Aviel Oppenheim

President-elect Donald J. Trump has once again humorously expressed a desire to turn Canada into the 51st State, recycling one of his many running jokes. He has even referred to Justin Trudeau as the Governor of Canada. Although some have laughed at the remarks while others have been offended, most people agree that the joke has resurfaced as a result of Canada’s noticeable decline, particularly while it has been herded by the insufferable tyrant, Justin Trudeau.

Toying with the proposition more literally, it’s clear that Canada as the 51st State would be disastrous for both Canada and America. The rhetoric also, even if said comedically, misses the bigger picture and exemplifies the problem that inflicts both nations and the many grievances of its liberty-minded citizens. Talk of annexing Canada also speaks to the “empire” problem that America has with a federal government that has continually expanded its reach and influence domestically and abroad.

Canada needs saving, there’s no doubt about that. However, it would not be saved by joining America’s union. On the contrary, it would only drag America down and solidify the socialist or welfarist parts of America. In that way, it would also ruin the America that cherishes liberty, self-governance, and sovereignty. Canada also doesn’t need to join an even bigger union than its present federation where many of its provinces are already feeling taken advantage of. This same dissatisfaction is present within America’s union, led by the tyrants in Washington, and becoming the 51st State would only exacerbate this problem for both sides.

The only reason that Canada would ever be annexed, quite frankly, is to provide more resources to America’s empire and its military industrial complex. In other words, they’d simply be added manpower and a source of extra levies to help fund America’s foreign interventionist policies. There’d be no real benefit to the American citizen who is already being bled dry by its federal government, and Canadians would not only be extorted by its governor Trudeau, or whoever takes his place, but by the parasites in Washington.

To the surprise of many Americans, secessionist movements in Canada are relatively popular and even likely more so than in many American states. This is particularly the case among the western provinces, such as Alberta, and in the French-Canadian center of Quebec which came inches away from seceding in 1995. Although Trump is known for his humor, the rhetoric of annexing Canada to “liberate” them misses the point. Instead, the running joke should be to help provinces like Quebec and Alberta secede and to therefore act like the French when they assisted the American colonies in their liberation from British rule.

Secession should be the rhetoric preached or wittingly entertained. The sentiment would also be more truthful and righteous, even if said jokingly, especially when compared to the slogan of turning Canada into the 51st State, which echoes that of an imperialist empire. It’s also not particularly tasteful at a time when many people are begging for a president to shrink the empire and drain the swamp.

What Canada and America need is less federal control and that doesn’t come with expansionist policy nor is it aided by its rhetoric even if said in jest. Ultimately, both countries need to shrink government for the health of their citizens who, particularly the Americans, are choked by an aggrandizing socialist regime that steals from its citizens to subsidize its growing influence, presence, and reach worldwide.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has promised to go to war with BRICS, threatening 100% tariffs and demanding that countries neither “create” their own currency “nor back any other” to replace “the mighty U.S. dollar.” Trump also reiterated, in his social media post, that the countries in violation could “say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. economy.” He ended his statement by reminding the world that any country that tries to replace the U.S. dollar in international trade will be waving “goodbye to America.”

“If we lost the dollar as the world currency, I think that would be equivalent of losing a war,” Donald Trump said in an earlier speech he gave to the Economic Club of New York on September 5, 2024. The president-elect also warned that being dethroned as the world currency would turn America into a “third world country” and swore that he would not “let it happen.” In his speech, Trump stoked the flames by insinuating that China is in league to undermine America, accusing them of “trying to get their currency to be the dominant currency.”

This sort of warmongering does not echo that of an upcoming president who campaigned on America First principles to end America’s involvement in foreign conflicts and to care first for the liberty and welfare of American citizens. On the contrary, this rhetoric that Trump has been spewing is reminiscent of someone who cares more about continuing the American Empire than they do about resurrecting the republic as was promised to the voters. Threatening foreign countries into using or relying on the American dollar should ultimately not be the path forward for a leader who supposedly represents the land of the free.

