ripped clearances from former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, New York Attorney General and rabid anti-Trump advocate Letitia James, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Rounding out the delicious declaration on X is a note from Gabbard that former President Joe Biden is no longer privy to his Daily Brief.

"Per [President Trump's] directive, I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden 'disinformation' letter," Gabbard announced.

"The President's Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden."


The directive Gabbard is referencing is an executive order signed by President Trump on his first day in office that finally held the intel community responsible for spreading the Hunter Biden laptop/Russian disinformation hoax.

The order demanded that the DNI submit an assessment within the report, providing recommendations to prevent intelligence officials from "inappropriately influencing domestic elections" in the future.

As they did in 2020.

It also seeks recommendations for "any disciplinary action ... that should be taken against anyone who engaged in inappropriate conduct related to the letter signed by the 51 former intelligence officials."



Clapper, years after signing the letter, tried claiming the letter had been taken out of context and “distorted.”

“There was message distortion,” Clapper told the Washington Post. “All we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation.”

Douglas Wise, a former senior CIA operations officer whose clearance is no more, later admitted that he and others knew the contents of Hunter's laptop “had to be real” but they chose to sign on anyway.

“All of us figured that a significant portion of that content had to be real to make any Russian disinformation credible,” Wise acknowledged during an interview with The Australian.

As for Biden having his access to the Daily Brief - top-secret intelligence information - ripped away, well, we're pretty sure even when he was in the White House he wasn't cognizant of those briefs anyway. He's not going to miss anything.

Gabbard made news late last month when she revoked the security clearances, and terminated the employment of over 100 individuals involved in a National Security Agency chat system that was used to discuss pornographic LGBT matters.



Trump Revokes Top Democrats' Access To In-N-Out Secret Menu

 Trump Revokes Top Democrats' Access To In-N-Out Secret Menu

Politics·Mar 11, 2025 · BabylonBee.com
Babooo0, Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Critics raised allegations that the new administration was making moves to take revenge on political enemies, as the White House announced that President Donald Trump had revoked top Democrats' access to In-N-Out's secret menu.

The decision was made late Monday, with the Trump administration officially removing several prominent Democrat officials' ability to order anything from the popular West Coast-based burger chain's secret menu, leaving Democrats outraged.

"No more secret menu, folks. Forget about it. They don't get special privileges," Trump told a group of reporters in the Oval Office. "These losers have been living above the law for too long, and it's time to put a stop to it. I've heard Tony Blinken likes his Flying Dutchman, but it's not going to happen anymore. You hear that, Tony? It's over. Same with Jake Sullivan. I don't care if it's Roadkill fries or a Neopolitan Shake, we're putting a stop to it."

When reached for comment, one former Biden official was appalled at what he described as abuse of power by the Trump administration. "They can't get away with this," said Andrew Weissmann. "This is just more evidence that Donald Trump is a totalitarian dictator. Like everyone else, I go to In-N-Out every time I'm in California. Taking away my ability to order a mustard-grilled 4X4 extra toasted with chopped chilis is taking away my basic right as an American citizen. Trump is a fascist!"

At publishing time, Trump had ordered the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into reports that Senator Adam Schiff had violated the policy by ordering a Grilled Cheese and a Lemon-Up.

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-revokes-top-democrats-access-to-in-n-out-secret-menu

LIGHTEN UP FOLKS... HAVE A LAUGH !

Canada’s Next Leftist Prime Minister Vows to Defeat President Trump and Win Trade War


Canadian leftists have selected Mark Carney as their replacement for Justin Trudeau, Carney will be sworn in as Prime Minister shortly and complete the remaining segment of Trudeau’s term before new Canadian elections.

The only issue on the mind of voters in Canada is which candidate will fight U.S. President Donald Trump the hardest.  Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to fight Trump harder than Mark Carney, but the leftists in Canada are now back on the ascendency and will dispatch the pontificating Poilievere shortly.

During his acceptance speech at the Liberal Party convention, a beaming Mark Carney promised to defeat President Trump and the Americans in the upcoming trade war.  Carney noted, a sense of national pride has swept across Canada as the people unite in their hatred for everything Trump and everything American associated with him.  WATCH: 



In addition to tariffs against Canadian goods and services, U.S. President Trump has massive economic arrows in his quiver that can be deployed against the Canadian economy.  Measures including larger tariffs (tariff reciprocity), financial sanctions, restrictions on Canadian investment in the USA, revocation of visa-free border crossing, forced divestiture of American asset holdings for the Canadian people (banking reciprocity), all the way to a full-throated embargo of all goods and travel from Canada are potential.

If that sequence of events ever happened, the Canadian government led by Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed to respond in kind to Trump with identical action blocking any/all USA products, services and American citizens from entry into Canada.  This approach would enable us to finally determine which nationalistic outlook will survive, Canada or the USA.

(Via Politico) – […] One of Carney’s first decisions will be whether or not to call a snap election in the middle of a trade war. He has identified Trump’s rolling tariff threats as an “economic and sovereign crisis.”

“The Americans want our resources, our water, our land, our country,” Carney said. “Think about it. If they succeed, they will destroy our way of life.”

Carney campaigned for the top job on his reputation as a disaster manager, arguing that he is the right person to take on Trump. He ran for the leadership against former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who has warned that how Canada deals with the president “will define us for a generation, and perhaps longer.”

Trump now tops the list of things Canadians are worried about, followed by jobs, inflation and the economy. About 90 percent of Canadians live within 150 miles of the U.S. border, and polls show the country of 40 million is increasingly angry at the U.S. president, who can’t seem to stop talking about annexing Canada. (read more)

These next few weeks and months could be very interesting.