You may have never heard of this terror group, but we just started bombing them...and it could help Iran?

Below is a transcript of this segment:

Tonight go in-depth on something the media has once again failed to investigate, and that is this, the Khorasan Group. Who is this? Why did the president go after them?

We have an answer, and again, it is a theory, but remember, my theory was that you are being lied to in great detail on Benghazi. I think this is going to fall into the same thing. I have an answer that nobody else does. I want you to know again, it is a theory. I’m thinking out loud here, but let’s start with last week. The president last week announced airstrikes against a terrorist organization called the Khorasan Group. I reacted like most Americans—the who? The what? Who?

VIDEO

President Obama: Last night, we also took strikes to disrupt plotting against the United States and our allies by seasoned Al Qaeda operatives in Syria who are known as the Khorasan Group. Once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and try to do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people.

Okay, I want to talk you about the Khorasan Group here for just a second here. I had never heard of them, so tonight I want to answer this question: Why did we bomb them? Who are they? Who is being helped by us taking them out? Is anybody besides us? What can history teach us about Khorasan? And are there any connections to this, the president said he is organizing the Middle East, and then he also refuses to recognize what Isis is recognizing, and that is the Sykes-Picot Treaty?

Sykes-Picot Treaty is extraordinarily important. I know some of your friends might even say, “Oh, that’s ridiculous. Stop talking about Sykes-Picot.” They’re the same people who said Woodrow Wilson doesn’t matter. I’m telling you, Sykes-Picot is the key to understanding the Middle East.

Okay, so why did we do this? No U.S. official had ever publicly mentioned the Khorasan Group until the days leading up to the president’s big announcement of the airstrikes, but suddenly this mysterious group presents an imminent threat to the United States.

VIDEO

Lt. Gen. William C. Mayville Jr.: In terms of the Khorasan Group, which is a network of seasoned Al Qaeda veterans, these strikes were undertaken to disrupt imminent attack plotting against the United States and Western targets.

An imminent threat. Now, it’s really odd that this never-heard-of-before group suddenly poses an imminent threat so we have to go and bomb them that night. Homeland Security officials have been consistently adamant that even ISIS didn’t pose a threat to the homeland, so why does the Khorasan Group, an affiliate of Al Qaeda that he himself said Al Qaeda is over? It’s suddenly such a threat that it poses more of a threat to the homeland than ISIS.

The president addresses the nation, forcefully says we’re going to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS but not mentioning the even-more-dangerous terror group called Khorasan. Doesn’t make sense, does it? So what’s happening?

ABC’s Jon Karl was perplexed. He said, “Extraordinary—military strikes against a group no WH official had ever publicly mentioned by name.” And then it just goes away. In a piece for the National Review, our friend of the program, really smart guy, Andrew McCarthy, he goes on, and he’s talking in this. He asserts that there is really no good reason why we have never heard of them.

He says, “You haven’t heard of the Khorasan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorasan—the Iranian-Afghan border region—had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it…The ‘Khorasan Group’ is Al Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, ‘Jabhat al-Nusra.’”

Okay. Our friend of the program—I happen to disagree with him, I think, on this—Andrew McCarthy, contends that it is part of Obama’s strategy to make Americans see the jihad movement not as a powerful ideologically connected network that seeks to destroy the West but rather a small bunch of isolated groups of crazies. That makes sense if you understand this, if you listen to what the president always says—oh, it was just a lone wolf, just a lone wolf.

Remember, the radical Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. See deleting radical Islam from terror training manuals, Eric Holder refusing to say radical Islamic terrorists, even head of the CIA saying, you know, we’re not going against terror because terror is a tactic, all of that stuff, but it goes deeper than that.

Glenn Greenwald wrote…do we have it? Where is it? There it is. “The Fake Terror Threat Used to Justify Bombing Syria.” In the article, he shows that just days before the airstrikes, the administration leaks information on Khorasan to the press in an attempt to soften the ground. Well, the press laps it up. The Associated Press, CBS News, New York Times eagerly are taking this propaganda and spewing it out on the American public. So once the bombings began, the rest of the press, told of this brand-new dangerous threat to the homeland, they immediately go, and everything’s fine. Greenwald lists several, including NBC, CNN, and the Washington Post.

So now the administration had created the scenario that the bombings had to take place in order to save your life to the homeland, a group that nobody had ever heard of—convenient, but the introduction of Khorasan goes much, much deeper than that. The president didn’t need a big justification to go after ISIS. Why did he go after this guy? Because polls show two thirds of Americans support military action against these guys who are in Syria, right? So he doesn’t need to do that. So what gives?

