MAJOR BREAKING - New ATIP documents obtained by CBC show panic in the department of finance as the Alberta Referendum nears page 16 shows that Alberta contributes $18B to Canada MORE than it takes and that it contributes 31% of EXPORTS, with only 12% of the population. Also, on per capita basis, Alberta residents contribute the most to Federal coffers. Alberta, you are in charge here, they are FREAKING OUT. Canada needs YOU, you dont need THEM!

🚨 CAUGHT IN THE ACT: The City of Calgary has been caught ILLEGALLY removing a Let Alberta Decide referendum sign. Even more damning: LAD says multiple signs were removed while adjacent federalist “No to the Nine” signs were left untouched. The city has some explaining to do.

Don't let the Canadian Government or the Media mislead you. A Vote for OPTION 2 does NOT mean Separation. A Vote for OPTION 2 gives Albertans a Voice, and results in Leverage with Ottawa. This October Vote Q-10 OPTION 2, a Referendum on a Referendum = Leverage.

Wow. Who wrote this masterpiece? This is long and excellent. I’m only halfway through. “Nothing makes the corporate transition of the Prime Minister’s Office more undeniable than Carney’s appointment of Maia Johnson as the first-ever Chief Operating Officer of the PMO on July 14, 2026. An American political operative connected to Carney through GFANZ, Johnson is not a Canadian citizen. She was recently fined by Canada’s Ethics Commissioner for failing to file her mandatory disclosures within the legal 60-day window - a filing still listed as in progress. Traditional Prime Ministers hire a Chief of Staff to manage policy and public trust; a Chief Operating Officer is hired to run a corporation. By importing this executive design, Carney handed the administrative levers of the Canadian state to an unaccountable foreign national drawn from his private network. Canada is no longer being governed; it is being operated.”

Even if you want Alberta to stay in Canada, vote Option 2. It’s not a vote for separation. It’s a vote that the status quo with Ottawa is unacceptable — and it gives Premier Smith real leverage instead of sending Carney a message that everything is fine. Voting Option 1 is a surrender. My argument in the Calgary Herald: calgaryherald.com/news/local…

To everyone defaulting to Option 1: that ballot isn’t “I love Canada.” It’s “the status quo is acceptable.” If you believe Ottawa has treated Alberta unfairly but you still want to stay, Option 2 is the one that rejects surrender without being a vote for independence. calgaryherald.com/news/local…

🚨🇨🇦 Christy Clark said the quiet part out loud: Canada’s oil tanker ban only punishes Canada. 🇺🇸 U.S. tankers sail freely. 💵 Their economy wins. 🇨🇦 Ours loses billions in jobs, revenue & investment. Why are we handicapping ourselves while our neighbours cash in?🤔 End the hypocrisy. Unlock Canada’s prosperity.

COLUMN: OECD downgrades Canada’s economic growth as Carney moves away from U.S. Canada also faces long-standing structural problems in its economy, including low productivity torontosun.com/opinion/colum…

Everything in this video is where Canada is already headed. The only question is whether Alberta goes with it. Vote Option 2.

