TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-07-04 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00028434

TRUMP GETTING EVERYTHING WRONG! TRUMP Completely LOSES IT As Canada Just BLOCKED Access to Alaska! PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeiCoRK62X0 Peter Burgess COMMENTARY I am not a fan of Trump. He is an obnoxious human being, and not getting any better with age! This video is very interesting, but it is also seriously problematic! I am not sure to what extent this video is factual and to what extent it is describing 'theoretically possible' actions. The following warning is part of what YouTube says: How this content was made Altered or synthetic content Sound or visuals were significantly edited or digitally generated. Learn more But to be honest, I have no idea what this really means. There is a big difference between the idea that it is 90% accurate and being just 10% accurate. What exactly is 'significantly edited' amd 'digitally generated'. When I go to the 'learn more' link, I get plenty of words, but essentially zero incremental 'understanding'. From my perspective YouTube is playing a game, It is obnoxious ... and typical of a lot of big companies with near monopoly positions! Peter Burgess
TRUMP Completely LOSES IT As Canada Just BLOCKED Access to Alaska! The Pearl 51.5K subscribers Apr 29, 2025 TRUMP Completely LOSES IT As Canada Just BLOCKED Access to Alaska! A convoy of trucks grinds to a halt at the Yukon border. Supplies vanish from Alaskan shelves overnight. Meanwhile, a furious Trump loses his cool and fires off tweets. What in the world just happened? And why is Alaska suddenly caught in the middle of a political wildfire no one saw coming? Behind closed doors, lawmakers scramble, cruise ships reroute, and an old treaty from the nineties is quietly dragged back into the spotlight. Something big is unraveling, and it’s not just a trade dispute. It’s a continental standoff threatening to reshape borders, alliances, and the very future of North America. But what started this? And how far will it go? How this content was made Altered or synthetic content Sound or visuals were significantly edited or digitally generated. Learn more Transcript 0:14 A convoy of trucks grinds to a halt at the Yukon border. Supplies vanish from Alaskan shelves overnight. Meanwhile, a furious Trump loses his cool and fires off tweets. What in the world just happened? And why is Alaska suddenly caught in the middle of a political wildfire no one saw coming? Behind closed doors, lawmakers scramble, cruise ships reroute, and an old treaty from the nineties is quietly dragged back into the spotlight. Something big is unraveling, and it’s not just a trade dispute. It’s a continental standoff threatening to reshape borders, alliances, and the very future of North America. But what started this? And how far will it go? 1:06 With Alaska stuck way up in the corner of the map, boxed in by Canada and cut off from the rest of the United States, British Columbia’s Premier, David Eby, may have just found the perfect pressure point. Suddenly, access routes are tangled in red tape and diplomacy is on life support. So here’s the burning question no one saw coming: Can a U.S. state actually be held hostage by a foreign province? Sounds crazy, right? But once you see what’s happening, it’s not so far-fetched. The Toll That Broke the Border Let’s rewind the tape a bit and zoom in on the exact moment things really started to heat up. It wasn’t a missile, it wasn’t a fleet of warships, and it definitely wasn’t a screaming match at the United Nations. No, what cracked open the latest border crisis between the U.S. and Canada was something as ordinary and boring-sounding as a toll. British Columbia, led by its sharp-tongued 2:09 Premier David Eby, has unveiled the “Economic Stabilization Tariff Response Act,” a legislative move that empowers the province to slap tolls on vehicles traveling between the Lower forty eight and Alaska. This isn’t just a random act of fiscal policy; it’s a direct response to President Trump’s erratic tariff threats against Canada. Eby isn’t mincing words, he described Trump’s actions as an “unprecedented threat” and emphasizing the need for Canada to stand strong and defend its independence. Well, you might be thinking, “It’s just a toll, right? How bad could it be?” Well, this isn’t your average toll booth scenario. The proposed legislation doesn’t automatically impose fees but gives British Columbia the tools to do so if 3:04 tensions escalate. This means that at any given moment, truckers could find themselves facing unexpected charges, disrupting supply chains and increasing transportation costs. Jamie Benson, executive director of the Alaska Trucking Association, expressed deep concern, noting that such measures could significantly impact the delivery of essential goods to Alaskans. Those hefty tolls start stacking up fast when you realize that almost every single truck bringing