Our Northern Neighbor Heading South?

President Trump received a lot of attention early in his Presidency by suggesting that Canada should join the United States as its 51st state.

Trump started saying this after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Trump that if the United States levied a large tariff on goods it exports to the United States that Canada would cease to exist as a country.

Trump then concluded...

"If Canada cannot exist without being reliant on the United States market perhaps it would make sense for Canada to become a state. There would then be no tariffs going either way."

Most dismissed this as mere hyperbole to be used as a negotiating tactic to get Canada to agree to a trade agreement that is more advantageous for the United States.

Trump is prone to hyperbole.

However, the reality is that Canada is facing more and more problems which points to a nation in trouble.

Is our northern neighbor headed south?

It might not eventually become part of the United States but Canada is heading south from a number of perspectives.

Consider GDP per capita.

Canada is going nowhere while the United States surges.

The United States is projected to have GDP growth as high as 5.4% in the fourth quarter, 2025.

Canada's economy was on track to actually shrink in the fourth quarter.

One economist described Canada's economy as being on 'life support'.

The Canadian dollar has also declined massively vs. the U.S. dollar over the last 15 years.

Source: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CADUSD%3DX/

In 2011, you could get $1.05 Canadian for $1 US dollar.

The Canadian dollar is only worth 73 cents today---a devaluation of 30%.

Every Canadian has gotten poorer vs. Americans.

Manufacturing activity in Canada is also significantly lagging the United States.

Credit: https://x.com/KatKanada_TM/status/2020293125714112684

Canada is not just doing poorly compared to the United States.

Over the last decade it has lagged all of the major OECD economies.

The future also does not look very bright for Canada.

Business investment has fallen off a cliff compared to the United States.

Canadians are also not having children.

Births in Canada are now lower than in Europe which is low to begin with.

10 years ago, when the Liberals took over in Canada, they decided that the best way to grow was to open the floodgates to immigrants.

The immigration does not appear to have helped the economy but it will undeniably change the demographics and culture of Canada for the future.

Almost 30% of the population of Canada today was born outside the country.

In Toronto, that number is 47% and in Vancouver it is 42% according to recent estimates. 

By comparison, the percentage of foreign-born in the United States today is 15% which is the highest that it has ever been in the long history of the country.

Housing prices increased dramatically as supply could not compete with the demand created by all of the immigrants.

As a result, price-income ratios soared past all of the other OECD countries even though housing prices have recently started to fall.

The average house price in Canada today is 8x the average income.

That is at least twice what it should be.

All of that home mortgage debt means that Canada has a huge amount of household debt compared to the size of its economy.

How does Canada dig out from under this pile of debt?

Despite the fact that Canada is totally dependent on the United States for its defense, 77% of its exports and 20% of its GDP is tied to exports to the United States, Canadians elected another Liberal as Prime Minister on the promise he would stand up to Trump.

That strategy is not working out very well for the Canadians thus far.

Mark Carney has been no better than Justin Trudeau.

The reality is that Canada has no real leverage in any negotiations with the United States.

To make matters worse, in an area where Canada has an advantage, it is shooting itself in the foot.

It is the only nation in the Top 10 oil producers that levies a carbon tax on its use.

Production and jobs in key sectors that export to the United States such as autos, metals and forestry have seen production drops which is also straining employment in these industries.

Source: https://www.automotiveworld.com/news/gm-cuts-500-canada-jobs-moves-production-back-to-us/

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/15/world/canada/stellantis-auto-production-canada-us-trump-tariffs.html

Add to all of this an increasing amount of political discontent that has provinces such as Alberta seeing active movements promoting separation from Canada.

A petition drive is underway right now in Alberta to put a referendum vote on separation before the people of the province. 177,732 valid signatures (about 10% of registered voters) are necessary by May 2, 2026 to force the provincial government to hold the referendum vote. 

If the petition drive is successful the vote would be held as early as October, 2026.

Even a clear majority vote would not mean that Alberta could secede. It would just mean that Canada would have to enter into negotiations with the province on its grievances.

Recent polls show that the petition drive will likely succeed in getting the referendum vote on the ballot  but the majority of Albertans still favor remaining as a part of Canada right now.

However, it should be noted that Quebec, British Columbia and Saskatchewan alos all have separation movements of some kind that are active.

