Who is really dividing the U.S. based on race in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict?

The President of the United States rarely if ever now delivers remarks without the assistance of his teleprompter, and when his teleprompter malfunctions, as it did in Germany, things get ugly, and he starts to sweat, and it’s just…well, it’s lackluster at best.

You might remember this awkward encounter from last month when his teleprompters went down.

VIDEO

President Obama: I want to thank everybody who’s here. I think there’s only one problem, and that is that my remarks are not sitting here. People?

He turns to thank the people that are standing there, and he looks at the teleprompter and –

VIDEO

President Obama: I’m going to answer a question at the end of the remarks, but I want to make sure that we get the remarks up. People?

So smooth, nobody would’ve noticed that there was a problem. He’s slick, isn’t he? Now, that’s the way the president is without a teleprompter. We have talked to people who have met with him actually in the Cabinet Room where he had to have a teleprompter with eight people in the room.

But on the flipside of that, just hours last week after the Zimmerman not guilty verdict, the president made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room and gave a controversial yet well-polished speech on race, and this time, he did it without the aid of his trusted teleprompter.

Now, why does this matter? Well, because out of all of the issues that you would want the President of the United States to be fluent in – economics, jobs, foreign policy, individual liberty, the Constitution, any of that, this president cannot speak off the cuff without any kind of teleprompter or notes in front of him. But when it comes to the police acting stupidly or anything to do with identity politics, this man is ready to roll for hours. It’s his lifelong passion.

The man who was supposed to unite the United States of America is an expert on the most divisive form of politics in existence today that pits people against other people, placing them in little boxes and then convincing those people that you’re only in that box because of those people over there. They’re the cause of all of your problems.

Now, the press, many even on the right, are calling this speech that he gave one of the most important in his presidency. They’re singing his praises. What’s new? Even though the Zimmerman trial had nothing to do with race, and that’s not me saying that; that’s both the prosecution and the defense. Both sides said this has nothing to do with race. Still, the president is using this opportunity to further divide us.

He said the outcome of the case could have been different if Martin were white.

VIDEO

President Obama: If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that from top to bottom both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Okay, so is he saying that Zimmerman was guilty, and somehow or another the system broke down? Because I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard that the system broke down with any kind of specifics. And once again, he places himself square in the middle of the story.

VIDEO

President Obama: You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me.

I just want you to know, that’s not another way of saying that could have been my son by saying it could have been me. Listen to this.

VIDEO

President Obama: There’s a lot of pain around what happened here. I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

Okay, got it. He said a couple of important things here. The African-American community is looking at this situation through the lens of history and experiences and pain. Okay, well that’s why justice is blind. That’s why we don’t have people involved making the decisions, because you might look at it differently, either with rose-colored glasses or a tainted view from something that went on with your own personal life. That’s why you’re not involved, to keep the verdict pure.

But then you also say that that pain just doesn’t go away. Mr. President, may I humbly suggest that you need the atoning power of Jesus Christ if that’s not going away. What’s happening in your life, Mr. President, where pain does not go away? And why is that pain not going away? Who’s perpetrating this myth that there is still the same amount of experiences for African-Americans today as there was in the 1960s?

And by the way, if the word “myth” sounds harsh, in the same speech, here’s the president:

VIDEO

President Obama: As difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better.

I don’t think he believes that, but he’s right. The reality is there are still problems, but believe it or not, even with all of the stuff that’s going on, race relations in America, they are getting better. But Al Sharpton doesn’t let you know that. Jesse Jackson doesn’t let you know that. Anybody on MSNBC or Harry Reid, they don’t let you know that, otherwise, they’d be out of a job.

They’d be out of a few more voters, you know, if they weren’t told to vote for a Republican, I mean, if you voted for a Republican, it’d be like returning to the Jim Crow days. That would put these people out of power. Jackson, Sharpton, and the president have all used their pulpits to make the Zimmerman trial about race.

Again, both sides say that it’s not about race. And they feign outrage. I know this guy. He feigns outrage. But where is the outrage at the dropout factories that are inner-city public schools? How about the churning out of generation after generation of doomed children, slaves? If you can’t read, you’re a slave.

Where is the outrage at the failure of massive government programs, progressive governments, like Detroit, that have left citizens begging for politicians just to give ’em a few more crumbs or begging for the police to show up? Where is the outrage at the Planned Parenthood abortion mills whose founder wanted to eliminate the undesirables of society which were the blacks?

Where is the outrage at the other American war zone, Chicago, where four more were gunned down just this weekend and nine others injured in yet another shootout? Where is the outrage? Where’s the outrage at the mind-boggling and tragic black-on-black crime rates? You don’t hear about it.