food, fuel, medicine, and supplies to Alaska has to pass through British Columbia. There’s no shortcut, no magic tunnel, no ferry that’ll save you from it. You either drive the route or you don’t get the goods. That’s it. And for the thousands of trucks that make the journey every month, the toll is basically a recurring tax that adds up to millions of dollars in new 4:03 costs and guess who’s going to end up paying? Not the trucking companies. Not the border agents. It’s the small businesses and the people of Alaska who will feel it in their wallets. Here’s where it gets even a bit complicated. Alaska’s geography makes it heavily reliant on routes through British Columbia. While more than ninety percent of Alaska-bound cargo is shipped by ocean, trucks carry high-value cargo that needs to be moved quickly. With limited alternative paths, any disruption or additional cost on this route can have a domino effect, impacting everything from fresh produce deliveries to the oil industry. Alaska state senate, Robert Myers, a commercial trucker himself, highlighted the significance of this route, emphasizing that for fast deliveries, trucking is the go-to method. What makes it worse is how slick this move was. 5:05 There were no fiery press conferences, no bold headlines screaming “Canada Shuts Down U.S. Supply Chain.” It was clean. Silent. Calculated. Like a chess move. A quiet swipe of the pen that changed everything without a single gun being fired. And Premier Eby? He’s no fool. He knows Alaska is like that last kid picked up from school: isolated, kind of forgotten, and super easy to mess with if the roads get blocked. The geography alone tells the whole story. If you look at a map, Alaska is just hanging up there, awkwardly detached from the rest of the country. To get anything up there by road, it has to go through Canada, specifically, through British Columbia and the Yukon. Without that passage, Alaska is completely landlocked 6:05 from the mainland U.S. That means no trucking through Idaho, no rerouting through Montana. Once you hit the Canadian border, you’re at the mercy of whatever policy is in place, and right now, that mercy has a price tag. It’s not like the U.S. can just bulldoze a new road through the Arctic or start air-dropping pallets of food. Alaska’s entire supply chain is based on trucking routes that depend on smooth relations with Canada. So when Premier Eby hit that toll button, it was like flipping a switch that lit a fire under the whole system. Gas prices in Alaska started creeping up. Grocery stores in Fairbanks began warning of “slight delays” in restocks. And within days, Alaskan officials were calling Washington, asking 7:00 if this was some kind of joke. But it wasn’t. This brings us to a chilling realization that geography is now being weaponized. It’s one thing to argue over trade deals or carbon taxes. It’s another to take full advantage of your physical positioning on a map to squeeze your neighbor until they squeal. And that’s exactly what’s happening here. Canada, or at least British Columbia, figured out that being the gatekeeper to Alaska gives them an incredible amount of leverage. And they’re using it. Whether you call it policy, pressure, or payback, it’s working. Now let’s not pretend this toll policy came out of nowhere. It’s widely seen as a response to an aggressive tariff slap on Canadian steel, lumber, and dairy. What exactly happened? The Root of the Crisis: Why Did Canada Do This? It was a clear shot across the border, and now, 8:03 Eby has fired back. He didn’t need to yell or protest. He just put up a toll sign. And the ripple effect? Devastating. So what happens next? Is this just a temporary slap on the wrist or the beginning of a long and ugly stand-off? More importantly, can the U.S. afford to let a foreign province dictate how one of its own states gets its groceries? Because if a toll can cause this much chaos, imagine what happens if Canada decides to tighten the screws even more. So now that the pot is officially boiling over, everyone’s asking the same question, what on earth pushed Canada to play hardball like this? It’s not out of the blue. If you dig just a little beneath the surface, the real reason is crystal clear and it leads right back to one man: Donald Trump. 