Let’s look at history. Where is Khorasan? What is ISIS and ISIL? What are they fighting for? The Khorasan fighters, does that match what ISIS and ISIL? And what is Iran’s desire? Let me start here. In the aftermath of 9/11, intelligence gathering efforts on Al Qaeda were obviously ramped up. Not long after, we start to see a picture of a very shadowy organization, and it begins to emerge and what their goals and what their reasons are behind them.

And they are scattered all around. We think of Al Qaeda just over here in Afghanistan in the caves, but that’s not true. They were mobilizing to become a global movement, and they would scour the Middle East. And they were looking for where there were historic reasons to be—that’s really important—and where unrest and instability existed, and so they set up shop.

So they start with the Taliban over here. They also go all over, pop up all over the Middle East. The attacks are carried out in northern Africa. You start to see them in this area. You start to see them in Yemen. You start to see them in northern Saudi Arabia and also another one, a very small one over here. This is the Khorasan area. This is a really important area. So there’s Khorasan. Got it?

Historically speaking, it’s a province of Khorasan, and it is the birthplace of modern Persian culture. Khorasan was a province in the caliphate, another crazy word, that existed between 600 and 700 A.D. It’s important that you understand the caliphate. The caliphate that Khorasan belonged to looked like this. It went all across the Middle East, okay, into Tunisia. Now, does this map look familiar to a chalkboard that I might have drawn oh, in times past? That’s the original caliphate that Khorasan was a part of.

Now, there’s an old Islamic hadith—a hadith is a written tradition or a prophecy—and in the prophecy it says that an Islamic army will rise up from Khorasan, right here, and it will fight, and it will restore the entire caliphate map. Again, radical Islamic terrorists do not recognize the current lines, not even Iran’s. What are these lines? The map lines that you are seeing here that I am going to erase are the map lines that we talked about last week.

This is something that you must get your friends to understand. These map lines according to these people do not exist at all. Why? Because these map lines were originally drawn by the West. They were drawn by the French and the English, and those lines are called Sykes-Picot. So that is what this map looks like. There are no borders in this map. It’s one giant border.

And so when you see Al Qaeda, and they’re named different things, you know, Al Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and I don’t know all the names of them, but they’re in different regions. Why? Because they are working on this area of responsibility, this area of responsibility, this area of responsibility, and they bleed out, get stronger, and then tie it all together in the end.

So naturally because this is what they’re going for, and they are the “wrong kind” of Muslims for the Iranians, the Iranian government views Khorasan as a massive threat, because let me show you something else, Iran…Iran currently is here. This is Iran. But remember, Iranians, they believe in the 12th Imam. The 12th Imam is supposed to crawl out of a well, and he’s supposed to come. They’ve already got a road built, and he supposed to come from his little well—I’m wishing, I’m wishing—and then he crawls out, and he goes down this road, and he comes to a place here in Iraq.

And then what does he do? He takes and he makes a caliphate in the region as well, and their caliphate—well, I just made fun of the 12th Imam, and that’s what’s happening—their caliphate is something like this as well, but they have to kill all the wrong Muslims. The Sunnis have to kill the Shias, and the Shias have to kill the Sunnis. It depends which one gets the caliphate.

So now that we have this little background, let’s look at what the administration did suddenly to include Khorasan as a threat. What happened? What has the administration been trying to accomplish recently? Remember, the president said they are organizing the Middle East. John Kerry made it very clear and said you know what we have to do? We want to work with Iran. We want to get Iran together with us and help, and they didn’t rule out the possibility of joint military operations. Watch.

VIDEO

Sec. of State Kerry: Look, we’re open to discussions if there’s something constructive that can be contributed by Iran if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and the ability of the government to reform.

Okay, all right, so we want to work with Iran. What? They’re enemies. What are you talking about? Why would they do that? Well, a very good reason…why is Iran a proxy in Syria? Member, they have Hezbollah. Hezbollah is here in Syria. This is a proxy state. Assad is being propped up by Iran, because Iran, remember, wants to push this way. They’re going to push this way, and they’ll push through the area of Iraq into Syria, and Hezbollah is pushing down this way.

So when you have the Khorasan Group, remember, the Khorasan Group is here. Well, wait a minute, did we bomb them here? No. The Khorasan Group was relocated here because they’re against Iran. They’ve got to stop the proxy. They’ve got to stop Iran and Hezbollah over here. It’s a civil war. It’s a religious civil war, if you will. It’s the Sunnis and the Shias going after.

