Over the Top Media Coverage on Hurricane Matthew: Your Kids Are Going to Die

October 07, 2016

Writer

It's bad. There's no doubt about it. Hurricane Matthew devastated Haiti and hit the Florida coastline hard --- and it's not over yet. But has the media coverage been responsible?

"There is no doubt this is a deadly, really powerful, very dangerous hurricane. But the coverage so far . . . is it just me?" Co-host Pat Gray asked Friday, filling in for Glenn.

RELATED: More Than 500 Reported Dead as Haiti Starts Long Cleanup After Hurricane Matthew

Reporting at Fox News, Shep Smith had this to say:

This moves 20 miles to the west, and you and everyone you know are dead. All of you. Because you can't survive it. It's not possible unless you're very, very lucky. And your kids die too.

"That is not responsible coverage," Co-host Stu Burguiere responded.

Granted, Smith witnessed and reported on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, but does that warrant sensational fearmongering?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these responsible questions:

• What hurricane was two categories higher than Matthew?

• Does Fox News typically cover funeral expenses for citizens?

• Do carton-like threats work better to prevent widespread panic?

• Will Hurricane Matthew be the strongest on record?

• Does climate control prevent hurricanes?

• Did hurricanes occur before people inhabited the U.S.?

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

PAT: Glenn is out today, the Glenn Beck Program. It's Pat, Stu, Jeffy, filling in.

Are you aware that we're all going to die? That's what we heard yesterday on Fox News. We'll start with the media chaos and the insane coverage that is going on, right now.

(music)

PAT: It's the Glenn Beck Program. Pat, Stu, Jeffy.

There is no doubt this is a deadly, really powerful, very dangerous hurricane. But the coverage so far has -- is it just me?

JEFFY: A little strange?

PAT: It's crazy. It is crazy. Listen to this.

SHEP: Over on our wall, a look at the storm track. The forecasters today have expanded the area where the storm may hit.

See this? Melbourne, Daytona Beach, all the way to Jacksonville. This moves 20 miles to the west, and you and everyone you know are dead. All of you. Because you can't survive it.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

SHEP: It's not possible unless you're very, very lucky. And your kids die too.

STU: What? What the hell?

PAT: Is that responsible coverage?

JEFFY: No.

STU: That is not. That is not responsible coverage.

JEFFY: That is not responsible coverage.

PAT: Then there was this.

VOICE: Hugo was, get out.

PAT: Right.

VOICE: As hundreds of thousands of people try to get out of harm's way, I'll speak with somebody who is flatout refusing to leave, and I'll ask her why she's staying and if she expects us to cover her funeral.

STU: What the hell?

PAT: I'm going to guess no, she probably doesn't -- since Fox News doesn't cover a lot of funerals, I would think the answer to that would be no.

JEFFY: No, they do not.

STU: They covered Mandela's funeral.

PAT: Mandela. Maybe Ronald Reagan.

JEFFY: They get Princess Diana?

PAT: Probably.

JEFFY: Probably?

PAT: I don't remember. Probably.

STU: They could have also picked the person in Florida who decided not to leave.

PAT: They could. It's unlikely.

STU: That is weird.

PAT: Wow, that's nutty.

STU: I think there's that element of coverage where they think if they don't scare you, you're going it think, "Eh, that's not that big of a deal."

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: So they, I think, intentionally are telling you thinks that are attempting to scare you. That being said, it actually is a very scary storm.

PAT: It is.

STU: And there is a legitimate amount of panic and preparation that should happen. And "panic" is not the right word. You shouldn't be panicking. But you should be reacting to the danger. The issue is, when you start getting carton-like threats like that, no one takes it seriously.

PAT: I know.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: It's like global warming. They keep telling you you're going to die every nine seconds. And when you don't die, nobody believes it anymore.

PAT: Right. Over on the Weather Channel, more of -- I mean, not quite as bad as Shep Smith. But...

VOICE: This is like no storm in the record books. We are concerned about reports of people deciding to stay in areas under mandatory evacuation orders.

PAT: Now, let me ask you just that. This is like no storm on the record books? Andrew was a Cat 5. It was much stronger than this.

JEFFY: Ever. Yeah, ever..

STU: There's only five categories.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And we all know it's one through five.

PAT: And they're acting like this is a Category 206. There's never been a Category 206 because the scale only goes to five. What are you talking about?

VOICE: This is a mistake. This is not hype. This is not hyperbole.