9:01 Let’s rewind the clock a bit. Not too long ago, Trump reignited an economic standoff by slapping a twenty five percent tariff on Canadian goods. His reason? “America first,” he said. Protecting American industry. Bringing jobs home. It was part of his broader trade war strategy, and it didn’t just target China or the European Union, Canada was caught in the crosshairs too. Steel, aluminum, lumber, even some agricultural products faced major price hikes just to cross the border. That’s not even small for Canada, whose economy leans heavily on exports to the U.S. Now, let’s be honest; Canada didn’t take it likely and calm. At the federal level, officials expressed “disappointment,” which is basically Canadian for we’re really ticked off. But the real spark came from the provincial level, 10:02 especially in British Columbia. Premier David Eby had a front-row seat to what these tariffs were doing to his province’s economy. Mills were scaling back. Trucking companies were reporting delays and revenue drops. Canadian goods were becoming less competitive practically overnight. Eby, who’s known for being more assertive than your average Canadian leader, decided enough was enough. If the U.S. was going to throw punches through economic policy, then BC would hit back the only way it really could by targeting the one thing the U.S. absolutely needed to stay open and flowing: the Alaska Highway. This wasn’t some spontaneous move. Behind the scenes, economists and policy advisors had been crunching numbers, looking at where BC could exert leverage without going through Ottawa or needing federal approval. And guess what? That narrow 11:06 strip of highway connecting mainland America to Alaska? Yeah, that became the pressure point. You can think of it like this: If Trump’s tariffs were a financial gut punch to Canada, this toll is BC’s sharp elbow to the ribs. It’s not meant to destroy, just to sting enough to get attention. And it worked. The move forced U.S. media outlets to finally start covering the effects of the tariffs on Canada, something that had mostly flown under the radar. It also forced the federal government in Washington to respond, not with diplomacy at first, but with outrage. Trump’s team labeled the toll “a hostile act,” accusing Canada of weaponizing geography, which, to be fair, wasn’t entirely off-base. But here’s the interesting part. Canada wasn’t just lashing out blindly. They were also sending 12:03 a message: two can play this game. If the U.S. can throw up economic barriers without warning, then so can its neighbors. It’s a reminder that international trade isn’t a one-way street and even countries that don’t usually throw punches can land one when pushed hard enough. There’s also a deeper strategy at play here. By setting the toll just low enough to be defensible but high enough to cause financial pain, BC may be hoping to force the U.S. into a sit-down. A renegotiation, a reevaluation, or maybe just a reminder that trade isn’t a solo act. You can’t keep pulling levers without expecting pushback from the other side. Of course, this all comes at a cost. The political temperature has shot through the roof, and what started as a trade dispute now looks dangerously close to becoming a full-blown 13:02 diplomatic feud. Businesses on both sides of the border are feeling it. Truckers are caught in the middle. And everyday Canadians and Americans are watching as their leaders trade jabs over a decades-old highway and a pile of tariffs that nobody asked for. So why did Canada do this? Simple. It was never just about the toll. It was a calculated response to what they saw as economic aggression. A provincial power moves with national consequences. Whether it was the right move or not, that’s a whole other debate. But here’s where it gets really messy: there’s a long-forgotten treaty from 1977 that’s suddenly back in the spotlight, and let’s just say Canada may have crossed a serious line. A Treaty Shattered? Okay, let’s talk about the agreement that everyone suddenly remembers now that things have gone sideways. We’re talking about the 1977 14:06 Alaska Highway Treaty commonly referred to as the Shakwak Agreement. It is a decades-old deal that most folks probably never heard of until now. But it’s in front and at the center again, and trust me it carries some serious weight. Especially when you realize what’s at stake. So, what exactly is this treaty? In simple terms, it’s a cross-border handshake between the United States and Canada, signed back in the seventies when both countries were playing nice. The goal was to ensure smooth and uninterrupted transportation of goods and people between the “lower forty eight” U.S. states and Alaska, using the Alaska Highway, which just so happens to run straight through British Columbia and the Yukon. It made perfect sense at the time. Alaska is cut off by thousands of miles of Canadian land, and there’s really no practical 15:04 way to get there by road unless you drive through the friendly neighbors to the north. So under this agreement, Canada committed to maintaining the designated highway sections and, importantly, agreed not to impose any tolls or fees on vehicles or persons using these roads. It wasn’t just a polite agreement; it was supposed to be legally binding. Think of it as the ultimate border neighbor agreement: you don’t spike my tires, and I don’t steal your lawn chairs. Now fast forward to today. Premier David Eby rolls out a toll on every truck headed for Alaska, right smack in the middle of that highway. Doesn’t take a legal genius to start raising eyebrows. Is that even allowed? Isn’t that exactly the kind of thing the treaty was supposed to prevent? Well, things start to get