According to the Bureau of Justice, approximately 8,000 blacks are murdered annually, every single year, 8,000 killed. That accounts for 49% of all of the murders in America – 49%. Twelve percent of the population is 49% of all of the murders? About 93% of black homicide victims were murdered by someone in their own race, so 93%, black on black.

Now, here’s the most shocking statistic. The murder rate among blacks in America is an astonishing 19.5 per 100,000 people. So you have an idea of how astonishing that number is, that’s a tick under Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. That’s a nation mired in constant civil war – again, a city so mired in murder that the murder rates among blacks is 19.5 per 100,000 people. That number is nearly 5 times higher than the murder rate in the Palestinian territories. That’s a real problem.

Now, why isn’t any politician standing up and saying that? Why isn’t anybody saying that? Well, because those are real problems. Those are real problems. They’re undisputed facts. And real problems are going to have to be solved, but to solve them, you need some answers and answers that empower people.

If you want to empower yourself, you’re going to have to manufacture some problems like the Zimmerman trial. It’s not about race, yet half of America thinks it is. Why? Because of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the President of the United States just told them so. And then he has the gall to blame the racial tension in the aftermath of the verdict on that racist jury.

I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen a leader behave this way, ever. Leaders do not blame people. Leaders don’t lie for their own personal gain. Crooks, crooks do. Leaders tell you the truth, the hard truth, and then, just when you think you’re at your lowest, a leader doesn’t lean down to you and say “and you know what, you’ll never, ever make it without me.” They never do that.

They inspire you to reach higher than you ever thought you could. That’s what a leader does but not socialist leaders. Che is a big hero. Che is the leader, of course, you know, with the communist revolution, but who was Che really? Che championed that blacks weren’t doing enough for the revolution. He referred to them as lazy and unwilling to do anything to help.

He said about blacks, “The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; The European has a tradition of work and saving…” Well, that sounds racist to me, but you’ve never heard anybody on the left called Che a racist, have you? Every town in America now has a Cesar Chavez Boulevard. Well, what’s his story? Well, he was standing up for the little people. He was standing up for the workers. Was he? Was he?

Do you know that Cesar Chavez blamed the labor woes on immigrants? He was so upset that he said that there had to be a wet line on the border. The UFW, the United Farm Workers Union, they sent their thugs out, and they physically beat any illegal immigrant trying to cross the line. Now, that’s not a story that you hear today, is it? No, but these are the truths about the leftist icons, and they have a lot in common with the leftist icons of today.

Leftist icons generally inspire people to do what, to stand up on their own two feet, pull themselves up, or to riot, to fight, to burn, destroy, to hate, eventually kill people? Che didn’t free people; Che killed people. Martin Luther King, he freed people. He led people towards the promised land, and he did it without playing the blame game.

Quote, Martin Luther King, “A group of ten thousand marching in anger against a police station and cussing out the police chief will do very little to bring respect, dignity, and unbiased law enforcement.” He also said, “We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust.”

If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and yes, Barack Obama, lifted people up instead of pointing fingers, perhaps we’d be closer to that promised land that MLK talked about and that we all know exists. It’s hard not to believe that the Sharptons of the world really don’t want to get to any kind of promised land. They’d rather remain in power, or in the president’s case, want to be your parent, because see, that’s what Progressives do.

They are your parent. They know better. That’s the whole theory behind Progressivism, somebody else knows better for the collective. Now, let’s just assume for a second that that is the right thing for them to do. So who do we have now as our parent in the Oval Office? Who do we have? Are they a good parent? Well, yes, he cares about – okay.

May I ask you, did your parent or any – if you had a good parent – or any good parent that you ever witnessed or you know, Bill Cosby, anybody, any good parent, any mom or dad, did they ever tell you to focus on the past? Did they ever encourage you to take from others because you didn’t get your fair share? Did your mom or dad ever tell you you’re not going to make it? Did they ever continually pick at old wounds and tell you that they’ll never heal?

Now, maybe I’m the only kid that wasn’t raised by Frank Marshall Davis or Bill Ayers, but my parents always told me that it doesn’t matter what others do; it’s what you do that counts. My parents always told me that life wasn’t fair and never would be fair and to get over it. But see, if you have a parent that does that, then they have to follow it with you stay focused on what you know to be true, who you are, where you came from, and that requires you to look at facts.

So let’s look at some more facts. There are racists in America, both black and white. Yep, that’s it, both left and right. Our job, I guess, is to figure out who’s who. Everybody calls each other racist now. Oh, you’re a racist because you – really? Okay, great. But there are racists. How do we tell? Well, somebody who’s trying to use race to gain power, I think, and will only tell the stories that are good for them.

