Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

'Globalist': You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

September 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Redefining words is a very dangerous thing. It's happened on the radical left for years through political correctness, impacting both society and politics. Old school Blue Dog Democrats didn't see it coming until it was too late, and the entire Democratic Party was taken over by radicals.

The same thing is now happening on the conservative side, with words like "nationalism" and "globalism" being morphed into new meanings.

"I want to show you the first example of me finding it on my own social media," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program. "I contend so many people will agree with a quick reading of this that it seems harmless, but it is absolutely the alt-right. This is the earmark of everything changing in language, and so suddenly that you will not even notice you've been sold into slavery."

It's time to pay attention and read between the lines.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these definitive questions:

• Is "nationalism" tied to improving the lives of Americans or neo-Nazis and racism?

• What does Bob in Pocatello say about the rejection of the virus that is globalization?

• Are iDentists online practitioners of dentistry?

• Do you think the alt-right should produce films on faith for your church?

• Would Thomas Jefferson have been for or against tariffs?

• Is American exceptionalism the same thing as American nationalism?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:20:50, from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN:  I want to show you a post on my social media.  And let me just -- let me read it to you.  And don't overthink it.  Just tell me if you are kind of comfortable with it.

We/me is a crackpot theory, saying the we generation and the me generation.  It's clearly not a crackpot theory.  It is very well researched.  But this is somebody who happened to be watching the show from The Vault last night, where I mentioned it.  

And the we/me is a crackpot theory.  Don't accept a binary choice, America.

STU:  Hmm.  I thought we were supposed to -- isn't that we've been told for months?

GLENN:  Listen to this:  American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic-oriented, nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.  Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.  Modern nationalism and populism in America is a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

(chuckling)

American nationalism and populism is a wholesale rejection of the virus that is globalization.

PAT:  This is just written by Bob in Pocatello.  Right?

JEFFY:  Right.

(chuckling)

PAT:  Bob just happened to be watching, and he thought, "You know what, I'm going to pop off something to Glenn."

GLENN:  With no followers.  No pictures.  No friends.

STU:  He wanted to sign up to social networks, just to post that particular paragraph and then never post again.

GLENN:  And then never post again.

PAT:  It's interesting though because you can be okay with all of that, mostly.  Almost all of it, you can say, yeah --

JEFFY:  Oh, on the surface, absolutely.

GLENN:  On the surface.

PAT:  I agree with that.  On the surface, I agree with that.

GLENN:  If you read it again, you're like, "Okay.  Wait a minute.  American nationalism.  No, I'm not for nationalism.  That's not good."

STU:  Right.  But patriotism.  People conflate those two terms.  Those are very different.

GLENN:  Yes.  Yes.  They're very different.

STU:  And we've seen nationalism rise and what it does.  But this is trying to save that term, right?

GLENN:  Yes.  To reintroduce this term.

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  Okay?  To reintroduce it.

STU:  Yep.

GLENN:  Listen to this again.

American nationalism -- it's not racial or ethnic-oriented.  Why would you say that?  Because nationalism is tied directly to neo-Nazis.

PAT:  And racism.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And also, by the way, very specifically the people who are the intellectual heads of this particular movement have very specifically talked in overt terms about race and ethnicity being vitally important to this.  I mean, this is --

GLENN:  No, they're not racists.  No, no.  They're identists.

STU:  Right.  But, I mean, they've said, "We need an ethno-nationalist --

PAT:  They're dentists on the internet?

GLENN:  No, they're identists.  They're identists -- 

JEFFY:  ID.  

GLENN:  No -- yes, they recognize the identity of people, but that's not judging people on race.  It is looking at the identity of people.

PAT:  I see.

GLENN:  So if you want to call it racist, that's an old term.  That's -- that describes old things.  I do believe that we all have an identity that is unique from where all of us originally came from.  And there's nothing wrong with pointing out someone's identity.  You're black.  I'm white.  But I do believe there are specific things that are different in each culture.  And perhaps we shouldn't live together.

STU:  This is --

PAT:  Perhaps we shouldn't live together.

(laughter)

GLENN:  Okay.  Did you hear what I just said?

JEFFY:  Yes.

PAT:  Yes.

GLENN:  And if you're hearing this from a friend and somebody who you think is a conservative -- and you will.  I'm telling you, this is coming.  You're going to start hearing this from your church friends, people you trusted, and they're going to make a great case because they're changing the language.