murky and somehow complicated from here. 16:03 The treaty itself wasn’t overly specific about tolls or what counts as “unreasonable.” Back in 1977, no one probably imagined a world where one province would decide to leverage geography like a bargaining chip. So now, the debate has landed in a legal grey zone. British Columbia’s government is defending the toll as a “transport infrastructure fee,” arguing it’s perfectly reasonable given rising maintenance costs. They claim it’s not about targeting the U.S. or Alaska specifically, it’s about making sure the roads are safe and well-funded for everyone who uses them. They say the toll is applied evenly, not just to American trucks. Sounds fair, right? Until you remember that ninety percent of those trucks are, in fact, American. And if this ends up going to court; which it very well might, international lawyers 17:02 are going to have a field day trying to define what “unimpeded” really means in a twenty-first century context. Is a toll an impediment? Is it an act of aggression? Or is it just business? Meanwhile, back in Alaska, businesses are already reporting higher costs. Some truckers are threatening to strike. Politicians are demanding federal action. And Trump? He’s pushing for retaliation, maybe new tariffs, maybe border restrictions of his own. Whatever it is, he wants Canada to feel the heat. At the heart of all what happens when a treaty starts to crack? When one side pushes the limits, and the other side pushes back? Treaties are only as strong as the trust behind them. And right now, that trust is in serious trouble. This isn’t just about tolls or trucks. It’s about whether a 50-year-old agreement still means anything in a 18:04 world where global diplomacy is shifting faster than ever. And if Canada, or more specifically British Columbia, can bend the rules now, what’s to stop other regions from doing the same? And just when you thought it couldn’t get any messier, Trump grabbed the mic and what came next wasn’t just political drama, it was the kind of headline-splitting chaos nobody saw coming. Escalating Tensions: The War of Words It all started with one of his now-infamous press briefings, standing in front of a row of American flags, speaking into a dozen microphones with that signature scowl. Instead of taking a diplomatic tone or expressing concern about the toll situation, Trump came out swinging. Not with policy, but with punches verbal ones. He did something no one expected. He casually floated the idea of “annexing parts of Canada 19:05 by economic force.” Yes, annexing. As in, claiming territory. He also addressed its prime minister as a governor. Trump also said that he wants to re-examine those ancient treaties and redraw the map. He was referring, of course, to the 1908 Boundary Waters Treaty, which has helped guide the U.S.-Canada border relations for over a century. Now, whether he meant it literally or was just doing his usual chest-thumping routine is still unclear. But the reaction? It was fast and furious. Canadian newsrooms lit up. Headlines blared “TRUMP THREATENS CANADA” and “ANNEXATION TALK SPARKS DIPLOMATIC FURY.” Social media exploded with different hashtags. Twitter turned into a battlefield overnight, with Americans and Canadians throwing shade, memes, and long threads of historical facts 20:04 at each other like digital snowballs. And while all this was happening, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally stepped into the fray. He told the news media in Ottawa, “The excuse that he's giving for these tariffs today of fentanyl is completely bogus, completely unjustified, completely false.” He said. No yelling. No threats. But his words hit harder than anything Trump had tweeted all week. It was classic Trudeau measured, but firm. A clear message that Canada wasn’t backing down, no matter how loud the rhetoric got. And as always, the internet took things to a whole new level. Memes started pouring in. But beneath the humor, people were uneasy. Trade relations, military alliances, and decades of peaceful cooperation were now being tested by toll booths and Twitter threads. 21:07 The phrase “economic annexation” even started gaining traction in academic circles, with experts debating what that would even look like in 2025. Could the U.S. legally retaliate with trade barriers of its own? Could Canada take the issue to international courts? Would NATO say anything if two of its members started playing this kind of brinkmanship? At the core of it all, this war of words proved something crucial; this wasn’t just a dispute over trucks or treaties. It had turned into a full-blown battle of ideologies, with Trump’s combative style clashing against Trudeau’s quiet strength. Now, the new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has maintained a composed yet resolute stance. In response to what Trump said, he has emphasized Canada’s sovereignty and national security, 22:01 stating, “We are facing the most significant crisis of our