PAT: Uh-huh.

VOICE: And I am not kidding. I cannot overstate the danger of the storm.

PAT: I think you just did.

VOICE: Central and North Florida have never been hit by a hurricane this strong. If you live in a Florida evacuation zone, you need to head to a safe spot now. Do not assume you can survive if you choose to stay. There will be overwhelming damage and likely a heartbreaking loss of life. Based on everything we know, Matthew will make history. The Weather Channel does not want you to be part of that history.

(music)

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: Is it because they haven't had a major hurricane to sink their teeth into, in 11 years in America that this kind of coverage is going on?

JEFFY: Yes. Well, we did have, what, Hermine right up in the armpit of Florida this year, earlier this year.

PAT: Although it was a Category 1.

JEFFY: Yeah. Yeah. And by the time, when it -- it made landfall as a hurricane and then broke apart, you know, almost immediately.

PAT: And, by the way, Hillary said this about Hurricane Hermine.

VOICE: What will I tell my son?

PAT: Oh, that's the other one.

STU: She does do those accent to certain audiences. You can detect it.

PAT: She does.

JEFFY: She does.

HILLARY: Another threat to our country is climate change. 2015 was the hottest year on record.

PAT: Yeah, I've been saying that.

No.

HILLARY: The science is clear.

PAT: The science is not clear. But they keep saying that so you will eventually believe it.

STU: That is --

HILLARY: It is real. It's wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week's hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause. And I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine.

PAT: Yeah.

HILLARY: But this is not the last one that's going to hit Florida, given what's happening in the climate.

PAT: By the way, it's not the first either, given what's happening in the climate.

STU: I think she's right on that last part though.

PAT: It is not the last that will hit Florida. I'll guarantee you that. It's not -- there's not -- the last hurricane will never happen on this planet because hurricanes happen, and they've always happened. And they'll continue to happen. And they've happened with much more regularity than this.

STU: Because of global warming. Is that --

PAT: No, no.

STU: If you end that --

PAT: Long before global warming. Back in the third century, hurricanes were happening in Florida. Nobody lived there, so we didn't know about it. But hurricanes were happening. In the BC period of time, hurricanes were happening. Was there a lot of global warming, climate change happening at that time?

JEFFY: The media didn't cover it.

PAT: How devastating was Hermine? Because it was a Category 1.

JEFFY: Yeah, Hermine was the first one to hit since '05.

PAT: Since '05. First hurricane.

JEFFY: Technically was a hurricane. And, you know, there was some flooding and stuff. But the aftermath in Florida alone --

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: -- in Lee County, crews were deployed to collect plant debris.

PAT: I mean, plant debris.

JEFFY: Hernando County --

STU: You can joke about that, but what does that mean to the plant? The plant -- it hurt the plant quite a bit.

PAT: It means a lot.

JEFFY: Worked in Hernando County before. They provided curbside debris removal, and two parts were closed.

PAT: Two? Is that hyperbole on your part, Jeffy?

(laughter)

STU: I mean, look, there's a big --

JEFFY: I know there was a lot of flooding damage and stuff throughout it.

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: But it was --

PAT: And I will say, a tree fell on a homeless person and killed him. So they were able then to call it a deadly storm.

STU: Quite a different scale of what we're looking at now.

JEFFY: No kidding.

STU: Haiti, the death toll is up to 478.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, it's brutal.

JEFFY: So sad.

PAT: But it has nothing to do --

STU: Yeah.

PAT: I can't believe they're making this into climate change. And they are. I can't believe they're making this into a climate change storm. They've had nothing to go on for 11 years.

STU: And, remember, this was the marquis claim of people who believed in global warming and wanted to scare you about it, when Al Gore's movie came out.

PAT: Right. "There's going to be stronger and more frequent hurricanes."

STU: To the point of, on the theatrical poster of An Inconvenient Truth was a giant hurricane.

PAT: Exactly.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: It was their prime time, number one claim. Following that movie, we went 11 years with no hurricanes in Florida. And, you know, nothing --

PAT: And not a single --

STU: This is the first major one.

PAT: Major hurricane in all that time. We've had a few minor ones. A few smaller ones. I think -- the one that hit us before we left Houston, Ike, was a high two or low three.

STU: Yeah, the one thing that everyone will point to is, quote, unquote, Hurricane Sandy, which was not a hurricane.

PAT: Not a hurricane.