Going to war with BRICS, and consequently, any bloc of the foreign world that expresses intent on turning away from America’s foreign hegemony, is not only ill-advised but also contradicts Trump’s campaign promise to “end the wars.”

Although Trump’s threats have, so far, been economic and technically non-violent, sanctions and tariffs are likely to heighten tensions and lead to escalation which may boil over into more militant or violent consequences. After all, history shows that trade wars have often acted as precursors for more severe conflicts.

Even without militant escalation, the prospect of sanctions and tariffs against BRICS is going to lead to retaliatory measures. In response to the Biden administration’s recent enforcement of export controls on chip manufacturing, China immediately announced the banning of some rare mineral exports to the U.S. which are vital for military and technological applications. This is only the most recent example, and one that may act as a preview of what will come from an economic or trade war with BRICS, particularly as it relates to China and Russia. Both nations have expressed a desire to move away from the dollar, which they accuse America of having weaponized against them.

President-elect Donald Trump should keep his promise to put Americans first and avoid the path set by former presidents who have upheld the American Empire at the expense of its people. What is good for the American Empire is woeful for Americans, as the last couple of decades has proven, and an America-first president ought to act for the betterment of its citizenry and not bankers and arm dealers, for it is only them who stand to gain from maintaining America’s supposed world dominance.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu announced a ceasefire with Lebanon on Tuesday, November 26, 2024, which went into effect the following morning. It is set to last for 60 days. The two nations have been warring with one another since October 8, 2023, with the war being particularly devastating for Lebanon. The nation has suffered thousands of casualties and a million of its residents have been displaced. Israel has reported handfuls of casualties on their end.

The ceasefire, however, is not one of peace but one that has called for more war with another of Israel’s adversaries: Iran. In Netanyahu’s speech, the Israeli prime minister outlined that the primary reasons for the ceasefire was to replenish their armaments and to pivot towards the Iranian threat. Expectedly, the U.S. provisionally approved a $680 million weapons sale to Israel mere hours following the ceasefire going into effect. And while Israel is allowed to replenish its defenses and manpower, Netanyahu warned that the ceasefire will be broken if Hezbollah attempts to do the same.

The temporary reprieve is seemingly needed for Israel, who has been waging an exhaustive war on nearly all its neighbors for the last year, and the timing suggests Trump’s upcoming presidency will be integral to Israel’s pivot towards Iran. After all, President-elect Donald Trump and his cabinet have promised that they will, on day 1, lift all delays and embargos on shipments of military armaments to Israel. With Trump set to take office on January 20, 2025, the timing and duration of the ceasefire doesn’t appear to be a coincidence but instead a foreboding of what’s to come.

Even the conservative political commentator, Ben Shapiro has predicted a similar trajectory albeit proudly given his Israel-first mantra. He asserted that “Joe Biden has been slow-walking aid to Israel” and that the ceasefire is “designed to allow Biden to leave and Israel to be armed by the incoming Trump administration.” Shapiro also did not see the duration of the shaky truce as a coincidence, saying that Israel sees this as a “ceasefire until Joe Biden is gone.”

Although Trump had promised to end the wars on his campaign trail, his war-hawking foreign policy cabinet, dubbed “The New War Party,” and his administration’s stated promises of unwavering support for Israel and a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran hints to the likelihood that the United States will economically and militarily support Israel’s planned escalations against Iran. Trump himself even recently declared that if the hostages that Hamas had taken are not released by January 20, 2025, “there will be all hell to pay in the Middle East” and that those responsible “will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied history of the United States.”

While many ordinary Americans frown at the prospect of their government’s continued foreign meddling, political pundit Ben Shapiro has elatedly reiterated the same prediction, claiming that Israel “will consolidate and refresh its forces in anticipation of the next round of fighting, when there is a president who isn’t a pathetic coward in relation to Iran.”