lifetimes because of President Trump’s unjustified trade actions and his threats to our sovereignty.” Mark Carney replaced Justin Trudeau, who announced his resignation in January but remained in power until the Liberal Party elected a new leader. Carney’s approach has resonated with many Canadians, bolstering his position ahead of the upcoming federal election. While the world watched Trump and the Canadian Prime Minister trade jabs, something deeper was unraveling up north, Alaska was caught in the middle of a feud it didn’t start but couldn’t escape. Alaska in the Crossfire Alaska’s geographical isolation means that it relies heavily on Canadian routes for essential supplies. The Alaska Highway, stretching through British Columbia and the Yukon, is a critical artery for the state’s trade, fuel, 23:01 and military logistics. Any disruption to this route can have immediate and severe impacts on Alaskan communities. Residents and business owners across Alaska have expressed growing concern over the situation. In Hyder, a remote town entirely dependent on Canadian roads for access, residents have begun stockpiling supplies in anticipation of potential shortages. Local businesses, already grappling with supply chain challenges, fear that increased transportation costs due to tolls could force them to raise prices or even close their doors. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the Alaska House of Representatives took a decisive step. In a bipartisan move, they passed a resolution affirming Canada’s sovereignty and opposing restrictive trade measures, including the proposed tolls. The resolution emphasized 24:00 the importance of the unique relationship between Alaska and Canada, urging both federal governments to de-escalate tensions and prioritize the well-being of their citizens. You see, Alaska’s economy is intricately linked with Canada’s. Annually, the state exports nearly six hundred million dollars in goods to Canada and imports over seven hundred and fifty million dollars goods. Disruptions to this trade flow could jeopardize thousands of jobs and strain industries ranging from fishing to mining. Moreover, more than forty seven Canadian-owned companies operate in Alaska, employing over four thousand residents. Alaskan lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, have called for a return to diplomatic engagement. “In a time when there’s much global uncertainty, Alaska is speaking with the voice that is; in one sense pleading between our two greatest powers, our government, 25:01 the United States, and the Canadian government, to come together, to work together amicably, to resolve the tariff situation in a way that shows the respect for territorial sovereignty of both nations, and in a way that recognizes how urgently we need this relationship.” He stated, while emphasizing on the intertwined histories and economies of Alaska and Canada. As the situation continues to evolve, Alaska remains vigilant, advocating for solutions that protect its interests and uphold the longstanding partnership with Canada. The state’s unique position underscores the need for thoughtful, collaborative approaches to international relations, especially when the livelihoods of everyday citizens hang in the balance. As tensions between the U.S. and Canada escalate over trade and tolls, one Alaskan senator has proposed a bold move that could change the way cruise ships do business. 26:04 A Game-Changer for Alaska’s Economy? In the ever-turbulent world of the U.S.-Canada relations, a new wrinkle has emerged that’s shaking up Alaska’s tourism industry. Senator Dan Sullivan, the voice of Alaska in Washington, is pushing a bold idea that’s already sending ripples through both the political and cruise industries. He’s calling for a change to the long-standing law that requires cruise ships traveling from the U.S. to Alaska to make a pit stop in Canada. And honestly, it’s already a hot topic. Now, why is this even an issue? Well, as you may know, cruise ships that sail from Seattle to Alaska are typically required by the U.S. government’s Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) of 1886 to make at least one foreign 27:00 stop. For years, that foreign stop has been in Canada: usually Vancouver or Victoria. It’s a well-established rule, and one that’s been around for more than a century. But Senator Sullivan is now questioning its fairness, particularly in light of recent tensions with the northern neighbors. The timing of Sullivan’s push couldn’t be more interesting. It comes right after British Columbia Premier David Eby dropped the bombshell: new fees are being introduced for commercial trucks crossing through B.C. to Alaska. These tolls, designed to raise revenue for the province’s infrastructure, have raised some serious eyebrows in Alaska, especially since so much of the state’s economy relies on goods and supplies coming through Canada. Sullivan isn’t mincing words either, he’s calling the tolls unfair and claims they target Alaska specifically. In his view, it’s time for a little payback. 