It is with great concern for some of my fellow countrymen, inching precariously toward the edge of utter lunacy, that I write this post. Prime Minister Mark Carney this week, in an interview with the New York Times, went on record saying it would be “irresponsible” not to plan for the possible contingency of a military invasion of Canada by the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. Carney didn’t misspeak or fall victim to a cherry-picked quote taken out of context. His concern was later reiterated by Defence Minister David McGuinty and Artificial Intelligence Minister Evan Soloman. We all know that Donald Trump has a colourful history of spouting off some truly outrageous whoppers from time to time, but even he has never disseminated something as fatuous, dangerous or dishonest as this. And while he seldom backs down from his outrageous claims, whenever he pushes the envelope too far, at least his entourage goes on damage control to walk back some of his excesses – Carney’s guys are doubling down. Despite these idiotic statements, these are intelligent men. The odds that all three of them would simultaneously become afflicted by the same psychotic delusion is infinitesimally small. The only rational conclusion, therefore, is that they believe, or rather their polling data shows, that enough Canadians are so possessed by Trump Derangement that engaging in such asinine demagoguery is politically expedient. Sadly, they may be right. The vast coalition of useful idiots and true believers after effectively having their intelligences insulted by their dear leader, are coming out of the woodwork to express gratitude online for the Prime Minister’s caution in preparing for all, including the most remote, contingencies. Others are retreating slightly to hold the line at the fall-back position articulated by Minister McGuinty that, this kind of paranoid delusion is perfectly normal and, “all militaries in the world spend time analyzing risk scenarios.” I assure you, this is not normal. Back on planet Earth, the situation is tense and acrimonious (and there is plenty of blame to go around for that), but this is not the more than two centuries of peace along the 49th parallel that followed the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1815 drawing to an end. Trump has imposed tariffs on $20 billion (or 2% of the $400 billion per year) of Canadian exports to the US. In other words, amid this unnecessary, escalatory, and foolish trade dispute, the United States will still purchase 200% more Canadian goods and services this year than the rest of the world combined. This situation is like a restaurant’s picky regular customer complaining about an overcooked steak to a prideful chef who, fortified in his own mind by the knowledge he cooked the steak perfectly, refuses to comp the entree. This is not the start of World War III. We are so far removed from a military incursion at our southern border that we may as well be strategizing the response to the equally plausible threat of Santa Claus leading an invasion of elves from the north. If we woke up tomorrow in some parallel reality where the United States actually was contemplating a full-scale military campaign against Canada, with all due respect to our brave men and women in uniform, the only preparations to be made would be negotiating the terms of our unconditional surrender. Some brave and patriotic Canadians may refuse to submit and instead choose to conduct, as a matter of principle, a brutal and bloody guerilla warfare campaign against the strongest conventional and nuclear military force in the history of the world. Unfortunately, they would be in the precarious position of having to rely on our miserly European allies, or countries like Russia or China, whose recent actions have been significantly more hostile and provocative challenges to our sovereignty than the US tariffs, to supply us with weapons, and they would not remotely be adequate. It’s all so desperately preposterous. But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that Donald Trump was indeed the terrifying bogeyman haunting the dreams of the most extreme and hopeless sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome and its frightful sister affliction, Andrew Coyneism, a rare and especially acute form of tweet-induced psychotic maladjustment. Even in this scenario, why would Trump use the military to annex Canada? All he would have to do is offer Alberta statehood, liberation from transfer payments, excessive regulation and carbon taxes, carte blanche to exploit its natural resources, a generous welcome bonus in the form of a $100,000 tax credit to every adult Albertan and replace their Canadian dollars with equal amounts of US currency. They would effectively be acquiring Alberta for the knock-down bargain price of roughly 1x annual GDP. Simultaneously, the US (including the newly acquired Alberta) would immediately cut off all trade with the rest of Canada. The net impact to Canada of this manoeuvre would be a cataclysmic economic collapse, while the newly composed United States would take a net GDP hit (loss of all trade with Canada, mostly offset by the acquisition of Alberta) of 0.8%. Next would come a full package of sanctions, a naval blockade, and when the rest of Canada became desperate enough, a Chinese belt-and-road style offtake of all of Canada’s resources at bargain prices, which by then, the Canadians would be desperate for. In the meantime, the US would revamp its immigration policy to recreate the brain-drain of the 1990s on steroids, welcoming the top 20% most productive Canadians to flee what had overnight become the third world. Harvard Alumnus Mark Carney might well be among those at the front of the line seeking this emigration opportunity, rejoining 91 percent of his own investments already located there. There would, no doubt, be a fearsome contingent of Canadians refusing to bend or break in the face of American tyranny, and elbows would be flying up to vertiginous heights with such vigour that the Canadian healthcare system would be overwhelmed by millions of spontaneous emergency room visits of patriotic patients with dislocated shoulders. I suspect many of you reading this are thinking to yourself that this is so completely far-fetched and absurd that, if serious, I must have lost my mind. Allow me to reassure you that while this is all bunk, it remains at least ten times more likely than the United States military executing a boots-on-the-ground invasion of Canada. Anyone who spends more than one second worrying about such an outcome should immediately proceed to the nearest sink to splash some cold water in their face and pull themselves together.

Fuck each and every Canadian who voted for a Liberal candidate in the last Federal election. Fuck each and every Canadian who cast a vote that helped a man become Prime Minister of Canada, who did not have Canada’s best interests at heart. Fuck each and every Canadian who chose to put into power a man and a party who seem focussed on destroying this country, and allowing us to be conquered. Fuck each and every Canadian who voted for a globalist who has demonstrated he doesn’t care at all about Canadians. Fuck each and every Canadian who elected a Party who has fucked us for 10 years, and a new leader who is finding brand new ways to fuck us. You were warned. You were told. You did it anyway. Fuck you.

When Trump invades us like Carney says, I just want every single liberal at the front lines protecting our border.

Prime Minister Carney knows full well there is no such risk, but he is evidently prepared to stoop to a level of extreme cynicism and demagoguery, inadvertently exposing his belief that Canadians are dimwitted saps, for political gain.