Source: https://x.com/RiseOfAlberta/status/2020327406498902070

There is clearly a lot of political unrest and dissension in Canada.

I don't expect Alberta or another province to be able to secede and become an independent country, or to join the United States, as the Canadian constitution requires all the other provinces must agree to separation. 

The other provinces are deriving too much economic benefit from Alberta and Saskatchewan to let them separate in the near future.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have 95% of Canada's oil and gas reserves and 75% of its farmland.

However, I do foresee a period of turmoil and tumult for Canada as a result of the policies that the Liberals in that country continue to pursue.

Unless Canada's leadership does a course correction on its liberal policies and attitude towards Trump and the United States, it is headed further south.

We may not see Canada become the 51st state but it might not be far-fetched that we will see the country implode or split apart in the longer term due to its economy and its worsening social and political divisions.

What is really sad is that the majority in Canada seem to want to blame Donald Trump for their problems when the reality is that they have done this to themselves by following the wrong leaders and the wrong policies.

Income and Wealth Inequality

We hear a lot of complaints about income and wealth inequality in the United States.

There are an increasing number who believe that if we could just get billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes there would not be any problems in the world.

Elon Musk seems to be the one that those on the Left are most angry about.

This PhD in Gender Studies (they really give an advanced degree in that?) is so angry about Elon's billions that she is not going to buy a Tesla or Starlink or use Grok.

However, she did not have a problem using X to call Musk "a billionaire Nazi"?

Of course, they all seem to ignore the fact that most of the billionaires like Musk have built businesses that have created jobs for millions of workers which allows them to put food on the table for their families and to pay billions and billions in taxes on the income they earn.

For example, the latest estimate by Grok is that 150,000-160,000 people are employed in the companies that make up the bulk of Elon Musk's wealth---Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter, Neuralink, The Boring Company and xAI.

Billionaires have also improved the lives of billions of people around the world.

They have also made a lot of people financially comfortable with investments in their companies or the products they have enjoyed because of it.

Leftists in California are attempting to put a issue on the ballot in November that would impose a one-time tax of 5% on the wealth of any California resident with a net worth of $1 billion or more.

This is supposed to support healthcare, education and food assistance programs.

Of course, the top 1% of income earners already pay almost 50% of the income taxes in the state.

At least six billionaires have already left the state due to this proposal which, if passed, would apply to residents as of January 1, 2026.

Those billionaires include Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin who have a combined fortune of over $500 billion.

Source: https://nypost.com
trib.al/qQFsBLF

In all, an estimated $1 trillion of the $2 trillion of wealth that is targeted by the tax proposal has already left the state due to the possibility it might be passed by voters in the Golden State.

Of course, left unsaid is where does California go next for revenues when this money quickly runs out?

And the ongoing income that came from that wealth has also left the state to not be taxed again?

The problems seem to have a way of compounding in California.

The total above does not include the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg.

It was reported this week that the Facebook founder has purchased a $150 million property in Miami to be his new principal residence beginning in April. You can be sure he severed domiciliary ties with California before January 1.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate/mark-zuckerberg-becomes-latest-california-billionaire-relocate-florida-amid-tax-concerns

Yes, there is income and wealth inequality in the United States.

There has always been income and wealth inequality in the world.

It has been the case since the beginning of mankind.

There was income inequality in ancient Babylon, Rome and Egypt.

There was wealth inequality in Europe in the 17th century, in Asia in the 18th century and South America in the 19th century.

Africa had much more income inequality in the 20th century than the United States did at that time...or now.

There has been income inequality in every society over history.

There have always been some in a society that found ways to make greater incomes and accumulate more wealth than others. 

I doubt that will ever change.

Income inequality is typically measured by what is called the Gini coefficient.

The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among the values of a frequency distribution. 

A Gini coefficient of 0 reflects perfect equality, where all income or wealth values are the same. In contrast, a Gini coefficient of 1 (or 100%) reflects maximal inequality among values, where a single individual has all the income while all others have none.

This graph shows the Gini coefficient for the United States since 1913.