Now, it’s no secret, the administration desperately sought Iran’s partnership against ISIS. They refused. In fact, the head of Iran laughed from the hospital at the Secretary John Kerry and Obama. But wait a minute, we said we bombed these people. Why did we bomb these people? What happened? What else happened last week here in New York?

Iranian officials were here in New York for negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program. There is a deadline on that, November 24. Both the U.S. and the Iranian officials share optimism, and I know I do too, that a deal remains possible. Oh, it’s absolutely…sure, sure, uh huh. Talks were reportedly starting slow, with Iran wanting the Obama administration to show more flexibility.

By Friday, after five days of American bombing on this little-known terror cell called Khorasan, hope in a deal suddenly improved. Khorasan, by all accounts other than the administration’s sudden revelation, is no bigger of a threat to America than ISIS is. In fact, there are many, many threats in the Middle East that are bigger, several Al Qaeda cells worth striking ahead of Khorasan.

Khorasan may not be a threat to the U.S., but they are a very big deal to Iran. That’s what happened. The president extended the olive branch to Iran. We killed their enemy. Our enemy, we left them alone over here. We didn’t care about Al Qaeda, Khorasan-Al Qaeda. We didn’t care about them because this was our enemy, and so let them destabilize that. That’ll be good. We’ll just use that, and we’ll kill them later.

But now we need Iran, and so when they moved over here, we said they’re a big threat. No, they’re not. We’ve known about them for a long, long time. They’re no threat. This was a gift to the Iranians. He would never be able to say that we’re openly working with the Iranians—politically devastating here and abroad. Iran wouldn’t be able to say they’re working with America. That would invite an avalanche of terrorism in their own land, revenge for siding with the great Satan and betraying the Middle East.

Here’s the thing I want you to know, we are never, ever, ever going to win this war if we don’t understand a few things. One, the enemy of my enemy is not our friend. It doesn’t work that way. Is Iran good? Is Al Qaeda-Khorasan good? Was Mubarak good? Is Syria, what’s his name, Assad good? Was Muammar Gaddafi? None of them are good. Saudi Arabia, are they good? No.

Why would we side with Saudi Arabia who are oppressing women and homosexuals? To keep them at bay? These guys are oppressing women and homosexuals too. This is insanity. They are not our friends. None of them are our friends. There is one friend, and they are right here, and it’s the state of Israel. That’s the only friend, and we keep betraying those people. Why? Because we’re looking at this all upside down.

Iran, we said Iran was our enemy so we let Khorasan just leave it alone. Then ISIS became a bigger enemy, and so Iran, we need them as a friend, so let’s kill Iran’s enemy, Khorasan. What do you think’s going to happen? Do you think that works out for us? Does that make us look like we know what we’re doing, like we’re decent people, that we have any principles whatsoever? No.

Two, we’re repeating the same mistakes because we have short or no vision. By playing the old game, we’re only making it worse every time. Three, we have to reconcile the past. Sykes-Picot is the problem. They are trying to reboot the whole Middle East. It is slipping through our fingers because it was never right in the first place.

Why are we defending borders that we have no place even putting those borders in place? Let them kill each other. I know it sounds horrible, but this is insanity. If you can come up with a better strategy that recognizes that we have to reconcile the past, and it’s rooted in principles, and we can save people, I’m willing to hear. I’m absolutely willing to hear it. But Sykes-Picot is the root of the problem here. It’s not our wealth. It’s not our religion. It’s nothing.

They want their caliphate, period. And four, the intel that the president is getting is either foolish, it’s criminal, or it’s both. Yesterday, the president came out—I’m amazed by this—the president came out yesterday…this man can’t take responsibility for a damn thing. He came out yesterday and said hey, I just want you to know, it’s not really my fault. It was bad intelligence. Mr. President, I’m begging you, if you really believe that, if that’s true, then fire those people who have been so wrong in the past.

If somebody has given me this kind of information and has been this wrong for this long, I don’t even have to fire them; they tender their resignation because they’re humiliated. When are you going to start firing people and put people in that know what they’re talking about? Hell, the guy who has his own stupid cable TV show, he knows more than your advisors do. I’m available for consultation. I won’t charge you anything. More on this theory coming up in just a second.

The American people are waking up. They no longer see Washington as a place that protects liberty. They want to be part of the solution, but they don’t necessarily see a solution out there. The politicians in Washington are ignoring the voice of we the people. That’s why I encourage you to join FreedomWorks in the fight to take back our freedoms to hold onto them because we’re the ones that are going to do it. It’s not going to be some clown in Washington.

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.