By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representatives from the Alberta Prosperity Project claim to have held multiple meetings with senior Trump administration officials, discussing the possibility of Alberta’s separation from Canada. These discussions reportedly included topics such as adopting the U.S. dollar and the development of an independent Albertan military. While the group insists they were not advocating for statehood, U.S. State Department officials have denied the presence of senior officials at these meetings and stated no commitments were made. This news comes amid reports of the Alberta Prosperity Project seeking substantial financial backing for potential independence and amidst rhetoric from former President Trump critical of Canada’s trade practices.
Read the original article here
Canadian separatists have reportedly detailed extraordinary meetings with individuals connected to former President Donald Trump’s teams, hinting at an astonishing level of engagement between American political circles and those seeking to fracture Canada. These discussions, described in stark terms, suggest a willingness from some American quarters to entertain the idea of Canada’s dismemberment, a notion that has understandably sent shockwaves through the Canadian political landscape and among its populace. The core of these revelations centers on a perceived desire to replicate aspects of the United States’ governmental structure and sovereignty, with separatists allegedly expressing that “people want what the U.S. has got.” This sentiment, if accurately portrayed, suggests an aspiration for a distinct political identity and potentially a desire to shed perceived Canadian governance in favor of a model more akin to that found south of the border.
The very idea of American political operatives engaging with groups advocating for Canadian secession raises profound questions about international relations and the sanctity of national sovereignty. It’s as if some individuals on the American side are not just observing Canada’s internal political discourse but actively, albeit perhaps indirectly, encouraging separatist movements. This has led many to draw parallels with actions that have historically been viewed as destabilizing and even hostile, especially when considering past geopolitical maneuvers aimed at carving out territory or influencing the internal affairs of other nations. The mention of “secret meetings” amplifies the intrigue, suggesting a deliberate effort to operate outside the glare of public scrutiny, which only fuels speculation about the motives and extent of this engagement.
For those within Canada, particularly those who identify strongly with their national identity, these alleged meetings are not merely an abstract geopolitical curiosity but a deeply concerning development that borders on outright betrayal. The term “treason” has been frequently invoked in discussions surrounding these events, with many questioning whether such actions, if proven, meet the legal and moral definitions of treason under Canadian law. The potential for foreign interference in Canada’s internal affairs, especially when it involves encouraging the breakup of the country, is a sentiment that resonates with historical anxieties about national unity and external threats. It’s a prospect that many Canadians find not just unacceptable but fundamentally unconscionable.
The separatists themselves, according to these reports, seem to perceive a particular appeal in the American model of governance and individual liberty, however one might interpret that. There’s an underlying narrative that Canada, in its current form, is not meeting the aspirations of some of its citizens, and that a drastic change, including secession, is the only viable solution. The references to “sovereignty” and wanting “what the U.S. has got” paint a picture of individuals who believe that their region, often cited as Alberta, could thrive independently, perhaps by aligning more closely with, or even becoming part of, the United States. This line of thinking, while representing a specific ideological viewpoint, is viewed by many as a dangerous delusion, given the complexities of international treaties, indigenous land rights, and the very fabric of Canadian nationhood that predates the creation of provinces like Alberta.
The comparison to historical interventions by the United States in the affairs of other nations, such as the instigation of Panama’s separation from Colombia, is a potent one. It highlights a perceived pattern of behavior where American interests, or at least the interests of certain powerful individuals or groups within the U.S., have sometimes led to actions that have destabilized regions for strategic advantage. The idea that individuals connected to a former U.S. president might be engaging in similar tactics, albeit on Canadian soil and with Canadian separatists, is a deeply unsettling thought for many Canadians. It paints a picture of a former American administration potentially acting as an “adversary” rather than an “ally,” a sentiment that directly contradicts the traditional understanding of the relationship between the two North American nations.
Furthermore, the notion that these meetings, if they occurred as described, could amount to treason is a serious legal and ethical charge. Canadian law defines treason in specific terms, involving actions that aim to overthrow the government or aid foreign enemies. The involvement of foreign entities, especially those with connections to a powerful neighboring nation, in discussions about secession could certainly be interpreted as falling within these parameters by many observers. The call for investigation and prosecution stems from a strong belief that such actions are not merely political dissent but constitute a direct assault on the integrity and sovereignty of Canada, and that these individuals should face the consequences under Canadian law for what is perceived as profoundly disloyal conduct.
It’s also worth noting the significant portion of the Canadian population that does not support separatism, even in regions where it has garnered some traction. Polling data has often shown that while there is discontent, the overwhelming majority of Canadians remain committed to their country’s unity. This underscores the idea that the separatist movement, while vocal and now allegedly engaging with influential foreign figures, does not represent a broad consensus within Canada. Therefore, the alleged meetings could be seen as an attempt to amplify a fringe movement, potentially with the aim of creating instability that might serve some external agenda, rather than reflecting a genuine desire for separation amongst the wider Canadian populace.
Ultimately, the reports of Canadian separatists detailing meetings with Trump teams are more than just a political gossip item; they represent a potential turning point in how national sovereignty is perceived and defended in the modern era. The allegations, if substantiated, highlight the vulnerability of even strong alliances to internal divisions and external interference. It’s a stark reminder that the bonds of nationhood, and the integrity of borders, can be tested by those who seek to sow discord, and that vigilance, both domestically and internationally, is paramount in safeguarding the very essence of a nation. The ensuing discussions about treason, foreign influence, and the nature of national loyalty are therefore not just reactions to sensational headlines but are fundamental to understanding the gravity of these alleged revelations and their potential long-term implications.