STU:  This is Candle In the Wind and Candle In the Wind 1997, where like Princess Diana died, and we're going to release the same exact song with like three different lyrics.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  That is what this is.  It's the same pitch.  It's the same thing that you think it is.

GLENN:  Same song.

STU:  It's just using new terms and trying to overtake old ones.

GLENN:  And using emotions to push it to the top of the chart.

STU:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  One of the terms that is attempting -- and it's an interesting, somewhat subtle thing that's happened over the past year or two, which is the term globalist -- now, the term --

GLENN:  Uh-huh.

STU:  I would not consider myself a globalist at all.  I mean, for example, we've been doing this show for how long.

PAT:  Why are we globalists?

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.  Hang on.  Before you get into this, I just want to set this up.  Globalism is a tripwire of nationalism.  Okay?

Once you hear your friend, who -- why are you hearing the word "globalist" all the time now about people?  Where is that coming from?

STU:  Yeah, all the time.

GLENN:  That's coming from people like Breitbart, who are into the alt-right, and they are poisoning the well.  And globalist is your first sign of warning.  Hang on just a second.  What do you mean by globalist, exactly?  And I'll bet that's what you were going to make the point on.

STU:  That's exactly what I want to go into because we've been doing this show for a long time.  There's been things that have, you know, leaned towards globalism, that the talk radio audience, generally speaking, rejects, as do I.  Things like the United Nations making our decisions on our military.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And, you know, global climate treaties that --

GLENN:  IPCC.  Yeah.  The IPP --

STU:  The Kyoto treaties -- yeah, Protocol.  

PAT:  Nobody has been more anti-globalist than we have.

JEFFY:  Right.

STU:  Exactly.  Having global entities control what we do in our country.

PAT:  Right.

GLENN:  Even some global trade agreements.  We need to have trade agreements.  But are they about -- for instance, the T- -- what is it?  The TPP?

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  The TPP is an Asian global look at things.  And it is an Asian pact that supersedes our law.  

STU:  And there's elements of many of these agreements that we've fought against.

GLENN:  Uh-huh.

STU:  And so the idea that we would look towards global entities to influence our policy and the way we deal with our things here, we reject and have rejected for a long time.  And the talk radio audience, with that definition of globalist, has always been against that.

PAT:  But they've changed it now.  Right?

STU:  But now you notice -- and you say Breitbart.  But really, Alex Jones.  Breitbart and Alex Jones are one and the same at this point.

GLENN:  Absolutely.  Alex Jones is who he is, and everybody knew it.  And now one step closer to the media is Breitbart.  So one step closer to the average person as --

PAT:  And Drudge.

GLENN:  And Drudge.  Anyone want to talk about the new movie Torch Bearer?  Torch Bearer is a new movie, when man stops believing in God, he'll believe in anything.  Sounds really good.  Phil Robertson is in it, everything else.  You know who the producer is?  You know who the executive producer of this film is?

PAT:  Yes.

GLENN:  Who?

PAT:  It's Bannon.

GLENN:  Bannon.

PAT:  Bannon.  What's-his-face, Bannon.

GLENN:  So Bannon, who is Trump's campaign manager, who is, yes, we're providing a platform for the alt-right --

PAT:  Yeah.

GLENN:  -- is now producing films on faith for your church.

PAT:  Unbelievable.

GLENN:  Congratulations, America.  Congratulations.

PAT:  Wow.  Unbelievable.  

GLENN:  You are sliding into a cesspool that you have no idea what is coming your way.

STU:  On the globalist thing, to finish that, the old definition was, you know, international agreements and things that we were skeptical of.  We don't want to be controlled by international bureaucracy.

PAT:  Anything.  We want our sovereignty.

STU:  We want our sovereignty.

GLENN:  Yes.

STU:  And a lot of times that has gone along with having borders and border security.

PAT:  Right.

GLENN:  And we are for Brexit.  I'm for Brexit.

STU:  Yeah.  I believe in sovereignty.  I don't like the European Union.

GLENN:  Yep.  Don't like it.

STU:  What it's now turning into is, do you believe in free trade?  Are you against tariffs?  Are you for or against legal immigration?  Do you think we should have any interaction with -- with our allies?  Do we have any role in the rest of the world?

