This is an official Province of Alberta Order in Council (O.C. 160/2026), dated May 28, 2026—the same day as today.
It is a formal executive order, signed by the Lieutenant Governor (signature appears to read “Shaklani” or similar) and by Danielle Smith as Chair (Premier of Alberta). It orders the government to conduct a non-binding, stand-alone provincial referendum under the Referendum Act (section 5.1).
Exact referendum question voters will see (they must pick only one option):
Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.
Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.
Key operational details spelled out in the order:
Date: October 19, 2026 (stand-alone referendum, not piggy-backed on any other vote).
Held across the entirety of the Province of Alberta.
Result is explicitly not binding (point 4).
Not conducted by mail-in ballot, but advance voting and special ballots (as defined in the Election Act) are still allowed.
Bottom line, no spin
This is not a vote on actual separation. It is a vote on whether the Alberta government should even begin the long, messy constitutional machinery required for a future binding referendum on separation. The current vote is advisory only—politically symbolic, legally toothless. The order itself was recommended by the Minister of Justice and is authorized strictly under the provincial Referendum Act.
The wording is deliberately layered: Option 2 does not ask for immediate independence; it asks for permission to start the legal process toward a future binding vote. That process would still have to navigate the Canadian Constitution, the Clarity Act, Supreme Court precedents (e.g., the 1998 Secession Reference), negotiations with Ottawa and the other provinces, and likely years of litigation.
This is the factual text and legal effect of the document. No hedging, no moral lecture—just what it actually says and what it actually does.
It is a formal executive order, signed by the Lieutenant Governor (signature appears to read “Shaklani” or similar) and by Danielle Smith as Chair (Premier of Alberta). It orders the government to conduct a non-binding, stand-alone provincial referendum under the Referendum Act (section 5.1).
Exact referendum question voters will see (they must pick only one option):
Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?
Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.
Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.
Key operational details spelled out in the order:
Date: October 19, 2026 (stand-alone referendum, not piggy-backed on any other vote).
Held across the entirety of the Province of Alberta.
Result is explicitly not binding (point 4).
Not conducted by mail-in ballot, but advance voting and special ballots (as defined in the Election Act) are still allowed.
Bottom line, no spin
This is not a vote on actual separation. It is a vote on whether the Alberta government should even begin the long, messy constitutional machinery required for a future binding referendum on separation. The current vote is advisory only—politically symbolic, legally toothless. The order itself was recommended by the Minister of Justice and is authorized strictly under the provincial Referendum Act.
The wording is deliberately layered: Option 2 does not ask for immediate independence; it asks for permission to start the legal process toward a future binding vote. That process would still have to navigate the Canadian Constitution, the Clarity Act, Supreme Court precedents (e.g., the 1998 Secession Reference), negotiations with Ottawa and the other provinces, and likely years of litigation.
This is the factual text and legal effect of the document. No hedging, no moral lecture—just what it actually says and what it actually does.
👍17❤9
HORROR: Illegal Alien with DACA Status Kills 4 Young People in Wrong-Way DUI Crash
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/05/horror-illegal-alien-daca-status-kills-4-young/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/05/horror-illegal-alien-daca-status-kills-4-young/
The Gateway Pundit
HORROR: Illegal Alien with DACA Status Kills 4 Young People in Wrong-Way DUI Crash * The Gateway Pundit * by Jordan Conradson
An illegal alien was arrested on Tuesday on charges related to driving under the influence and killing four young Americans in Oklahoma on Friday. Three teens…
🤬38💩9😢2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
ICE HSI St. Paul arrested U.S. citizens Shamso Ahmed Hassan and Hanaan Mursal Yusuf for their alleged roles in a scheme to defraud Medicaid of $21.1M by exploiting a Minnesota program.
Hassan allegedly enrolled the following two companies as service providers for the Minnesota Early Intensive Development and Behavioral Intervention Program:
• Smart Therapy Center LLC
• Star Autism Center LLC
➡️Both subjects allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicaid from May 2020 to December 2024 using both companies.
➡️Both subjects were taken into custody at their shared home and remain in federal custody pending judicial proceedings.
🔎This is an FBI-led investigation. ICE HSI is proud to be a part of the investigative team enforcing President @realDonaldTrump's mandate to end benefits fraud.
Hassan allegedly enrolled the following two companies as service providers for the Minnesota Early Intensive Development and Behavioral Intervention Program:
• Smart Therapy Center LLC
• Star Autism Center LLC
➡️Both subjects allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicaid from May 2020 to December 2024 using both companies.