For instance, why isn’t Al Sharpton talking about this story? Why isn’t the president talking about this 76-year-old man in Milwaukee? He shot and killed this little kid here, 13-year-old black kid. He comes out, and he’s got a gun. Now, look at the kid backing up. This is clearly, this is clearly not self defense.

Eventually, the mom comes out and says hey, hey, hey, what’s going on? And he says, you want to know what’s going on? You want me to stop your kid from stealing? I’ll teach your kid. Any points a gun right to the kid’s chest, shoots him. The kid starts running down the street. He shoots him again. He misses, but it’s already too late. The kid collapses and dies in the hospital a couple of hours later. Why is nobody talking about this?

This is a racist guy, right? How about the 29-year-old mentally disabled Hispanic in Arizona that was walking the dog in the parking lot at a Taco Bell? He was shot dead by a black man. Where were the calls for the justice for Daniel? Or in Chicago, Leslie Freeman, her 22-month-old son, Demonte, gunned down as she was sitting with her child in the lap in a van. She was sitting there with a van, a car full of people.

The child was shot. Just last year, Leslie lost her son, Deon, shot by a gang member. Where’s Sharpton on that one? Or the white baby that was shot in a stroller in Atlanta by two black teens? Why aren’t they talking about that one? I’ll tell you why. Nobody wants to talk about any of those because they know that both black and white agree, and whether it’s for power or for ratings, when everybody agrees, there’s just really nothing there.

They choose carefully the stories that they know divide America. It gives you ratings. It gives you power. That’s what it is. It makes you honestly into a bully. No one in the media is talking about the black guy that shot the white kid or the white guy who shot the black kid or the black teens that shot the baby, but that’s where we need to focus as Americans. We need to find the big issues that bring us together, because there’s a lot more of those stories than of Zimmerman stories.

But we’re just focusing on the Zimmerman story when the real story of all the murder and all the death is going by us at a high speed, and we just ignore that one. We can’t as a people – look, we’re not going to be able to convince everybody, and it doesn’t really matter, but here’s what we have to do. We have to find out the real facts, know what’s going on, and then without anger – and that’s the hard part, without anger – stand up to bullies.

We need to identify first who the bullies are and then stop giving them so much power over us. The Zimmerman trial should have never ever happened. The only reason why it did is because the President of the United States and his Justice Department and the wound pickers like Al Sharpton applied mob justice. I’ve never met a black man yet who actually thinks that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson actually speaks for them.

The Reverend Jackson is out there producing love children, and Reverend Al has literally made things up. I don’t know how he sleeps at night, but he does. He makes things up to promote his own career. Jackson rushed to defend the black stripper who made the rape allegations against the members of the Duke lacrosse team which was completely false. He said his Rainbow PUSH Coalition would pay for her college tuition. It turned out to be false, and he was wrong, but there was no outcry there.

Al Sharpton, he lied about Tawana Brawley. He didn’t care about the truth. He cares about himself. I can’t think of anything more damning than proclaiming to be a reverend, a preacher, and then to use that power and that platform for personal gain. I’ll never forget when I sat down at CNN, and I did an interview with Al Sharpton. And I said “nice watch, Al,” right before we went on the air – nice watch. It was a Rolex. He suddenly became very self conscious. I don’t even…somebody gave that to me as a gift, and he covered it.

Judgment Day…Judgment Day is already scary enough, but I think anybody who claims to speak with the power of the Lord’s words are going to receive kind of a stricter punishment. There are a lot of people that think I fall into this category, and maybe I do. I try, but maybe I do in the end.

I know there are many things that I have done and I’ve said over the years that I regret now, and I think there’s a lot of people out in America that think I shouldn’t be successful. Whatever, I mean, okay, I get it. I understand. Life isn’t fair. I get that, but rest assured, if you’re right about me, justice for me will be swift and severe in the afterlife. It will be; however, if I’m right, the same will be said for Sharpton and Jackson and Wallis and President Obama.

The president is going way out of his way to comment on a single trial, and in doing so, he is – what is that commandment – oh, bearing false witness, and he’s doing it by using race. This isn’t about race. It’s not my job or your job to judge a man’s heart, but it is our job to look at the tree and then look at the fruit of that tree. What is that tree producing? Is it producing good fruit or bad fruit?

This tree is producing lies and anger, division, unrest, violence, poverty, and suffering. When will Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or the president rise up at the injustice to blacks and women that has happened in progressive cities like Detroit or currently happening in Philadelphia? Or are they just going to continue to turn a blind eye to the truth in favor of their own political and personal agendas?

And if we continue to be quiet, if we continue just to take it because what am I going to do about it anyway, where do those personal agendas take us as a nation?

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.