STU: Wound up not being a hurricane before it hit. And it was not a wind-situation incident. You had an island there. There was very unique circumstances.

PAT: There was flooding.

STU: Where a storm hits the place where we store all of our tall buildings. So there was a lot of damage that happened there.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But as far as natural disasters go that could be linked to climate, we've had a really good run there. And this is the point with global warming. It doesn't matter what the run is. It doesn't matter what the past is.

PAT: Not at all.

STU: It's just, what is happening right now? Right now, people are focusing on weather. Therefore, global warming is going to be -- Al Gore is going to be out on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton. That's what's going to happen. They're going to tell millennials that this is all daddy and grandpa's fault. You know, the people who built your society. Those terrible, terrible people, they're responsible for the .9-degree temperature rise, and they should be blamed for it. And somehow, that means you should vote for Hillary Clinton, which is inexplicable in --

JEFFY: Well, I mean, technically -- I mean, Matthew is wreaking havoc along the east coast. Right now, it's a little north of Cape Canaveral. But technically Matthew has not made landfall.

STU: Right. I thought I heard --

JEFFY: It obviously made landfall in Haiti, when it was cutting across -- you know, when it was coming across the Caribbean and the Bahamas, but not the US.

STU: Right. I thought it did on an island.

JEFFY: Yeah, that's possible.

STU: Yeah, right.

Regardless though, this is a dangerous storm.

JEFFY: Absolutely.

STU: They're saying they believe that the way it's turning -- you know, it's going to be more of a north Florida -- Georgia is going to be the hardest part hit, rather than Southern Florida, which kind of got away with --

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: Which is great. But, I mean, the thing about this is, as you look at these hurricane paths -- you'll see this all the time. They have this -- they're called the spaghetti --

JEFFY: The spaghetti models, yeah, sure.

STU: You'll see the spaghetti models. And it looks like a bunch of lines just drawn on top of each other that all pretty much go generally same way.

JEFFY: They all want to go back east.

STU: And then there's always one or two that shows it turning back and circling South America and then stopping on Hawaii for nine months. You know, there's always that one model that's totally --

JEFFY: There's more than one model showing Matthew doing that now.

STU: Right. There's a couple that -- not that. But something else --

JEFFY: No, but turning back around. Turning back around.

STU: I'm just making a general point about when you look at these models. Because this is the time of when everybody is thinking of them. The spaghetti models, they all shoot up the same way. And then there's always one or two that drifts off that kind of just drifts off in some weird direction.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: With global warming predictions, they have the same modeling. They have the spaghetti model. And all of them shoot up in all of the same direction. And then there's one or two that just kind of straggle around. And there's almost no warming at all. The temperatures are matching those models. It's going the opposite way.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: The crazy, outlying -- the hurricane model that makes it circle around South America and stop over Hawaii for six months, that's the model the temperatures are actually following. And to see that, when we're supposed to be so sure about what's happening with global warming and how there's going to be so certain -- and the science is settled -- we can give you some polling on this. The American people certainly don't think the science is settled, including liberal Democrats. Even they don't buy --

JEFFY: The administration just keeps driving it home.

STU: They just keep saying it. It's like Shep Smith. I guess if you continue to tell people they're going to die, in your mind, you think, well, maybe one person will take it seriously. Maybe somebody out there will listen.

But I think the other side of that is that a lot of people kind of laugh and move on with their lives.

PAT: What happened to their theory -- and I think is fact: Weather is not climate, and climate is not weather.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Don't confuse a weather event with the climate. Because they always said that to us because they were predicting that there was going to be no more snow. Remember that?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Every Democrat living today. And especially living back then in the early 2000s, would say, "There's not -- pretty soon, you're going to have to tell your children what snow was. Because we're not going to have any." Really? So every time it snowed, we said, "Well, it's still snowing."

Yeah, don't confuse climate with weather. That's just a weather event. But every weather event now that is severe, whether it's a hurricane, snowstorm, whatever, that is now climate change. Every single one of them proves their point.

STU: Right. Even the snowstorms.

PAT: Even the snowstorms.

STU: Which is amazing. Because you're right. That was their answer to, well, there's a big snowstorm. Eh, it's just the weather. It's got nothing to do with climate. Now, even the snowstorms have to do with climate.

PAT: Talk about science deniers. Oh, man.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Fox News anchor Shep Smith reporting on Hurricane Matthew.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

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.