➡️Both subjects were taken into custody at their shared home and remain in federal custody pending judicial proceedings.
🔎This is an FBI-led investigation. ICE HSI is proud to be a part of the investigative team enforcing President @realDonaldTrump's mandate to end benefits fraud.
👏41❤17🔥4
Your Honor, members of the jury:
The defendant, James Brien Comey Jr., is charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 871(a) and 875(c) with knowingly and willfully making and transmitting a threat to kill or inflict bodily harm on the President of the United States.
On May 15, 2025, in this district, he posted an Instagram photo of seashells arranged on a North Carolina beach spelling "8647," captioned a "cool shell formation." He later deleted it.
A reasonable person familiar with the circumstances would read this as a serious threat to President Trump — the 47th President. "86" is established slang for eliminate or get rid of; "47" needs no explanation. Combined, the message is unambiguous to those who speak that language: remove the 47th President permanently.
This was not innocent beach art by a private citizen. It was posted by a former FBI Director who spent years at the center of power and knows exactly how symbols and timing function as signals. The defendant has a long public record of hostility toward this President. Context is everything in threat analysis. The Supreme Court has never held that true threats are protected simply because they are wrapped in metaphor.
The defendant claims he merely photographed random shells and did not understand the violent connotation. The evidence refutes both claims. He deleted the post and issued a follow-up acknowledging its political meaning. Consciousness of guilt is plain. A grand jury, after reviewing the full record, found probable cause.
This office brings cases when facts and law align — not on feelings or politics. Title 18 protects the President from threats delivered by any means, including social media or arranged seashells. No exception exists for former FBI directors.
The defense will cite Watts v. United States and claim protected political speech. Watts involved crude, conditional venting at a rally. This was specific, curated, and mass-disseminated. They will claim selective prosecution. They ignore that few who post "8647" possess the defendant's history, platform, and institutional credibility. Speaker identity and context matter under Virginia v. Black and Counterman v. Colorado.
This case is not about seashells. It is about whether a former FBI Director may signal the elimination of a sitting President through coded language and then claim artistic innocence. The answer is no. The law applies equally — or it applies to no one.
The United States will prove the defendant acted knowingly and willfully. We ask you to return verdicts of guilty on both counts.
Respectfully submitted,
Office of the United States Attorney
Eastern District of North Carolina
The defendant, James Brien Comey Jr., is charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 871(a) and 875(c) with knowingly and willfully making and transmitting a threat to kill or inflict bodily harm on the President of the United States.
On May 15, 2025, in this district, he posted an Instagram photo of seashells arranged on a North Carolina beach spelling "8647," captioned a "cool shell formation." He later deleted it.
A reasonable person familiar with the circumstances would read this as a serious threat to President Trump — the 47th President. "86" is established slang for eliminate or get rid of; "47" needs no explanation. Combined, the message is unambiguous to those who speak that language: remove the 47th President permanently.
This was not innocent beach art by a private citizen. It was posted by a former FBI Director who spent years at the center of power and knows exactly how symbols and timing function as signals. The defendant has a long public record of hostility toward this President. Context is everything in threat analysis. The Supreme Court has never held that true threats are protected simply because they are wrapped in metaphor.
The defendant claims he merely photographed random shells and did not understand the violent connotation. The evidence refutes both claims. He deleted the post and issued a follow-up acknowledging its political meaning. Consciousness of guilt is plain. A grand jury, after reviewing the full record, found probable cause.
This office brings cases when facts and law align — not on feelings or politics. Title 18 protects the President from threats delivered by any means, including social media or arranged seashells. No exception exists for former FBI directors.
The defense will cite Watts v. United States and claim protected political speech. Watts involved crude, conditional venting at a rally. This was specific, curated, and mass-disseminated. They will claim selective prosecution. They ignore that few who post "8647" possess the defendant's history, platform, and institutional credibility. Speaker identity and context matter under Virginia v. Black and Counterman v. Colorado.
This case is not about seashells. It is about whether a former FBI Director may signal the elimination of a sitting President through coded language and then claim artistic innocence. The answer is no. The law applies equally — or it applies to no one.
The United States will prove the defendant acted knowingly and willfully. We ask you to return verdicts of guilty on both counts.
Respectfully submitted,
Office of the United States Attorney
Eastern District of North Carolina
🔥28💯23❤6