In truth, income and wealth inequality was undoubtedly even greater in the United States before this data was first collected considering the fortunes of Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan in the early 20th century.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

Income inequality today is about the same as it was in the 1913-1940 period. Of course, that period was notable for the emergence of large industrial enterprises in the United States which included the emergence of the auto industry, oil companies and the radio. This fueled wealth and income concentrations in the entrepreneur class that developed these industries.

Inequality improved in the post-World War II era as more and more people were able to enjoy middle class incomes with good paying jobs in the manufacturing sector that flattened the Gini coefficient.

However, that began to change in the United States in the mid-1980's as technology began replacing manufacturing as the fuel behind the economy in the U.S.

We entered an information age from a manufacturing age. Manufacturing spreads income in a much broader swath in an economy. You need to pay a lot of workers to build an automobile.  You only need a couple of computer programmers to develop a video game or an app that might bring in billions in income.

There is no question that income inequality in the United States has increased over the last 40 years. This is the direct result of technology innovation, internet commerce and artificial intelligence as well as a  decline in manufacturing. However, we are far from being outside of historical norms insofar as income or wealth inequality.

The United States is also not outside current global norms.

The United States actually has less income inequality than the world at large.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

It should also be noted that the calculation above does not include welfare benefits for those with lower incomes. This would move the Gini coefficient lower in the United States.

It also does not take account of income taxes which, due to the highly progressive income tax system in the United States, would also move the Gini coefficient lower in the United States.

It should also be noted that the poorest 50% in the world are accounting for much more of consumption spending today than they ever had while the share by the top 1% has been steadily declining.

As far as the progressive income tax system in the United States,is concerned compare the amount of income taxes paid between the top 5% of income earners and the bottom 95%. 

The top 1% of income earners paid 47% of all income taxes in 2021.

The top 5% paid 67% of all income taxes.

Here is a comparison of the United States to some selected countries around the world on the Gini coefficient.

The United States is basically on par with Russia and China on income inequality and is more equitable than countries such as South Africa, Mexico, Brazil and India.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

It is true that the United States has more income and wealth inequality than European countries that have adopted stronger socialist welfare states than the U.S has.

However, the actual gap has not really changed much in the last 45 years between the United States and these other countries.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

You also have to take into account the relative differences in the amount of income and wealth there is to divide between various countries.

The size of the pot of income and wealth also matters.

For example, Czechia has a Gini coefficient of .33 which is the top income equality score in the world.

However, Czechia's GDP per capita is almost $30,000 less than the United States.

There is a big difference in being in the bottom half of income earners in 'equitable' Czechia compared to living in the so-called 'inequitable' United States.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=line&time=1990..2024&country=USA~CZE~OWID_WRL~OWID_EU27

The same is true comparing the United States to the European Union countries where the U.S. has $20,000 more GDP per capita annually on average.

You can also see that the U.S. GDP advantage has widened over the last five years due to technology innovation and the income and wealth effect associated with it.

I understand the concerns about income inequality in the United States. However, it is hard to take anyone seriously when they say that things would be better if we were Czechia, China or France.

We should not ignore the issue of income inequality in public policy discussions but our time would be much better spent working to make the economic pie bigger rather than worrying about how to slice it.

The bottom line is that we are in this together in this country.  President Kennedy said it best 60 years ago when he said, "A rising tide raises all boats".   

The reality is that when the rich do better it follows that everyone generally does better.  If the rich become poorer, we all most certainly will become poorer.  

We need to start recognizing that if the 1% and 99% work together we will get much more than 100% in the end. 

If we pit the 99% versus the 1%, it is guaranteed that we will get much less than 100%.

Losing By Winning

Winning the Super Bowl provided Seattle Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold with a winner's share of $178,000 that goes to each of the players on the winning team.

Of course, those are taxable earnings for the 2026 tax year.

Darnold also signed a $105 million, three-year contract before the season with Seattle.

Sam Darnold
Credit: Seattle Times

Based on the projected payments under that contract, Darnold will owe federal income taxes on his Super Bowl sum along with taxes on his $12.3 million in base salary, $6.4 million in pro-rated signing bonus to be paid in 2026 and a potential $15 million roster bonus if he plays for Seattle in 2026 

California, the site of this year's Super Bowl, claims that it is entitled to tax a share of Darnold's annual income for the work he performed in the state during the year.