If you believe any of those things, all of a sudden now you're a globalist.

PAT:  Globalist.

GLENN:  If you don't believe in tariffs -- tariffs are the most destructive thing to the free market, which is what we are based on as conservatives --

STU:  Right.

GLENN:  If you're against tariffs, you're now a globalist.  Well, tell that to our Founders.

PAT:  If you're against Donald Trump, you're supposedly now a globalist.

STU:  Right.  And that's certainly where a lot of this comes from.  

PAT:  Yeah. 

STU:  And a lot of the passion behind it, obviously, because we're in the middle of an election season.

GLENN:  It goes way beyond him.

STU:  But, I mean, look at -- I can't remember -- was it Cruz or maybe Pat Toomey, when they were running, they were running ads against them, saying, "Hey, did you know that -- I can't remember which one it was.  But they were talking about free trade and how it's helped us.  But it's also helped lift billions of people out of poverty.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  And the fact that we've lifted Chinese people, for example -- a billion Chinese have come out of poverty because they've started to embrace a little bit of capitalism and free trade.

GLENN:  Bono just said this.

STU:  It's a great commercial for what we believe.  Rooting for the success of people in other nations, wanting people to not starve to death all of a sudden is some weird definition of globalist.  I mean, these things do help the rest of the world.  I think free trade has been one of the most positive things that has ever happened to this planet, but it's also helped us.

GLENN:  Here's why nationalism is so wrong, and here's why saying that we are a unique country is right, but it is not the people.  American exceptionalism is not the people.  We're no different than anybody else.

Yes, do we have different work ethics?  Did we have different ethics than other countries?  Yes.

Do we now?  Not so much.  Do the Chinese or do the Saudis understand American exceptionalism?  No.  Does that make them different people?  No.  It means they don't buy into the idea of America.

America is not a country.  It's an idea.  It is also a country.  And nationalism glorifies the country and its people.  What patriotism should be is the -- the glorification of the idea that we aspire to.  The idea that we all men could be free, that all -- that all men can pursue their own happiness.  And it's a very subtle difference.  But if you don't get it, you are on the train to hell in these times.

I want to end this segment real quick just by reading this again, and I want to you listen because this is going to become -- I don't know how many people in this audience -- but I am still convinced that this audience is going to be the audience that will be remembered for pulling the republic out of the fire.  I'm convinced of it.  And I don't know when that happens.  And I don't even know if it's because of what you do, other than teaching your children these things.  Maybe it is because of what we do collectively that teaches our children and our children save the nation or bring it back.  I don't know.

But for those with eyes and ears, please hear me.  Let me read this again.  American nationalism isn't racial or ethnic oriented.

Yes, it is.

Nor is it rooted in expansionist foreign policy like Bush conservatism.

That is true.  That goes to the point on globalists.

Keeping people out is not invading their country, occupying their land and trying to bring democracy to them.

So what they're saying is:  We can keep foreigners out of here, and that's better than -- well, you're giving a binary choice here.

Modern nationalism -- modern nationalism, let me tell you, is exactly the same as old-timey nationalism.  Modern nationalism and populism.

What is populism?  Populism is nothing but tyranny of the majority.

Modern nationalism and populism in America is just a refocusing on improving the lives and well-being of Americans who are being crushed under the weight of globalization, which is rooted in social Darwinism.

Oh, my gosh.  Hello, Germany, 1930.

American nationalism and populism is a whole scale (sic) rejection of the virus -- hello, Goebbels -- of globalism.

Please, please, know the tripwires.  Please know, national -- nationalism is suicide.  Populism is suicide.  That the tripwire of globalism doesn't mean what you think it means.  To them, it means anything other than America, first and foremost, and nothing else.

STU:  It's okay to prioritize America.

GLENN:  Right.  It's fine to prioritize.  

STU:  That's what you should do.  But it does not mean -- 

GLENN:  It means a complete withdrawal and enemy outside -- it is complete isolationist, protectionist, and no trade deals.  Even our Founders made trade deals.  And we protested tariffs.  What do you think the Tea Party was about?  It was a rejection of tariffs.  And that's what nationalism is doing.  And it is coming.  And it is coming beyond this election.  And it will only gain strength after this election, no matter who wins, because this is not about Donald Trump.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Inigo Montoya (played by Mandy Patinkin) from The Princess Bride.

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.