28:01 Why not let cruise ships bypass Canada altogether? If the tolls are going to hit Alaska hard, maybe it’s time to hit back where it hurts. This isn’t the first time someone’s floated the idea of bypassing Canada for cruise ships. Back in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. lawmakers temporarily waived the PVSA rules to let ships skip Canadian ports. The reason? Canada had stricter pandemic measures that were keeping cruise ships from entering the country. But, let’s be real for a second; this wasn’t just a temporary fix. The U.S. cruise industry quickly realized they could save time and money by going directly from Seattle to Alaska, and many people started asking: why not make this a permanent change? Sullivan is one of the loudest voices calling for that permanent exemption. He argues that 29:01 Alaska’s tourism industry, a major part of the state’s economy, would benefit immensely from this change. It would reduce the state’s reliance on Canadian ports and, according to Sullivan, boost Alaska’s tourism revenue by keeping cruise ships within U.S. waters. Think about it: instead of cruising up to Canada, the ships would get to Alaska faster, meaning more time to spend in the state’s incredible ports of call. It sounds like a win-win, right? But, of course, nothing is ever that simple. On the flip side, Canadian officials aren’t thrilled about the idea. British Columbia, particularly, has a lot to lose if Alaska decides to stop funneling so many ships through its ports. After all, Vancouver and Victoria are big stops on the Alaskan cruise route, and the revenue generated by these ships helps support Canada’s tourism sector. By cutting out Canadian ports, Alaska 30:04 would be robbing Canada of a significant chunk of change. It’s not just about the cruise industry, either. The broader trade relationship between the two countries could feel the effects if tensions escalate. When it comes to trade and tourism, cooperation is key and Sullivan’s proposal could very well throw a wrench in that relationship. In the meantime, the idea of bypassing Canadian ports is generating plenty of debate in Alaska itself. There’s no doubt that Sullivan’s plan could ease some of the pressure on Alaskan businesses who rely on cruise ship tourists, but there are some complexities to consider. First off, the Passenger Vessel Services Act is a federal law, so changing it would take some serious political maneuvering. Sullivan, a Republican, would need to rally support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, not to 31:01 mention from the cruise industry itself, which might not be as enthusiastic about the idea as it sounds. Sullivan even said to Canada in a radio interview, saying, “Canada, you don’t want to mess with Alaska. And if you do, we are going to work hard on having our cruise ships bypass your ports, and that will help our economy tremendously. It’ll help our tourism industry tremendously, and it’ll really hurt their tourism. They’re playing a dangerous game here. I hope they back down.” But wait, let’s not forget the potential long-term implications for Alaskan-Canadian relations. Sure, bypassing Canadian ports might offer a short-term win for Alaska’s tourism sector, but what happens down the line when other trade issues come to a head? Will Canada start looking at other ways to retaliate? The cruise industry is important, but it’s not the only thing keeping 32:02 the Alaskan economy afloat. And as much as Alaska may want to get a little payback, the reality is that it shares a long border with Canada, and it’s a relationship that extends far beyond just tourism. But Eby wasn’t moved by what the Senator of Alaska said. He even issued a statement to the press saying, “Trade wars only hurt people. They don’t benefit anybody. This is our message to Donald Trump. It’s our message to all Americans. We don’t want this fight. We didn’t sign up for it, but that doesn’t mean we’re not going to arm ourselves.” The debate is sure to heat up in the coming months, with lawmakers from both sides of the border taking their positions. Some will argue that this is just another way for Alaska to assert its independence and stand up to what they see as unfair Canadian policies. Others, like Canadian officials, will point to the deeper economic ties between the two nations and urge restraint. What’s clear, though, is that Senator Sullivan’s proposal is making waves. Whether it will lead to permanent change is still up in the air, but we just know that this whole conversation is far from over. And in the world of politics, sometimes just raising the question is enough to keep everyone on edge. But then, is Alaska being used as a pawn, or is this just the cost of tough trade politics? Let me know what you think in the comments below, be sure to like, share, and subscribe. For more content like this, click on the next video on your screen.

SITE COUNT