This is true for everyone who might work in the state (even for just a day or two) but is generally only enforced for those with large incomes such as entertainers, pro athletes and other highly paid individuals.

California has the highest marginal income tax rate in the nation at 13.3%. 

California taxes non-resident pro athletes a percentage of their income based on “duty days” spent in the state. A "duty day" is a day in which the athlete performs work-related activities.

For an NFL player, that includes not only the day of the game but also days traveling, pre-season camp and games, practices, attending meetings and otherwise preparing for the game.

The total duty days for an NFL player is typically around 200 days.

Teams travel to the Super Bowl the preceding Sunday for practices, media appearances and the like meaning that Darnold and the other players will generally have at least 8 duty days in California associated with the Super Bowl.

A typical NFL game usually entails 2 duty days. Arrival on Saturday with some team activities that day and a game on Sunday.

The Seahawks will have two regular season games in California in 2026. One with LA and another with San Francisco.

We will assume there will be no exhibition games in California in 2026 for the Seahawks

This would mean that Darnold would usually have 4/200 (2%) of his income taxed in California.

Playing in the Super Bowl would increase duty days to 12/200 (6%).

Let's do the math (for simplicity I am just applying the marginal rate to all income (which overstates the total somewhat) on what that means for Darnold's tax liability in California.

Based on an estimated $33.7 million in income in 2026, without playing in the Super Bowl, Darnold would owe California $89,642 in taxes ($33.7 million x.02 x 13.3%.

Add to the $33.7 million the $178,000 that Darnold gets for being on the winner's team greatly increases his tax liability due to the game being played in California and the jock tax duty days.

For playing and winning the Super Bowl Darnold owes California $270,346 ($33.7 million + 178,000= $33,878,000 x .06 x 13.3% )

Darnold's winning share of the Super Bowl of $178,000 does not cover the additional $180,704 in taxes he will owe by playing the game in California. Darnold is a couple thousand dollars poorer overall despite winning.

It would have been worse for Darnold if the Seahawks had lost. 

The loser's share is $103,000. Darnold's tax liability to California would be $269,788 ($33.7 million +103,000=33,808,000 x.06 x 13.3%). That is $180,146 of additional tax for playing in the Super Bowl compared to the $103,000 he got for playing. Darnold would be $77,000 poorer by playing in the Super Bowl in California.

It is true that Darnold and other athletes can soften the blow of the California taxes by claiming a tax credit up to the tax rate on their home state income tax returns. 

This would mean they would only pay extra for the additional amount of the California taxes over and above what the taxes would be in their home state domicile.

However, if Darnold has a smart tax planner, I would assume he has made the state of Washington as his home which has no state income tax on earnings. Therefore, no mitigation would be available. The tax in California would all be incremental to him.

How do you lose by winning?

By playing the Super Bowl in California.

It makes you wonder why the National Football League Players' Association would not insist that the Super Bowl be played in a state without an income tax such as Florida, Texas or Nevada every year?

I do not know that has been an issue to this point

In fact, next year's Super Bowl is also scheduled to be played in California at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles.

Maybe the players should make the taxes an issue?

In the meantime, a lot other people and businesses are getting the message.

California is the last place that anyone who is productive and prosperous wants to call their home (or even visit) for a few days.

Ask Sam Darnold.

All the same, he would probably trade the extra $180,000 in California taxes this year for the Super Bowl ring on his finger for the rest of his life.

However, he could have had the ring and kept the $180,000 if the game had been played in Texas, Florida or Nevada.

That is losing by winning.

Consensus Until It Isn't

For most of the last decade or so we have been told it was the consensus of medical and psychiatric professionals that gender transitioning drugs and surgeries were the best treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

Ignore the fact that this conclusion was in conflict with thousands of years of human experience.

Or the consensus of medical and mental health professionals for decades until groups like the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) endorsed gender transition surgeries a decade ago.

This week the consensus supporting gender transitioning began to evaporate as the ASPS was followed by the AMA in stating that doctors should delay gender-related surgeries for minors citing insufficient evidence that benefits outweigh the risks.

I would expect over the next few months we will see more "experts" reverse course on the issue of gender transition surgeries for minors until the consensus is 180 degrees different than it was last week.

This change in thinking may also begin to encompass gender-related surgeries for those who are not minors.