I started noticing a recurring theme in Mark Carney’s speeches awhile ago, so I went back through the record. 👀 June 9, 2025 — “a more dangerous and divided world” / “a darker, more competitive world” June 17 — “this moment of transformation” / “a world where shocks are flowing across borders” June 25 — “upheaval in the international order” / “unprecedented pressure” July 1 — “a world fraught with turmoil and division” Aug. 27 — “in a more divided world” / “hinge moment in history” Sept. 5 — “The world is changing” / “This is not a transition, it’s a rupture” Sept. 8 — “not a transition, but a rupture” / “economic uncertainty” Sept. 11 — “not a transition. It is a rupture” Sept. 18 — “in a divided world” Sept. 22 — “rules-based order is eroding” / “This is not a transition; this is a rupture” Sept. 23 — “the world is undergoing a fundamental shift” / “This isn’t a transition, it’s a rupture” Sept. 24 — “The world is changing rapidly” / “today’s divided and dangerous world” Oct. 10 — “an increasingly dangerous and divided world” / “a rupture” / “a rapidly changing world” Oct. 16 — “increasingly dangerous and divided” / “This is not a transition; it’s a rupture” / “a rapidly changing world” Oct. 17 — “a rapidly changing world — one that’s more divided, more uncertain” / “these upheavals” Oct. 27 — “The world has become more dangerous and divided” / “The old world order is in the past” Nov. 1 — “uncertainty” / “The old world… is in the process of disappearing” / “In an uncertain world” Jan. 20, 2026 — “a rupture in the world order” / “the beginning of a harsh reality” / “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition” Jan. 26 — “The rapidly changing world” / “a cloud of uncertainty and worry” Feb. 17 — “the world has changed” / “a more fractured and darker world” Mar. 26 — “the world has changed” / “an increasingly dangerous and divided world” / “a more fractured and darker world” May 14 — “a rapidly changing world” / “uncertainty casts its heavy shadow” May 20 — “In an uncertain world” / “In a rapidly changing world” June 14 — “a rapidly changing world” / “more dangerous and divided” / “moment of rupture” June 25 — “a rapidly changing, more volatile world” July 1 — “a more dangerous and divided world” July 2 — “a more dangerous and divided world” / “The world is more dangerous and divided” July 6 — “a more dangerous and divided world” / “History is back with a vengeance” July 16 — “a more dangerous and divided world” — repeated multiple times July 29 — “an increasingly divided and dangerous world” Sept. 15 — “The world has changed” / “an uncertain world” / “a world undergoing a rupture” / “an increasingly uncertain world” Different venues. Different subjects. Same vocabulary keeps returning: Dangerous. Divided. Darker. Fractured. Uncertain. Volatile. Upheaval. Rupture. 🌎 So what do you think he’s trying to get across with this recurring message? Is it simply how he sees the world right now — or is there a broader purpose behind repeating it so often? 🤔 Curious to hear how others read it. #MarkCarney #cdnpoli #Canada

There is something deeply unhealthy happening in our public discourse. When people question government policy, they are called extremists. When they raise concerns about immigration or social cohesion, they are called racists. When they question public-health decisions or speak about vaccine injuries, they are called anti-vaxxers. When they challenge the constitutional status quo or discuss Alberta’s future, they are called traitors. These labels are rarely intended to encourage dialogue. They are used to end it. But questioning government is not extremism. Challenging existing laws is not lawlessness. Discussing constitutional change is not disloyalty. And disagreeing with government policy does not make someone dangerous. In a healthy democracy, citizens are free to question authority, challenge prevailing ideas and advocate for change. That is not a threat to democracy. It is democracy. The real danger is a political culture that silences legitimate concerns, punishes disagreement, disparages citizens and treats them as enemies simply because they refuse to conform. We will not rebuild public trust by ignoring this reality. We will rebuild public trust by listening, answering difficult questions and addressing the substance of their concerns. Dialogue does not weaken a country. Refusing to have it does.

The mass hero worship bestowed on this man will be studied for generations. Built entirely on nothing more concrete than his fancy speeches. That’s it. No supporting evidence required, no independent verification needed at all. Certainly no results. Complete and utter trust based on “Mark Carney said…” The nightly “news”? “As this story unfolds, Prime Minister Carney says…” Carney’s Davos speech? “Greatest SPEECH of all time, Did you hear when Mark Carney said…” Gordie Howe Bridge lies? “As Mark Carney clarified…” No parliamentary consultation? “Well as Prime Minister Carney pointed out…” Trade Talks Collapsed? “Like Mark Carney said…” Um, we’re selling our airports? “No worries, Mark Carney said…” Leaked EU bombshell? “As Mark Carney explained …” Won’t be in Parliament when it reconvenes? “As Mark Carney announced…” When did an entire country’s people become so willing to bestow such an insane level of unquestioned trust in a person they don’t even know?

.@POTUS on Canada possibly becoming an associate member of the European Union: "I think it's laughable... Canada has been a terrible trade partner... If I think it's at all an hostile act, I will put very serious tariffs or stop trading with Europe on many things."