Tensions between Israel and Iran had reached new heights in early October of 2024 following Iran’s retaliatory missile barrage against Israel. Although the two nations have since exchanged fire, much of it has been reserved as both parties have expressed understandable caution. The prospect of violent escalation is, however, very likely in the foreseeable future and the likelihood of American involvement is alas growing greater. With an upcoming Republican administration that promises to be hawkish on Iran and loyal to Israel, it will be paramount for Americans, and the world, to be vocal against America’s continued meddling in a Middle Eastern conflict in which their involvement is endangering everyone, especially American citizens.

On November 17, 2024, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez set off a storm when she said on social media that “if people want to talk about members of Congress being overly influenced by a special interest group” then “they should be discussing AIPAC.” Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, claimed that Cortez was playing into “dangerous tropes” by focusing on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, add ed that it was “deeply concerning” that AOC was blaming AIPAC for “overly influencing Congress,” and accused her of “scapegoating the Jews.”

AIPAC is tasked solely with strengthening bipartisan American relations with Israel. Even as far back as 1987, The New York Times considered them to be a “major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East” and all for the betterment of Israel. They donate annually to nearly every U.S. politician on both sides of the aisle, caring only to receive in return support for the State of Israel. They are the Israel lobby and while their influence is prominent, the significance of their role in politics comes from the immunity from criticism they have cultivated.

Anyone who criticizes AIPAC is accused of being antisemitic, with attacks on the Israel lobby being conflated with an attack on Jews. Every politician who has criticized AIPAC has received this sort of manipulative backlash, with AOC being the latest victim. Rep. Thomas Massie, who has spoken ill of AIPAC and voted against bills that support Israel, was on the receiving end of AIPAC-funded TV advertisements that smeared him as antisemitic and a hater of Israel. “The Squad,” who are a couple of progressive Democrat Representatives that include Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have also been vocal against AIPAC and have been accused of believing that “Jews are second-class constituents.”

The array of criticism directed at AIPAC is fair and appropriate, as it should be against any powerful lobbying group that meddles in politics on behalf of foreign nations. The merits of the criticism are irrelevant, however, for merely expressing criticism leads to immense backlash and, in some cases to being cancelled. The backlash is not only a testament to the problematic nature of American politics when it comes to Israel, but it highlights how wokeism continues to exist, especially on the side that ironically proclaims, following Donald Trump’s presidential victory, that “woke is dead.”

The inability to criticize the most powerful Israel lobby in America stems from the fact that it is largely taboo, particularly in politics, to speak ill of Israel. The backlash that the likes of AOC and Massie have faced is thus a symptom of a larger problem: the allegiance that American politicians are universally expected to uphold for Israel. While the right often criticizes the left for resorting to identity politics and playing up victim narratives surrounding racial minorities, some of the mainstream right-wingers have proven to be first in line to scream antisemitism and “hate-speech” when Israel, and so too its most powerful lobbying group, is faced with disdain or disapproval.

An important point that is often overlooked on this issue, and one that ought to be mentioned, is the fact that AIPAC doesn’t represent Jews, but rather Israel. Conflating the interests between the two would be a mistake. Political pundits who use Jews as a cover to shield the Israeli government and AIPAC from criticism are doing so at the expense of many Jews. Their actions fuel hatred and mistrust. It also treats Jews as homogenous and perpetuates the notion that there aren’t any Jews who don’t ascribe to the Zionist belief that the State of Israel represents them or is the embodiment of their homeland.

It is consequently those who pull the “antisemitism” card that are, ironically, the ones scapegoating and harming the image and reputation of Jews. Whether or not this is all done inadvertently or deliberately would be a good question to ponder. Therefore, while being outraged at the inability to criticize Israel and thus AIPAC is more than warranted, the blame should not be thrust upon Jews as a whole. After all, many of them are, akin to other racial or religious minorities, used as pawns by race hustlers and politically motivated parties.