What changed?

Is it just a coincidence that a New York jury recently awarded $2 million to a woman for a medical malpractice claim involving a plastic surgeon and psychiatrist. The mother of the girl testified she had opposed the surgery but relented under pressure when she was told her daughter might commit suicide if the surgery was not performed.

If a New York jury can reach that verdict what do you think the chances are that there are a lot of other potential lawsuits out there in other parts of the country?

How did we get here in the first place?

It starts with someone with an agenda. Someone else follows that lead without doing much thinking or research on their own. Nobody wants to be an outlier or late to the party. Consensus is then formed within a self-fulfilling loop.

It is consensus until it isn't.

Many times the consensus is unwound as more and people start looking at facts and data and begin to understand that "the king has no clothes".

We hear a lot about consensus these days.

We hear it all the time on climate change.

"The consensus of scientists is that the planet is warming due to carbon emissions"

We heard it a lot during Covid.

"The consensus is that Covid was natural in origin and did not come from a lab in China".

We even heard it in the 2020 election.

"The consensus is that there was absolutely no fraud in the election."

In my mind, consensus is often a code word to keep people from looking at the facts and data t and coming to an independent or contrary conclusion on their own.

In many respects, consensus today is a word used to describe a political assessment rather than a scientific and factual conclusion.

One of the most popular blog posts I have ever written was titled "Consensus Is Not Science" back in 2017

In that post I wrote about the the so-called "consensus" of scientists that climate change was settled science.

When it comes to settled science, there is no doubt that we have climate change. It changes every hour, every day and every year. It has changed over the centuries.

The question is not whether it is changing but whether man is impacting that change and, even if that is the case, whether we can even do anything about it?

Whenever we hear about the "science" of human related climate change there is nothing "settled" about it. That is why we hear that this view is supported by the "consensus" of scientists.

Of course, "consensus" is not the same as facts. And consensus is not a scientific fact. A scientific fact is the law of gravity, the boiling point of water or the distance to the moon. 

Prior to the 15th century, the consensus of scientists was that the earth was the center of the universe.

In the 18th century, the consensus of medical scientists was that blood letting was the best method to cure illness.

As recently as 25 years ago the consensus was that peptic ulcers were caused by stress. We now know it is caused by bacteria.

I could go on and on. In fact, in most cases like these, the consensus of scientists was proven wrong by one person who did not believe the consensus and proved it wrong.

You have consensus until it isn't.

The late Michael Crichton said it best when talking about consensus and science.

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. 

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. 

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Keep all of this in mind whenever you hear the word consensus.

It is meant to silence debate, diverse views and advance a political point of view.

Consensus is not science.

We have seen just how true that is again this week.

Ephemeral and Eternal Virtues

If there is one thing you can be certain whenever entertainment elites get together is that they are going to be virtue signaling.

Of course, they are not promoting eternal virtues such as integrity, honesty, humility, temperance, faith or patriotism.

Their virtues always seem to be ephemeral.

They also tend to determine what is virtuous as if it is an 8th grade popularity contest.

Or the flavor of the month.

All of this was in evidence at this week's Grammy Awards where the "virtue" this year was being opposed to ICE and making it clear they are not in favor of the enforcement of our immigration laws.

If you were really "cool" you donned an "ICE OUT" pin at the Grammys.

Source: https://wwd.com/pop-culture/culture-news/gallery/ice-protest-grammys-2026-photos-1238534352/68th-grammy-awards-premiere-ceremony-2/

We see the same type of behavior every year at the Oscars, Emmys or Tonys.

These entertainment elites have to make sure we know that they are both talented and VIRTUOUS.

However, it seems the "virtue" changes every year.

In 2024 everyone was standing up for Palestine.

Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/C4YTFv1O0jD/

The entertainment elites seem to have forgotten about the poor Palestinians.

Before that it was Ukraine.

Credit: https://okmagazine.com/p/2022-grammys-backs-ukraine/

Isn't  Zelensky cool anymore?

The war still continues.

At the Grammys, Billie Eilish who won the Grammy for best song and record of the year, had to make a point in her acceptance speech that "no one is illegal on stolen land."

Source: https://www.keysnews.com/news/billie-eilish-no-one-is-illegal-on-stolen-land/article_86ceacf1-e653-43dd-be5d-e2b6d3db2e21.html

That line elicited a rousing ovation from the crowd that included Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Link: https://x.com/search?q=ketanji%20brown%20jackson%20grammys&src=typeahead_click

What happened to that bygone era when Supreme Court Justices sat stone faced, sitting on their hands even when at the State of the Union address?

Billie Eilish may have the opportunity to set an example about her belief that we are living on stolen lands.

The Tongva tribe claims that her multi-million home is on their ancestral land and would like her to contact them.

Link: https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2018726158481907801

Eilish also doesn't seem to know her history.

If anyone stole California, it was Mexico.

The United States purchased California  in the treaty ending the Mexican American War.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo sealed the American victory in 1848. In return for $15 million and the assumption of Mexican debts to Americans, Mexico gave up its hold over New Mexico and California. The enormous territory included present-day California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. Mexico also agreed to finally relinquish all of Texas, including the disputed area along the border. The U.S. Congress approved the treaty on March 10.

It also appears that Eilish has not been so gracious in the past about those who encroached on her space.

Source: https://x.com/LeftismForU/status/2018312924457041929/photo/1

All of those celebrities who want ICE OUT were also nowhere to be seen or heard from when Tom Homan was receiving an award from Barack Obama for his work in enforcing the immigration laws in 2015.

Almost 400,000 deporations a year were carried out by the Obama administration.

It should be remembered that Trump also inherited a much bigger problem than Obama or Biden did with millions and millions of additional illegals in the country.

Grammy night did have one performer who talked about eternal virtue.

Source: https://religionnews.com/2026/02/02/at-the-grammys-faith-and-politics-collide-with-bad-bunny-jelly-roll-and-the-dalai-lama/

Jelly Roll gave testimony to the transformation of his life by becoming a follower of Jesus Christ.

He went from a life that revolved around alcohol, drugs and time in prison to life redemption.

Jelly Roll used his acceptance speech for best contemporary country album to thank his wife and Jesus for his turnaround from being “a horrible human” after being convicted on drug charges and spending time in prison. He said he believes “that music had the power to change my life, and God had the power to change my life.

“And I want to tell y’all right now, Jesus is for everybody. Jesus is not owned by one political party. Jesus is not owned by no music label. Jesus is Jesus, and anybody can have a relationship with him. I love you, Lord,” said the artist, who also was a winner for his duo with Shaboozey on “Amen” for the best country duo/group performance.It was a sharp contrast with most of the others on stage and in the audience.

Eternal virtues rather than ephemeral virtues.

If the celebrities can't speak about eternal virtues they would be well advised to keep their opinions to themselves.

Do they not realize that most people do not care what they think?

They just want to be entertained.

That Was The Month That Was---January, 2026

Donald Trump had a very busy 2025.

As we entered 2026 the obvious question was whether that pace would continue into the new year.

The month that just ended suggests that things are not slowing down.

There are entire years in which we don't see as much significant activity as we did in January. 

I do not believe I could improve very much on this summary of big events that Travis Kling posted on X.

You can add to this list that Trump also had the United States withdraw from participating and funding 31 United Nations entities that he believed were operating contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty. 

The United States continues to be a member of the main body of the United Nations and its Security Council . The withdrawal is from entities such as the cultural agency UNESCO and its Human Right Council.

It only took weeks after that announcement for the UN to state that it is facing "imminent financial collapse".

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/united-nations-faces-imminent-financial-collapse-urgent-action-129717606

The documentary movie "Melania" also premiered on January 30.

The mainstream media predicted it would be a financial flop.

Its first weekend brought in over $8 million in ticket sales which is the best opener for a documentary in over a decade.

I have not seen the film yet but the early views confirms that there is a large divide between the liberal elites who are film critics and the rest of the country.

What should we expect in February?

The only thing I know is that there are only 28 days on the calendar.

Can we expect only 3/4 of a ton in big events as a result?

 

Insurrection in Minnesota

 It is hard to look at what has been going on in Minnesota and not describe it as an insurrection.

When people are actively obstructing and harassing federal agents from enforcing federal law we are not witnessing mere protests and the exercise of free speech.

Federal law (18 U.S. Code Sec. 2383) states that anyone engaging in rebellion or insurrection by inciting, assisting or engaging against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof shall be fined or imprisoned for a period of not more than ten years.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

Federal law also give the President broad authority to take steps to quell insurrections and rebellions under the Insurrection Act that was first passed in the administration of Thomas Jefferson.

Under this law the President may use the U.S. military to enforce federal law and/or to suppress the insurrection if state and local authorities are incapable or unwilling to do so.

This is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252

The continuing harassment of ICE officers and the obstruction that has occurred to prevent them from enforcing federal law in Minnesota would seem to be a textbook example of insurrection.

Evidence gathered this week from internet sleuths has further shown there is an extensive behind the scenes network that is funding and coordinating the chaos. 

The evidence also indicates that elected officials in Minnesota were some of those orchestrating the actions against ICE including a couple of state representatives and a Minneapolis city council member.

One of the leaders behind the scenes is alleged to be this woman---Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan.

It is hard to believe that she is either... 

1) this committed to the "cause" or 2) this stupid.

I guess we will find out in due course.

The failure of state and local authorities to assist and protect ICE in their duties (let alone organizing the insurrection behind the scenes) would also seem to clearly allow President Trump to deploy the U.S. military to enforce the law and suppress the rebellion in Minnesota.

This becomes even clearer when you see the perspective of this former Special Forces Warrant Officer who has experience overseas with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency operations.

This was posted by Eric Schwalm on X on January 26, 2026.

As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.

What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.

Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.

This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.

The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.

I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.

Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.

We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.

Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.

It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.

 

The President of the United States has invoked the Insurrection Act about 30 times over its history.

The most recent instance was in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush in response to civil unrest after the acquittal of four police officers who had beaten a Black motorist in Los Angeles.

The most famous use of the Insurrection Act in modern history involved the use of federal troops to assist in desegregation efforts and the protection of Civil Rights activists in the South in the 1960's.

In my view, President Trump has shown remarkable restraint in not invoking the Insurrection Act in Minnesota already.

It appears he wants to give Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Jacob Frey every opportunity to own up to their responsibilities and provide the necessary cooperation for ICE to do their jobs and provide the appropriate protection. 

There is no doubt that a political and PR dimension is in play here as well. 

Trump does not want to further feed the narrative that he is an authoritarian nor does he want to create martyrs of Walz and Frey who become bigger heroes of the Left by standing up to Trump.

We will have to see where this leads.

Will Trump get the cooperation he needs to bring the temperature down in Minnesota or does this eventually end with invocation of the Insurrection Act?

I have to believe that, at a minimum, we will see some prosecutions of those who were directing this insurrection on the front lines or behind the scenes.

At the same time, it is important to remember exactly how popular Trump's deportation policies are despite the mainstream media and the Left's attempt to demonize Trump and ICE.

Donald Trump was very clear when he ran what his policy would be on illegal immigration.

He did say he would focus first on the criminal element among illegals.

ICE's efforts in Minnesota and elsewhere have been focused on apprehending and deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the United States.

Yes, at times in those efforts ICE comes across illegals that have not committed crimes in the U.S. other than crossing the border illegally. ICE would be negligent in their duties to ignore these people. After all, their job is immigration enforcement.

The fact is that over two third's of ICE detainees last year had either been convicted of a crime of were facing pending criminal charges.

However, Trump ran on a platform stating that he would deport all illegal aliens but focus first on the worst of the worst.

He was elected with voters having full knowledge of that promise.

CNN recently went over the latest polling on the issue which still shows a vast majority of American voters favor deporting all immigrants here illegally.

This is true despite all of the negative news coverage and attempts to paint ICE's actions as extreme.

90% favor deporting those in the country illegally and who have criminal records.

The American people knew what they were voting for when they elected Trump.

They still hold the same views despite the attempts by the Left and the mainstream media to create an alternative narrative.

The Left likes to say that Trump is a threat to democracy and the rule of law

The only visible threat to democracy I see right now are those who do not want to accept what the people voted for in 2024 and those in Minnesota and elsewhere who want to foment rebellion and insurrection against the rule of law.

Simply stated, we cannot continue as a civil society when people ignore and obstruct the laws of the land.

The insurrection in Minnesota has to cease one way or the other.